On February 19th 2008, the Diocese of Niagara served St. Hilda’s with legal papers with the intention of taking possession of St. Hilda’s building and freezing our bank account.
On February 19th 2013, exactly five years later, I was served personally with a statement of claim for defamation of character from the Diocese of Niagara’s Bishop Michael Bird.
The claim is seeking:
- $400,000 in damages plus court costs and their legal costs.
- An interim and permanent injunction to shut down Anglican Samizdat.
- An interim and permanent injunction prohibiting me from publishing further comments about Michael Bird.
The claim quotes – with sporadic accuracy – 31 blog postings that are alleged to be libellous. On the advice of my lawyer, the posts were removed the day after receiving the statement of claim.
Contrary to what one might expect in such circumstances, I did not receive a cease and desist letter in advance of the suit.
Initial negotiations for an early settlement have been unsuccessful.
I have filed a statement of defence, the pleadings are now closed and we have commenced the Discovery process.
Stay tuned.
Praying for you!
Me too.
I am completely astounded with the fact that some bishops let their position go to their head to the point that they believe their word is superior to THE WORD. The only reason they go to the civil courts is due to the fact they could not prevail in any Christian setting.
Some content edited – David.
I continue to pray for their conversion and repentence but I do not see that happening with their present attitude of superiority.
For the moment, I am leaving comments open on this thread but will remove content that I think may suck the commenter inadvertently into my little adventure, so please, for your own sake, carefully consider what you say – David.
What did you damage that cost $400,000?
His ego
I bet he thinks its worth more
Prayers for you David. Keep us informed and publish the pleadings if you can. God bless PM
I wonder if he has not read 1 Corinthians 6. Or maybe that’s another section of Scripture to be ignored. How can anyone who is a believer, or claims to be, or pretends to be, misunderstand, “Why not rather be wronged?” even if he feels terribly wronged? Is it just me, or isn’t that fairly clear?
Sadly, John K I am of the opinion that the hierarchy of the church thinks that the secular courts of the land (Caesar?)are the righteous, God is dead and that he who dies with the most toys wins.
The battle for the faith has left the church.
Sadly True
Defamation of Character what a cruel joke! The actions of this bishop have done more to destroy his reputation than any of the satirical and made in jest shots that you have taken in the last year.
The way I see it, how God sees him or other Christians view him is of little concern to him. If it was he would accept an apology for any perceived slight and seek reconciliation not silver.
Fortunately, proving defamation of character via libel is notoriously difficult, and most cases never yield a favourable verdict for the plaintiff. The plaintiff must prove:
a.) the statement is untrue
b.) the statement was published
c.) the statement caused actual damage to the plaintiff by tarnishing hisher reputation
C is usually proved by demonstrating business or occupational losses.
As the person in question was already controversial, and as the damages sought are ridiculously disproportionate to any damage this blog could have inflicted (even supposing the allegations were true), I think the bishop will have his work cut out for him in court.
My suspicions is that all of the above is probably known to the honourable bishop, and that this exercise may be an effort to sent you a very severe and stern warning – to punish you, in effect, with sleepless nights and gloomy thoughts. The message is plain.
Ironically, most bishops are the embodiment of the very thing the church professes to rail against: wealthy, educated, upper-middle-class, white, and with access to funding and privileges of power sufficient to bring vexatious lawsuits against individuals.
One may well ask why such folk do not take their own prescriptions to heart, or at least try to follow the gospel of “turning the other cheek” or trying to reason with a brother. The answer is dispiriting. It is because below the patina of tolerance; the facade of compassion, many ecclesiastics are unregenerate, prideful enemies of Christ who overturn justice, and pervert truth.
God, however, is the final court of appeal. And just as law has been used to abuse the innocent for a long time, his court is in ceaseless operation with new appellants entering every moment. We may well pity the ultimate fate of those who used their position to oppress others.
Ironically, most bishops are the embodiment of the very thing the church professes to rail against: wealthy, educated, upper-middle-class, white, and with access to funding and privileges of power sufficient to bring vexatious lawsuits against individuals.
Why is it always White people that do these silly things? Whatever happened to “The Great Race”? Is self hatred a White thing? Do other cultures and races turn on themselves? What would Chesterton say today?
I’m sure it isn’t just white people. Every culture has its own problems.
I agree – the action (paid for by whom?) seems intended to intimidate.
There’s been a lot of criticism of libel law here in the UK, and the way that wealthy people abuse it, not to protect their dodgy reputations, but to silence criticism by people unable to afford the potentially ruinous cost.
Perhaps people like Ezra Levant should be contacted for suggestions. He also has been the object of vexatious legal action. And his TV show would certainly be interested.
You have made some excellent points, Jason. Very well articulated. I am still wondering what part of Bishop Bird’s character could even be damaged beyond the total train-wreck that he has made of it without any outside help? He is every thing but a bishop and minister of God.
Our heartfelt prayers are lifted up for you David. We thank Jason above, for his encouraging words on this matter. We pray that God’s justice prevails, as He supports you, He encourages you, as He embraces you in His arms of safety, during this attack. With difficulty we pray that God will remove the bitterness we feel towards Mr. Bird, and that God will have mercy on Mr. Bird, and will save him some day.
We value you my brother, and we value the truth your blog brings into the open. You are a beautiful and gifted servant of the Lord Jesus, and I know that right now He is in your corner, at your defense table, and is working to bring you through this without harm. There are many, many faithful children of God with you, praying for you, and aching for you, right now, and what ever we can do to help, we will. God loves you, and is well pleased with you, for you are His special child.
Amen
A beautifully written, encouraging prayer!! Thank you for posting this.
In my judgement this is simply crude bullying.
I do not think David has any reason to worry.
As one poster said (that Jason is a smart dude), I am also told that such lawsuits are very difficult for a complainer to win.
The complainer has to prove that what was said was nothing more than a blatant lie and the person who said it knew that it was nothing than a blatant lie. The complainer has to prove that what was said was for no other reason than to cause malicious harm to the complainer. And furthermore, the complainer has to prove that he lost something, which is always either cash or a job or both. The complainer has to PROVE all of these things. The defendant has to successfully defend himself against only one of these accusations.
Edited – David
The complainer could win if he loses his job.
The question, however, is one of cost. What will it cost David to defend himself?
Exactly, it will cost the services of a competent litigation attorney to counter the charges and recovering the costs will be a challenge.
Personally I see sites like this as editorializing on documented comments and published articles. Some newspaper editorial cartoons are much more biting. But they are chains with legal teams that would eat the Diocese’s lawyer and spit out the bones.
ACoC Bishops seem to be on a course of vindictiveness.
Technically, no. Libel is one of the few situations where the burden of proof is on the defence.
The plaintiff only has to prove that the defendant made the alleged comments (if the allegations are only sporadically true this will not be easy), that they refer to the plaintiff (this is fairly clear), and that the plaintiff has suffered actual harm (this may be a real stretch).
There is no requirement to prove malice. In any case, the standard of proof in civil cases is the balance of probabilities (more likely than not).
If the plaintiff does make this case, the defendant then has to prove that the comments are true, fair comment, or in the public interest.
I also do not think David has any cause for concern, as the case does not seem to me to have any merit.
I am heartened to see the instant support from your blog readers. As a searcher of Christianity,I’m beginning to see the value of prayer support. But I also have strong secular roots – I agree with Terry above that we are looking for ways to support you. Is there anyone out there close to the action that could set up a war chest fund, charitable or otherwise, that could truly let us share your pain by contributing more than words? It seems this is the time that we can pay back David for his insightful commentaries, and help lighten what must be a heavy load even though he is innocent.
Dear David,
Subject to what your lawyers advise, have you thought of posting a copy of the statement of claim and your statement of defense? These are public documents, though not easily available. A thorough airing of their complaint may help you, as it may encourage other bloggers and the press to cover the details of this.
Personally, whereas I think some of your postings re: Bishop Bird were a little too vicious in their satire, [sorry, edited – David] I think it is scandalous for a Christian pastor to sue over something like this!
A few people have suggested that I make the pleadings available; my lawyer has advised against it. Since they quote the posts in dispute, it could be argued by Mr. Bird’s lawyer that I had rebroadcast them.
They are indeed public documents and can be obtained from the court; anyone who does obtain them can do as he wishes with them, including publishing them online. He would bear any legal consequences of doing so, of course.
So much for that constantly intoned “tolerance” from the likes of such people.
Come on everyone, let’s sing — “Tolerance and Diversity, ei, ei, o.”
Best of luck, David.
Well, my first ever email to Anglican Samizdat above seems to have gone over with a very loud thud. I had hoped that someone close to David could start the ball rolling to assist him financially with this challenge.
So, let me try a different approach. A dear Pentecostal friend of mine has been known to say “Pentecostals tithe, Anglicans tip”. I so would like to prove him wrong in this case. I’m not saying we should be looking for a charitable donation to help David – this is not the time for that. Instead, David, please post your counsel’s name and address, so that I can forward a gift of $100 to you through him. Everyone, please note, gifts are not taxable, and I’m not seeking a tax deduction. It’s just the right thing to do.
Thanks Terry2,
That is very kind of you. A number of people have offered to assist financially and I am extremely grateful to them. I haven’t quite decided how to handle this yet. Although it is a predicament of my own making, I believe it is also an issue of both freedom of expression and freedom of religion so, in that sense, it is broader than just this lawsuit.
One option I am considering is a Donate button on the site for those who would like to contribute. As a number of people have surmised, just to fight the suit will be an extremely expensive undertaking so, while I am loath to ask for money, donations could be very helpful.
If and when I do put up a Donate button, I will post something to let everyone know.
Thanks David. If I can help further, such as posting “arm-twisting exercises” to get your blog followers to give a $100 gift to you – really, it’s like buying 50 $2 649 lottery tickets during the coming year, and the odds are so much better in you winning this one.
I’m not practiced in prayer, but my heart is with you.
Hear, Hear Terry2—-Terry1
It’s almost as if someone, somewhere said “Will no one rid me of this turbulent blogger?”
Hang in there David, Illegitimi non carborundum and God bless you.
Terry2 your e-mail did not go over with a loud thud. It will take a little time to get this story out there and I am sure that there will be a similar desire on the part of many bloggers to make a donation.
We need to get this story out there in the mainstream press and the blogging world as it is when it comes down to it a freedom of speech issue. When the communists attempted to change the message of the Gospel for their own agenda back in the sixties , many priests in fear of persecution chose surrender and capitulation rather than face prison and suffering.
David is being persecuted for defending the faith not for defaming the bishop.
Thanks DHorvath, I do have a tendency to expect things asked for today to be delivered yesterday. Your comment is well received.
We must, and we will, find a way to stand in the gap, with David. He must know he is not alone. Somehow, in someway, no matter how small, we will support him.
David is being persecuted for “defending the faith”
Since when was he crowned King of England?
From what I remember from the Business Law courses that I took at College this would fall under Tort Law.
In order for a plaintiff to be successful they have to prove three things:
That the defendant told lies about the plaintiff to a third party,
That these lies have caused harm to the plaintiff, and
That is was the intent of the defendant to cause harm.
But of course the best person from whom to get legal advise is a lawyer. I trust that David’s lawyer has already provided him with a full explanation and what the outcome will likely be.
Well, David, so you finally ‘got the bird’.
Like you I was somewhat biting in my criticisms [still am I suppose]; although scrupulously honest in subject matter except for a little parody here and there. The ACoC was a frequent target of mine when Hiltz was bishop of NS&PEI because I felt and feel very strongly about abuse issues and the blatant worship of Mammon. At about the time of the newer school abuse issues at Grenville School arose a strange thing happened: all of my newsletter posts began to be unsearchable… I never found out why but suspect pressure from certain ACoC bishops upon google et al. However, over the years, nobody ever sued for slander or libel.
A couple of years after this the actions of two businessmen caused major problems with one of our websites; and when I had the temerity to complain in a newsletter they launched a suite in the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia using the usual high priced legal help.
As I was on disability and the verge of retirement at the time we could not afford an expensively suited lawyer and so Josephine and I basically ‘went to school’ and studied law. We counter claimed, filed a defence and fought the contempt within the system that “self reps” meet daily.
The opposition went into the silent mode once they realized what we had on our side as evidence; that was about four years ago.
We are now considering pushing for a judgement, because we believe the plaintiffs case will fail and that our counterclaim will succeed.
Other advice in this thread is good: I do not think that you have much to worry about: the enemy’s game plan is simply to shut you up!
What has happened between the schismatic factions within the Anglican Communion [I believe] stems broadly from interpretaion of the Word. This is purely a religious matter and the Word is not “up for interpretation” by the courts. The legal overlap comes from the Canadian Constitution; Freedom of Worship etcetera. The federal and provincial statute books are full of supposedly valid law that is in total conflict with constitutional issues, rights and freedoms and which desperately need a legal challenge and a high Court ruling. However, because they favour the megachurches those affected cannot afford to go to court. Who was it said that the law is an ass?
I wish you well with this David and I do not know if my past experiences could be of help; however, you know where to contact me so I will leave that to you.
Always remember that while the truth sometimes hurts, it remains the truth; so at the risk of mixing my metafors to the ACoC House of Bishops I say this: if you cannot stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen [athough, who knows practice with the heat now might ameliorate some later suffering!]
My prayers continue to be with you and Sharon! The family is full of many talents, and we have so appreciated your ” word craft” gift from God.
I like your idea of a donation button on site, or any other details you and your lawyer could provide as so many of us want to support you in your time of need.
I know without a shadow of doubt that God looks after His children – He is true to His word.
We will be praying for you, David.
In the meantime, this is “The law is an ass” -from Branagh’s Much Ado About Nothing. 🙂
Nat and Matt
http://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/the-law-is-an-ass.html
Funny, our political realm is full of daily insults from one politician to another, but no one sues, nor would they get away with it. It is considered debate.
It seems that some high-level Anglicans believe in the god of relativism, until their own dear little noses are out of joint. Then, instead of examining their conscience, they call in a litigation professional. How Christ-like. Do you think Jesus would have sued Pontius Pilate, given the chance?
Can anyone take seriously ever again the much-ballyhooed “dialoguing” of the ACofC? When put to the test by its own authors, it crumbles sadly.
I think this threatened court case should become as public as possible. I can assure many of us that other Anglican bishops and their ecumenical lovers in the ELCIC will be watching this with greedy interest. I can see other church bureaucrats in purple shirts studying this to see if there is a chance for them to do the same thing to silence legitimate criticism while lining their own pockets at the same time.
Furthermore, I hope David does not ask for or accept money from his fans. That would be a grave mistake in my opinion. I cannot quite articulate those reasons just yet, but my gut instincts tell me that would be a bad thing and I have learned to trust my instincts. The only reason I can see David asking for or accepting cash from his fans is if the Anglican Church of Canada is picking up Bird’s legal fees or if David just likes others to pay the bills for the choices he makes.
There is no doubt that this website is meant to poke fun at the leadership of the Anglican Church and virtually everyone else on the planet David has issues with (which is a very long list), if not to outright anger them. In that regard, David was successful.
If you keep on kicking a dog, it could bite you back.
Well, SLF, your comment certainly got my blood boiling. I’d almost (but not quite) suspect that your are like me – a searching non-believer. But if in fact you are a Christian, then please explain to me why you let your “instincts” take precedence over the Scriptures. You sound so much like a pastor of a church that we left who would make up his own propositions, then bore us to death with his long list of Biblical justifications. Isn’t it the other way around? Don’t you turn to the Bible first to guide your beliefs? But then again, what do I know about Christianity? Perhaps someone more knowledgeable than me should reply to SLF with a more Christian tolerance for his instincts.
Okay, pick at my semantics if that makes you feel big and tough and smart and biblically astute.
You sound to me like a person who jumps from church to church and blames either the pastor or the congregation or the hymns or whomever or whatever. I suspect that the main reason is that you probably just “one of those” who wears out his welcome really fast no matter where he goes to the point that it becomes impossible for people even to pretend to like you.
An interesting response. I don’t understand what your point is. Perhaps I have upset you by criticizing your criticisms of David. If that is the case, then I offer my regrets. Or maybe you just don’t like me.
I do apologize to other commenters on this blog if I have taken the focus off the real issues here – David’s and everyone’s right to free speech and freedom of religion.
Wow! Great to hear you are being sued! I only read your site to keep up with what the far-right fringe is doing and talking about these days.
I must say that what I read from you usually turns my stomach, it is so filled with hatred and anger. I only wonder why it took so long for someone to actually come after you legally. Hopefully they will shut your site down for hate-talk.
I like your photographs though … they’re beautiful.
But really, your comments and your treatment of gay and lesbian people and their supporters is way beyond sarcastic or critical. It is ugly, and it should stop.
You seem to be an expert on hatred and anger, as your joy at another’s misfortune reveals. Perhaps that is the cause of your churning stomach.
As for ugly, your mean spirited post has demonstrated that quality very well.
Your comments will be given the gravitas they deserve.
Shawn, your own posting here seems an excellent example of hate talk. Should readers sue you? Perhaps you might take a good long look at your supposed “tolerance”. To be gleeful about another’s misfortune is very low.
Again, what is happening here is not misfortune, it is legal consequence. And really, you’d have to stretch definitions pretty far to accuse me of “hate talk”.
No hate from me, just relief that this website might cease and desist from its cruel homophobia.
“Misfortune” is an oddly chosen word. It implies a certain randomness, or accidental quality. What is happening here is legal consequence to online uncivil behaviour which crossed too many lines.
It is one thing to disagree with someone; it is another to demonize and discriminate, as this site has done time and again against all types of “different” people in the church. Take a look back over your archives if you don’t believe me.
(Disgust)
You speak like a stormtrooper.
I don’t, and I have.
More time taken than deserved.
This website cannot “discriminate” since it is offering no services to anyone. People of whatever persuasion, colour, or orientation are free to leave and access other parts of the web. It is not as if you are not being served fries.
Although I believe your perspective is warped, I have to ask, since when did demonising someone else, being uncivil, being homophobic, or even hating other people become punishable under law?
Freedom of speech is not merely for opinions of which we personally approve. Even dictators support that notion of “freedom of speech”, and their countries are full of party-approved opinion. However, democratic citizens recognise that freedom of speech is for our enemies; for people who speak things we find repugnant; for people who utter statements that we personally loathe. The right to the freedom of speech is designed expressly to allow a diversity of views to be heard. That is what tolerance and liberal democracy is all about.
You, (like so many today), appear to have jettisoned this corner-stone of Western democracy in favour of using the law to insist that everybody say and think like yourself. It demonstrates that a recognition of liberty and personal freedom is rather truncated among many today, who seem to reason with their feelings and not with their intellect. In fact, your entire argument and perspective appears to be based in emotions: something you perceive to be hateful has been spoken, ergo, rejoice that the fellow is being sued.
The Germans have a specific word for this: schadenfreude – delight in the misfortunes of others. Somehow your schadenfreude is more nauseating to me, however, by the fact that you earnestly believe your dictatorial impulses to curtail rival views and thoughts, are good, true and correct.
Hear, Hear!
Just out of curiosity, are you Jason Antonio, my SaskAnglican editor? Or is this a different Jason?
By the way … I have no problem with freedom of speech. But when did it become immoral to be happy to see someone who uses that freedom in abusive ways finally get called on it?
Nice german word … schadenfreude … pretty characteristic of the tone which consistently permeates this website.
He’s a troll, don’t feed him…
Hear, Hear!
For Shawn:-
I am confident that you are well aware that we have our old sin nature and that nature is always at war with us. We do not hate homosexuals as you might suggest but our prayer is that they might see their sin and repent. Each and every one of us has various sin tendencies and whether that be toward stealing, lying, adultery or whatever including homosexual behaviour, we are called to repentance and we cannot blame God or expect Him to bless that sin. When any so-called church offers to ‘bless’ sin it has lost any credibility as a Christian church.
Yes, if this Shawn is so virtuous – as he implies — I don’t hear much of the “love thy neighbour” attitude coming from him. He sounds more like a dictator, ready to behead anyone whose opionions differ from his.
God help us all if the Shawns of the world gain precidence. Funny how Christians are being told by the ACofC to love the actions they find unacceptable, but those who are acting in that manner are never exhorted to love everyone else. It’s as if they get a free pass to heaven.
May I recommend Roger Kimball’s work in this regard. He is an academic, by the way, with a few things to say about the left-wing blindness.
When did I imply my own “virtuousness”?
As for loving my neighbour … I try my best, just as I’m sure we all do, sinners each one of us. And I know I fail every day, and rely on the grace of Christ to repair my useless efforts. I suspect, and hope, that in the great Kingdom feast, I’ll be sitting across the table from folks whom in this life I consider enemies, and God will work reconciliation through that banquet.
In the meantime though … “dictator”? “chop off their heads”? Come on, you don’t even know me! A little less rhetoric would go a long way!
You’re right, you’re no angel.
That’s a bit too easy to say, though, surely? And it leaves the other person feeling like crap, and you feeling virtuous. I’m always uneasy with Christianity being this convenient.
Well, just so long as you feel easy, Vincent.
Is this one of those bits where there’s a clear meaning to the text? 😀
I’m just wondering when the motes and beams thing applies, and why it doesn’t seem to apply when we talk of homosexuality. What is it about this one behaviour that sets a minority off like that?
And there’s something sensationally bizarre about going the “well you’re not being all ‘love thy neighbour’ yourself are you?” route on this particular forum, where most posts and comments are all about how loathsome this or that specific indivual is, and this or that community, and the alphabets, and the Muslims and the Bishops and the left-wingers. 🙂
In your vocation as a Christian, Vincent, you are charged with defending the faith. You can not do that by going around saying theft, Nazism, and running a soup kitchen are all on the same moral footing.
The name of the blog ‘Anglican Samizdat,’ implies the view that Christianity, which is the foundation of our incomparable two-thousand year-old heritage in the West, is under attack in the nihilist-hedonist mainstream culture. It is a view that is consistent with reality.
We need to pay attention to Jesus’ new commandment (John 13:31-35). When Christians love one another, the world will sit up and take notice. This can result in many being drawn to Jesus. But, it is so hard for many of us to live out the new commandment. We must engage ourselves in self-examination if we fail to love other Christians. Only by the power of God, true Christians can love other true Christians.
Come on, don’t lecture me about culture wars, Lisa. I’m a French speaking Québécois. As far as the popular culture I’ve been marinated in since I was a child is concerned, you are the enemy. Culture wars is what I was brought up on. The angry people who feel that “the other” (that’s you) is being given way too much leeway are the majority here. (It’s going to be pretty entertaining to read the comments about Québec which may well follow this post.)
I’m pretty sure Christ doesn’t want me to live my life as though I’m under siege. My first ministry is not to defend the faith: it’s to be as good a dad and a husband as I can be. Once again, if Christ has more of a problem with me trying to be nice to people than with me not actively going out of my way to wag my finger at people, that’s between Christ and myself.
I wasn’t lecturing you, Vincent. The point I was making is the wisdom religion has to impart is to look beyond your own particulars.
Most of your replies above get further from the main topic to the point there is no point other than for you to wage a personal war. Opinions are like assholes everyone has one. The point is David had the balls to tell it like it is.And his true friends will stand by him for his courage and long time service to his church. We need more people like David and less people like those who proclaim to be the Christian leaders of the Anglican Diocese of Niagara. In the future please use some other means to wage your personal opinions that are not part of the issue as it wastes peoples time. Is there any part of this you don’t understand?
Thread drift is inevitable, but I take your point. 🙂
Let us hope the others who like to pontificate in front of an audience also get on board and focus on the main issue, which is supporting David.
I don’t think David is as concerned about thread drift as you are
This time, I agree with you, Kate.
David, will there be a donation button?
I still haven’t decided – it’s not that I don’t appreciate potential offers of help, I just have to be convinced that it’s what I am supposed to do.
I donated to Ezra Levant several years ago, when he was attempting to protect the democratic virtue of free speech in Canada. As our country has so few people who speak up for anything other than the left-wing nonsense, I admire and try to support those who do.
I understand, however, that you yourself must decide how best to proceed.
No hiding it now. This lawsuit has made the newspaper.
http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/926995–hamilton-based-anglican-bishop-suing-oakville-blogger
Too bad these two blokes couldn’t sit down at a table and talk things over. Too many hurt feelings on both sides. Demonizing the bishop isn’t helpful, nor is taking a bloke to court because you have a beef with him.
Bishop do the right thing and drop the lawsuit. Blogger do the right thing and apologize. Have a drink together and go your separate ways.
But does that mean that David can no longer speak/write freely? I think this issue is larger than the Bishop’s hurt feelings. I find it quite astonishing that he does not appear to practice what he preaches. Would Jesus have sued his detractors? Christ-like behaviour, it is not.
In behaving this way, it seems to me the Bishop is doing far more harm to his own reputation than David is. Not doing AcofC much good, either. Some people might even see hypocrisy in it. Enough said.
It’s interesting that Canadian libel laws seem to be the most restrictive in the Western world. It’s also interesting that one of the most common defences seems to be the scorched earth approach: dig up every embarrassing fact about the plaintiff`s past and try to argue he or she has no reputation left to damage. Perhaps the two are connected…
The irony is that the lawsuit will probably lead more people to read the blog than otherwise would have. He should have ignored you.
The most unkindest cut of all.
Less expensive to you, though.
You had to remind me of that!
Ai yiyi, are you determined to take everything I say the wrong way? Good Grief.
No, no, I was just joking.
I agree that the lawsuit is bringing more publicity to this blog. I would never have seen it otherwise, had not Episcopal News Service posted a story about it. You’ll see from my first posting (on the polygamy thread) that I’m in favor of full equality and support for gays, etc, etc, by the Anglican Church, including allowing them Church positions, etc. And I gather that is in opposition to the general nature of beliefs of the blogger (haven’t read it all yet, that’s for sure), but I sure support his right to say what he wants. David, you could move to the USA where the Bp in question wouldn’t have a prayer in his stupid lawsuit. 🙂 (I know, that would be a whole different issue that would be tough to solve)
Good luck.
To follow on a comment above, about two years ago the female Bishop of Utah retired. The search narrowed down to a female, a Hispanic, a Japanese-American, and a gay man in a committed relationship. None were over 50.
So what’s the punch line that we heard? Hey, where’s the old married white guy?
cheers from the land of Mormons and Polygamists (NOT the same thing)
I wonder if you have ever read Erasmus’ “Julius Excluded From Heaven”? Pope Julius II appears at the pearly gates, and argues with Peter, demanding admission. It contains a good few lines which one might reasonably apply to Bishop Bird.
http://www.theologynetwork.org/unquenchable-flame/background-to-the-reformation/getting-stuck-in/julius-excluded-from-heaven.htm
Pingback: The evil bishop, the evil Pope, and the satire of Erasmus at Roger Pearse
We can only hope that “Bishop” Bird has some really, really good excuses worked out for that moment he arrives at the pearly gates. Should be interesting.
It doesn’t matter. In thirty years the ACoC will rename itself the anglican church of urban southern ontario and in forty probably that too will be gone…..
Agree. The Anglican Church of Canada, a small group in the worldwide church, has been on the decline since 1966. But, the true church of Jesus Christ will never die.
Their moral authority is already gone, and those who are still with them are really just “cultural Anglicans.”
Just picked up this information. Prayers for you, David. We’ll keep checking for the donate button.
The fact is that genuine Christianity is on a severe decline due in part to the actions of socalled bishops who willingly adopt “political correctness” rather than proclaim both the authority of Scripture and the uniqueness of Jesus Christ.
Homosexual and/or lesbian are not “identies” but rather behaviour, the same as cleptomania, adultry or whatever sin you might want to name. The Word of God is clear and genuine Christians, including and especially bishops, should be proclaiming the truth. Tragically we continue to witness what might be called a conversion to the god of convenience or the god of feeling good. As Christians we do need to “Stand up! Stand up! for Jesus.”