You didn’t see the comments that “i claim” the attorney made because you haven’t read the article.
“*Nepinak’s lawyer, Corey Shefman, said suing for libel against an entire race is unusual and is based on a section of the provincial Defamation Act.
“As far as I can tell … Manitoba appears to be the only jurisdiction in Canada that allows this sort of claim,” Shefman said Friday*.”
Of course the collection method is different, but all government money is taxpayer money. There's nothing different about where it comes from.
Why don’t I just tax the air you are breathing then, if it doesn’t make any difference where the money comes from? It doesn’t make any difference to you because you just spent you obviously have never considered it before, and don’t seem to understand the difference between taxing usage, and taxing every cent that comes into your home. The argument is no Canadian would have ever agreed to the treaties if they knew the government would start to take a top end of off every dollar you earned, and they weren’t signed with that in mind.
I can only presume that you think that the payments due from the Canadian government in compensation for governmental and public use of native land, as agreed on, is now coming out of taxpayers pockets, moreso than before. This is false.
The taxes were for usage when the treaties were signed, you used something, you paid for it, now they just take straight from your pocket and waste every dime and you can’t do a thing about it. If you go from no income tax, to having income tax, don’t tell me that money isn’t coming out of taxpayers pockets more than before. If you can’t see a philosophical and ecomonical difference in that, its because you’ve not bothered to ever research the subject to begin with, and claiming “income tax has nothing to do with it” is historically ignorant.
My argument was entirely focused on the fact that filing a libel lawsuit after libel has allegedly been committed has no bearing on whether or not the libel was committed in the first place.
Well, thats a change of tune for you, because its different than:
"Let's be clear, the argument you will lose every time in a court of law is that this is a malicious or frivolous lawsuit. What I'm saying will absolutely NOT happen is Nepinak losing in court if he were to get counter sued for a malicious lawsuit. Because it's not.”
Well which is it? Did you switch because its been pointed out that lawsuits meant to silence others or that have a low chance of winning is exactly the definition of frivolous lawsuit? Somehow you don’t think he’s chasing free money, he’s chasing what “legally due” and that make sit all better for you, as if getting a court to say you are owed money because somebody said something bad about you doesn’t qualify as chasing free money to absolutely everybody but you.