Leave your comments here; I would be interested to know how long they stay up (or if they even appear):
Bishop Michael Bird of the diocese of Niagara has filed a defamation lawsuit with the Ontario Superior Court of Justice against blogger David Jenkins.
The suit alleges that, in his blog Anglican Samizdat, Jenkins has published comments about Bird that were injurious to his “credit, character and reputation…in his office as spiritual leader and Bishop of the Diocese and in his occupation as priest…”
Hamilton lawyer Graydon Sheppard, who is representing the bishop, told the Anglican Journal that the lawsuit was a last resort measure from the bishop. “He, and to some extent, his wife, have been under constant attack for more than two years by this blogger…” Jenkins, he added, “has gone beyond fair comment and debate about doctrinal matters.”
My comment is:
Interesting that he allegedly sued for libel before simply asking the blogger to stop…
They included the blog address, maybe the readers will get a new insight into their Bishop.
“Why is the Bishop seeking to remove the website entirely and to have removed anything the blogger posts about him – and he such a very public figure -, rather than simply the blog entries he considers injurious? And isn’t $400,000 a large and potentially ruinous sum of money to be seeking in damages? The Bible enjoins Christians to find some better way and to avoid bringing suit against one another, even to the point of being willing to be humiliated and defrauded; but this action seems merely to be as one with the ways of the lawsuit-happy world.”
I sent a comment similar to the one I gave on your original post below. I am assured it will appear shortly.
I got the same response, but there are still no comments posted. Maybe the moderator only works office hours.
Possibly there have not been any comments that are acceptable to the Journal.
It was office hours. However, it amazes me that Bishop Bird continues to claim that suing was his last resort when the available evidence strongly suggests it was his first resort.
“‘Niceness’ is not a virtue. The word comes from the Middle English (in the sense ‘stupid’): from Old French, from Latin nescius ‘ignorant’, from nescire ‘not know’.
The blog allows comment; and I’m curious why no one – including the suing Bishop – now logging complaints as to how he’s been represented seems ever, not once mind you, to have entered the arena and engaged on the issues, in accord with Proverbs 27:17.
If people were so much in error, wasn’t it incumbent upon you to make some effort to correct them in their thinking? If you couldn’t win the arguments, doesn’t it matter you would have at least presented another or the other side?”
I would say it is injurious to the credit, character and reputation of Christian clergy to be suing someone for the supposed crime of free speech.
I wonder whether the newspaper cartoonists get sued regularly. We all seem to accept that politicians and public figures and newsmakers appear in official cartoonery on a daily basis, and that is part of the game. If you wish to have a public profile, in other words, the public may offer you their opinions in return. Those who expect attention and adoration and authority must also expect the flip side at least once in a while.
ACoC fatwas are about money because that is what is most important to them.
And so the Journal is quoting stuff that Michael doesn’t want people to see. Perhaps it is an admission that no-one reads it anyway.
10 comments so far, but not mine. This stood out
Seems to be 2 in favor of litigation the rest against.
This from: A moderator has declined your submission to Agility Magazine Solution Package:
One huge run-on sentence
That’s not a run-on sentence.
FYI I added this because over the last 10 years the Anglican Journal never once posted any comment of mine; and at the time no comments at all were being posted…
Interesting that the only positive comment is,from our old friend of the multiple pen names Adam Armstrong.
Yes, I noticed that. At least he’s being consistent.
Four days ago, I posted a very polite polite comment on my dis-satisfaction over Mr. Bird’s lawsuit, and the damage done to God’s Church by Mr. Bird and his fellow bishops.
It has not been posted.
Go figure.
The Anglican Journal is getting smaller in size due to financial difficulties. The paper tends to worry about negative comments which may affect its financial health.
I decided that this matter was worthy of comment on our website’s open letter page,
You can read it at http://www.abbacanada.org/letter.html
I follow my practice of saying nothing behind folk’s backs; so please don’t be offended [and too thin skinned] by my satire; humour and etcetera.
I make David Jenkins and Michael Bird the same offer: if there is something you feel is untrue please contact me and discuss it before you rush to litigation!
Also please consider settling your differences like Christians: outside of Ceaser’s court!
Blessings.
Well, if one party is suing another, the person being sued hardly has the opportunity to “settle outside of Caesar’s court.” David was not even presented first with a cease and desist order, as I understand. Would it not be up to the good Bishop to call off the dogs?
Mr. Bird removed himself from the teachings of Christ when he pursued the devil’s pawn money instead of turning the other cheek. In that I find him not worthy of a Bishop’s raiments nor the trust of those faithful who believe he to be a man of God first and foremost.