The Daily Bayonet has been reading the ever drearier ripostes from Elmo's sock puppets and has gotten all Kremlinological over them:
A couple of things I noticed - where was Daniel Simard when the piece was written, and why was his name not on the article's byline? Simard has been one of the most public of the Osgoode 4, so where is he now? Perhaps he's working on that blog we were promised?
Hmm. Curious. The sock-puppet quartet seems to be down to a trio. The Bayonet adds:
The other item that occurred to me is that in all the whiny explanations about why the thin-skinned and super-sensitive Osgoodes brought a case against Maclean's magazine, they have never addressed their reasoning for complaining to three separate jurisdictions; British Columbia, Ontario and the Canadian Human Rights Commissions.
Just to clarify that point. Three "human rights" complaints have been filed. To date, only two have been accepted - the BC and federal cases. The thin-skinned whiners are not the "complainants" - ie, the plaintiffs - in either case. Dr Mohamed Elmasry and Naiyer Habib are the plaintiffs in the BC case. Dr Elmasry is the sole plaintiff in the federal case. So why are the sock puppets running around misrepresenting themselves as the "complainants"? Khurrum Awan even implied in his fabulously pompous letter to Jason Kenney that the Government of Canada was prejudicing their case and colluding in the tainting of "their" complaints. But they're not the complainants in either case. They have no standing. Even in Canada, we're free to hoot and jeer at Khurrum Awan as much as we want.
And why don't these newspapers ask the real complainant to stop hiding behind the skirts of others and speak for himself? I'd be more than willing to debate Dr Elmasry, hater to hater, live on any Canadian TV show. C'mon, Elmo, go for it.
