Wednesday, September 30, 2009
We write further to the correspondence that has been exchanged by the parties in regards to the impact of the Warman v Lemire decision recently rendered by the Tribunal.
It is the position of the Commission submits that the Tribunal should proceed on hearing the matter pending before it in the present case. Consequently, the matter should neither be adjourned sine die or simply dismissed.
In Warman v. Lemire, the Tribunal found that the penalty provision in s. 54(1)(c) was not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the Charter. In the instant case, the Commission will no longer be seeking a penalty under 54(1)(c) of the Act as was originally included in its Statement of Particulars. The Commission therefore respectfully submits that the Tribunal ought to proceed with a hearing of the Complaint to determine if section 13 has been infringed, and if so, to exercise its discretion under s. 54(1)(a).
Canadian Human Rights Commission
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Actually, Ryan Adler isn't his real name, at least not his complete name. We've referred to him in the past as R.L. as he's one of the Aryan Guard groupies who is too young to shave (though he insists that he is old enough to shave and, in fact does)but old enough to puff out his chest and act like a tough guy online...... and who wears a mask in public.
Well lately R.L. has been posting his charming repartee on opposition Facebook groups, including the one promoting the anti-fascist rally on October 10. However our favourite exchanges are occurring on the wall of the, "F*** the Aryan Guard, Stop Racism" group. We'll cut to the chase and post the best of the bunch so far:
Not long ago Reitmeier called the members of the Aryan Guard, "posers." Now an Aryan Guard loyalist adds flames to the fire by not only calling into question W.E.B.'s fidelity to the cause, but also calls every W.E.B. member out as a drug user.
Didn't we say something about internal politics eventually breaking this gang apart?
Pull up a chair and have some popcorn. The show is sure to continue.
Monday, September 28, 2009
Banish the Cyber-Bigots
By Michael Gerson
Friday, September 25, 2009
The transformation of Germany in the 1920s and '30s from the nation of Goethe to the nation of Goebbels is a specter that haunts, or should haunt, every nation.
The triumph of Nazi propaganda in this period is the subject of a remarkable exhibit at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (where I serve on the governing board). Germany in the 1920s was a land of broad literacy and diverse politics, boasting 146 daily newspapers in Berlin alone. Yet in the course of a few years, a fringe party was able to define a national community by scapegoating internal enemies; elevate a single, messianic leader; and keep the public docile with hatred while the state committed unprecedented crimes.
The adaptive use of new technology was central to this achievement. The Nazis pioneered voice amplification at rallies, the distribution of recorded speeches and the sophisticated targeting of poster art toward groups and regions.
But it was radio that proved the most powerful tool. The Nazis worked with radio manufacturers to provide Germans with free or low-cost "people's receivers." This new technology was disorienting, taking the public sphere, for the first time, into private places -- homes, schools and factories. "If you tuned in," says Steve Luckert, curator of the exhibit, "you heard strangers' voices all the time. The style had a heavy emphasis on emotion, tapping into a mass psychology. You were bombarded by information that you were unable to verify or critically evaluate. It was the Internet of its time."
This comparison to the Internet is apt. The Nazis would have found much to admire in the adaptation of their message on neo-Nazi, white supremacist and Holocaust-denial Web sites.
But the challenge of this technology is not merely an isolated subculture of hatred. It is a disorienting atmosphere in which information is difficult to verify or critically evaluate, the rules of discourse are unclear, and emotion -- often expressed in CAPITAL LETTERS -- is primary. User-driven content on the Internet often consists of bullying, conspiracy theories and racial prejudice. The absolute freedom of the medium paradoxically encourages authoritarian impulses to intimidate and silence others. The least responsible contributors see their darkest tendencies legitimated and reinforced, while serious voices are driven away by the general ugliness.
Ethicist Clive Hamilton calls this a "belligerent brutopia." "The Internet should represent a great flourishing of democratic participation," he argues. "But it doesn't. . . . The brutality of public debate on the Internet is due to one fact above all -- the option of anonymity. The belligerence would not be tolerated if the perpetrators' identities were known because they would be rebuffed and criticized by those who know them. Free speech without accountability breeds dogmatism and confrontation."
This destructive disinhibition is disturbing in itself. It also allows hatred to invade respected institutional spaces on the Internet, gaining for these ideas a legitimacy denied to fringe Web sites. After the Bernard Madoff scandal broke, for example, major newspaper sites included user-generated content such as "Find a Jew who isn't Crooked" and "Just another jew money changer thief" -- sentiments that newspapers would not have printed as letters to the editor. Postings of this kind regularly attack immigrants and African Americans, recycle centuries of anti-Semitism and deny the events of the Holocaust as a massive Jewish lie.
Legally restricting such content -- apart from prosecuting direct harassment and threats against individuals or incitement to violence -- is impossible. In America, the First Amendment protects blanket statements of bigotry. But this does not mean that popular news sites, along with settings such as Facebook and YouTube, are constitutionally required to provide forums for bullies and bigots. As private institutions, they are perfectly free to set rules against racism and hatred. This is not censorship; it is the definition of standards.
Some online institutions, such as The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, screen user comments before posting them. Others, such as The Post and The Wall Street Journal, rely on readers to identify objectionable content -- a questionable strategy because numbness to abusiveness and hatred on the Internet is part of the challenge.
Whatever the method, no reputable institution should allow its publishing capacity, in print or online, to be used as the equivalent of the wall of a public bathroom stall.
The exploitation of technology by hatred will never be eliminated. But hatred must be confined to the fringes of our culture -- as the hatred of other times should have been.
On October 10th at 1pm, there will be an anti fascist/ anti racist rally in Bridgeland. We will be meeting at 1st ave and 8a st. There will be a march and afterward there will be free food. Everyone should come out to this event, and bring lots of friends.
Free food? Well, we suppose that given the season, a communal meal of some sort is inevitable.
Sunday, September 27, 2009
We surmised that the, "Fairness Fairy" may, in fact, be Marc Lemire himself given that he used the pseudonym "Veritas-Canada" on Wikipedia and "FairnessFairy2" was a known sockpuppet of his that he also used to edit his own Wiki entry.
Well, the Fairness Fairy promised more revelations to prove that he was, in fact, a CHRC mole (damn, we mean whistleblower) that would be published on Saturday:
Nothing was forthcoming on Saturday (surprise, surprise) and today, when one goes to what was once the "Fairness Fairy" blog which had been active since 2006:
You get the feeling that the people who were all giddy about the thought that the "Fairness Fairy" being legit might be a bit deflated now? You get their hopes up, then no promised money shot.
And they wonder why most people consider them to be rubes.
Friday, September 25, 2009
We've been aware of the online presence of the "Fairness Fairy" and his (or her) blog for some time. The blog has claimed to be providing information on the Marc Lemire hearings but aside from sexually degrading women and antisemitic rhetoric, it really hasn't offered really anything new. However, recently there was a big reveal. The "Fairness Fairy" is, according to the author, a CHRC mole.
Oh, we mean whistleblower. Our bad.
Our avid reader Jay Currie promptly posted the article on his blog and then scampered to Free Dominion to spread the good news:
Not long after, Mr. Kathy Shaidle chimed in on the subject on his blog:
Uppierdate: Rumours afoot of a possible Op-Ed by the "Whistleblower" in a major paper
Upperdate: This just gets curiouser and curiouser, here's the promised post by our self-described "Whistleblower".
Now, while many of the FreeDom denizens are rejoicing at the prospect of someone with inside the operations willing and eager to bring the whole thing down, not all is happy in Whoville. Some who have decided to turn on the logic portion of their brains are justifiably suspicious by this new claim by "Fairness Fairy." Others are downright disgusted:
So where does "Narrow Back's" ire come from? We'll allow him to explain in his own words and using direct quotes from the "Fairness Fairy" blog:
Okay, we don't remember that last part either.
The point is that we've received word that Paulie has paid, in full, the judgment against him. That would be over $40,000.
Now, where does an unemployed teacher find that kind of scratch? Given how they're always screaming poverty, we can't imagine the racist speaking circuit can pay all that well. And as stupid as we think Paulie is, we can't imagine he's as stupid as his buddy David Duke was when he defrauded his own sheep (who, by the way, promptly forgave and forgot, just like true herd animals).
Interesting in any case.
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
The roots of the CCC rest in white opposition to integration during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The group is a successor to the Citizens' Councils of America (originally configured as the White Citizens' Councils), an overtly racist organization formed in the 1950s in reaction to the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing school segregation. Trumpeting the "Southern way of life," the CCA used a traditionalist rhetoric that appealed to better-mannered, more discreet racists; while the Klan burned crosses, the CCA relied on political and economic pressure.You'll notice when you click on the link that one of the extremists associated with the CoCC is none other than Canada's own Paul Fromm. Guess who was one of the keynote speakers?
Paulie did have a welcoming committee. A number of anti-racists protested his presence and the CoCC meeting itself. Our friends with the One Peoples' Project and Lady Liberty's Lamp covered the story (there is also a video included with the article):
Monday, September 21, 2009
Subject: Equality Report.
The Demonstration for Equality was a success! I'd personally like to thank those 20 or so people who came out for their participation and support.
I showed up at around 1:30 and waited around until I met up with a few mates of mine. By the time they showed up there was already a group of people forming. At 5:00 pm we had decided to move out. Just as we all got up and started marching down front street we encountered Nazi boneheads (two of them to be exact). They tried their hardest to shut us down from across the street! But they failed after flashing their 'white power' flag for 2 seconds after yelling Oi! After their second of glory they disappeared into thin air.
After that brief encounter we continued up university towards Queens Park. Upon arrival we met up with another fellow activist. We hung around and talked about funny stories involving boneheads, getting to know each other and I believe its safe to say that we all became friends.
At 6:30pm we moved out towards the Annex to go see 'Shwatarded.' An excellent film if I may say so myself.
After the film, some of the participants headed home, others went out and enjoyed the rest of the night. Overall looking at this from many perspectives that have been given to me I think that this was a success because of two key components. First, it remained a peaceful demonstration which is excellent. Second, we were able to discuss different methods to advertise the next one better, I now know of more organizations that I can contact to get more people to attend and I know that there is already a core group of people that will show up next time around.
The folks with Toronto S.H.A.R.P. have also posted an update on the event as well.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Isn't life exciting? I was contacted by, and agreed to a meeting with the RCMP earlier this evening in regards to a complaint from the inhuman rights commission. Poor babies, it seems they want to be immune from any criticism of their persecution of victims and imposition of their politically correct bs.
The constable was reasonable and pleasant to talk to during the investigation, and I gave him a lengthy statement over the issue.
I will post a review of what transpired and what was said, tomorrow and am sending the same message now to these clowns that I sent back in my statement. I am NOT going to stop exercising my freedom of expression and I am not nor will I be intimidated by the fat asses sitting on their heated thrones, thinking they can rule the wortld of thought.
More tomorrow, I am tired, and need to sleep. Working for a living does that to you, but then the arses at the hrc would not know about that. Half a day's work would kill these pompous pampered pathetic peons of pitiful political correctness.
Ed later provides more detail about the encounter:
...and now for the sequence of events.
The general public is and has been aware of my total contempt and disdain for hrc's far and wide, openly voiced here and in real life. One cannot love freedom, democracy and justice without hating the alter, and in my observations of their bullying and totalitarian tactics, my disgust and anger was, is and WILL be apparent.
The RCMP called me late afternoon yesterday and asked if they could visit me, to which I agreed immediately. However, I thought this visit had to do with an investigation over a recent filed complaint I made with the Police Services Commission over violation of oath and code, abuse of system, and duplicity/partiality of several Renfrew OPP officers.
It was interesting when I started the conversation, leading off on that note, when I realized the issue was a complaint by the crybabies at the hrc who did not like me to be so critical of their attacks on justice, democracy and freedom.
The officer made it clear this was an official investigation and read me my rights, which I summarily dismissed and invited him to bring out a tape recorder if he had one in his pack, which he did, and turn it on.
When he did I made a statement about my right to freedom of expression and I made it clear that I would not desist in any way in exercising this freedom fought for in the last Great Wars, also mentioning that I had relatives who had shot better people than hrc tyrrants.
The officer indicated this was about comments made on the "Lemire" case but I corrected this by stating every case I have observed in the jungle of hrc defecation to be similar and an attack on freedom, justice and democracy so my comments and criticisms applied to everything they had touched and defiled. He asked if I used any other computer and I stated the truth that I used only the one in my study. The initial session lasted about twenty minutes after which we had conversations off the record about the fascism of the "Places to Grow Act" wherein the lieberals had written into the act that no compensation would be allowed for landowners and that redress before the courts was made illegal. When a provincial government takes away the basic right to a man's day in court the best word for that is FASCISM and FASCISTS.
Anyway, this material will be taken to his supervisor and then to Ottawa where an official will make a decision. I think that this issue falls under "Section 59" that prohibits intimidation/threats of the hrc's, right after the part where they are given entitlement to special soft toilet paper and mandatory "bidets" in their sheltered existences. Seems that they have yet to learn that as public figures, they are subject to criticism and ridicule. Respect must be earned, and what these self important pitiful excuses for people see to not have learned is nobody, myself included, can be mandated by decree to bow down at their feet and worship their pathetic personages. I think they are a waste of human air and skin.
The issue is strictly one of interpretation and these inquisitors had better learn quickly that what I say and what their paranoid minds read into it are generally two different things. NOBODY has the right to tell me what I mean by what I say and to impose on my words their own fairy tale interpretations.
I asked the Constable to take a message to them, that they can have their fat asses transported to the local OPP station a few miles from here and under the security of the whole detachment, replete with armaments, I will entertain their questions BUT I reserve the right to ask my own. It will be I will answer one of their every time they answer one of mine.
Now how is that for a deal? We will see what they say in return. To be sure, though, I will offer no respect for a bunch of overpaid fat assed politically correct underworked busybodies who think they can impose their warped and tainted ideologies on others, least of all me.
Stay tuned, I could get lucky, they might tyake me up on my offer of the meeting. Hope though they do not mind me wearing my sawdust covered workclothes, I only dress up for suitable occasions.
Please let me know if I said something that offended you. I may want to offend you again sometime.
Kennedy is a fan favourite over on the FreeDom boards so not surprisingly the denizens of the forum jump to his defense. Then again, as we've written earlier, Kennedy isn't exactly a stranger when it comes to over the top language which may be viewed as threatening and an act of intimidation:
But not to fear, Kennedy fans. Edward claims that he has "good people around him":
Well here is the deal Red. There is always a comeback and retribution to those who impose injustice, and it is always more than that given. I have good people around me, today I addressed a public meeting with Randy Hillier as guest speaker, Jack MacLaren, president of the OLA, and Scott Reid who was also scheduled but could not come due to the early return to parliament.
I spoke an hour and mc'ed the meeting, my theme was "Justice Democracy and Freedom". I addressed many issues as well as the hrc fascists. Randy mentioned the hrc problem. I had told a key OLA member about the hrc thing and was called and asked about it by top OLA brass without telling anyone else. Randy Hillier called me and asked about it before the meeting today where we both spoke.
Needless to say, the boys are not pleased. This is an intimidation tactic that is not intimidating anyone, but will have the opposite effect, and when I am told who is the whiner, the shite will hit the fan.
And just so Kennedy, a man who has posted comments about, "typical n****** behavior" and who has celebrated the murder of a doctor, is aware, here is the info on intimidation and discrimination:
59. No person shall threaten, intimidate or discriminate against an individual because that individual has made a complaint or given evidence or assisted in any way in respect of the initiation or prosecution of a complaint or other proceeding under this Part, or because that individual proposes to do so.Possible punishment if found guilty is:
(c) contravenes subsection 11(6) or 43(3) or section 59.
Punishment(2) A person who is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding $50,000.
In other FreeDom news, we heard from a friend of a friend who knows a guy that one of the John Does have filed his defense in the Warman libel suit against the John Does, the Fourniers, and FreeDom. And while we aren't aware of the particulars of the defense, we're sure it will be as successful as the last libel suit Mr. Warman was involved in.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
By Steve Lambert, THE CANADIAN PRESS
WINNIPEG - A Manitoba man says he and his wife were legally exercising their freedom of expression when they sent their daughter to school with racial slogans and symbols written on her skin in permanent marker.
We suppose he hasn't really considered his step-daughter's interests? Hey, if he wants to mark himself up in a way that he can only find employment as a carnival sideshow freak (see Robert Reitmeier as an example) that's his business. But if he thinks that the courts will buy this "freedom of expression" argument, well, he makes a bag of hammers look like a Rhodes' Scholar.
And for not preaching violence? Do you really want us to call you on that lie, "stage"?
In other news, looks like the Aryan Guard is misbehaving in the Bridgeland area of Calgary. We received the following report:
I've heard from some people that live in the area that the boneheads hang out at the Seven Eleven on 1st street and the bonehead with that web tattoo on his neck [Robert Reitmeier] was spotted getting off the 9 coming from Bridgeland downtown. Also, at around mid August I heard about a run in with two nazis that resulted in some pushing. And back in June, myself and a few others followed a few boneheads to Bridgeland and witnessed them buy drugs right off memorial drive, right by some transit cops.
Finally, with the recent ruling regarding section 13, Arthur Topham has been getting a little frisky and has been more vociferous in his efforts to have the complaint thrown out. He's even taken to the airwaves. Well, the Internet Radio "airwaves" in any case. Below is an email he sent out to his supporters regarding a recent interview:
From: RadicalPress <email@example.com>
Subject: SEC. 13(1) INTERVIEW WITH PASTOR ELI JAMES & ARTHUR TOPHAM OF RADICALPRESS.COM ON TALKSHOE RADIO 9/09/09
To: "RadicalPress" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Received: Sunday, September 13, 2009, 11:40 AM
And who is the good pastor? Why, he's the head honcho of the Church of the Restoration of True Israel, a Christian Identity cult:
Christian Identity is a religious ideology popular in extreme right-wing circles. Adherents believe that whites of European descent can be traced back to the "Lost Tribes of Israel." Many consider Jews to be the Satanic offspring of Eve and the Serpent, while non-whites are "mud peoples" created before Adam and Eve. Its virulent racist and anti-Semitic beliefs are usually accompanied by extreme anti-government sentiments. Despite its small size, Christian Identity influences virtually all white supremacist and extreme anti-government movements. It has also informed criminal behavior ranging from hate crimes to acts of terrorism.
And Free Dominion, Israel's "best friend in Canada," is championing Mr. Topham? Interesting.
UPDATE: Shall we eat crow? Sure.
It's not 2010 yet, it's 2009. Title changed accordingly.
Monday, September 14, 2009
On Friday September the 18th, some local lads and ladies have decided to put on a little demonstration for equality. They are planing on meeting up at Union Station after 3pm, and at 4pm march out to Queens Park for the demonstration. After this they will head out to the Annex to go see "Shwatarded", a film about how the 3Tards concert againt breast cancer was shut down by the police.
Live it again!!!!
Shwatarded - The Movie
Filmed during a charity fundraiser in Memorial Park in Oshawa, Ontario, watch the antics unfold as these punk rock undergods attempt the improbable... one woman, and four bands shattering a thousand stigmas in one action packed, fun filled, riotous rainy afternoon in the Shwa.
what happens is*almost* impossible to imagine....
Starring the now retired kings of Toronto Punk The 3Tards, and the hardest working band in Rock'n'Roll... The Groopies.
Shwatarded LIVE it….
September 18th, 2009 7PM
506 Bloor Street West
Last Friday of the Toronto International Film Festival
A Portion of proceeds from this screening will be donated to the Canadian Breast Cancer Foundation."
Thanks to Toronto S.H.A.R.P for keeping everyone up to date on this event.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
We, on the other hand, don't usually go out of our way to read what they're writing about us, but we are occasionally sent links by our non-existent readership when we are mentioned. Sometime we read what they have to say about us. Sometimes we don't. But when we are, in part, the subject of an article by the mighty blogger Jay Currie, well, our hearts go all a twitter.
Our dear readers may remember when we published documents indicating the real life identities of the Free Dominion "John Does" who, along with Mr. and Mrs. Fournier, are subjects of a Richard Warman defamation suit. Our readers may also remember the folks at Free Dominion were not please that these documents, all of which are public domain and available to those who wish to access them once they were filed, were made public, even in their redacted form (unlike some of those published by those on the right, we removed home and work addresses, email addresses, some websites, names of spouses, and in one case information regarding a family matter). They called us all sort of nasty names, including but not limited to communists, a violent street gang, and criminals. That the folks at Free Dominion rather routinely post similar court documents on that web forum seems to be of little consequence; it would appear that these powerful voices for free speech get a little squeamish when they themselves don't approve of the speech.
After the initial hubbub died down we figured that cooler heads had ultimately prevailed. Perhaps it did, but it was brought to the surface again recently.
That brings us to Jay. On August 23, 2009, Jay Currie published an article detailing an apparent "investigation" by the Department of National Defense into Richard Warman to determine whether he had been pursuing his human rights work (though we're sure Jay would use a different term) on company time and using the department's resources. To his credit, Jay seems to think that not much, if anything, will be found to have been improper. His original article linked to a Free Dominion thread that appears to have now disappeared, perhaps owing to fears that it may be used against the subjects of Warman's litigation. In that thread was an email (written not long after the Free Dominion meltdown about ARC having published public domain documents and when emotions were pretty heated), ostensibly from one of the "John Does" to no less than the federal Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay. Jay republished it on his blog:
From: [Redacted] [mailto: [Redacted]@ [Redact-it].ca]
Sent: June 8, 2009 3:51 PM
To: MacKay, Peter – M.P.
Subject: Richard Warman, DND employee?
Dear Mr. Mackay,
As Minister of Defence, perhaps you could look into the situation
regarding one Richard Warman who I believe is a counsellor employed at
DND in Ottawa.
Mr Warman has been running a legal and political campaign in which he
targets people who do not agree with his political views (which are
Liberal) with expensive lawsuits and other harassment. In my case, he
reported my name and address to so-called anti-racist groups, who are in
fact communist street gangs [we're quite sure that he's talking about us, but we'll get to this shortly].
My question is this—does Richard Warman spend working time on these
projects, and has he been using the computer facilities at DND to gain
information on his targets?
This situation should have been addressed by the Prime Minister and the
Justice Minister at an earlier stage, but now it has reached the level
of a sort of Stalinist political operation in plain sight, operating out
of the DND and the offices of [Redacted]
Essentially, what we have here is a case of a powerful civil servant,
quite possibly using the surveillance capabililty of the DND, harassing
political opponents with the full support of the Government of Canada. I
am not sure if you were aware of this situation, and I would hope that
you would want to reverse it.
An extensive investigation is required to satisfy natural concerns that
the power of the state is being used against the citizens of Canada, and
in particular, of western Canada, because Warman seems to prefer
residents of the western provinces (it is more expensive for us to fight
his charges in court down in Ontario).
Thanks for your co-operation.
RE: Richard Warman, DND employee?
Monday, August 17, 2009 3:55 PM
Add sender to Contacts
Thank you for your e-mail concerning a potential conflict of interest
involving Mr. Richard Warman, an employee of the Department of National
I am advised that Chief Review Services, the authority responsible for
conflict of interest issues for the Department of National Defence and
the Canadian Forces, is currently investigating and that a report is
I trust this information is of assistance, and thank you again for
Peter G. MacKay
Minister of National Defence
MCU2009-03804One thing we noticed immediately is that our "John Doe" serves up all of the conservative red meat right away:
1. Just happens to mention the political party affiliation of Mr. Warman which, as it so happens, is the Official Opposition and the key opponent of the federal Conservative Party. Hoping for a little political retribution, are we? ("Mr Warman has been running a legal and political campaign in which he targets people who do not agree with his political views (which are Liberal)")
2. Complaints of, "Western Alienation" ("An extensive investigation is required to satisfy natural concerns that the power of the state is being used against the citizens of Canada, and in particular, of western Canada, because Warman seems to prefer residents of the western provinces") which is a bit of a battle cry for Alberta conservatives.
3. Repeated references to the dirty Red Menace as if we were living in the 1950s and he's about to chair the House Un-American Activities Committee ("In my case, he reported my name and address to so-called anti-racist groups, who are in fact communist street gangs" and "...but now it has reached the level of a sort of Stalinist political operation in plain sight, operating out of the DND and the offices of [Redacted]")
On this last charge, let us at the ARC Collective (yes, we're aware of the irony we're about to commit here) unequivocally answer our "John Doe":
We are not, and have never been, members of the Communist Party.
Actually Lucille Ball had the best response when asked if she was a commie which wents something like, "the only thing red about me is my hair and even that's fake."
We would also ask if our accuser has no shame or sense or decency, but we fear the reference might be lost on him so we'll direct him to this link.
More the point, we're accused of being a criminal street gang. We'd like to know where exactly he gets his information about us because we can assure him and our dear readers that not one of us has ever been charged with or been under investigation for a single crime. Collectively, our running afoul of the law has amounted to a total of four speeding tickets and one driving with undo care and attention ticket in the past 20 years. If our accuser is going to try and equate us with one of their current bogeymen, the ARA, sorry but that dog don't hunt either. We are not members now, nor have we ever been members, of the ARA, though when we actually look at their records, we don't see a lot of criminal activity outside some relatively minor infractions and whatever the BONEHEADS (not blockheads, "The LS from SK") have claimed. But we may very well have missed something so we'll move on.
One would think that someone currently facing defamation charges would be more careful about the accusations that they make.
And at this point do any of our dear readers think that denying Mr. Warman was the source of the documents will be believed? That's sort of a rhetorical question.
Still, we do have some support. One person, "truewest" makes the following comment about ARC:
As for ARC, it’s better researched, more accurate and more responsible tha[n] most of the blogs you link to from your site.
Just to illustrate that point, when he's arguing that Richard Warman has some sweetheart deal with the CHRC that get's his complaints heard while others are dismissed, Jay uses the example of Andrew Guille, brother of Melissa Guille, who's human rights complaint against an anti-racism organization was tossed out. As "truewest" notes again:
You’ve linked to a complaint filed by hate-monger Melissa Guille’s brother against an anti-racist website. It was dismissed under s. 41(1)(d) of the Act because it was “trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith”. (Shocking!) Is that what you’re calling the “hitherto unknown ‘intent’ test”?
We would also add that we wouldn't necessarily take the word of a convicted distributor of child pornography either, but hey, we here at ARC have standards.
Now, we here at the ARC Collective, an insignificant blog with no readers but which appears to be the subject of a great deal of speculation, wonder how long it will take for this most recent post to become the subject of heated conversation on conservative blogs and web forums. Will they be able to resist the siren song leading them astray or, like one of Pavlov's puppies, will they begin to salivate?
Jay? Connie? Mark?
Ding ding ding ding.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Ms. Mock is a former national director of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and executive director of the League’s Human Rights Education and Training Centre. She's currently executive director of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation and president of the Canadian Friends of Haifa University.
In other words, Paulie will NOT be amused.
We here at the ARC Collective run the gambit of political points of view, but most of us do fall on the left of the political spectrum, so most of us find the Liberals to be a little too conservative. That said, Karen Mock is an incredibly accomplished woman.
And anyone who will piss off Paulie Fromm is good people.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Joseph Brean, National Post
Published: Wednesday, September 02, 2009
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that Section 13, Canada's much maligned human rights hate speech law, is an unconstitutional violation of the Charter right to free expression because of its penalty provisions.
The decision released this morning by Tribunal chair Athanasios Hadjis appears to strip the Canadian Human Rights Commission of its controversial legal mandate to pursue hate on the Internet, which it has strenuously defended against complaints of censorship.
It also marks the first major failure of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, an anti-hate law that was conceived in the 1960s to target racist telephone hotlines, then expanded in 2001 to the include the entire Internet, and for the last decade used almost exclusively by one complainant, activist Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman.
Today's shocking decision is a victory over Mr. Warman by Marc Lemire, webmaster of freedomsite.org and a prominent figure in the Canadian far right, who was supported in his constitutional challenge of Section 13 by the legal team defended Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel.
Mr. Warman alleged that postings on Mr. Lemire's website, written by others, contravened Section 13 in that they were "likely to expose" identifiable groups to "hatred or contempt."
Mr. Lemire responded by challenging the law itself, which was last upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in a 1990 split decision, before the Internet age.
That decision, about neo-Nazi John Ross Taylor, upheld the law as a justifiable limit on free expression largely because of its supposedly remedial, non-punitive purpose. But Mr. Hadjis found that that, today, the pursuit of Section 13(1) cases "can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature." Rather, the law "has become more penal in nature."
He cited Mr. Warman's request for a $7500 penalty against Mr. Lemire. Mr. Warman has won over a dozen other Section 13(1) cases, many leading to similar fines as well as legal restrictions on Internet activity.
This criticism about a penal law masquerading as a remedial one echoes that of Richard Moon, a law professor hired by the CHRC last year to provide an expert analysis of their online hate speech mandate. In essence, his advice was that it could not be done fairly, and so should not be done at all.
Mr. Hadjis' decision to reject the law as unconstitutional, in light of its penalty provisions, leaves a central area Canada's human rights in limbo, and kicks a political hot potato over to the government and the Canadian Human Rights Commission, which can appeal the ruling to Federal Court.
Mr. Warman's case was supported by the CHRC, and various advocacy groups joined the case as intervenors in support of Section 13.
Mr. Hadjis rejected Mr. Warman's complaints in all but one instance, an article called AIDS Secrets. He found that this posting contravened Section 13(1). But he also found the law itself -- with its threat of penalties such as an order to cease the discrimatory messages, or pay fines up to $10,000 -- violates Mr. Lemire's Charter right to freedom of expression, and therefore refused to make any order against him.
"Since a formal declaration of invalidity [of Section 13(1)] is not a remedy available to the Tribunal, I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him," Mr. Hadjis wrote.
Gee, one would think based on the unbiased report in the "National Post" that they didn't have a stake in this particular case. That, and Mr. Brean really should leave the analysis of the repercussions of this decision to people who actually know what they’re talking or writing about.
So that's it? Naw!
We have a feeling that it is far from over.
One issue here is that two cases (here and here) were previously argued before the CHRT which were essentially the same challenges to the amendment that Lemire was making. On both of those occasions, the amendments were deemed to be constitutional. So now we have conflicting decisions, two of which found the amendments to be constitutional and now this one which does not.
A second issue is that the CHRT claimed that the tribunal process was not conciliatory in nature and almost appears to place that burden solely on Mr. Warman. Of the two men. Mr. Warman has a better history of conciliation having mediated two prior complaints successfully. Lemire, on the other hand, appears to have continually poisoned the well by his actions online.
Finally, and something that BigCityLib also appears to have picked up on as well, is that Mr. Hadjis simply got the law wrong. If the financial penalty is what is deemed to be unconstitutional, then the right thing would be not to impose the financial penalty provision. However, the section itself could still be applied and that it could include a cease and desist order. Clearly, as Mr. Hadjis stated that Lemire was in violation of the section on at least one occasion, a cease and desist order could have been implemented.
Oh, and considering that Lemire was found guilty on one count today of having posted hate propaganda that had originally been published by a man who would later be convicted of possessing child pornography, we’re not sure we’d be breaking out the Cristal quite yet if we were him.
One big concern that we had when we read the ruling was that Mr. Hadjis stated that while Holocaust denial is, “extremely hurtful,” it doesn’t rise to the standard of being likely to expose the Jewish community to hatred and contempt. Let’s paint you a picture Mr. Hadjis. "Person A" claims that the Holocaust didn’t occur and that it’s all a scam to extort money from Western nations for
In short, the decision rendered today was both shortsighted and bad law and we're not sure that it will stand. The Canadian Jewish Conference has come to essentially the same conclusion and are urging the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Mr. Warman to appeal this decision. It wouldn't surprise us in the least if an appeal was launched.