A lawsuit has been served against our Canadian "sister" site, Free Dominion.

The Anatomy of a Smear - Marc Lemire/CHRC

Mark Fournier
Free Dominion
September 3, 2009

The Anatomy of a Smear

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” Joseph Goebbels – Nazi Minister of Propaganda

On September 2, 2009 CHRT Member Athanasios Hadjis exonerated Marc Lemire of all charges leveled against him by Richard Warman and the CHRC except for one. Mr. Hadjis found Mr. Lemire guilty on one count of violating s.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act because eight years ago Mr. Lemire had posted on his website an article written by someone else. Mr. Hadjis also ruled the section of the Act Mr. Lemire had violated is unconstitutional and therefore refused to levy any punishment against him.

Two years ago neither Connie nor I had heard the name, Marc Lemire, and Richard Warman had not yet begun litigating himself into our lives. At that point in time Mr. Lemire was finishing Year Four of his six-year battle against a barrage of accusations leveled against him by Richard Warman, through the auspices of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and futilely trying to get the story out as to what was happening to him.

Two years ago nobody would listen to Marc Lemire. Why not?

The facts of the case were no different then than they are now. The shotgun blast of spurious accusations, the altering of evidence, the recurring selective amnesia of Warman, Vigna's loss of serenity and many other irregularities were occurring but nobody was watching or listening because the CHRC Smear Machine was running in high gear. It was essential to Richard Warman and to the CHRC that Marc Lemire be completely demonized and vilified because they surely understood the public would be outraged if what they were doing to Lemire leaked out. They would have been right in that assessment too because it has leaked out and the public is outraged.

So how did the Big Smear work?

Connie and I have encountered the CHRC smear machine from three different angles so I feel well positioned to report what we have learned from our observations. We first ran into the CHRC smear machine two years ago when we were ourselves targeted with a CHRC complaint from a French Canadian woman, Marie-Line Gentes, who seemed to feel she should be offended on behalf of Muslims for a link that someone posted on Free Dominion that led to a pamphlet posted on another website. Ms. Gentes wasn't offended enough by the author of the pamphlet to name him in her complaint, she was not offended enough by the website that was actually displaying the pamphlet to include it in her complaint, but she was so offended that someone posted a link to the pamphlet on Free Dominion that she filed a human rights complaint against me and Connie and the website.

The complaint against us was an absurdity that should never have been entertained by the CHRC but they had decided we were to be their next victims and the smear machine began to rev up against us. Immediately the usual suspects on the internet began accusing Connie and me of being haters, of running a hate website, of being a variety of -ists and -phobes, but this time it didn't work. Connie and I and Free Dominion were too well known for the smear to stick so those who tried to paint us with that brush justifiably found themselves looking like malicious fools. Ultimately Ms. Gentes chickened out and dropped her complaint, and the CHRC, faced with the first failure of its smear machine, chose to stand down rather than face the publicity we could generate if they tried to do to us what they were doing to Marc Lemire.

(Inside message to readers from the CHRC: On July 16, 2007 Marie-Line Gentes contacted you and withdrew her complaint against us. The next day someone in your office made a decision to overnight to us notification of her complaint even though she had already dropped it. The person who made that decision was the pebble that began the avalanche that is burying you today.)

Our second encounter with the CHRC smear machine followed right on the heels of the first, but this time it was not really directed at us. It was at this time that posts about Richard Warman and Marc Lemire appeared on Free Dominion and from the first mention of Lemire's name the smear machine sprang into action. Suddenly we had new members registering solely for the purpose of attacking and demonizing Marc Lemire and we were told all the horrible stories that the machine had concocted about Lemire. We were warned that if we had any contact with him at all it would be taken as proof that we were racists, etc. Some tried to approach us as concerned friends trying to protect us from making a horrible mistake, but all were determined to discredit Marc Lemire so badly that nobody would believe a word he said.

I'm ashamed to say that for a while it worked. We had never heard of Marc Lemire before then, or knew what he believed, but everybody seemed to be in agreement that he was the ultimate villain. Like everyone else who got sucked in by the Lemire smear, I have no excuse. I did not do my due diligence.

The Lemire smear had worked once again. We unjustly banned Marc Lemire from Free Dominion and many of us continued to malign him even though none of us knew what his views actually were. We all just assumed that everyone else knew what Lemire believed (and it had to be terrible) and that we just had to play catch up.

It was at this time that Warman entered our lives with lawsuits blazing so we began to look into who he was and we began to realize that Lemire had an interesting story to tell and documentation to back it up. But we believed he was a Nazi or something and we had just weathered a concerted smear attack on ourselves and for a short while we were a little bit gun shy. The image we had of Marc Lemire at that time was exactly the image Richard Warman and the CHRC wanted everyone to have. We reasoned that if Marc Lemire was really a Nazi he also had to be a bit of a lunatic and, in any case, any association with him was certain political suicide.

We have known from the beginning that the attacks on us by the CHRC and Richard Warman through the civil courts are political in nature and in motivation and that the real battle will be fought in the public arena on the facts and on the credibility of the contending parties. Frankly, we didn't think we could afford to take the PR hit at that time.

It must be remembered that at this point in time we were not really aware of the facts or issues in the Lemire case, but we were beginning to understand who Richard Warman was and what he had been doing, so we couldn't help but become interested in one of his active cases. And then we got an invitation to meet with Marc Lemire and several other people who had been through the CHRC wringer. We had already met some of the high profile people (like Stephen Boissoin and Scott Brockie, who had been through the same wringer at the provincial level) but this group was supposed to be the hardcases. We really didn't know what to do but in the end we decided to go.

We had no idea what we were walking into but I'll admit we were a bit nervous. We were not yet conversant in the various cases we know about today, and almost all the names were new to us, but we figured these people might be the real thing, they might actually be Nazis. We feel kind of silly about it now, but at the time we wondered if we would walk into a room full of swastikas and jackboots. And what if someone got a picture! We understand now that those concerns were unfounded, but we were a bit relieved that nobody there was like we had been led to believe, and nobody tried to inform us of their political beliefs, but everyone wanted to talk about the CHRC. We heard a lot of stories that evening and perhaps we were suffering from information overload, but by the end of the meeting we still couldn't see the big picture.

We knew something wasn't right but we couldn't quite figure out what it was, and we knew it was something more than the disconnect between what we expected these people to be like and what they were actually like. The next day I asked Connie (who knows everything), “What does Lemire believe in anyway? Is he a white supremacist or a holocaust denier or what? What's his schtick?” We realized that neither of us had read any of his stuff yet so we had no idea what he believed, but we figured others had and that it would show up somewhere, so we let it go for the time being.

Our epiphany moment came a few days later. Out of the blue Connie turned to me and said, “What if these people aren't Nazis?”
I replied incisively, “Huh?”
She said, “What if they aren't self proclaimed Nazis at all? What if this is all something that has been hung on them by Warman and the CHRC? “

That was when things began to come together for us and a clearer picture finally emerged, but the image we could finally see was so ugly that it made us willing to listen very closely to the story Marc Lemire had to tell and to look at the documentation he had archived that completely supported what he had to say. Then we learned that after years of examination and witch hunting and evidence planting, no one had been able to come up with a single thing Lemire had written. None of the complaints against him were over anything that he himself had said or written. This was when we realized how thoroughly all of us had been had, and saw the true depths of the ugliness of the CHRC and its supporters.

This led us to our next dilemma and to our third encounter with the CHRC smear machine, an encounter that vividly confirmed what we had just learned.

- End of Part 1 -

The Anatomy of a Smear
Part 2

Up until this time Warman and the CHRC had had Marc Lemire contained. They knew he had the goods on them but they had made him so radioactive that he had no hope of getting his story out. The only people who would listen to him were people who had been through the punishment-by-process themselves and their reputations had already been so badly destroyed that their added voices brought little help.

Our dilemma of course was how to get this story told without being dragged down ourselves and it presented us with a two part challenge. How do we tell the story and dare we try to tell the story?

The Marc Lemire story was long and very complicated and encompassed many complex issues. There was no way it could all be explained in a single article, which was one of the reasons Lemire had such a hard time getting his story out. Somehow a window into the entire affair had to be opened and somehow a large number of people had to be convinced to look in. We figured we would only get one shot at it and we knew we had to go big or stay home.

The dare-we-do-it part of the problem was also difficult and daunting. We knew we had built up a fair amount of goodwill from our work at Free Dominion and although our reputations had recently been under fire, we had survived the attacks. But could we endure what would be thrown at us if we tried to tell what was happening to Lemire? In the end we decided on principle. How could we call ourselves principled conservatives if we quailed at telling the truth?

So I wrote an article about the notorious “Anne Cools post” and put it up on Free Dominion and all hell broke loose.

The Anne Cools post was a racist, misogynist screed posted on Marc Lemire's website and it figured prominently in the persecution of Marc Lemire from the time it was posted to the closing arguments in his CHRT hearing half a decade later. The role it played in the Lemire case also gave good insights into the Kafkaesque world of a CHRC investigation and prosecution.

The Anne Cools article that appeared on Free Dominion was almost immediately picked up by the National Post, Ezra Levant and several other bloggers and the counterattack quickly began. Richard Warman stayed true to form and sued everybody in sight but this only made the story bigger and compelled people to look further into the information that Marc Lemire had compiled.

The debate that ensued gave Free Dominion the opportunity to introduce other elements of the case such as the Many Faces of Richard Warman (pogue mahone, lucy, axetogrind, 90sAREover, etc.) and the methodology of CHRC investigators. This information was repeated by many who had a much longer reach than us and a critical mass had been reached, the Lemire story was finally gaining a life of its own. This was very bad news for Richard Warman and the CHRC.

At this point they had to have been scrambling because the genie was out of the bottle and things were spinning out of control, but they weren't going down without a fight. The smear machine revved up again and this time (perhaps its last) it pulled out all the stops.

- End Part 2 -

Next: The Empire Strikes Back

CHRC investigates Richard Warman for hate speech

A Mole at the CHRC

CHRC investigates Richard Warman for hate speech[ 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

BREAKING!!! CHRC is appealing Lemire ruling!!![ 1, 2 ]

OK, let's talk about Marc Lemire [ 1 ... 14, 15, 16 ]

There is no reason to believe that there is more than one poster at the ARA/ARC site. All we have is Harry Abrams' self-serving word that there are posters other than him there. As we are about to see, Harry Abrams' word isn't worth a plugged nickel.

I've done my due diligence and confirmed my facts, Harry. I'm looking forward to hitting the submit button on my next post.

Standby, folks. I'll have my next post up in about an hour.

(I'll bet you already know where I'm going in my next post, don't you, Harry? LOL...Sucks to be you. Laughing

)

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1416645#1416645

Harry, Harry, Harry...You've been hanging around the CHRC for much too long and you've picked up some very nasty habits. Shaking Finger

But before the real fun begins, I'd like to quickly address your inane assertion that someone using a plural possessive pronoun is evidence that they are the president of something. That has to be one of the silliest points I've seen anyone try to raise as evidence, or as supporting evidence, of anything, particularly as evidence of something as potentially damaging as you have tried to use it for here. If I say I love our country it does not mean that I own Canada or that I think I'm the prime minister of Canada or that anyone else would think I was the prime minister of Canada.

I also found it amusing (as did others who have already pointed it out) that the document you used to “prove” Marc Lemire was the head of the Heritage Front from 2001 to 2005 actually reveals that there was no head of the organization during that time period. Yet somehow I expect you will continue to spread the same lie even though you clearly know it is a lie.

But this is just the comic relief stuff, you have some big and serious problems here, Harry.

Maikeru wrote:

Marc Lemire wrote:

... the simple fact is we have learned
from our past and moved on to a more progressive organizational
structure. The Heritage Front now is based on a committee of various
people who oversee different duties within the HF. There is no one
leader, but rather it is a democratic process where each person gets a
vote.

Beyond satisfying the gap in presidency for the period, it also answers why Gerry Lincoln's nose was out of joint in the article posted by our ARC buddies.

However, in light of that information, another question arises.

There is an error in Maikeru's post above and you are directly (and I believe knowingly) responsible for that error. There is no reason to believe Maikeru is yet aware that he has made a mistake but I'll bet you can spot where he has it wrong, can't you, Harry?

I'm aware that this discussion has taken place on a public internet discussion forum. This is not a real court of law where there would be immediate repercussions for what you've done here. Neither is it a CHRC hearing where you can lie and fiddle with evidence with impunity if you are the complainant. But don't you think tampering with evidence, even just in an internet forum, is more than a little bit scummy? The optics are really bad for you with this one, Harry.

Below is an accurate reproduction of the opening of the post you have cited earlier on this thread as it appeared on Stormfront in 2002:

Quote:

---------------
The HERITAGE FRONT
------------------

P.O. Box 564, Station "R", Toronto, Ontario, M4G 4E1
Website: http://www.heritagefront.com
E-Mail: heritagefront@freedomsite.org
Heritage Hotline: (416) 693-2298

A Decade of Defiance

The Heritage Front in the new Millennium

Since our founding in the fall of 1989, the Heritage Front has been one
of the most written about, talked about and even hated groups in Canada.
Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about the HF. Countless
hours of radio and television time has been devoted to reporting on us.
Numerous government agencies have tried to silence us. Terrorist groups,
criminals and unstable individuals have even targeted us.

Now here is your reproduction of the same text as you posted it on Free Dominion.

Quote:

Harry Abrams wrote:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/showthread.php?t=38867

-----------------
The HERITAGE FRONT
------------------

P.O. Box 564, Station "R", Toronto, Ontario, M4G 4E1
Website: http://www.heritagefront.com
E-Mail: heritagefront@freedomsite.org
Heritage Hotline: (416) 693-2298

A Decade of Defiance

The Heritage Front in the new Millennium

by Marc Lemire

Since our founding in the fall of 1989, the Heritage Front has been one
of the most written about, talked about and even hated groups in Canada.
Hundreds of thousands of words have been written about the HF. Countless
hours of radio and television time has been devoted to reporting on us.
Numerous government agencies have tried to silence us. Terrorist groups,
criminals and unstable individuals have even targeted us.

Compare the two closely, Harry. Can you spot the discrepancy that led directly to Maikeru's error in his post? I missed it myself the first time through so I didn't begin to suspect you had falsified the document until I scrolled to the bottom and saw this reference to the article in question:

Quote:

Reprinted from UpFront: FRONTLINE - Issue #20

The devil is in the details, Harry. You should have deleted this line when you were falsifying the beginning of the article. I might have entirely missed your tampering had you been smart enough to make the deletion of the actual source of the article. But I did notice. And then I noticed that, although Marc Lemire doesn't have much writing to draw from, the writing style of the real author of the article did not seem like Marc Lemire's writing style.

I knew I had you then, Harry, but I waited to confirm my suspicions. I emailed the link to Marc Lemire and straight out asked him if he had written it. I'll bet you aren't the least bit surprised that he had no problem admitting that he had reposted the article, but he flatly denied he had authored it.

So who has more credibility? Marc Lemire or Harry Abrams?

Well, Marc Lemire has spent the past six years under the thought police's microscope at the Ministry of Love and no one has caught him in a lie yet. You, on the other hand Harry, are a known liar and now you have clearly shown that you will falsify a document to support your lies.

It isn't like this is the first time you've consciously and knowingly attributed words to somebody that you knew weren't his for the purpose of damaging the reputation of your target. You did the same thing on another thread here at Free Dominion when you put up some text prefaced with, "Arthur Topham says:" even though there is no way you could deny that you knew Arthur Topham hadn't said the words you attributed to him because you knew the identity of the real author of those words before you posted them.

Marc Lemire's CHRC case is over, Harry. The constitutionality of the process he went through is being appealed but the facts of the case are settled. Why are you spending so much time spreading lies and and taking the foolish risk of falsifying a document to continue the smear of Marc Lemire? Malice?

Or is this something you have been doing on behalf of the B'nai Brith? Do they know what you are doiing here? Do they know that you have lied and defamed Arthur Topham in this forum? The same Arthur Topham who you and B'nai Brith are harassing with a CHRC complaint? Do they know you have falsified a document in an attempt to publicly smear Marc Lemire even though his case is over?

Maybe you aren't here at the behest of the B'nai Brith but it wouldn't surprise me if you were. After all, the B'nai Brith, with their false identification of Lemire in a picture that they had up on their Nizkor website kind of indicates that they would completely approve of what you have been doing.

But now we come to the sad part, Harry.

It is with real regret, and against my wishes (and probably against the wishes of at least some FDers), that I must ban you, Harry. I have genuinely enjoyed your time here but I'm sure you'll understand why so many of my advisors are ready to strangle me for letting you stay this long. I think some of them are on the verge of resorting to physical pain if I don't listen to them so I am finally going to take their advice.

It has really been a fun game we've played, Harry, and I know that banning you at this time makes me look like the kind of jerk who wins a couple of big pots at the poker table and then gets up and leaves without giving anyone a chance to win their money back, but my aversion to physical pain compels me to do so.

You came here to cross-examine us for the benefit of your “friend and colleague” Richard Warman. While you were here you just couldn't resist expanding your mission to smearing some of your political opponents with lies and evidence tampering, but your base reason for being here was always clear. Of course we knew all this and the risk to us was that we might slip up and say something Richard Warman could later use against us. I'm just a small town rube and not an expert at the thought crimes racket like you are, but I think we came through it intact. I may learn later that I'm wrong, but at this point I think we did OK.

The trade off for us was we would give you a soapbox and enough rope to ensure you didn't make it to the ground when you fell off. I tend to think you have lost out on this exchange, Harry. You have given everyone a clear demonstration of how at least one B'nai Brith employee handles himself. You have lied, you have defamed, and you have falsified a document to further your ends. You have also demonstrated clearly how far the CHRC and its users and camp followers will go to smear a fellow Canadian in order to further your political agenda.

Part of the reason I have to ban you, Harry, goes beyond the reasons the people who have been advising me have already given to me. I also have to worry that you could get me into legal trouble of another kind. The world people like you and Richard Warman have been trying to build would hold me responsible for allowing you to defame people on a website I help to operate. I could be sued for allowing you to put a falsified document on Free Dominion. I can't take that risk, Harry.

I don't trust you.

It's been fun, Harry. We are sure to meet again further along in the game. I look forward to it.

The 24th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Award

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1423501#1423501

SOURCE

A TRIBUTE TO THE FOURNIERS

When Mark Fournier told us almost a decade ago that one day the government would try to shut down Free Dominion and stifle our voices, we thought he was a bit paranoid.

When Mark insisted on hosting Free Dominion on an American server we felt we should humour him.

The day has come - the day that Mark Fournier predicted seven years ago when he and Connie put Free Dominion on an American server to make life more difficult for the government agency he was sure would eventually move to shut down his conservative web site.

Around the turn of the century, and millennium, Mark Fournier from Edmonton, Alberta had a dream. He felt that there was insufficient political dialogue in Canada, and that the MSM stifled open discourse and criticism of our governments and their policies. Mark felt that in particular, conservative views and commentary lacked any real outlet.

Mark spent two years posting at Free Republic, an American conservative political web site, and paid particular attention to how the website was run and why it was so successful. He felt that he could apply what he had learned by creating a Canadian version of Free Republic, and with some luck and effort, create a place for Canadian conservatives to gather to share views, debate issues, teach and learn from one another. The site might eventually become influential in political circles if he could attract enough people to participate in freewheeling political discussion.

While at Free Republic, Mark happened across Connie Wilkins, a lady who shared his political principles, and who had the computer and web site skills Mark lacked. They colluded to bring Free Dominion into being. When EdS came up with the name ‘Free Dominion’ Mark recognized it as a winner and he and Connie set about branding it as the place to go for principled conservatism.

From the outset, Mark understood that he was shaking up a cosy relationship between politicians and the mainstream media. He was also giving voice to a political group that had been effectively stifled for decades. He expected that eventually political strategists would move to stifle his web site and shut down unfettered political debate.

While Mark and Connie struggled to bring Free Dominion into existence, they kept their site on American servers in part to avoid loss of their dream if our government should move against them as they anticipated. From the outset, the freedom of expression and the need to bolster democracy with open dialogue and unfettered debate were driving forces behind the formation of Free Dominion.

For the same reason that they used American servers, Mark and Connie have refused to align themselves with any political party or movement. While it seems strange that a conservative web site would not endorse conservative political parties, there is more to conservatism than adopting a name. It was important that Free Dominion members be allowed to freely criticize their representatives. Free Dominion remains a conservative grass roots site today and it is the largest and most widely read political forum in Canada.

Political parties, including conservative parties claim to be grass-roots and to listen to their members, but the reality is that member voices are quickly lost in practice. Free Dominion gives principled conservatives a voice that is heard.

Free Dominion has remained a bastion of free speech for years, and it is with great reluctance that Mark and Connie have banished belligerents, trolls and those who refuse to adhere to site rules and objectives. Without the occasional purging of those intent on disruption, the forums would sink into oblivion.

Members who criticize Free Dominion, its web site, operations and format forget that for the initial few years Mark and Connie carried the entire cost of operating Free Dominion. They used up cash on hand, their savings, all of their credit and came close to personal bankruptcy without ever once complaining or letting anyone know how dire their situation was. They still contribute thousands of hours and every penny they can lay their hand on to fighting to keep their dream alive, to promote conservatism and to fight for our freedom of speech, unedited and uncensored by politically correct bureaucrats.

We have done fund raising for Free Dominion with limited success. We have managed to keep the servers running and improvements made to the site format. However, when our government came knocking costs soared as we had to undertake a legal defence and costs thereof. Mark and Connie chose to sell Free Dominion to a Panamanian organization to keep Free Dominion and our members safe from our government.

HRCs that target an Internet web site routinely demand access to all of the data on the web site servers. That data includes all of our sign up information and other relevant information that would allow an HRC to track individual posters. The Fourniers have carefully protected our identities for all of the time that Free Dominion has been in operation and continued protection of our members was the major factor in the decision to sell Free Dominion. The sale has protected our butts from potential HRC harassment.

When you see odd additions to the Free Dominion forums, it is because we are trying various schemes to add a revenue stream through advertising to offset some of the site operational costs. Constructive criticism is always welcome, but rude posts are just that – unjustified rudeness. Site features may come and go, but bear in mind the objective is to help pay the bills.

Mark and Connie have done their best to protect this site and most importantly to protect the anonymity of Free Dominion members – even those ungrateful users of the free speech they have fought so hard to protect.

When THE CHRC announced it was investigating a complaint against Free Dominion and Mark and Connie made it very clear the CHRC was in for a fight to the finish, Richard Warman was unable to entice the CHRC to attack Free Dominion again. Undaunted, Warman filed libel actions instead, trying to financially hurt the Fourniers and close down Free Dominion through economic pressure.

Mark and Connie have been able to protect the Free Dominion web site and protect Free Dominion member anonymity. They have not been able to protect themselves, however, and are defendants in at least two actions by self-proclaimed Nazi hunter and human rights activist Richard Warman. His is, in my opinion, an egotistical snot trying vainly to establish a reputation as a defender of political correctness and champion of offensive, thin-skinned snivellers who are themselves easily offended.

If we value our freedom of expression, if we believe that Mark and Connie should not be subjected to frivolous and vexatious legal actions for providing us with a venue in which to speak our minds, we have to get off our haunches and contribute to their defence fund. Until they can get Warman into court and expose his actions, all of us live with the threat of having the CHRC knock on our door, accusing us of hate speech and ready, willing and able to railroad us through a kangaroo court and destroy us financially without the benefit of due process or an opportunity to defend ourselves.

If you value your freedoms, join in this battle. Click on the donate button and send along whatever you can afford. We cannot watch Mark and Connie fight this travesty alone. Mark and Connie are true leaders with principles worthy of support. We cannot allow our freedoms to be taken from us without a fight.

Thank you.

WestViking

A New Low for Richard Warman - Now He's Suing a Minor

Two fascinating years in the battle for freedom

Trouble ahead for Richard Warman

Waaa! Richard Warman's coward friends hurt my feelings! [ 1, 2, 3 ]

Hot-tubbing with Warman and Levant - a Court Report [ 1, 2, 3 ]

Narrow Back has done a good job describing the start of our day.

"Even the worst criminal gets the right to documentary discovery".

"As Connie explained, one of the funniest and most bizarre moments was when Shiller started reading from Richard Warman's Maximum Disruption speech. It was amazing that he would even want to read it, but I got the distinct impression that he either had never really thought about what it says or he had not previously read it aloud. He read out Richard Warman's words:

“I’ve come to the conclusion that I can be most effective by using what I like to describe as a ‘maximum disruption’ approach. … If I think that they’ve violated the Canadian Human Rights Act, then I’ll look at all of the potential targets and file complaints against them starting on a ‘worst offender’ basis, although sometimes if I just find people to be particularly annoying this may move them up the list a bit”

At this point he seemed to realize how bad it sounded and that he wasn't doing his client any favours by reading it. Then he seemed to decide a little more might provide a better looking context so he continued with:

“The ‘maximum disruption’ part comes in because wherever I think it will be most helpful, or even if I just feel it will be the most fun..."

At this point Shiller decided to stop reading and mumbled something about it not being a very nice thing to say. He quickly moved onto something else."

Richard Warman vs Personal Privacy and Internet Anonymity

We issued this press release tonight. Please forward to your media contacts.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Landmark Case for Internet Privacy Rights - Ottawa, April 8, 2010

On April 8, 2010, a precedent-setting case regarding internet law will be heard in the Ontario Divisional Court, at 161 Elgin St. in Ottawa.

The case is an Appeal of a lower court motion decision in the case of Warman vs Fourniers and John Does. The ruling being appealed stated that the defendants were to turn over personal information such as IP addresses and email addresses for anonymous posters who were alleged to have defamed the plaintiff. The defendants' position is that online anonymity should be protected until it is clear that there is a strong case that a "John Doe" has broken the law.

People post anonymously for many reasons. They discuss politics, spiritual issues, health problems and relationship problems under pseudonyms. Revealing the true identities of the people behind these usernames is an unspeakable invasion of their privacy, and should only be done when it is absolutely necessary. It should never been done simply because someone makes an accusation of libel.

Intervening at the hearing will be the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic. Both of these organizations will be arguing that there is a duty to protect online anonymity, and that is it not addressed in the law, as it currently stands.

The issues in this appeal have far-reaching implications for people who post anonymously on the internet, and for forum and blog owners who have a duty of care when it comes to the private information of their posters.

The internet is changing the way we live our lives in Canada, and this case will be one of the first to address the changes that need to be made in our laws to accomodate new technology.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT

Connie Fournier

connie@freedominion.ca
http://www.freedominion.com.pa

Breaking -- Richard Warman on CBC re FD case Apr 16 [ 1, 2, 3 ]

Announcement: A Desperate Richard Warman ups the Ante

Announcement: What kind of a site is Free Dominion? [ 1, 2 ]

Announcement: Richard Warman Unveils a New Censorship Weapon - Copyright [ 1, 2, 3 ]

Announcement: BREAKING! Fourniers WIN John Doe Appeal!

Thanks so much to Barbara Kulaszka and the awesome intervenors at the CIPPIC and the CCLA!

Read the whole thing here:

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/appeal_ruling.pdf

Here is a one-stop summary of the actions regarding our Canadian sister site- links at source:

http://pirapoi.freedominion.com.pa/legal/home.php

I have not kept this post as current as I should have- there is something about having your second wife drop dead like the first one did

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=132803

that “concentrates the attention wonderfully....”

Our Canadian Sister site has a whole forum devoted to this issue:

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=70

But Ezra Levant says it as well as anyone:

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=148996

No more witch hunts
Persecuted sure to win reprieve from ridiculous, costly hate laws

Ezra Levant_op
By Ezra Levant ,QMI Agency

First posted: Saturday, November 19, 2011 08:00 PM EST
For 34 years, Canada has had a disgraceful censorship law that violates our human rights.

In 1977, Pierre Trudeau rammed through the Canadian Human Rights Act — an Orwellian name for a law that actually destroys real rights.

The entire law is a corruption of justice — it creates a kangaroo court, run by non-judges, that does not follow the same rules and procedures of real courts, but has massive powers to punish and fine people who aren’t politically correct.

But the worst part of the law is Section 13, the censorship provision. Section 13 creates a word crime — the crime of publishing or broadcasting anything that can cause hurt feelings.

Back in 1977, that law was focused on telephone lines and answering machines. But 10 years ago, it was expanded to include the Internet.

So it even covers things like whatever you post to your Facebook page. Section 13 says “it is a discriminatory practice ... to cause to be ... communicated ... any matter that is likely to expose a person ... to hatred or contempt.”

So if you publish anything on Facebook, or on your cellphone voice message, that might make one person feel bad about another, you’ve just broken the law.

Truth is not a defence to being charged with “hate” under Section 13. Fair comment is not a defence. Religious belief is not a defence. Telling a joke is not a defence. The law has nothing to do with truth or the right to have an opinion. It’s about whether or not you’ve offended someone or hurt their feelings.

Section 13 is an insane law. So un-Canadian, so contrary to our traditions of liberty that go back centuries, inherited from the United Kingdom.

It’s no surprise that this law had a 100% conviction rate in Canada for the first three decades of its existence. This federal law was copied by provincial legislatures. B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan all have censorship provisions, too.

I found out about this the hard way. In February of 2006, I published a magazine called the Western Standard. We reported on the major news story that month — riots around the Muslim world purportedly in response to some pretty banal Danish newspaper cartoons of Mohammed. Those riots killed more than 200 people, and we wanted to show our readers what all the fuss was about. But a radical Muslim imam in Calgary named Syed Soharwardy complained to the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

He said I violated his human right not to be offended. He wanted to ban the cartoons, and his hand-scrawled complaint even bitched about the fact that I dared to publicly defend my right to do so.

I laughed off that little nut-bar. I mean, get a life — you’re in Canada now, not Saudi Arabia. But to my surprise, the Alberta Human Rights Commission took his complaint and ran with it.

The Alberta government, using its provincial version of Section 13, prosecuted me for 900 days, with no fewer than 15 government bureaucrats and lawyers. It spent $500,000 prosecuting me, before dropping the case — and leaving me with my $100,000 legal bill. But sometimes freedom wins a round.

Last week, the federal justice minister, Rob Nicholson, stood up in the House of Commons and answered a question about Section 13.

The question was about a private member’s bill, put by Brian Storseth, an MP from northern Alberta. Storseth has introduced a private member’s bill, C-304, to repeal Section 13. But private member’s bills have little chance of passing without the endorsement of the government.

But Nicholson did endorse it. He called on all MPs to support it, too. Bill C-304, Storseth’s bill, is now effectively a government bill. And with a Tory majority in both the House and Senate, this bill is as good as done.

No more witch hunts by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. No more persecuting their political and religious enemies.

This is the best thing the Harper government has done in five years. Freedom is on the march.

Just FYI, FWIW?

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=150905&p=1676829#p1676829

Re: BREAKING - Warman’s incredible shrinking Doe lawsuit

WestViking wrote:Good to see I am still in fine company.

Indeed.

I ran into my lawyer- the former Magistrate for the Southern Federal District- a few weeks ago. Former City Attorney.
His motto still is “Sue the Bastards...”
We still have that quaint Bill of Rights down here.
That First Amendment stuff. And the truth still is a defense.
Feel free to try this idiocy before any Southern jury. Or in any Southern court.

Our Canadian Sister site is making progress slowly against the forces of censorship.

Here’s a timeline by one of Free Dominion’s stalwarts:

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1695647#p1695647

You know what I always tell you:

“Use the links...”

Our Canadian Sister site has been under attack since 2007— the same-minded shills we are seeing here, now, under Duh!1’s “rule” were there a few years ago, using the force of “the gooberment” to silence any dissenting voices.

They are finally waking up and getting their act together.

Will we? Stay tuned- it’s about to get “interesting...”

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=156252&p=1724644#p1724644

Re: Free Dominion Internet Defense Fund Initiative

Unread postby Maikeru » 11 Jul 2012 00:30

WestViking wrote:Here is a piece I wrote in April 2008 which will add some perspective for newer members:

As a longstanding member of FreeDominion, I read WestViking’s opinion piece when it was first mounted on FreeDominion. It is an excellent cyber-accord of past events - and prescient of future.

At the time, a recent (March 25, 2008) CHRTribunal Hearing of the long running (launched Mar 25 2004) CHRC/Warman v. Citizen/Lemire Complaint had heard CHRC Complaint investigator Dean Steacy testify that:
“Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value”

Eight months earlier, in July 2007, FreeDominion had been notified of the CHRC/Gentes v FreeDominion Complaint, and were alternately astonished and appalled that a government agency under the aegis of CPC Attorney General Vic Toews had the temerity, let alone the right, to ‘investigate’ a civil online discussion forum in Canada.

As WestViking has noted, the CHRC/Gentes Complaint led FreeDominion members into the labyrinth of the ‘human rights’ hate-speech agency, and many members devoted countless hours to investigate CHRC Section 13.1, and the people involved with that ‘solution in search of problems’.

The first thread announcing the Complaint, titled Human Rights attack on Free Dominion generated 1478 posts and 215,248 views from July 18, 2007 to August 3, 2008, when FreeDominion was notified that the Complaint had been withdrawn.

As well, and to be expected in an online discussion forum, several other threads sprang from the CHRC/Gentes Complaint, which were scrutinized by, and served as the basis for a ‘cyber-defamation’ suit by Richard Warman against the Fourniers of FreeDominion, and 8 ‘John Does’ in November of 2007.

Of note is Warman referenced posts by 35 different FreeDominion members in his scattergun legal writ, which drew 252 posts and 60,556 views - in mute testimony to the chilling effect of ‘cyber-lawarfare’.

Every stance taken by our hosts - Connie and Mark Fournier - has proven, over time, to be beneficial to the advancement of freedom of speech in Canada.
That Canada needed to have freedom of speech protected from abusive legislation, acted upon behalf of our own government, is astonishing.

Canada need not be a ‘just’ and ‘progressive’ society, as mandated by batchelor PM Trudeau all those happy Liberal conventions ago.

Canada doesn’t need ‘human rights’ bureaucracies to hold hearings and hand out penalties in a vain attempt to concoct a society built upon legislation - when it’s been obvious for quite some time that people can’t follow ten commandments - let alone thirteen.point.one...

Links at the source- use them.
Speak now- or be forever silenced.
“If you can’t speak freely?
You aren’t really free...
...are you?”