John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 2

EDIT:  Dr. Baglow has been kind enough to inform me that I made a mistake in my reporting of when he joined the NDP.  Indeed, he was inspired by Bob Rae’s victory in Ontario and joined then – but later, he was so disgusted by the political policies that he tore his membership card up.  That is an important distinction, as it completely negates any accusation that Bob Rae’s wife’s religion/nationality had been any kind of a factor in his decision to leave the NDP under Bob Rae’s leadership.

First and foremost, please, see the write up of ‘John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 1, part 1′ for the details and the warnings.  Short form:  using a borrowed tablet to blog till my laptop is fixed, can’t even highlight, so cant’ put in links and such, but, will come back and do so once I’m ‘back in business’.  So, this will be brief and, temporarily, not linked to supporting materials.  My apologies.  Also, these are my observations and opinions and as I am not legally trained and not a human behaviour professional, all of this content ought to be treated as very highly imperfect opinions and nothing more.

Also, if anyone can add to this account and/or correct any of the many errors I am bound to make, please do so!

Day two of this ‘FULL TRIAL’ was held at the Elgin St. Court House in Ottawa on Tuesday, 25th of March.

It started punctually, but, going on the experience from Monday, I thought I had a bit of leeway and did not enter the courtroom until a few minutes past.  By this point, Dr. Baglow was testifying about having received his doctorate, chuckling about how he spent more years in school than he expected – but I did not catch what that doctorate was about.

He went on about his CV, his jobs, his political affiliations over the years, and so and so.  It was very interesting – and quite a lot of content, as he was asked to quote something from page 6 of it.

For example, Dr. Baglow testified that he considered himself ‘more or less’ a ‘man of the left’ and was a member of the New Democratic Party (NDP) while a student at McGill. Then, he was fascinated by the Communist party (though he never actually joined), but the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia cooled him somewhat (my words, not his) and he returned to the NDP.  He had stayed with the NDP for much of the time since:  except, of course, for when Bob Rae had run it:  he had torn up his membership card then), but returned thereafter.

Aside:  this is very, very interesting….one of the things Connie Fournier said in her opening statement was that a B’nai B’rith member had (rightly or wrongly) accused Dr. Baglow of anti-Semitism…and Bob Rae has, throughout his career, claimed that he had been persecuted by ‘some segments of the population’ because he is married to a Jew.  I’m sure it is a coincidence, as Dr. Baglow asserts contempt for anti-Semites – and Bob Rae’s politics are enough to turn anyone off, regardless of whom he may or may not be married to.  And while I can see how this co-incidence could, potentially, be abused, as my son is fond of saying, co-incidence is not evidence of causality.  And, in all my (admittedly limited) interactions with Dr. Baglow, I have never detected any anti-Semitism (as almost all Europeans, I am part Jewish myself, so I’m touchy on this).

Another, completely irrelevant, aside:  seeing the tanks roll down our street in ’68 when, as a toddler, I climbed up a sofa and a dresser to look out the window, is one of my earliest childhood memories…

Dr. Baglow was as well groomed as ever, wearing a dark suit/shirt, testified he became a civil servant and then joined PSAC (a public service union) and, eventually, became an executive VP thereof.  In this capacity, he had lobbied for all them policies that I consider to be evil – like, for example, the universal child care thingy.

Indulgently personal aside: I grew up in the Socialist Worker’s Paradise and, as such, was institutionalized (during the daytime) from toddlerhood till gradeschool, in a ‘universal daycare/kindergarten’ system.  I am a survivor of this evil and I fully understand its workings and impact, from the inside.   As such, I swore that I’d rather sell myself on the streets than permit such an evil to ever touch MY children!!!

So, when Dr. Baglow willingly testified that  he had fought FOR such evil institutionalization of innocent children (and seemed proud of promoting what, in my never-humble-opinion, is ‘government enforced child abuse’), I kind of lost my composure for a bit and had a hard time hearing the next bit of testimony.  My apologies.

This is about where the ‘interesting’ bits ended – at least, in my never-humble-opinion.  All the next whole bunch of testimony was about what is the ‘blogosphere’, how to spell the word (neither the judge, nor the person transcribing the trial seemed to know the spelling), and so on and so on and so on.  The only ‘colourful’ bits I gleaned fro this are that Dr. Baglow’s lawyer is a frequent commenter on ‘Dawg’s Blag’, even though he and Dr. Baglow have wildly (and chucklingly so) divergent political opinions.

Perhaos one thing I ought to note is that after Dr. Dawg’s lawyer explained one of the finer points of the blogosphere culture,  he mentioned Omar Khadr.  And, since he ‘got into the mode’ of explaining ‘everything’ to the judge, he tried to explain to her who Omar  Khadr was….Amused, the judge replied that though she might not be up on the latest internet jargon, she’s not an idiot….my wording, not hers, intended to capture her body language, not words.  (Note:  later, the judge demonstrated she knew exactly what a ‘hyperlink’ is, and thus may be tiny bit less of a luddite than she postures as….  To me, this is a very positive thing, indicating she ‘gets’ what she knows and does not know, both, and is not afraid to ask questions!

Actually, I had been quite impressed by Madam Justice Polowin, J.:  she takes copious notes (Dr. Baglow even slowed his lawyer down a bit by gestures to ensure she gets all the note-taking in).  My own experience is that if I hear something, I may forget it on perhaps even not ‘process’ it correctly…but if I write it down as part of ‘taking notes’ – I can usually recall it very accurately, without needing to refer to the notes themselves.  Having observed Madam Justice Polowin, J., I am wondering if her note-taking serves a similar function because if she writes it down, she seems able to quote it without difficulty…

As best as I can determine, the rest of the morning’s testimony had been taken up by defining terms like ‘thread’ and technical details about who has editorial control over posts and comments and site meters and such…

Of interest to other bloggers may be some little tidbits, otherwise unimportant….

  • Dr. Baglow testified that though his readership fluctuates, it averages about a thousand unique readers per day
  • he currently has 3 co-bloggers who can post, but not have moderating control
  • he described a very different ‘startup’ and ‘functions’ experience from mine – but that is to be expected as I have used different platforms than he has
  • he deferred to his tech guy, Mr Bows (sp?) for all tech details, said not knowledgable himself
  • he uses SiteMeter
  • he does not permit racist, anti-Semitic or any kind of hate speech comments on his blog
  • he did 2 takedowns/apologies (with qualifications, making it seem like Ezra Levant’s claim against him was both a persecution for an innocent and understandable misunderstanding of legalese as well as an ‘over-reach’…and the other was a simple misunderstanding of the facts, rather than a misstatement)

‘The term ‘trolling’ got discussed a lot and had been, in my never-humble-opinion, woefully poorly defined and misrepresented to the court – though, it seemed to me, this was not done as a deception but as a deep and true misunderstanding of the very philosophical basis of the concept of ‘trolling’ and the positive, beneficial and, frankly, necessary (for freedom of thought), function of an ‘internet troll’.

At a point just shy of 11:25 am, Madam Justice said she had received a request from her court staff that they would like a little recess –  and we were adjourned for 15 mniutes.

Oh, how things can change!!!

As we all filed back into courtroom 21, Dr. Baglow’s lawyer became concerned over the redness in the face of Dr. Baglow, who suffers from high blood pressure.  While Dr. Baglow protested and insisted some of this redness was due to a sunburn he had just suffered on his holidays to Cuba*, his lawyer was not taking any chances.  All the lawyers and self-reps met in the judges’ chambers while the court clerk took Dr. Baglow’s pulse, declared it way too high, and called the judge with her finding.

On this note, the hearing was adjourned on medical grounds for a bunch of hours….and, no knowing for how long it would go on for following such  a long break, and considering the start of a migraine in me…well, to make a short story even shorter, I went home to try to recover.  My understanding is that tomorrow morning will be taken up with more background testimony and we’ll not get to any of the juicy/substantial stuff until tomorrow pm…





18 Responses to “John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 2”

  1. M L Says:

    Post online at:

    Day 2 of the Baglow v. Smith & Fourniers Defamation Hearing

    Baglow testifies and hearing delayed due to medical problems

  2. ML Says:

    Day 3 of the Baglow v. Smith & Fourniers Defamation Hearing: More Baglow testimony and alleged spoliation of evidence

  3. Delbian Says:

    Your initial inference that Baglow left the NDP because Bob Rae’s wife is Jewish is not only low and idiotic, it contradicts the fact that he was an NDP member in the late 1960s to mid-1970s when both federal and Ontario NDP were led by men who were not only married to Jews but were Jewish themselves.

    • xanthippa Says:

      Actually – when I made that connection, it was because I saw the potential for a smear campaign and wanted to head this off before it began: confronting it before it had a chance to gain traction and stating my honestly held view that Dr. Baglow is NOT an anti-Semite.

      Dr. Baglow has helped me in tis in talking to me and letting me know that he actually joined the NDP when inspired by Bob Rae’s win in Ontario – but also left under Bob Rae’s leadership due to the evolution of his politics. I have now updated the post to reflect this (sorry, due to my borrowed and clunky tech, I am having some difficulties, but I do hope to put clarifications in up ahead of the erroneous facts, thus being honest and upfront about my errors without trying to hide they occurred).

  4. Delbian Says:

    Incidentally, if you are “touchy” about anti-Semitism, what are you views on Barbara Kulaszka, a lawyer who has defended some of the most notorious anti-Semites in Canada?

    • xanthippa Says:

      In the common-law tradition, the defendant gets to have a lawyer to present their position in court.

      I am NOT a lawyer precisely because I would fin it difficult to defend a person whose views are demonstrably wrong. BUT – our legal system would break down and not be able to exist is people (if you are willing to classify ‘lawyers’ as ‘people’) were not willing to take up the cause and defend the indefensible. It must be hard and I know I could not do it, but, it is that much more admirable that people like Barbara Kulaszka, whom I have spoken to socially and who, I am totally convinced is NOT an anti-Semite herself (and I DO ‘test’ people on this in bits of social conversation as a matter of fact), who can put their personal distaste for their clients’ political views in order to make our judicial system work – well, I have respect for their professional conduct and their dedication to our adversarial system of justice, where they are required to step outside of their personal opinions in order to make the system function as designed.

      I know I a not brave enough to do this, but I understand the professional dedication to the ‘common law’ and ‘due process’ that Ms. Kulaszka has that she would risk her own well being in order to facilitate the due process of the law in our bellowed land.

      That you even have to pose this question is a testament of her dedication to the wisdom of our legal system, regardless of the personal consequences to herself!

      • Delbian Says:


        This comment had been censored after I was notified that it was factually incorrect and actionable.

      • xanthippa Says:

        What do her personal views (which, by the way, I have have no idea of) to do with her legal services, exactly?

  5. Delbian Says:

    Indeed, what are you views on Marc Lemire whose blog you link to and who has a long and documented history of anti-Semitism himself and used to run with the Heritage Front, a notoriously racist and anti-Semitic gang?

    • xanthippa Says:

      My opinions on this topic are on the record and well known: any and all forms of ‘hate speech’ MUST be permitted because they must be confronted, ridiculed and proven wrong.

      If ‘hate speech’ is permitted to go ‘underground’, it cannot be sanitized, ridiculed and all that stuff…rather, unexamined and unrefuted, it will be free to gather ignorant followers who have no access to opposing points of view.

      I have linked to much worse, much more hate-filled blogs than Mark Lemire’s: for example, I have, on more than one occasion, linked to ‘Dawg’s Bawg’!!!

      Let’s be clear here: ‘politically correct’ speech is the WORST form of hate speech ‘out there’: as Tarek Fatah calls it, it is the ‘racism of lowered expectations’.

      Yet, in the marketplace of ideas, I HAVE linked even to this deeply ‘politically correct’ (and thus ‘hate-speech’ filled site) in the name of free exchange of ideas!!!

      As somebody somewhere said: I may despise your opinion, but I will defend to the death your right to express it and everyone else’s right to link to it and/or to ridicule it in the most vulgar terms possible!!!

    • Maikeru Says:

      Delbian Says:
      Indeed, what are you views on Marc Lemire whose blog you link to and who has a long and documented history of anti-Semitism himself and used to run with the Heritage Front, a notoriously racist and anti-Semitic gang?

      By golly that’s terrible. What a scoundrel.

      To their credit, ‘Heritage Front’ did not force CHRAct Sec13.1 onto Canadian society, and factually, the group was ‘infiltrated’ by a CSIS ‘mole’, who was one of the two founding members.
      Scary stuff indeed.

      Mr. Lemire was a Canadian citizen who, in 2003 attracted one of the many Sec 13.1 complaints by Richard Warman LLM , and has since then been attending various legal Hearings arising from the complaint for a period longer than both World Wars combined.

      Beyond that, any reasonable person is quite capable of discerning whether Mr. Lemire’s recounting of the proceedings has any racist under/overtones.

      This bald attempt to invoke ‘self-censorship’ aptly illustrates the mindset of adherants to CHRAct Sec 13.1 .

      • xanthippa Says:


        When I first met Mr. Lemire in court, he simply introduced himself as ‘Mark’ and I did not put the two together…but his accounts of the trial are, according to my own notes, quite accurate and factual.

        As for ‘smear by association’ – the collectivists truly don’t understand what an individual identity is, which is why they keep doing this.

      • Voice of Reason Says:

        That is good of you to give neo nazis some credit, it could also be confused with sympathy for them.

        Lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas Mak.

      • xanthippa Says:

        Spoken like a true collectivist!

      • Maikeru Says:

        Voice of Reason Says:
        That is good of you to give neo nazis some credit, it could also be confused with sympathy for them.

        Here in Canada, the only ‘new national-socialist workers’ reside in the nation of Quebec, wherein arose a most worrisome group of nutters operating as ‘FLQ’ triggered use of Canada’s ‘War Measures Act’.

        I note that you’ve chosen the ‘sympathy for the Devil’ line of reasoning, and remind you that the Primest Minister of the English-speaking world made a pact, in June 1941, with arch-fiend Joe Stalin to defeat another arch-fiend with whom Churchill had been dealing since 1939.

        You need to recalibrate your pseudonym in light of actual events.

        Voice of Reason Says:
        Lay down with dogs, you wake up with fleas Mak.

        Maikeru says:
        Lay down with dawgs, wake up with fez, M’boy.

      • Voice of Reason Says:

        Maik, what is with the right wing obsession with WW2?

        Everything thing in life cannot be compared to WW2. Please stop.

      • Maikeru Says:

        Voice of Reason queried:
        Maik, what is with the right wing obsession with WW2?

        Let’s review our exchange of opinions
        I said:
        “To their credit, ‘Heritage Front’ did not force CHRAct Sec13.1 onto Canadian society,…”

        To which you replied:
        “That is good of you to give neo nazis some credit,…”

        You may not be aware of the fact that the ‘Nazi’ Party was active during the period from roughly 1923 to 1945, when the ‘Nazi’ Party was extinguished.

        Not, ‘reduced to single-digit seats in government’ as were, say the BC NDP led by Dosanjh, or the PC’s led by Campbell, but eradicated, as in ‘made extinct’ – literally and forcefully.

        So when you use the expression neo-’nazi’, as you did reflexively upon reading the words ‘Heritage Front’, you are illustrating what has been inculcated into your personal understanding by repetition, rather than by factual evidence, as you admit to personally knowing nothing about the ‘Heritage Front’.

        You’ve been duped, alongside many other Canadians who have neither the time nor interest to study such matters, as to how a group which at peak ‘popularity’ may have been able to field a bowling league came to be the scape goat necessary to advance ‘human rights’ hate-speech law.

        Even the name ‘Heritage Front’ gives pause for consideration, as one of the two founding members was in fact a ‘Canadian Security Intelligence Service’ mole, and may well have been the person who chose that title.

        As a double entendre, it serves brilliantly to associate ‘heritage’ with evil, while at the same being truthful by hiding in plain sight the fact that it was a ‘front’ for Canada’s longest running security ‘sting operation’ – four decades to date.

        But I digress.
        You claim that there exists a ‘right wing obsession with WW2’.

        A healthy interest in WW2 is a good thing as it remains in ‘living memory’ and deals with one of the most traumatic periods of world history.
        Hence, one can still hear first hand accounts from those who were there, and survived to bear witness to actual events – if one has any interest in doing so.
        As well, there exists a tremendous body of material to draw from in examining specific details of the period from 1935-1945.

        What you will come to understand by studying that period is that Nazism and Bolshevism drew from the same pool of adherants, which is why they could not co-exist, and in fact were deadly enemies.

        Note that I don’t use ‘left wing’ or ‘right wing’ as those terms suggest that political alternatives existed, which was not the case in those arenas where either flourished.

        The words ‘right wing’, when used as you do, are another indication that you hold opinions by rote rather than reason.
        It’s time to ask yourself how you came/come by the opinions you express when you marry ‘Heritage Front’ and ‘Nazi’.

        Voice of Reason opined:
        Everything thing in life cannot be compared to WW2. Please stop.
        I’m pretty sure you didn’t intend to deny the Holocaust by that statement, but these days you want to avoid such statements and ‘go along to get along’.
        Just be aware that the Holocaust was enabled by citizens accepting as fact that the word ‘Juden’ meant ‘evil’.

        Unfortunately, FreeDominion archives are currently available only to a limited audience, so I’m unable to refer you to commentaries I’ve posted there which might advance your understanding.

        What I can do is point you to an account of the history of ‘Heritage Front’ by a teenage runaway who survived membership in ‘the most powerful racist gang to hit Canada since the dirty thirties’.
        While you’re checking that out that link, look around the rest of the site, which is entirely obsessed with putting the ‘neo’ in ‘neo-nazi’, and note the blogsites which they provide links to in the sidebar.

        I apologize, Xanthippa, for the sidetracking here, but the link provided immediately above is actually germane to the topic under discussion.

      • xanthippa Says:

        No apology needed – I am enjoying the exchange…

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: