On the weekend, I posted my little speech from the Freedom School.
My good friend Elsa’s much longer – but most excellent - speech is here.
I was part of the panel on Political Correctness: in my never-humble-opinion, ‘Politically Correct speech is an example of the worst kind of ‘hate speech’.
Some of my co-panelists had quite excellent things to say, quite worthy of your attention. (And, not all of my co-panelists’ speeches are out yet – editing takes time – but, here are the ones that are.)
Please note that Valerie Price, in her speech, calls attention to the plight of Free Dominion:
And, here is Janice Fiamengo, a professor at Ottawa University whose Ottawa speech last Friday had experienced such heckling…
Aside: at that conference, Dr. Fiamenco and I had a most excellent discussion about the book ‘Reading Lollita in Teheran’ – we both loved it and I would recommend that book to everyone!!!
All the caveats from part 1 (more or less forming most of part 1) apply. Please read them….DLDR: borrowed clunky tech and limited internet time, cannot highlight (thus link etc.) – will update once my computer is fixed. Also, these are all jut my highly imperfect personal observations and opinions and ought not be treated as anything more than that.
An account of Day 1 can be found at The FreedomSite Blog.
I have been struggling with how to write up this part, because things got quite sensational at some points and I am quite terrified that if I repeat what I believe to have heard in court, I will open myself up to being sued because as I understand the current state of Canada defamation laws, truth is not a defense there, either, as a person is presumed to be guilty and malicious and if the words are ‘spoken maliciously’ then their truthfulness is irrelevant.
In my online persona, I have chosen to emulate Xanthippe, the wife of Socrates and THE proverbial nag: I am good at nagging, so I thought I’d go with it. But, as Xanthippa, I try my best to channel Xanthippe with all her vitriol and sharp tongue – that’s part of the fun of creating an online persona: it is not you you, but that persona you, so you can say what the you you might, but in a different way, more in line with the persona you are attempting to channel. (Remember, if it were not for anonymous speech, the Federalist Papers could never have been published and the USA would still be a Crown possession.)
Something that Xanthippa says with the persona-appropriate vitriol which defines her and signifies no more than a reflection of her nature could, quite easily, be misinterpreted as ‘malicious’ when all I am doing is role-playing…presenting my opinion, but with a satirical twist. And satire does not come across too easily in the courtroom!
Aside: there will be more personas I am developing in a different, non-written online project, but more about that later. (But, if anyone has an old but nice wig they’d be willing to donate to that effort, I would be eternally grateful.)
Back to the trial: first on the order were some legal tidying-up thingies and once these were out of the way, Madam Justice Polowin esplained that she is a bit of a luddite and barely knows how to use email…and has never ever read a blog. A ‘clean slate’ she called herself. I am not convinced this is the best background for this case, as it may get very technical, but (and I am jumping ahead in time somewhat) she took copious notes of everything and whenever she needed to understand a point, she not only asked for a clarification, she actually repeated her understanding of the point and asked for confirmation that it is accurate. That, in my never-humble-opinion, is a good thing.
Another point of interest was that motion was introduced that any potential witnesses are to be excluded from the courtroom until after their testimony and cross examination, so as not to be influenced by what they hear and see before they testify. All parties agreed and a nice-dressed gentleman (Mr. Bow, Dr. Baglow’s IT guy) got up and left the courtroom.
Now the opening statements.
Mr. Burnet, Dr. Baglow’s lawyer, went first. He seems like a competent lawyer and he assumed that reasonable, avuncular style that must be effective because it is affected by so many lawyers (good and bad). Personally, I find that particular form of arguing patronizing and irritating at best because the Aspie in me considers it to be a form of manipulation. And we, Aspies, are very allergic to being manipulated: we see such manipulation as using a subtle form of shaming in order to disguise the lack of convincing evidence. This opinion of mine was only strengthened by Mr. Burnet’s nervous habit of scratching the inside of his left ear with the arm of his glasses.
But, that is my perception of his mannerisms and not a reflection on Mr. Burnet’s case because a lot of lawyers affect that style – and a lot of lawyers will try to act as if they have a weak case in order for their opponents to underestimate it and not prepare adequately. And I am sufficiently poor judge of human body language that I would never venture to guess if he was really nervous or pretending to be nervous as part of his courtroom strategy.
If I understood Mr. Burnet’s opening statement accurately, it boils down to a few major points (and I am paraphrasing, at times quite heavily, as my notes are incomplete and I cannot but channel Xanthippe – so, any vitriol you detect below is ‘satire’ and, at times, dark sarcasm, and not malice whatsoever in any way, shape or form):
Aside: up to this point, Mr. Burnet had very considerately explained all the technical terms and jargon patiently answered the many detailed questions the judge had asked. He kind of got into the habit of talking for a bit, then looking up and asking if any explanations were needed. So far, so good. Now, Mr. Burnet delved into how Mr. Smith and his client had gotten into a heated debate about Mr. Baglow’s glaringly hypocritical position* on the re-patriation of Omar Kadr…and he looked up to the judge and asked if she had heard of Omar Khadr. Madam Justice Polowin smiled amusedly and said that even though she may be a luddite, she does read the papers…
It is not exhaustive nor, obviously, word for word, but I hope this captures the spirit of the opening statement by the plaintiff’s lawyer.
Next up was Barbara Kulaszka, the lawyer representing Mark Fournier.
Honest declaration of bias: I have met Ms. Kulaszka and observed her in the courtroom. In person, I think she is brilliant and very, very nice. I have read some of her writings and been deeply impressed by them – insightful, well researched, documented, eloquently phrased and any other praise you wish to heap upon her head. I have, however, been less impressed by her past verbal performance in the courtrooms: that Barbara Kulaszka, however, did not show up today!
I saw passion and fire – and it was excellent! Not just in her opening statement (sorry, jumping ahead again), but she was up on her feet, objecting, arguing passionately and eloquently. In other words, I liked what I saw!
I may not have captured everything, but here are some of the highlights of her opening statement (again, as with the rest of all my writing, paraphrasing, satire, sarcasm, hyperbole and all that, are in play)
There may have been more, but this is what I ‘caught’.
Next came Connie Fournier’s opening statement.
I will not report on what it contained because I am not as brave as Connie and I am afraid that if I told the truth of what was said in public court, I would get sued and loose the family home and my ability to provide a home for my children. Let it suffice to say it included allegations of statements made by Dr. Baglow regarding justice Annis as well as several other, un-named judges which made the judge’s jaw to, quite literally, drop.
Next came Roger Smith’s opening statement.
He was extremely eloquent and, in my never-humble-opinion, totally brilliant.
First, he explained that while his legal name is Roger Smith, his birth name is Roger O’Donnell and he is widely known under that identity in professional circles, specifically in the weather forecasting circles and in Ireland.
Next he explained (to a ‘knowing’ and ‘understanding’ head-nodding of the judge) that by defining his client as ‘proudly left wing’ and the Free Dominion forum as ‘extremist right wing’, the plaintiff (through his judge) had made this a case that is NOT about defamation, but about one’s position on the political spectrum…and, in his opinion, the court of law is NOT the appropriate place to rule on which political opinions are permissible and which ones are not.
By the plaintiff’s lawyer’s opening statement alone, this case is not about defamation of an individual but about which political opinions are legally permissible and which political opinions are against the law…
He was, by far, the most eloquent of the bunch - so much so that I stopped taking notes and listened to him (regardless of the judge’s annoying interruptions) with ever growing respect and admiration (and I do NOT say this lightly!!!).
Next, the judge asked the CCLA lawyer, who did not have the ‘right’ to make an opening statement, to briefly sketch what the CCLA position is, which is what he did, in 5 points: all of which boiled down to ‘we want the law to evolve with freedom of speech in mind and something as ludicrous as this case ought to be tossed out of court…
Actually, it was quite brilliant: the young man (oh, I feel so old) argued their position logically and eloquently and really, really well, bringing in some of the phrases Dr. Baglow’s lawyer used and demonstrating just how ridiculous and absurd those arguments were, without needing to resort to any manipulative means or methods.
I think I love the CCLA!
OK – this is MY highly personal and admittedly prejudiced perception of what went on in court – please, do not treat is as anything more than my highly imperfect and admittedly ignorant opinion of the proceedings.
* * *
* I consider this position to be highly hypocritical because I cannot believe that an intelligent man, with a doctorate to boot, could possibly honestly think that using a colloquial definition of some words which are identical to a ‘legal jargon’ label with a very, very narrow and specific legal meaning, applying them in the colloquial sense to a person who glaringly does not qualify for the legal definition of that term, and then, wrapping himself in the tattered cloak of self righteousness, demanding the legal protections for that person for which he would only qualify had he satisfied the ‘legal definition’…and branding anyone who fails to buy in to his glaringly flawed argument as evil and unfeeling and somehow less than human. Sorry, the man I see in front of me seems much too intelligent not to grasp exactly what the difference between the colloquial and legal definition is, and how Omar Khadr does not qualify for the UN legal definition of ‘child soldier’. Sure, some of the ‘unwashed & uneducted masses’ could have fallen prey to such glaringly obvious propaganda, but not an intellectual with a doctorate!!! In the absence of stupidity/ignorance, the only other possible explanation, in my never-humble-opinion, is hypocrisy…for partisan political ends.
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….
‘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…
On January 31st/February 1st 2014, the Freedom School conference was held in Edmonton, Canada.
My friend Valerie Price had been on the same panel focusing on Political Correctness as I was.
Here is her speech:
Stefan Molyneux has done a series of these ‘the truth about…’: they are a bit long, but very informative. So, next time you’ll be doing some house chores, put it on full blast and listen!