Richard Warman vs Personal Privacy and Internet Anonymity
April 8, 2010
161 Elgin Street
Ottawa, Ontario
On April 8, 2010 in Ottawa a Divisional Court Justice will hear an appeal of a disclosure ruling in the Richard Warman vs The Fourniers and John Does 1-8.civil case. At issue is whether the Fourniers, operators of the Free Dominion website, should be compelled to disclose confidential information about the website’s members to the plaintiff, Richard Warman. Last year Superior Court Justice Stanly Kershman ruled for the plaitiff in a motion he brought forth seeking information he hopes to use to identify the John Does who posted anonymously in Free Dominion’s political discussion forum. Four of the eight John Does have already been identified by the plaintiff and have been added to the underlying defamation suit brought forth by Warman.
The defamation case itself will by necessity bring forth a number of public interest issues such as freedom of speech, political commentary and opinion but it will also venture into several areas where our laws are outdated by internet communications. The internet has given us a means to communicate that was inconceivable when our current defamation laws were written and those laws are now in need of legislative upgrades. Until those legal updates are made though we will have to fight for our internet anonymity and personal privacy in the courts.
This appeal of the disclosure ruling of Kershman is more important than the case from which it grew. There are now privacy issues at stake that didn’t previously exist. Outing someone’s internet alias can have far-reaching effects that should not be on the table in a minor civil squabble. Because of the serious privacy issues surrounding this appeal of Kershman’s disclosure ruling, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic will be intervening. This is good news for those on the freedom side of the debate.
Nothing will bring justice in our courts and action in our parliament like public interest and participation in these cases. If you are near Ottawa and can get the time to go to the courthouse on Elgin Street please do so on April 8, 2010. This is an important battle in the ongoing contest to protect our freedom and it should be witnessed by the public.
See you there!
Apparently, the time has not yet been set – but the Fourniers will be at the Courthouse by 9 am.
Update: the attack occurred not in downtown Ottawa, but just on the other side of the Ottawa river in Ottawa’s twin city, the Gatineau, PQ. This area is still within sight (and walking distance) of both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Parliament buildings. BCF has the Michael Coren interview with Nick Bergamini.
Nick Bergamini is a student at Carleton University and active in student government.
“Quickly, we both responded that yes we were Zionists. All of a sudden we were surrounded by 10-15 men who began to shout at us in Arabic. We tried to back out and run away. All of a sudden, I was struck in the back of the head. I’m not sure if it was a fist, a rock or a pipe but it left me dazed and bleeding.
We quickly ran back to the bar and stood beside the bouncers. The crowd of anti-Israel thugs dispersed.
About 10 minutes later, assuming that it was safe, we began to walk home. We were walking through a parking lot when a car pulled up next to us. The driver shouted “I fucking hit you, you Jew.” We stood our ground. Quickly we had three guys around us. We were able to push them away. As the cowards that they were, they retreated. Then I heard, shouts of “Open the trunk!” One of them opened the trunk and I saw glistening in the street light the reflection of a 12-inch machete. “Fucking Jew,” he shouted. I began to run for my life as he was only 5 or 6 feet away. I ran, and as I looked back, I saw the long shiny blade slicing through the air about 12 inches from my neck. I ran as fast I could and, thanks to my grade 9 track and field training, got away. People who were around the scene said the blade came within inches of my neck.
Question: This happened in the club district, downtown Ottawa. At 1:45 in the morning, this is hardly an abandoned or ‘quiet’ part of town – being so close to the University of Ottawa campus, there are usually quite a few people about! The Ottawa Police usually have a ‘presence’. It’s their job!
So, I am curious to hear their side of the story: how come these guys are not arrested yet?
OK – so Nick Bergamini and Mark Klibanov got themselves beaten up and bloodied.
OK – so some guys with a machete chased them, trying hard to decapitate them.
Goodness knows, we all loose our tempers, some times!
A much more dangerous crime occurred in Ottawa that night!
They were engaging in hate speech – right in the middle of a crowd!
Do you realize just how many peoplemighthave had their feelings hurt?
How many might have been traumatized: by hearing there were 2 Zionists in our midst?
How do the police expect us to be able to sleep tonight? We are a city – nay, a community – traumatized!
But no! Now these two Zionists crop up! Right in the middle of the City!
They even freely and openly admit they are Zionists – and through the admission of their very existence, they traumatize a whole crowd!
Just think of those poor thugs – they must really have had their feelings hurt! They were so traumatized, they got their machete out and went after the Zionists!
This is really, really terrible! These two Zionists have provoked these poor guys so much, they might never calm down from it and suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder for the rest of their lives.
Yet, Nick is obviously still free to write this up for his facebook page! Writing down all this self-incriminating evidence – how he admitted openly that he was indeed a Zionist!
So – how long do YOU think it’ll take the Ottawa Police to arrest Nick Bergamini and Mark Klibanov for their hateful speech!?!?!
And the Ottawa Police have still not arrested them… Sheeeeesh!!!
Actually, the ‘Lenny Bruce’ comparison works well – in some ways…
October 4th, 1961: Lenny Bruce performed a stand-up comedy routine (during which he tended to ‘riff-on-the-fly’) at a night club in San Francisco. He was promptly arrested and charged with violating Section 311.6 of the Penal Code of California – the clause which claims that banning ‘obscene speech’ is a ‘reasonable limit’ on ‘free speech’.
May 22, 2007:Guy Earle performed a stand-up comedy routine (which he adjusted to talk back to some hecklers in the audience) at Zesty’s in Vancouver. He was promptly charged with violating Section 13 of the Human Rights Code of Canada – the clause which claims that banning ‘hurt-speech’ is a ‘reasonable limit’ on ‘free speech’.
Yet, like George Carlin, I suspect Guy did not expect such a vicious censorship attack form ‘the left’…
And – yes, we are banning ‘hurt speech’!
By now, the very people in charge of protecting human rights fail to recognize that the ‘right to be offended’ is essential in any healthy society! Instead, they seem to be under the unjustifiable impression that there is some ‘right NOT to be offended’….silly bunnies…
Punishing people for saying things that offend is not just silly, it is contrary to the fabric of our society!
It was not justifiable when Lenny Bruce and George Carlin and Richard Pryor were persecuted for words that offended some within their audience and it is not justifiable when Guy Earle is persecuted for using words that offend some within their audience…
When Lenny Bruce and George Carlin were charged for saying stuff people found offensive (and, yes, regarded ass ‘dangerous’ to ‘morality’ the ‘fabric of society’), they faced an actual real court: one where their rights as citizens who are innocent until found guilty were respected. Guy Earle – well, he is not that lucky.
One where the investigators actively search out ‘thought crimes’, demanding ‘intentions’ are as actionable as ‘actions’.
One where the defendant, if found innocent, has no means of recouping the cost of his/her defense…which can run into tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars.
One where the ‘process’ of being investigated and prosecuted is the punishment itself!
Even though the fateful night when Guy Earle talked back to his hecklers in Vancouver may have been almost 3 years ago, the ‘trial’ (it’s more of a semi-star-chamber thing than a real trial) is only taking place now. After all, it takes a while to financially exhaust the HRC’s victim properly prepare the case!
It ended a day early, due to Mr Earle’s inability to pay for a flight to Vancouver to defend himself in person and his lawyer’s decision to withdraw from the proceedings after pseudo-judge Heather MacNaughton, Chief Commissar of the British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal”, opted to ignore the BC Supreme Court’s ruling on potential jurisdictional overreach and carry on with the trial. It remains to be seen whether the defence’s actions were the right thing to do.
‘The ‘right’ thing to do”…
The right thing for WHAT???
Let us consider the implications of withdrawing one’s defense from the HR Tribunal: unless I am mistaken (and I am certainly no legal expert), this means he is forfeiting his right to appeal any ruling they may pass against him. And, once passed and registered with a real court, an HRT ruling is as legally binding as if it had been issued by a court.
Among past rulings of various HR Commissions, lifetime speech bans have been know to be included….hardly something conducive to making a living as a cutting-edge comic!
Yet, it was not until after people like Lenny Bruce, George Carlan and Richard Pryor got their asses (the term seems appropriate, given the topic) tossed into jail that ‘people’ woke up – and began to fight against being oppressed by their own governments.
Last week, I had lamented what had happened when a bunch of thugs were permitted to use threats of violence to cancel the planned speech by Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa. While the condemnation of the thughs (both the students who threatened violence and the provost who had whipped them up into a frenzy) and of Alan Rock, the president of U of O has been very well covered, the criticism of the role the Ottawa Police played (or, rather, were either unable or unwilling to play) was not.
Resisting any temptation to enforce the law, Ottawa’s finest exemplified Canada’s definition of moral leadership by observing neutrality between lawful and lawless.Coulter later wrote the police “called off” her speech because they couldn’t guarantee her security. Interesting, if true. Will it start a trend? Will police call off property rights at the scene of robberies-in-progress? “Look, lady, it’s just a cash register. If they want it so badly, how about letting them have it?”
My own attempt to state this, phrased as a letter (and sent, among others, to the Chair of the Ottawa Police Services Board – the civilian body in charge of supervising the Ottawa Police) has been much, much clumsier. The Chair – Mr. El-Chantiry (whom I had had great respect for) has sent me back a very brief reply, telling me in no uncertain terms that it is not the job of the Police to police.
His full response – along with my reply letter to him (sent just as the Easter long weekend began, so he really has had little or no chance to reply and defend his position) were the subject of my last post, found here.
The reason I mention this?
Aside from the obvious one, denial of freedom of speech,there is another connection. In the comments to that post, CodeSlinger and I got into a bit of an extensive discussion about what happened, how, why – and what the best remedy is. CodeSlinger suggests that it was wrong for Ann Coulter to permit her speech to have been canceled: some things are worth fighting for, even if one must put himself or herself into potential danger of injury or arrest.
What does Mr. Earle plan to do – should the verdict of the BC HRT be unreasonable? Oppressive? Will he continue to behave in accordance with his innate rights, instead of submitting to the unreasonable intrusion of quasi-legal busibodies?
If he does, he will be arrested and his ass will be tossed into jail…
Is Mr. Earle showing he has the courage to be the next ‘George Carlin’?
My main point of was that it is inappropriate for the police in general, and Ottawa Police in particular, to dictate (through either direct action or through inaction) who does or does not have the freedom of speech!
Mr. El-Chantiry – the Chair of Ottawa Police Services Board – was the only one to reply. Here is his response – in full:
Hi Ms. Belaire,
This event was not cancelled by the Ottawa Police. This was a University of Ottawa event. Please contact them for clarification.
thank you for your prompt – if brief – reply to my letter of concern. I will be posting it on my blog.
It has now been a full week and neither Mr. O’Brien, the Mayor, nor my Councilor, Mr. Hunter, have replied. So, I do appreciate that you, sir, do care!
Still, your letter did not address my concern…
If my poor wording had misled you into thinking I was complaining about insufficient security at the University of Ottawa event where Ann Coulter had been invited to speak, I apologize and clarify: the University of Ottawa did indeed provide sufficient security to ensure the people attending the event (all of whom had to pre-register) did not breech any laws or bylaws. No problems or complaints there.
It was regarding the failure to provide sufficient ‘supervision’ and/or security at two additional events – both protest demonstrations (one opposing, one supporting Ann Coulter’s right to speak) – that my complaint is about. Neither of these two outdoor demonstrations were organized by Ann Coulter, her sponsors or the University of Ottawa.
This would be comparable to, say, you hiring an entertainer to come to your home for your child’s birthday party….and, for some reason, this entertainer had earned the wrath of some people who gathered outside your home to protest this entertainer’s presence. Would it be your responsibility to provide the ‘supervision’ and ‘security’ at the protest gathering outside your home, against your will?
Your response would suggest that yes, it would be the homeowner (or the event’s organizer) – not the protest’s organizer – who is responsible…
Definition: For our purposes, a demonstration is a spontaneous or planned collection of people using the road allowance as a place to express an opinion. This type of event can be stationary (confined to a specific location) or one which moves from one point to another (commonly referred to as a “march”). Both types of demonstrations are subject to the criteria outlined in this section.
This seems clear enough: both of the protest demonstrations were indeed ‘demonstrations’, as defined by the City of Ottawa. As such, they were subject to very specific rules and regulations.
The City of Ottawa imposes very significant limitations (I might even argue these rules and restrictions are ‘unreasonable’ and ‘counter to common-sense’ – but, as long as they are the law of this land, we must all abide by them… ) on both organized and spontaneous demonstrations. Through imposing these limitations, the City of Ottawa unequivocally claims the sole jurisdiction – and thus responsibility for – over all outdoor demonstrations – for the Ottawa Police alone!
Police supervision is required for a demonstration.It is the responsibility of the demonstration organizer to contact the Ottawa Police to arrange for supervision. The demonstration organizer may be responsible for any costs associated with the provision of this service.
Let’s take it one sentence at a time:
Police supervision is required for a demonstration.
This one single sentence states that it is the police – the Ottawa Police – who has the sole responsibility for the ‘supervision’ of any and every ‘demonstration’ within the City of Ottawa.
What is more, this one sentence also quite unequivocally denies the University of Ottawa the right – yes, the very right – to ‘supervise’ any ‘demonstrations’ which take place outside the walls of its buildings!
This one sentence, Mr. El-Chantiry, also puts the failure to provide adequate security at these ‘demonstrations’ squarely onto the shoulders of Ottawa Police – the civilian oversight board of which you, sir, are the chair!
If this is insufficient to convince you, let us consider the next sentence of point #9 of the City of Ottawa bylaw:
It is the responsibility of the demonstration organizer to contact the Ottawa Police to arrange for supervision.
If nothing else, this clearly states it is the organizers of the demonstration and the police – not the organizers of the event which sparked it – who are responsible for the ‘security’ at the demonstration! And, it places the responsibility solely onto the Ottawa Police.
On the night of the ‘Ann Coulter’ fiasco at Ottawa University, the Ottawa Police were either unable or unwilling to fulfill their part of our social contract. Therefore, it is essential that the Ottawa Police Services Board investigates this failure in governance and ensures that it does not occur again.
What is even worse, the context in which this happened – forcing the cancellation of a speech by a speaker whose views are known to be unpopular with many labour unions, including the one Ottawa Police officers belong to – opens the Ottawa Police to charges of ‘selective policing’ to further the political interests of their labour union. I very much hope this is not so! Still, this issue must also be thoroughly investigated, if only to remove the cloud of suspicion which is currently marring the reputation of the Ottawa Police even more that the simple failure to act did.
Mr. El-Chantiry, please, find out what happened, and let me know. Fix the problems – and restore the good reputation of the Ottawa Police!
Thunderf00t, like ZOMGitsCriss, is a free speech advocate on the internet (specifically, YouTube). He is a scientist with a mostly left-wing political bend….but, what he says about the freedom of speech is something I definitely agree with.
It is only when people from all bits of the political spectrum will agree to unite in the fight to preserve our fundamental rights and freedoms that we can ever hope to succeed… So, let’s start building some bridges: I am sure that you can agree with what the spirit of what Thunderf00t says in “Is Islam a Hate-Crime?’.
ZOMGitsCriss is somewhat of a presence among the ‘pro-free-speech’ crowd on YouTube…
She is a part of what I think is a small but growing international group of young people (most of whom are quite ‘left-wing’ – though, I have no idea where Criss stands politically) who are fighting the anti-censorship, pro-free-speech attitudes and policies which are beginning to creep onto the Internet and which threaten the impartiality of this medium to carry all kinds of information and all kinds of messages without outright censorship or some of them nebulous, non-transparent machinations through search-engine algorithm-manipulation which seem to make some information on the internet easy to find while making other ‘stuff’ so hard to find, it is, for all practical purposes, inaccessible!
Anyhow….
When I saw that the latest video of this Romanian free-speech activist mentions Ezra Levant, Mcleans (the Mark Steyn thingy) and Fitna – well, I though I ought to share it with you.
So, without further ado, here is “Islam is so wonderful and sciency and peaceful”:
Lat night, Ann Coulter’s speech event thingy at the University of Ottawa was canceled at the last moment…. Here is the letter I sent my City representatives, asking for some answers…and actions:
Dear sirs!
I am writing to you, Mr. O’Brien, as my Mayor.
I am writing to you, Mr. Hunter, as my elected representative at the City of Ottawa.
And, I am writing to you, Mr. El-Chantiry, as the Chair of the Ottawa Police Services Board.
If you have not had the opportunity to hear about this already, last night, the City of Ottawa has abdicated its duties, responsibilities and obligations to provide ‘core services’ in a very public manner, which is likely to draw a very large amount of international criticism to our beautiful city. And – rightly so!
Let me cut through the niceties and get to the core of the issue:
Last night, 23rd of March, 2010, an American media pundit – Ann Coulter – was scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa.
Sponsored by International Free Press, Ms. Coulter had been booked to speak at the University of Ottawa last night. Even prior to her entry into Canada, M F. Houle – a provost at the University of Ottawa – had sent Ms. Coulter, a letter warning her ahead of time to self-censor her expression, else she will face prosecution. While this letter has received international condemnation (and, Ms. Coulter is apparently considering legal action of her own against M Houle due to this letter), this condemnation of Ms. Coulter for a presumed pre-crime is nowhere as explosive as what had happened last night.
According to Macleans, the ‘police’ had – at the last moment – refused to provide an adequate security response to this event and, as Ms. Coulter is reported to have said, ‘pulled the plug’ on the event! Yes – the University of Ottawa was the primary organizer, and had the primary responsibility. Still, Macleans is reporting that it was the Ottawa Police – not campus security – who canceled the event, claiming they could not provide sufficient security.
Since when is it the role of the police to decide who is – and who is not – permitted to speak at a previously booked, properly vetted event? And – let’s be clear on this: had the Ottawa Police been capable of supplying sufficient security, the event organizers would not have felt ‘threatened’…
The job of the police is to provide security: the event was well publicized in advance and any failure to staff it sufficiently enough, to not be able to provide adequate security – especially following the publicity from Ms. Coulter’s Monday night’s appearance at UWO, is an admission on the part of the Ottawa Police Services that either they failed to plan – or they planned to fail!
Either way, the result is unacceptable (to say the least)! When the police are the ones permitted to decide (through failure to adequately prepare ahead of time, fear of public reaction, or for any other reason) who may or may not be permitted to exercise our Constitutional freedoms, to dictate the tone of public debate – well, the implications are unspeakable!
I am an immigrant, who came to Canada seeking a better life of freedom and opportunity. Opportunity for myself, and, now – my children. I was forced to flee an oppressive police state, where peoples’ rights and freedoms could only be exercised when and where ‘permitted’ by an oppressive, totalitarian regime. And, I came to Canada because this WAS a great place!
Now – seeing police shut down events at the last minute because they chose not to provide adequate protection for a legal event where they presumed ‘unpopular speech’ would occur – well, it brings back nightmares! Very bad nightmares!
Nightmares of a place where only those whose words were approved ahead of time were permitted to speak.
Nightmares of a place where the police could choose what people had rights – and what people did not.
Nightmares of a place where only one point of view was permitted to be uttered in public: one which the police approved of – whether their reasons for approval were ideology or convenience!
Now – Ottawa has become such a place… Shame on all of us for permitting things to come to this!
As I said earlier, I am no fan of Ms. Coulter. Frankly, I find her to be an offensive git. And, I am a member of one of those ‘unpopular minorities’ this silly person really does not like – a lot – and is quite vocal about it…
But, that really is not the point.
A person’s a person, no matter how silly….and if THAT person’s civil rights can be stripped away at the whim of the police, so can mine – and yours!
This is a serious blight on the reputation of our city – as well as a serious threat to all our civil liberties. I would like to know what each one of you, gentlemen, will personally do to both find out where the failure occurred (and ensure the individuals responsible do not remain in the City’s employ) and what you yourself will do to ensure no such abrogation of civil rights and liberties can ever again occur in our fair City of Ottawa – ‘University campuses’ or otherwise!
Goodness knows, I am not a fan of Ann Coulter. My dad thinks she’s cute – I’m unconvinced. Rather, I find her offensive, ill informed, un-objective and, well, not very bright.
Still, a person’a a person, no matter how brash!
This week, Ann Coulter is going to be embarrassing conservatives in Canada by speaking at 3 Universities. You’d think that after the ‘Bash-a-Jew’ week most Canadian Universities held in March, they’d let up a bit on the anti-Jewish rhetoric on campus…
But no, no such luck!
Ms. ‘Jews-are-unperfected-Christians’ Coulter has been invited to demonstrate her ‘selective intelligence’ at 3 Canadian Universities this week.
And why not?
Why should ALL the anti-Semitism at our Universities come exclusively from the left of the political spectrum? A little right-wing anti-Semitism brings ‘diversity’ to those institutions we entrust with shaping our young, bright minds!
Still, I do think that it is great that she gets to give her speech, do her bit. I may not like her views – and diss her mercilessly for her open contempt for anyone not Christian, but, she has just as much right to speak her mind (if you can stretch the meaning of the word ‘mind’) as you or I or anyone else. Freedom of speech must be given the greatest possible precedence because, just like with an infected cut: when you hide odious ideas out of sight, they don’t just ‘go away’ – they fester.
Therefore, anything short of immediately and directly inciting violence (notice I did not add ‘hate’ there) must be permitted. If – and only if – the speaker had already said/written things which were ‘slanderous/defamatory’ or in breech of a law in another way (revealing state or trade secrets, etc.), legal action (criminal and/or civil) can and should be taken against him/her. Not before!
What is interesting, though, is the reaction from the Universities themselves!
While all care was taken to ‘protect’ the left-wing ‘JewsZionists-are-baby-killers’ anti-semites who were left-wing and/or Muslim from any criticism of their rhetoric and from putting limits on their freedom of speech, making sure nobody was permitted to say anything which might hurt their feelings as they call for the murder of citizens of Israel, the right-wing Christian anti-Semite has been threatened with legal action – should she not self-censor her words sufficiently to some unspecified level – before she even got here!
A Houle in the moral fabric of Ottawa University – François Houle, Vice-recteur aux études / Vice-President Academic and Provost, Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa, 550, rue Cumberland Street, Ottawa (ON) K1N 6N5, téléphone / telephone : 613 562-5737, télécopieur / fax : 613 562-5103, e-mail: francois.houle@uottawa.ca – that Houle, to be specific, has sent Ms. ‘Jews-have-to-obey-religious-laws-but-Christians-don’t-because-Jesus-will-Fed-Ex-their-souls-right-to-heaven’ Coulter, bullying her with the threat of lawfare if he does not approve of her message.
I’m not sure if you have picked up on my subtle hints: I think that Ms. Coulter is a personification of much of what is wrong with the ‘right wing’. Voices like hers drown out sane voices, like, say Thomas Sowell, and cause many, many people to reject any and all messages coming from the right’. But…
When I first read this – that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) is retaining a lawyer who is attempting to intervene in a private lawsuit between two citizens, and that the CHRC may have been giving quite a lot of legal advice to only one of the parties in the lawsuit, making us the taxpayers pick up the tab, I was angry. And, I started to write this up as exactly that.
Ezra Levant exercises his freedom of speech to ridicule another lawyer, Mr. Vigna. Mr. Vigna sues Mr. Levant for damages to his reputation. A court will decide whether the line between ‘fair comment’ and ‘slander/libel’ has been crossed: and so it should be. The CHRC ought to butt out and it is wrong of it to meddle and to pursue its vendetta against Mr. Levant simply because he dared to stand up to them.
In other words, I was angry – but focused on this ‘Serene Queen‘ case.
But, the more I thought about it…
The CHRC is an arm of the government. As such, any lawyer retained by the CHRC and acting on the CHRCs behalf is, legally speaking, an agent of the state.
Now – IF I understand this correctly – this agent of the state has just disregarded proper legal procedures (not filing for an intervenor status prior to the case and therefore being bound to give the defender access to what they will argue, so the defender can prepare a defense) and has inserted herself into the proceedings, approached the judge and attempted to influence the course of the court case!
Please, consider the implications!
An agent of the state can influence the courts, without following proper legal procedures!
Is this not a thing that only happens in states so corrupt that there is collusion between the courts and the government?
Our judiciary is there as a check on the power of the government – to ensure the government is not able to circumvent the constitution and rob citizens of their rights and freedoms. Is it not? I am not a lawyer, but, this is what we were taught in our civics class…
So, for the government agent to be able to CIRCUMVENT follow proper law and procedures and all that, and INFLUENCE A JUDG in case where the government is not an interested party (as in, they are not doing either the suing or the defending) – that is a really, really dangerous thing!
This is much bigger than just some government agency wasting taxpayer dollars.
This could very well constitute an attempt by the government (through this agent) to corrupt our courts!
As such, I think we need an immediate police investigation of this!
By now, most people have probably seen the video of the Brit elected member of European Parliament, Nigel Farage’s lambasting of the unelected President of the European Council, His Holiness Van Rompuy (pronounced ‘rumpy’). If not, it is available at TheReferencFrame, JustRight, and many others wonderful places.
Farage is being told that he, as the elected official, has no right to criticize Von Rompuy. Here on Alex Jones (OK – Alex Jones is a bit of a nut, but, every now and then, he does have good interviews), Nigel Farage explains how this is a victory of bureaucracy over democracy:
Part 1
Part 2
And, just to put it into perspective, take a peek at this: “Behind The Big News: Propaganda and the CFR”. (Hat tip: TheReferenceFrame. Lubo Motl said he thought it sounded a bit conspiracy-theorist-like, so he fact-checked it – it appears to be on the up-and-up.)
Just as it looks like the whole poitical/financial world is going down the toilet, we are being told that to be eco-friendly, we ought to be flushing our loved ones who pass away down the toilet! (Just imagine the exorcisms we’ll need the next time the Ottawa homes’ basements fill with untreated sewage – once we begin to pour human remains ‘down the drain’! Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath-water…)
MooseAndSquirrel has the reducing-humans-to-poop-sludge eco-cremation story, along with links to that Global Warming Alarmism classic movie, ‘Soylent Green’ (yes – the reason things are so desperate in movie-dystopia is because of anthropogenic Global Warming!). Spooky: the eco-cremation process, as described in M&S’s links, covers people in silk and dissolves them in a liquid…. JUST like in the movie!
It almost makes you wonder if the conspiracy theory nuts are less nutty than we give them credit for…
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 