‘Betrayed!’ – a book by Connie Fournier

“F” stands for “Free Dominion”.

That is what Dr. Michael Geist wrote in his ‘internet freedom countdown’.

“F” could just as easily could have stood for “Fournier” – as in Connie and Mark Fournier, who have done more for the freedom of speech and freedom on the Internet than any other Canadians.  And this time, I am not using hyperbole!

20 years to the day and in the very building I had signed my marriage license, I came to observe and blog about a court case involving Free Dominion:  Connie and Mark Fournier.  It was a civil case involving anonymity on the internet and both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Dr. Geist’s Electronic Frontier Foundation were intervenors in the case.  Having heard of the latter two and considering any court case they both thought important enough to intervene in to definitely have a significant impact on my own internet and speech freedoms, I came to spectate.  (OK – I have to admit – I am a Geist ‘acolyte’.)

While following this particular case and many, many more, I came to deeply admire Connie and Mark.  Over the years, they have made significant impact on the evolution of our speech and internet rights, always from a deeply principled perspective.

Now, before you get the idea that I agree with Connie and Mark’s political views, let me stop you right there.  They are social conservatives who come from a Christian perspective.  I am a libertarian, just this side of turning into an-cap. And a militant ignostic as well as a registered Kopimist.

Despite the greatly different views we hold on a myriad of topics, I came to like and deeply respect the Fourniers.  Even when we discussed topics we disagreed on, they were respectful and principled and debating things with them has always been a pleasure.

Full disclosure:  the one principle both the Fourniers and I completely and totally agree on – and it is perhaps the most important principle of them all – is the importance of freedom of speech.

I came to understanding the true and essential need for freedom of speech as the cornerstone of our civilization and the internet as the vehicle through which it is anonymously and effectively delivered because I was not only born on the wrong side of the Iron Curtain, I was also born the daughter of a political dissident.  Perhaps because of this, I learned early on that without the freedom to criticize and ridicule political and religious ideologies and figures, you lose the means of defending all your other rights and freedoms. And while I don’t know the route that brought Connie and Mark to the same conclusions, it is a demonstrated fact that they have not only lived by that principle, they have sacrificed all to preserve freedom of speech in Canada (and, by extension, all Magna Carta countries) and have put their financial and physical security – their very well being on the line to protect anonymous speech (in their case, on the internet), which is so very crucial in preventing the abrogation of free speech in public spaces.

OK – I have now sketched in the background so that you, my dear reader, are aware of what I know, think and whatever prejudices I may have regarding  my review of Connie Fournier’s new book:  ‘Betrayed!  Stephen Harper’s War on Principled Conservatism’.

One more thing before I start:  here is a most excellent review of the book by Jay Currie (and, no, I did not read his review before I had made my own mind up).  The comments are excellent!

The Review:

‘Betrayed!  Stephen Harper’s War on Principled Conservatism’ by Connie Fournier is a truly scary book.

Connie Fournier is both intelligent and eloquent and has the skill to line the little pearls up, one by one, till they form a brilliant necklace – or an effective noose…

Yes, I saw a part of the journey that Connie so accurately describes in her book – but I truly only saw a small part.  Yet, step by step, event by event, convoluted happening by convoluted happening, she lights the path and puts forward some very convincing evidence that points not just to the corruption of our ‘progressive’ leaning bureaucracy but also demonstrated how the Harper ‘iron fist’ is affecting things behind the scenes (whether through direct action or through carefully selective inaction).  Limited by the legal rulings still muzzling her, she succeeds in getting the important points across in a logical, accurate and believable manner.

This book has bought into focus the consistency with which the Harper government has sought to control, regulate and stifle internet communication.  The book stops before the Trans Pacific Trade Treaty  –  again, a Harper government ‘baby’, the leaks about which prove the veracity of everything else written in the book.

Yes, I would recommend it as a read – even though I disagree with Connie’s conclusion that the Green Party would be the natural place to cast a protest vote for.  No – I think the Pirate Party of Canada is a much better candidate, as their abid opposition to Bill C-51 is coupled with opposition to copyright consumer right abuses that the TPTT imposes as a supra-national law.  If there is no Pirate Party candidate in your riding, please, do consider running for them.  If my health were better, I most certainly would do my best to try to run for them!

But, again, I digress…

This is an important book to read for everyone who understands the crucial role freedom of speech plays and who would like help navigating the legal jungle of bills and attempts to deny it to us, the citizens – especially as it relates to the electronic medium.

Whether neo-Con or not, this book will open your eyes to the systematic process that is already in place to persecute political foes of the party in power and is written in such an accessible way that even non-techies will understand the implications of the proposed muzzling legislation coming from Harper’s ‘Conservative’ government.

Everyone of my relatives and friends will be getting a copy from me!


When fear-mongering about Anthropogenic Climate Change just does not rake in enough attention any more

First, it was Global Warming.  Back in the 1920’s.

Then, it was Global Cooling.  Back in the 1970’s.

Then it was Global Warming – again, in the 1990’s.

Then it was Anthropogenic Climate Change – when the scientific predictions on effects of carbon-forced Global Warming did not actually happen, thus disproving (or, as scientist say, falsifying:  meaning it is conclusively proven to be false) the hypothesis of carbon-forced Global Warming.

Then it got out that much of these predictions were intentionally faked by a group of scientists who got money and fame from their false claims….

…and then people smartened up and began to tune out all this noise.

And here, I truly mean people: neither the politicians, journalists and their sycophants who would loose a lot if they admitted they got suckered in, nor the Cultural Marxists who saw the whole man-made doomsday scenario as an excellent opportunity to impose their brand of social engineering onto the rest of us.

But now that most people are ignoring the scientists and the journalists and only obeying the politicians because we have lost any semblance of accountability by elected representatives to their constituents in our society, what are poor scientists looking for the next grant-train to do?

How can they bully people into giving them more and more money when the people are  no longer scared?

Gotta go bigger!!!

At least, that is the only plausible explanation I can think of for this Mail Online Headline:

Will a volcanic eruption destroy humanity? Scientists warn that world must begin preparing for explosive global catastrophe

  • Scientists at the European Science Foundation estimate there is a 5-10% probability of a large explosive volcanic eruption by the end of the century
  • They warn it could have global impacts that will devastate human society and send humanity back to a state that existed pre-civilisation 
  • Experts have called upon world leaders to spend £2 billion a year to monitor volcanic activity and to increase the ability to respond
Yeah, sure – give ‘the scientists’ 4 Billion Dollars – or a volcano might just blow up in your neighbourhood, yeah, and you want to be prepared, right?
Because giving the money to scientists instead of leaving more of it in the taxpayer’s pocket so they can have reserves and be prepared for most kind of catastrophic events just makes much more sense:  to those ‘scientists’.
Shame, such shame that some ‘scientists’ have turned into such blatant shake-down artists!

Mark Steyn files more court documents

As most of you know, Mark Steyn is a defendant in a lawsuit by the possibly Canuckaphobic (judging by the disproportional number of Canadians among the victims of his lawfare) and reflexively litigious Dr. Michael Mann.

If you’ve been following this (among all the other ‘defamation’ cases), you might be interested in this filing opposing the dismissal of counterclaims.

And, to get you into the mood, here is ‘Hide the Decline – Part 2’ for your listening (and viewing) pleasure:


Update on the Dr. Mann vs Mark Steyn lawfare case

It’s been dragging on for a while, with no resolution in sight.

A few people who do not usually follow this debate have recently become aware of it and have asked me what it is all about.  So, for them – and any others of you who are interested – here is a very brief recap of the story so far,

Here is the post that started it all:  Football and Hockey

Here is a humorous intro to Dr. Mann.
Here is what I wrote about it when it first started:  Is Dr. Michael Mann Canuckophobic?
Here is some historical & factual info from Steyn:  The Fraudulent Nobel Laureate
And here is some current commentary:  The Martyrdom of Mark Steyn
And Steyn, in his words:  The One Party State of Climatestan
Hope this helps!
After all, when the pro-government-policy side of a ‘debate’ is the only one permitted to be discussed, we know we have a problem.  And for all those claiming ‘scientific consensus’ – think Galileo…
And never forget that for Galileo’s voice to even be heard, Giordano Bruno had to first be immolated to pave the path!
Let’s hope that Mark Steyn will be remembered as the Galileo, and not the Giordano Bruno, of our generation.

John Stossel: Climate change and global greening

Also – beware the unprecedented ‘smart storms’!

IPCC moves to plug its ‘Secret Santa’ leak to Donna Laframboise

Donna Laframboise is an investigative journalist who has investigated the IPCC’s claim that their findings are based solely on peer-reviewed scientific literature.  She has found that far from basing their findings on solid scientific studies, the IPCC heavily relied on so called ‘gray literature’, composed mainly from activist propaganda with a dash of government policy papers thrown in for good measure.

Disclosure:  I was one of the citizen reviewers who volunteered to go through the IPCC’s references as part of the citizen’s audit Donna Laframboise organized and then reported in her book, ‘The Delinquent Teenager Who Was Mistaken For The World’s Top Climate expert, and am acknowledged as such in the book.

What Donna Laframboise did was unique:  rather than challenge the science behind the IPCC’s  report or its conclusion, something which is difficult and open to dispute, she took the testable statement made by the IPCC regarding the sources on which they drew their conclusions.  And, she proved that the IPCC lied about the sources on which they based their very report.

Since then, she has been speaking out about IPCC and the untrue statements she could prove they had made, in addition to publishing her book and blogging about the issue.  It is therefore not surprising that a whistle-blower from within IPCC itself had sought her out to leak some information to her regarding the next IPCC report.

Donna Laframboise has gone public with this material yesterday, January 8th, 2013, by publishing a long post on her blog ‘No Frakking Consensus’ as well as a guest post on WUWT (Watts Up With That, world’s leading ACC-skeptic site) with links to the data from the three memory sticks with information from the so-termed ‘Secret Santa leak’.

Today, she had been served with legal notice by IPCC to take the data down or else…

So, if you’d like to get a hold of the data (I know I’ve been busy reading over it – fascinating stuff), better download it fast…or look for some of the many torrent sites distributing the information.  Like Donna’s post concludes:

But really, the cat is out-of-the-bag. The damage is done. Thousands of copies of these documents are now out there. They can’t be recalled.’

You go, Donna!

Exposing corruption in unaccountable bureaucracies which increasingly try to regulate our freedom out of existence is the duty of each and every one of us!!!

UPDATE:  The good IT fairy has made the leaked documents into a searchable database.

A bit more on the ‘hockey-stick graph’…

Since Dr. Mann’s new hobby of suing people has brought up the subject of the ‘hockey-stick graph’ – specifically, whether its creation was honest incompetence or straightforward fraud valid ‘climate science’, I wend digging through the interwebitudes for some more background material.

Note:  Dr. Mann is not suing National Review and Mark Steyn for comparing Penn State’s whitewashing of both the pedophile and himself.  Not at all.  He is suing them for having called him a fraud.  And the reason he is suing Dr. Ball is because he said that Michael Mann belongs in State Penn, not Penn State…  Therefore, I am not suggesting either of these things, in any way, shape or form.

There is so much material out there, it is difficult to pick the best few – the ones that best document the events.  However, here are a few front runners:

This post opens with:

‘There wasn’t any hockey stick prior to the year 2000.

The 1990 IPCC report showed that temperatures were much cooler than 800 years ago.’

It then supplies graphs – of what was the historical record prior to 2000, and how that all changed as the ‘hockey-stick graph’ took shape.

It even points out which bits were done by Phil Jones’s team, which by Michael Mann’s team.

Chock full of graphs, showing the ‘before’ and ‘after’ figures.

So, how did this become ‘accepted science’?  What ‘studies’ confirmed it?  How did it make it into the IPCC reports?

That is an interesting story in its own right – and has been meticulously pieced together in this post:

From the intro:

The story is a remarkable indictment of the corruption and cyncism that is rife among climate scientists, and I’m going to try to tell it in layman’s language so that the average blog reader can understand it. As far as I know it’s the first time the whole story has been set out in a single posting. It’s a long tale – and the longest posting I think I’ve ever written and piecing it together from the individual CA postings has been a long, hard but fascinating struggle. You may want to get a long drink before starting, and those who suffer from heart disorders may wish to take their beta blockers first.’

Here, meticulously documented, is the story of how the ‘hockey-stick graph’ went from being just one paper, submitted by one scientist, to ‘scientific consensus’ and unquestionable holy writ.

It documents questionable behaviour by the scientists involved, the editors of the journals and the IPCC folks, none of whom appear to be following their own guidelines of professional conduct.

  • the IPCC itself…

While we are on the topic of IPCC itself, it is important to note that while they loudly touted the unfortunate hockey-stick graph for quite some time – before quietly removing it without an explanation  – it is important to understand that this is not a body of leading scientists:  it is primarily a political body, formed by a political organization, through a politically correct process, to promote its own political agenda – with a few scientists tossed in for window dressing.

One person who has documented IPCC’s sloppiness (if not downright corruption) and lack of adherence to its own rules is the Canadian journalist Donna Laframboise.  Here she is, from a tour in Australia:

Much of the IPCC process was dominated by ‘climate modelling’ – computer programs that try to predict what will happen based on what has happened.  On the surface of it, this seems valid:  the problem is in how these models were constructed.  It seems they are, to put it mildly, highly flawed.

Another fundamental problem for the IPCC reviewers was that they were only permitted to comment on the studies which were pre-selected and presented to them for comment.  This selection process was highly sensitive – but handled by the behind-the-scenes bureaucrats.  There were many instances where scientists spoke up, saying the material they were presented with was not representative of the current work in the field and asked to be permitted to include a broader spectrum of studies.  These requests were summarily dismissed by the apartchicks running the show.

But even as hamstrung as they were, when scientists actually commented on errors/omissions/inaccuracies in the drafts of the reports, their comments were dismissed, the drafts were not corrected and the objectionable conclusions or downright errors made it into the final reports.  Cough, Himalayan glacier, cough…

That is not a sound scientific process….

While I was scouring the interwebitudes looking for supporting links, I came across an interesting site:

Bookmark this site – it catalogues peer-reviewed, scientific papers (by category) which refute the warm-mongering narrative.  Over a thousand of them.

It would b easy to just sit here are read them all – but then, this post would never get fin…