Free Dominion ‘copyright’ case finally won – for good!!!

This is most excellent news!!!

As I reported earlier, when the court ruling for the Fourniers and Free Dominion came down, the ruling had indeed been in their favour.  However, Richard Warman had appealed and so, having won, their federal case dragged on…

Today, the appeal had been dropped.  From Free Dominion:

‘Today we received notices of discontinance from the National Post and from RWarman in the copyright case that was set to be heard in the Federal Court of Appeal this coming Wednesday!

We were self-represented in this this case and we won in the lower court but R ichard W arman decided to appeal and the National Post lawyered up and joined in against us.

We fought hard and were so blessed to get two great interveners. The CIPPIC, who also intervened in the privacy motion in the John Doe case, and the CCIA (and American advocacy group that represents Google, eBay, Facebook and many other heavy-hitters).

On the eve of the trial, after all was prepared to go ahead, our opponents just dropped out with no explanation.

We are now entitled to costs on this case, and it is OVER! Great case law has been established, and we have one less lawsuit to think about.

Just a few more weeks and we hope to cross the Baglow one off the list, too!

Onward and upward! 8) 

Connie and Mark’

One down, so many more to go…  So, while celebrating, why not pop by their legal fund fundraiser and give them some help with the rest of the battles they are fighting on all of our behalfs!

 

P.S. – I wonder if the EU ruling earlier today had anything to do with the dropping of the appeal…

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.

Who are the ‘moderate Muslims’?

There is a number of questions people have been asking me about Muslims.  I’ve tried to answer some before, but, upon further reflection, there are a few I’d like to re-visit.

Here, I would like to explain why I consider some Muslims to be ‘moderates’ – but not others.

Yes, there are some who do not see the distinction, pointing out that to follow Islam, one would have to skip large bits of the Koran in order to practice a ‘moderate’ version of the faith.  True.  But that is also true of the Bible – Jesus famously claims to bring not peace, but the sword.  And it is not that many generations ago that my paternal grandmothers’ relatives were burned alive by the Jesuits for practicing the ‘wrong’ branch of Christianity.

In other words, it is not the dogma itself that makes a person a ‘moderate’:  rather, it is the bits of the dogma that one takes and ‘owns’ and lives by that makes one a ‘moderate’ or not, regardless of the faith/religion (theistic, atheistic or non-theistic alike)/doctrine/dogma.

When it comes to Islam, I see the divide as being between those Muslims who demand official recognition of Sharia (Islamic jurisprudence) and those who do not.

What is Sharia?

Books have been written on this, but, in short, it is ‘Islamic Law’.  There are 4 main Sunni and 4 main Shia schools of Sharia and they do indeed differ in some minor aspects, but, on those bits that they all agree, the ‘Islamic Law’ is unalterable.

Sharia evolved over several centuries.  Scholars studied the Koran, the sayings of their prophet Muhammed and stories about the life of the prophet Muhammed as told by his companions.  None of these were written during the life of Muhammed himself, but rather when many of his companions began dying off and the rest of the Muslims were afraid that his teachings and traditions would be lost, the ruler at the time had all the companions write down all they remembered, gathered all the materials, weeded through them to pick out the ‘most authentic’, recorded those as the only permitted version and had all the rest burned.  A lot like the role the Council of Nicaea had in writing the Bible.

So, for centuries after the Koran and the Sayings and Traditions of Muhammed were written down, jurists would look to the scriptures themselves to see what the proper sentence should be.  Not all jurists read the same things in these texts, yet, still, over the centuries, a body of jurisprudence had indeed been built up from which some rulings emerged as so common as to constitute laws.  The formal collection of these laws is called Sharia.

While it is still being added to (in the form of fatwas, or pronouncements/rulings of learned clerics on legal questions),the major body of it had been codified at around 1100 CE or so – just as the end of the ‘golden age’ of Islamic science came to its end.  Those two are closely connected, because Sharia is very inimical to any form of inquiry, including the scientific one.

It is important to keep in mind that while Sharia is based on early scholars’ reading of Koran and the life of Muhammad, it is not actually the Koran and Sunna itself.

The way Sharia is implemented in various Islamic countries does vary, even if the cores are common to them all:  the testimony of a woman is worth half that of a man, her inheritance is half that of a man’s, a woman is a perpetual minor in they eyes of the law so any and all of her property is managed for her by her guardian, and this guardian is also the one who enters into legal contracts on her behalf (including marriage:  under Sharia, a woman is herself not a party to her marrige contract, only her guardian and husband have legal standing in the contract),  apostates must be put to death (though one school of thought says female apostates are only to be under house-arrest for life), and so on.

Many Muslims do not like living under Sharia and its harsh rules – or, at least, the way it is imposed on them from the outside.

Thus, they have come to The West in order to practice Islam according to their own understanding and without the straight jacket jurisprudence that is Sharia.  These are people who are happy to follow our secular laws and impose any additional religious rules onto themselves, from the inside, without compulsion from anyone else.

These are the people I consider ‘moderate Muslims’.

As opposed to the Muslims who want to live under Sharia – but to do so in our lands, in The West.

The problems with this desire are numerous – not the least of which is that in order to retain integrity and social cohesion in a land, one set of rules has to apply equally to each and every citizen.  Equality before the law is such a fundamental cornerstone of our society that to have one class of people ruled by a parallel legal system means it has already been destroyed.

Another problem with Sharia is that it is deeply supremacist.  It sees itself as above all mere man-made laws, and wherever there is a conflict between the two, Sharia demands supremacy.  And since only Islamic scholars are permitted to issue Sharia rulings, permitting Sharia in a country effectively takes the application of law from the hands of trained jurists and places it in the hands of Islamic clerics…which could, indeed be problematic, to say the least.

Did I mention that non-Muslims are not permitted to speak at a Sharia court, even to defend themselves – even though Sharia reserves the right to rule over them?

And then there are the moderate Muslims – the ones who immigrated to the West specifically to get away from Sharia…if we permit it in our lands, they will automatically be subject to it, whether legally (as in Indonesia) or through peer pressure (as in the UK).  Do we not owe them equality under our laws, just like every other citizen?

Though I have barely scratched the surface, I do hope I have demonstrated both that Sharia is incompatible with our governance and that we owe it to the moderate Muslims among us to protect them from it.

Which brings me to the other type of Muslim – the ones who demand Sharia in our lands, under the terms of ‘religious accommodation’, necessarily at the expense of our ‘freedom from religion’.

Sharia is the politico/judicial arm of Islam and not theological teachings.

As such, anyone who wishes for any form of Sharia to be implemented (accommodated is the term used, but due to its supremacist nature, in reality, this ‘accommodation’ requires putting Sharia above our own common laws) in The West is calling not just for freedom of religion, but for the imposition of Islamic law.  And not just for themselves, as an act of private worship, but as something to be imposed on the whole of society because Sharia’s laws extend to both Muslims and non-Muslims.

This, by definition, makes them Islamists and not ‘moderate Muslims’.

To recap:  those Muslims who call for Sharia accommodation/implementation in The West are not moderate Muslims, they are Islamist colonists who ought to be called out as such and resisted, if we want our culture of tolerance preserved.

 

 

 

 

Proper role of Government

 

Equality and Inequality under Law

 

Coercion vs Freedom

Fundraising for Free Dominon

When members of the media are afraid to criticize a member of their country’s Military, who they honestly believe had abused his position of authority for personal gain/power, we have a problem.

Yet, that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in, in Canada, in 2014.

More and more voices in the media are being silenced through lifetime gag orders against them, brought about through the actions of a specific Agent of the State (and member of the Military, none-the-less)!

This has created such an unprecedented chill on speech that news reporters – even when addressing the public – refer to him as ‘He Who Must Not be Named’!

Help one of his latest victims, Mark and Connie Fournier, by popping over to Indiegogo and listening to their story, spreading it through the internet and, if you have the means, perhaps dropping a few pennies to their legal fund.

P.S.  This is an interesting twist on the story:  the guy doing the silencing had, in the past, been a candidate for election as a member of a political party deeply philosophically opposed to the party one of his targets had been a candidate for…  Do we really want to have the courts be the ones settling philosophical differences between various political parties and their candidates/supporters?  In my never-humble-opinion, this is one very slippery slope…

Lifetime gag order kills Free Dominion

Sad, but true.

This message has replaced Canada oldest right-leaning online political discussion forum:

As of today, January 23, 2014, and after 13 years online, Free Dominion is closing its doors to the public. We have been successfully censored.

Today, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith issued an order in the Richard Warman vs Mark and Connie Fournier and John Does defamation case heard September, 2013. In addition to ordering that we must pay Warman $127,000, Justice Smith issued an injunction against us ordering we that never publish, or allow to be published, anything negative about Richard Warman. This means we are barred for life from ever operating a public forum or a blog (even about cookie recipes) where the public can comment. If we do so, any one of Warman’s handful of supporters could, and probably would, use a common proxy server to avoid being traced, plant a negative comment about Warman on our site, and we would both be charged with contempt of court. If that happened –unlike in the Ottawa courtroom where we were blocked at every turn from presenting a defense– we actually would have no defense. We would both go to jail. This life sentence was imposed for our terrible crimes of voicing our honestly held beliefs and allowing others to do the same. Defamation law, in its current state, is entirely inadequate and counterproductive when applied to the internet. Now it is being used as a tool of censorship. Effectively!

We are assessing our options.

In faith,
Mark and Connie Fournier

“If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with you.” – Mark Fournier

 

Thunderf00t: How Religion can make you happy to kill!

If you ever doubted that only religion (any religion) can make even good people do evil deeds, you really should take a few moments to watch this short video:

P.S.  As for New Testament vs Old Testament teachings – remember that Jesus specifically stated that he was not abolishing any of the Old Testament laws.

Words we must speak daily – if we dare

Here is a list of 40 words (along with their definitions) that every free-speech lover ought to say out loud, at least once, while we still can:

Akhirat:  The Islamic concept of the ‘afterlife’.

Al Qran:  Literally ‘the recitation’, it is the central book of Islamic teachings.  Muslims believe that these ‘revelations’ were made to their prophet Mohammed by the arch-angel Gabriel regarding the will of the Islamic god named Allah and are the literal word of God.  These ‘recitations’ were not written down during the lifetime of Mohammed but only collected when it became apparent that Mohammed’s closest companions were dying out and so it became important for Muslims to preserve his teachings in a written form.  It was compiled by the Caliph Abu Bakr, who ordered the Muslims who remembered Mohammad’s recitations to have them written down and sent to him.  These he then organized into chapters which make up the Koran/Qu’ran/AlQran by the length of the chapters.  This means that the sequence in which these chapters were dictated has not been preserved, which creates the problem regarding the Islamic principle of ‘abrogation’ which states that if two verses of the Koran/Qu’ran/AlQran are in conflict, the one that was revealed to Mohammad later is the valid one, as it abrogates the earlier revelation.

Allah: ‘The God’ in Arabic.  At one point, Mohammed taught that Allah had three divine daughters, but later altered that teaching, making Islam monotheistic.

As Sunnah:  Literally translates as ‘common practice’, in the Islamic context, it means the ‘righteous path’ of following proper Islamic customs.

Auliya:  friend, helper, protector, patron or patron saint.

Azan/Adhan:  Islamic call to prayer

Baitullah:  Literally ‘house of god’ and may refer either to any mosque or to the main mosque in Mecca which houses the Kaaba, the box which houses a black meteorite, which the Muslims worship, and to which they are supposed to make a pilgrimage at least once in their lifetime (haj).  Prior to Islam, Mohammed’s grandfather made his living from people making a pilgrimage to the Kaaba.

Dakwah/Dawah/Da’wah:  Literally means ‘issuing a summons’ or ‘inviting’, in Islamic context, it means proselytizing Islam.  It is unlawful for a Muslim to kill a non-Muslim without having first invited them to join Islam.  Some Islamic leaders have criticized Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks because he had failed to issue a Dawah to all the American citizens 1 year before the terrorist attack.  Numerous Islamic scholars have since corrected this oversight and issued a Dawah to all Westerners.  If we fail to heed this call to convert to Islam, killing us is not considered to be ‘murder’ under Islamic law (Sharia).

Fatwa:  a legal judgment pronounced by an Islamic scholar.  These legal judgments make up Islamic jurisprudence and ought to be followed by pious Muslims.  There have been some interesting fatwas issued over the time.  For example, the Penang Mufti Hassan Ahmad had issued a fatwa that prohibits non-Muslims from ever using (speech, writing, publishing or in electronic form) the very 40 words being defined in this humble post.  This is legally binding in Malaysia.  However, if someone reading these words in Malaysia realizes they were published by a non-Muslim, they may make a legal complaint, a warrant may be issued and Interpol will act upon it to deliver the culprits to the land where the warrant  was issued.  So, enjoy while you still may!  Another recently issued fatwa prohibits women from sitting in chairs, because if they moved just the wrong way, they may become sexually aroused.

Firman Allah:  As I could not find this exact phrase translated into English, the closes I can make it out to be is ‘that which Allah has made permitted’.  Granted, I did just a quick Google search, as I’m trying to define quite a few terms here, but this seems to fit in with Islamic sayings rather well and captures the spirit of the phrase.  Corrections would be appreciated.

Hadith:  literally ‘tradition’, this refers to the habits and sayings of the Islamic prophet Mohammed.

Haji:  Someone who had completed the haj and traveled to Mecca to see the Kaaba.  As non-Muslims are not permitted to enter Mecca, only a Muslim may be a Haji/Hajji/Hadji.  A Muslim who has completed the haj may add this honorific to his name.

Hajjah:  Not sure of this one, but I suspect it means a female Hajji.

Ibadah:  Literally ‘obedience with submission’, the term is derived from practice of slavery.  In the Islamic context, it means worship of Allah.

Illahi:  I suspect this is an alternate spelling of ‘Elahi‘, meaning ‘my god’ or ‘my awesome one’.

Imam:  An Islamic leadership position, usually denoting an Islamic cleric.

Iman:  Iman is a really, really hot model.  However, I doubt that is whom the good Mufti meant in his fatwa.  Rather, I suspect he was referring to the Muslim believer’s faith in the metaphysical aspects of Islamic teachings.

Kaabah:  literally ‘the cube’, in Islamic context, it is a black cube that Muslims have been praying to since a little over 200 years past Mohammed’s death.  All modern mosques face the Kaabah, which is located in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.  (For the first few centuries following the death of Mohammed, all mosques faced the ancient city of Petra, as archaeological findings have demonstrated.)

Karamah:  a divine miracle (and not a conjuring trick type magic, that the other religions have)

Khutbah:  public preaching, refers to the sermons delivered during formal prayers.

Masjid:  a mosque, defined by Mohammed as a place of worship as well as a community centre, barracks for soldiers and materiel storage depot.

Mubaligh: a missionary (just follow the link and click on English for translation), one who is practicing dawah.

Mufti: an Islamic scholar from the Sunni branch of Islam

Musolla/Mushola:  Islamic prayer room

Nabi:  Prophets of Islam.  Most, but not all, Muslims believe that Mohammed was the last prophet.

Qadhi:  I suspect this term denotes Sharia courts.

Qiblat:  The direction in which Muslims should pray.  According to tradition, Mohammed is first ordered Muslims to pray in the direction of Jerusalem and to have later changed this to be towards Mecca and the Kaaba.  However, the earliest mosques (from the first 200+ years following the death of Muhammad) are pointing to Petra, not Mecca, indicting that the Kibla may have changed more than once.

Rasul:  prophet or apostle

Sheikh:  an honorific that means ‘elder’ and denotes the front man of a tribe.

Soleh:  This word is not Arabic in origin, but Indonesian and means ‘religious’.  Thus, according to this fatwa, if you are not a Muslim you may not call yourself ‘religious’.

Surau:  another word for ‘mosque’

Syahadah/Shahada:  a ritual Islamic prayer which is also used as an affirmation that one is a Muslim.  It translates into English roughly as:  ‘There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.’

Syariah:  Malaysia is one of the countries with a secular legal system for non-Muslims and Sharia law for Muslims living in the country.  Syariah is Malaysia’s Sharia adherent legal system which applies to its Muslim residents.

Tabligh:  ‘propagation’ of Islam by ‘spreading awareness’ of the teachings of Mohammed.

Taqwa:  While this definition varies somewhat between sects, the meaning ranges from ‘god-consciousness’ to piousness, love/fear of Allah, self restraint and so on.

Ulama/Ulema/Uluma:  In the stricter sense of the word, it refers to the upper echelon of Islamic scholars trained in the whole field of Islamic law, but it is often applied to any senior Muslim cleric.  Especially in rural areas, the cleric’s scholarship is not a significant issue.

Wahyu:  This word is of Indonesian origin.  From English-language version of this link:  ‘In religion and theologyrevelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities.’

Wali:  Guardian – with all that it implies:  being responsible for someone, managing their material wealth as well as having the right to enter into legal agreements on their behalf.  This is an important concept in Islam.  A father is the wali to all his minor male children and all his female children until the daughters are married, at which point the guardianship of the woman in question is transferred to her father.  If there is no father, then the closest male blood relative takes on the role of a wali for any minor males and any females.  As the wali manages their wards property and is the only one permitted to enter into legal contracts on their behalf, it means that an Islamic marriage contract is between the groom and the bride’s wali, with the bride having no legal standing in the matter.  Thus, a petition for divorce in a Sharia court may need to be filed by the wife’s male relatives, as she has no legal standing in the marriage contract.  It also means that under Sharia, the highest legal status a woman can achieve is that of a minor.

Zakat Fitrah:  At the end of Ramadan, during which Muslims fast from sun-up to sun-down, there is a celebratory feast.  While ‘zakat’ means taxes (a portion of which must go towards jihad), zakat fitrah is the specific obligatory gift of food to the poor so that they may participate with other Muslims in the end-of-Ramadan feast.

 

Now that I have tried to define these words for your convenience, please, do speak them as often and as publicly as you can, before you loose the freedom to do so!  There is already a fatwa that forbids us to speak these words, if we are non-Muslims. It is up to us, freedom-loving people, to make sure that this and/or any other fatwa never becomes applied as a law onto us.

Rights are like muscles and cognitive abilities: if you don’t exercise them, you loose them!!!