Recent Comments
RSS feed
Does Tenure Really Encourage Free Speech? Megan McArdle Tackles Issues in Higher Ed
October 15, 2013 — xanthippaWhat are our innate rights and why are they unalienable?
October 6, 2013 — xanthippaMy post on the Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does verdict has received an unusually high amount of comments – especially for an obscure little blog like mine. While this is flattering, it does not really diminish the pain this verdict has inflicted on me – even if my interest was not financial (as I was not associated with either the plaintiff nor the defendants, though, I have developed great respect and affection for the defendants over the years that I have followed this case for).
No, my interest may not have been financial, but it is as personal as it gets: this verdict, as it currently stands, restricts freedom of speech to such a degree that had major media outlets dared to honestly report on it, the populace would rebel. I honestly believe that to be true – though, some of the comments I received do make me wonder…
For example, one commenter, ‘harebell’, said:
‘You keep posting a series of quotes, that is not an argument for anything it’s a list of people’s opinions.
To claim there are some inalienable, a priori rights based on individual preferences and desires is fine in theory. But each of those individual ideas on rights and preferences will come into conflict with those of others and then both sets will be accused of infringing on the rights of the other and therefore wrong. A person’s rights are what a community agrees they are especially if the community has the power to enforce what it says. It really doesn’t matter whether that community is based on a moral system or an ethical system they will create laws limiting behaviour because my idea of what constitutes freedom will be different to yours. Giving up absolute freedom is the price we pay to live in Canada because we have to live with others.’
Obviously, I tried to explain this, in the following, highly imperfect way:
Individual freedoms are the cornerstone on which our society is built – just read up on our history.
While Americans valued equality, Canadians have always cherished individual freedoms – until, that is, Cultural Marxists re-wrote our textbooks and educated the last generation in revisionist history, depriving it of even the knowledge of its true heritage.
Historians like Professor John Robson have written extensively on this.
But, if you wish to go into some detail here, let me give you a very, very short version:
Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy: this is a form of democracy which is not an absolute democracy ( ‘absolute democracy’ is also called ‘the tyranny of the majority’, as exemplified by two wolves and a lamb taking a vote over what to eat for dinner).
This form of democracy recognizes that each and every citizen has inalienable rights which, no matter how large a percentage of the majority votes to take away, must not be violated. The only legitimate role of government is to protect these rights, so that each and every citizen may exercise them freely.
One such basic right – one we can most easily understand – is the right to bodily integrity. This means that if there are 4 people who need a kidney, a liver, a lung and a heart each, the government cannot arbitrarily appoint a 5th person to be the organ donor, on the grounds that ensuring 4 citizens live outweighs the 1 citizen’s right to live.
(There are very good books by much more intelligent people than I that explain this well – I do urge you to read up on our history.)
In other words, our society is based on the proposition that the majority must not be permitted to harm minorities – even the smallest minority of one citizen. To the contrary, when a government begins to strip citizens of their human rights, that government becomes illegitimate and loses it justification to govern.
It is sad that this was not covered in your civics class in high school…
Of course, the wise and eloquent CodeSlinger answered her much better:
‘harebell:
You write “To claim there are some inalienable, a priori rights based on individual preferences and desires is fine in theory.”
Well, no. It’s not. It’s a contradiction in terms. Rights, being a priori, are derived from first principles and therefore cannot be based on individual preference.
You also write “A person’s rights are what a community agrees they are especially if the community has the power to enforce what it says.”
This, too, is a contradiction in terms. A person’s rights are derived from what kind of creature a human is, and therefore cannot depend on anyone else’s agreement.
Like most Canadians, you have been taught to confuse privileges with rights, and lulled into accepting the poisonous lie that the collective supersedes the individual – in other words, that might makes right. As soon as you accept that, you have enslaved yourself: you cease to be a free individual and become a ward of the state.
The whole idea that rights can somehow be based on consensus is fundamentally flawed.
Consensus, to be productive, requires that each individual contribute independently out of his experience and insight. When consensus comes under the dominance of conformity, the social process is polluted and the individual at the same time surrenders the powers on which his functioning as a feeling and thinking being depends.
— Solomon A. Asch
This concept, “powers on which [a person’s] functioning as a feeling and thinking being depends,” is the core of what we mean by a right. To clarify this, let’s go back to basics. Let’s start with some definitions:
privilege: a special advantage, benefit, or exemption, selectively granted to some but denied to others.
right: a freedom, entitlement, or immunity, so fundamental to human nature it cannot justly be taken away or given up.
See the difference? See how you are disempowered by confusing privileges with rights? See how the government benefits at your expense by using the schools it runs to confuse you in that particular way?
When we speak of “inalienable individual rights,” by the way, the words “inalienable” and “individual” are added only for emphasis and clarity. Strictly speaking, these qualities are already inherent in the definition of “rights.”
Okay. So, what are these inalienable individual rights? They are:
Life, liberty, property, privacy, self-defence, and self-expression.
Why these and only these?
Well, the rights to life and liberty are the essential primary rights and the rights to property, privacy, self-defence, and self-expression are necessary and sufficient to guarantee life and liberty. By necessary and sufficient, I mean that nothing more is needed, and anything less would not be enough.
These six rights form an irreducible core: you either have all of them, or you may as well have none of them.
The inalienable individual rights give form and substance to the idea that every individual is inherently entitled to live and to act in his own self-interest and is immune from being interfered with in so doing. Further, since man is a rational animal, mental life and liberty are as important as physical life and liberty. Neither has value without the other.
Now, these ideas are crystal clear and incontrovertible when people live alone in a state of nature. It is when they come together in groups that confusion often starts – but it need not, if we think carefully and ignore those who have a vested interest in confusing us.
After all, the whole reason individuals form communities is to increase the benefits they derive from exercising their rights in return for accepting some responsibilities to the community – be it a family, village, city, province or nation. This, in a nutshell, is the social contract.
The crucial concept of a contract is quid pro quo: you give something in return for receiving something. Meaning, unless the community increases the benefits you derive from exercising your rights, you owe the community nothing at all.
Thus we must never allow the collective to take precedence over the individual, otherwise we negate the whole reason for forming a collective in the first place! Unless we hold inviolate the principle that the rights of the collective are derived from – and subservient to – the rights of its constituent individuals, the entire social contract becomes null and void, and any attempt to enforce it amounts to tyranny.
From this we can immediately see that the primary duty of the state must be to equally guarantee the equal rights of each and every individual. Whenever the government oversteps the boundaries defined by this primary duty, it breaches the social contract and thereby forfeits its legitimacy.
The whole foundation of the legal system follows just as immediately: a crime is committed whenever any person’s rights are violated and harm results. The severity of the crime is proportional to the harm which results. Thus, where there is no harm, there is no crime. Any law which is incompatible with these principles is unjust, and an unjust law is no law at all.
In other words, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, and vice versa.
The whole purpose of the law and the state is to guarantee that to both of us equally, and anything else it does is unnecessary or illegitimate.
Yes, it really is that simple.
And it all rests on the absolute primacy of inalienable individual rights.
The quotes I posted say all that much more clearly and eloquently than I ever could – and also give proper credit to the great men I learned it from. Read their words again, and you will see what I mean:
A right is not what someone gives you, it’s what no one can take away from you.
— U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
— Thomas Jefferson
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
— Thomas Jefferson
It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.
— U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
Must a citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? … It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.
— Henry David Thoreau’
The Day Free Speech Died In Canada – October 2, 2013
October 4, 2013 — xanthippaAn excellent post about this most sad day…
It has quotes, links and goes through the logical steps of where this ruling will lead.
‘The verdict by the jury in the “Warman vs Fournier et al” has effectively killed good, old-fashioned, political discourse and debate in cyberspace, in Canada. Even minor insults and common hyperbole of innocent nature and made-up words not in the dictionary, can now be construed as defamation.
The law lesson learned from the verdict is that defamation court actions are designed to stifle online discourse and healthy political debates that used to commonly take place around kitchen tables and then graduated to cyberspace are now less likely to happen in the blogosphere, since all owners of blogs, forums, chat rooms etc. must now become ruthless, editorial police to avoid the risk of libel suits.The law definition of libel states: “Any communication that is likely to lower that person in the estimation of reasonable people and in particular to cause that person to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear or dislike.”Each and every Canadian ought to now be motivated to action in a gallant effort to redeem free speech in Canada. Most likely, our elected representatives are not yet aware of the significant impact that the verdict in the Warman vs Fournier et al is having on our fragile and ever diminishing right of free speech in Canada.’
Read the full post here.
UPDATE: Another insightful analysis can be read here.
OpenMedia.ca: What are they up to in Bali?
October 3, 2013 — xanthippaThis is from an email from OpenMedia:
In less than a week nearly 100,000 people have signed on to our letter to Stephen Harper and other leaders telling them not to ram through an Internet censorship plan when they meet in Bali.
But now the industry lobbyists behind the Internet censorship plan are ramping up the pressure by publicly urging leaders to not “soften” amidst the public outcry.1
Can you believe that?
Once the public knows about the Internet Censorship in the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), it will be almost impossible for political leaders to put this plan in place. We need to make sure Canadians know what’s at stake.
Here’s our plan to amplify your voice:
- Unleash a massive and highly targeted social media campaign to overwhelm political leaders with citizen messages that they cannot ignore. We know the media and politicians pay attention to this.
- Get the word out in communities across Canada with our powerful, easy-to-use “Letter to the Editor” tool, putting citizen voices in local newspapers, significantly amplifying your voices, and ramping up the pressure on decision makers.
With your support, we’ll be able to show Stephen Harper how unpopular this extreme Internet censorship plan is, and prove that there will be a price to pay for it at election time.
We can stop this extreme Internet censorship plan by standing together to send a clear message to our government. Your donations power our efforts to keep fighting against Internet censorship – we can’t move forward without your help now.
Together, we are going to stop the TPP’s Internet censorship from stifling Canada’s future and knocking people off the Internet.
Thank you for being a part of this,
Steve and Jason, on behalf of your OpenMedia.ca team
PS Together, there are hundreds of thousands of us; if each of us gave just $3, we’d be able to send a message that our political leaders can’t ignore.
Footnotes
[1] “US Business groups warn against compromises in Pacific Rim trade talks”. Source: Financial Times (paywall) – “Among his key concerns, Mr Donohue said, were that the US would soften its push for strong intellectual property rules…”
|
|
We are an award-winning network of people and organizations working to safeguard the possibilities of the open Internet. We work toward informed and participatory digital policy. You can follow us on Twitter, and like us on Facebook. |
A Message From OpenMedia.ca:
September 26, 2013 — xanthippaThis could be it.
For the first time, the Presidents and Prime Ministers of 12 powerful countries — including Canada’s Stephen Harper — will meet behind closed doors to seal an extreme Internet censorship plan called the Trans Pacific Partnership (TPP)1
We know from leaked drafts2 that the TPP will make the Internet more expensive, censored, and policed. Experts say “kids could be sent to jail for downloading” and whole families could be kicked off the Internet.3
World leaders plan to “conclude the TPP discussions” in just a few days.4 Will Stephen Harper feel the pressure from industry lobbyists – or will he feel the pressure from you? Send decision-makers a powerful message before it’s too late.
Canadian MPs, citizens, and public interest groups are locked out of the negotiations entirely. Despite blocking Canadian parliamentarians from seeing the agreement, U.S. Congressmen are allowed to see exactly what’s on the table.5
We’re asking Canada’s officials to please:
Say no to Internet censorship.
- Protect the right of everyone to access the Internet in their daily lives.
- Do not force ISPs to act as “Internet Police” monitoring our Internet use, censoring content, and removing whole websites.6
- Preserve the democratic rights of sovereign countries to draft their own copyright laws.
Our public outcry has stopped TPP officials from finalizing the agreement but now powerful interests are pressuring political leaders to ram through their Internet censorship plan.
Thousands of people and over 30 major organizations from across the Trans-Pacific region are working together to keep the Internet open. High ranking politicians from several countries are beginning to ask questions7.
We know that when citizens speak out, decision-makers take notice. We cannot allow U.S. lobbyists to define Canada’s digital future. Click here to send a simple message to Canada’s negotiators: Please say no to Internet Censorship.
Together, we won’t let them take away our digital rights.
For our future,
Steve and Jason on behalf of your vigilant OpenMedia team
PS: The Internet won’t stay open on its own; speak out now to call on TPP negotiators to preserve our digital future. Your support is critical in the fight to defend the possibilities of the open Internet.
Footnotes
[1] “Obama to Attend APEC, ASEAN Summits on October Asia Trip”. Source: Bloomberg.com
[2] Leaked draft of TPP Intellectual Property Chapter. Source: Knowledge Ecology International
[3] What’s actually in the TPP? Source: Public Knowledge
[4] US Envoy: TPPA talks to conclude next month. Source: FMT Malaysia
[5] “Trans-Pacific Partnership: Canadian MP’s Have No Access To Drafts US Pols Can See, NDP Says” Source: The Huffington Post
[6] “TPP Creates Legal Incentives for ISPs to Police the Internet. What is at risk? Your rights.” Electronic Frontier Foundation
[7] “International Criticism Escalates Against TPP as Negotiations Go Further Underground” Source: Electronic Frontier Foundation
Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 10)
September 25, 2013 — xanthippaDay 1′s events can be read here.
Day 2′s events can be read here.
Day 3′s events can be read here.
Day 4′s events can be read here.
I’m afraid that I was unable to attend on day 5. I have heard some accounts which I would like to share with you. However, do remember I have not seen this myself, so it is just a person on the internet repeating a rumour….so give the account weight accordingly. Mr. Warman was still on the stand and acted up the self pity, even bringing forth tears for the jury, when he recounted just how difficult this has all been for him, the righteous protector of our society.
Day 6′s events can be read here, as a real newspaper sent the liberal Glen McGregor to cover the appearance of Mr. Icke as a witness.
Day 7′s events can be read here.
Day 8’s events can be read here.
Day 9 was a procedural day, without the jury present. It was to involve discussions between the judge and the counsel about procedural matters. As such, I chose to conserve my strength and skip day 9.
Which brings us to day 10 – the closing arguments.
The jury filed in at about 10:25, each one of them encumbered with an arm’s length of documents: the exhibits submitted during the trial. It sure is a LOT of material to go through and keep in mind!!!
For some reason which escapes me, the defense was to go first with the plaintiff having the last word. I don’t understand why this was so, but it was.
As such, Ms. Kulaszka was up first. At the judge’s suggestion, she moved over to the lectern (which was rotated to more closely face the jury (though, the room was too crowded for much movement) and Connie Fournier (wearing the white blouse with black embroidery detail, red cardigan and gray/tan slacks) moved a box of documents to her side at the lectern and then returned to sit not at the defense table, but in the spectator seats.
As a matter of fact, today, the courtroom was packed!
The whole ‘plaintiff’ side was taken up with legal students who were on a field trip to the courthouse today…so, even ‘Dr. Dawg’ (who is also suing the Fourniers in a separate suit, in a vain effort to emulate Mr. Warman) and his young, bald companion had to sit in the ‘defense’ side. And, yes, for all of you who’ve asked: Dr. Dawg was wearing those cute riding boots with the most adorable silver embellishments on them! (Yes – the same ones he posted a picture of himself wearing while riding a horse or a mule or something…as if the courthouse were equivalent to a barnyard.)
At this point, Ms. Kulaszka introduced yet another binder – a compillation of some of the other exhibits. Mr. Katz objected to not having had a chance to verify that all the documents therein were indeed the previously submitted exhibits, but the judge ruled that he ought to trust the opposing counsel, until proven otherwise. Thus, everyone in the jury (and the judge, clerk and Mr. Katz) got yet another binder with the same evidence herein, just organized slightly differently. I don’t claim to understand the process, but, my highly imperfect understanding was that this ‘exhibit’ had things in the proper context, as far as the defense was concerned – and, in this case, context is everything!
Ms. Kulaszka then delved into the ‘meat’ of the matter: political forum, context is important, current political issues from a conservative point of view, comments not censored, fair comment, not defamatory, true statement, David Icke…’Maximum Disruption’…ARA…Jessica Beaumont (Connie has daughters)…Paul Fromm’s testimony…public figure…
She had proceeded to go through each and every posting, explaining the defense, stressing one point or another. I must admit that as a ‘free speecher’, I found this very exciting and was at the edge of my seat – but, I don’t think the jury was like-minded. I saw a few suppressed yawns and a few not so suppressed ones…even when she (Ms. Kulaszka) had pointed out that one of the people from Free Dominion that Mr. Warman had accused of anti-Semitism was actually Jewish…at least, that is what I understood from what had been said, in my highly imperfect comprehension.
This took us to a bit past the lunch break. I think she had done a good job explaining why each and every single posting was not defamatory, but it was a long and necessarily tedious process. Ms. Kulaszka did not address the greater picture of freedom of speech or what impact on the current internet practices in general as well as chilling free political speech in particular a guilty verdict would make.
Before she thanked the jury and the judge and rested her case, Ms. Kulaszka pointed out that Mr. Warman had sued 69 people – including her clients, in part for what Mr. Ed Kennedy had posted and for not ‘banning him from Free Dominion’, but, despite the fact that Mr. Ed Kennedy did not hide his identity, Mr. Warman had never sued Mr. Ed Kennedy himself… a fact which resonated very deeply with me.
Next up was Mr. Roger Smith, who was representing himself in this matter.
He had made a passionate speech, painting the big picture as far as freedom of speech in general is concerned.
Actually, he was really awesome!
Understated as he is in his mannerisms, the distinguished and highly credible-looking Mr. Smith addressed the jury and the judge.
He explained how, following Mark Steyn’s persecution (my word, not his) by the BC HRC (which he had attended as a spectator) had affected him and motivated him to protect freedom of speech in Canada. We had won the greater ‘Section 13’ battle – and this case was necessarily embedded in this context…
He explained how this lawsuit was a leftist’s attempt to abuse the courts to censor a right-wing political discussion he did not like. Mr. Smith explained lawfare and SLAPP suits…and how they attempt to use courts to regulate public opinion – an abuse if there ever was one!
Should we have 1/2 of the country suing the other 1/2, just to have their political views suppressed by the courts?!?!?
He had explained the motivations (and results) of all his actions, though he did stop short of comparing them to and contrasting against the plaintiff’s own actions (letter to employers, etc.) – something I thought ought to have been highlighted.
Mr. Smith passionately explained his unease with a civil servant using the organs/powers of the government to go after his political opponents…as a daughter of a political dissident under a totalitarian regime, I found his arguments most compelling. Yet, I am not sure to which degree the jury members had undergone Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism indoctrination, so it is hard to tell if they will have comprehended his meaning.
At 14:45, the most eloquent Mr. Katz took the podium to deliver the plaintiff’s closing remarks. And, while all his points were predictable and, to my way of thinking, irrelevant, he made them in an animated and highly persuasive manner of speech.
Tomorrow, will be the 11th day of the hearings – the court will reconvene at 9 am to discuss the charge to the jury, which the judge expects to deliver at 11 am…and, then, it will be up to the 4 men and 2 women of the jury to decide!!!
Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 8)
September 23, 2013 — xanthippaDay 1′s events can be read here.
Day 2′s events can be read here.
Day 3′s events can be read here.
Day 4′s events can be read here.
I’m afraid that I was unable to attend on day 5. I have heard some accounts which I would like to share with you. However, do remember I have not seen this myself, so it is just a person on the internet repeating a rumour….so give the account weight accordingly. Mr. Warman was still on the stand and acted up the self pity, even bringing forth tears for the jury, when he recounted just how difficult this has all been for him, the righteous protector of our society.
Day 6′s events can be read here, as a real newspaper sent the liberal Glen McGregor to cover the appearance of Mr. Icke as a witness.
Day 7’s events can be read here.
It is getting harder and harder to juggle ‘things’ so that I can make it to the courthouse to observe. Day 8 of the proceedings was no different: could not make it in until the afternoon session. Before I describe what I saw, I think it will not hurt if I re-state my biases, as I necessarily have them and the readers should be aware of them.
I am a free speech absolutist and an anti-slavery fundamentalist – which necessarily makes me a voluntaryist to a great degree (though I do stop short of anarcho-capitalism). Prior to covering the Warman vs Free Dominion legal saga, I did not know either party, have never been a member of Free Dominion or even went to their site. Over these past 3+ years, I have developed a genuine affection for and admiration of the Fourniers. I have exchanged a polite ‘Thank you’ with Mr. Warman every now and then when we held the courtroom doors for each other.
From the tidbits of information I have managed to scrape together about the morning’s events, I did indeed miss much that was important. Jason Bertucci, aka Faramir and one of the defenders represented by Ms. Kulaszka gave his testimony, as did another person (I did not write down the name, so I’ll have to confirm who…). Apparently, Mr. Katz had softened from his previous adversarial style of questioning (imagine a US TV show).
Still, the defense was optimistically hopeful of the morning’s events.
The court re-convened at 14:04 and the judge asked Ms. Kulaszka what was her next step. She replied that her witness, Mr. Paul Fromm, was waiting outside.
Thus, the jury was brought in and at 14:07, the bailiff went and fetched the witness.
The witness was sworn in on the Bible and stated his full name to be Frederick Paul Fromm. He wore a dark suit with a dark red kerchief in the pocket, white shirt and a dark tie with a gold coat-of-arms type repeated motifs separated by a thin gold stripe. With his graying hair and understated glasses, he looked very distinguished.
Considering that the plaintiff tried to cast Mr. Fromm (rightly or wrongly) as a neo-Nazi, I think his testimony (and cross-examination) were much more favourable for the defense than the prosecution.
I’ll jump around – in time, that is – to make it a narrative which is easier to follow…
Mr. Fromm started off testifying that he was with an organization called ‘Canadian Association for Free Expression’. As such, he is committed to freedom of expression, even if the speech itself is politically unpopular. (I am paraphrasing here.)
Then, he delved into ‘the Zundel saga’. Mr. Fromm explained that whether he agreed with Ernst Zundel’s views or not, he found the process the government had subjected him to to be unconstitutional and had organized public protests in order to say so. (He was, of course, later vindicated as the process itself was, indeed, found unconstitutional by the courts.) As a result of these protests, he became the target of the Anti-Racism Association, the ARA, which had played such a significant part in the trial earlier.
If you don’t remembe the ARA, Mr. Warman had given a speech at one of their events during which he joked that the ARA members would be just as surprised that he has police officers as friends as his police officer friends would find it surprising to find Warman had friends among the ARA, Mr. Warman had identified himself as having belonged to the ARA while he had lived in Toronto and outlined his ‘Maximum Disruption’ doctrine to be used against either neo-Nazi groups or just for fun, against people who annoyed him…Connie Fournier had testified that this very speech had greatly informed her opinion of Mr. Warman.
One of the statement which Mr. Warman is seeking compensation for defamation is the claim that he had paid for a bus that brought the ARA to a rather ‘vigorous’ demonstration at Mr. Fromm’s house because, as he had testified earlier, Mr. Warman had stated that being accused of financing an urban terrorist organization would be damaging to the reputation of a practicing member of the bar…from which I can only conclude that Mr. Warman himself considers the ARA to indeed be a terrorist organization…
Mr. Fromm had testified that many of the people against whom Mr. Warman had laid complaints against under Section 13 of the Human Rights Act (HRA) were very poor and could not afford legal representation in front of the Tribunal. Unlike in a real court, where one has to be either self-represented or represented by an actual lawyer, the pseudo-courts that are the HR Tribunals are not so strict about any of the legal procedures and anyone can be represented by a citizen who acts as their agent. In this capacity, Mr. Fromm had represented Jessica Beaumont, Terry Tremaine, and a number of others.
He had done his best to help these poor, unsophisticated people defend themselves against the ‘Maximum Disruption’ assault launched by Mr. Warman. But, back to the ‘Zundel’ bit: and, again, I am jumping back and forth in time (testimony-wise, cross-examination and re-direct…) in order to have continuity in narrative.
It was established that Mr. Zundel had been the subject of protests (and/or threats by the ARA).
It was testified to (by Mr. Fromm) that the arsonists who had set fire to Mr. Zundel’s house were never criminally charged.
When the ARA protested in front of Mr. Fromm’s house (and trespassed on condominium property and greatly terrorized his neighbours), they chanted “Nazi scum, out out out!” – but, later, he testified that the ARA members threatened to ‘burn him out just like Zundel’… the implication of terrorist threat being rather obvious and not in the least conrtrovened by anything Mr. Warman’s side had to offer.
On cross examination, Mr. Katz brought out that Mr. Fromm had been a teacher, who had been fired from his job…but, his students from various cultural and racial backgrounds had protested his firing and even made a video in his support, testifying how he had not only taught them to achieve but also to have raised their self esteem and their self-confidence.
In the end, Mr. Katz introduced the letter of dismissal from when Mr. Fromm had been fired from his teaching job and had questioned Mr. Fromm on it. I could not get the exact wording written down during testimony, so I asked him to repeat the exact wording to me after the court session was over.
Mr. Fromm said the letter said he had been fired because of his ‘persistent disregard of and contempt for multicultural and ethno-centric cultural equity, which are core values of the education system’… He explained that he thought the core values of the education system were ‘reading, writing, mathematics, computer literacy, self discipline, co-operation with others’ and so on…
At this, both sides rested.
Monday, day 9 of the court proceedings, would be about the lawyers and the judge haggling out the questions for the jury – the jury itself would be excused.
An alternate view of the events can be read here.
Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 7)
September 18, 2013 — xanthippaDay 1′s events can be read here.
Day 2′s events can be read here.
Day 3′s events can be read here.
Day 4’s events can be read here.
I’m afraid that I was unable to attend on day 5. However, I have heard some accounts which I would like to share with you. However, do remember I have not seen this myself, so it is just a person on the internet repeating a rumour….so give the account weight accordingly. Mr. Warman was still on the stand and acted up the self pity, even bringing forth tears for the jury, when he recounted just how difficult this has all been for him, the righteous protector of our society.
Day 6’s events can be read here, as a real newspaper sent the liberal Glen McGregor to cover the appearance of Mr. Icke as a witness. Following Mr. Icke’s testimony, Connie Fournier took the stand and began her testimony. From the Ottawa Citizen:
‘Icke testified Warman’s efforts led to the cancellation of speaking events on the 2000 tour and hassles at the hands of Canada immigration officials, including when he arrived in Ottawa on Saturday.
“I started to realize there was a campaign to stop me and I was being painted as some kind of racist who was going to be engaged in hate speech, when I talk in my books about the need to love each other,” he told the court.
“That was shocking and the name Richard Warman started to appear as one of the ringleaders of this extraordinarily unfair character assassination.”’
…
‘”In her opening statement before presenting a defence of the libel claims, Kulaszka said the website posts Warman complained of show “how utterly trivial this lawsuit is. Some don’t even mention Richard Warman,” she said. “Some are obvious jokes.”
“The paltry few lines he is suing for could not damage his reputation,” she told the court. She said Warman had made himself into a public figure through repeated use of Canada’s hate-speech laws.’
Today is day 7 of the trial and as it opened, Connie Fournier was testifying.
In a pretty white blouse with black buttons and black embroidery detail topped by a red cardigan and simple pearls, she appeared competent and likable. Most of all, she appeared well grounded and very much in touch with technology and the latest trends on the internet.
Her easy smile was endearing.
Her testimony was deeply thought provoking.
She explained, among many other things, just how clear it was that some of the statements that Mr. Warman alleges are defamatory, just how very crystal clear it was that they were parody.
For example, there had been a thread from several years ago regarding an essay contest for the Western Standard, a magazine that used to be published by Ezra Levant. In this particular thread, Peter O’Donnel had posted a list of the most ridiculous titles for an essay one might write and submit to this contest. The thread had already been several years old at this point, but someone else had added another title, regarding Mr. Warman, and then added an emoticon after it of a face with the tongue sticking out, clearly indicating this is parody.
Yet, Connie Fournier explained, Mr. Warman was claiming it was defamatory – as if it had been a statement of fact!
Another instance which, Ms. Fournier testified, where Mr. Warman claimed they had defamed him by was when they had posted his libel notice. Earlier, while he was testifying, Mr. Warman had indeed lamented at great length that when Free Dominion had posted his libel notice, they had re-packaged all of the defamatory material into one convenient package and then re-published it: not only did this hurt him all over again, it made it easier for his haters to use…
Connie Fournier explained that some of the material Mr. Warman claims is defamatory had been excerpts from an Ottawa Citizen article which was overall very favourable to Mr. Warman, but which listed some descriptions of what his critics were calling him… She was surprised he’d find this defamatory and one of the reasons she had posted it was precisely to show others what Mr. Warman thought constituted defamation.
Ms. Fournier testified that on the Free Dominion site, it was clearly marked that these were items Mr. Warman said were defamatory and in no way were they claimed to be statements of truth. It was there as a public service, to let others know where Mr Warman thinks the ‘red line’ lies.
I, myself, remember that, a few years ago, when Mr. Ezra Levant was being sued for defamation by Mr. Warman’s friend and former co-worker from the Human Rights Commission, Mr. Vigna, he had also posted all the legal documents on his website: both the notice of libel and his statement of defense. As did a number of other people sued by Mr. Warman and/or his friends/minions. From what I, the non-expert, had seen of the internet, this seems to be a pretty standard, non-controversial practice…these are, after all, public documents and as such, publishing them is newsworthy and good for society!
The other reason she had posted the notice of libel on Free Dominion, Ms. Fournier asserted, was to inform the John Does (who had not been identified so far) that they had become the subjects of a lawsuit.
Aside:
One little interesting thing happened at about the time Connie was testifying about this: just 5 minutes short of noon, the Court Clerk we had had until now was replaced. It appeared to me to be not due to any fault but because she just had to be elsewhere. So, the Court Clerk with the most amazing strappy shoes left and we got one with great dangly earrings. I only mention this because in my limited experience, I’ve never seen it before…
Later, during cross examination, Mr. Katz had returned to this. Sorry to be jumping around, but it seems logical to me to finish the subject, even if the events were separated in time.
The questions Mr. Katz kept asking – at least, that is what my legally untrained mind made of it – he seemed to try to get Ms. Fournier to admit that she could have used non-public means to communicate the information about the lawsuit to both the John Does and the other members of Free Dominion, whom she was asking for help in this matter. For example, she could have sent them private messages or even emailed them….
Ms. Fournier pointed out the practical limitation of trying to send 8 or 10 thousand private messages…and if my very imperfect Aspie observations of the jury were correct, I don’t think Mr. Katz advanced his clients position through this line of questioning. Rather, it seemed to underline just how disconnected from reality Mr. Warman’s demands were…
The next bit of Connie’s testimony concerned (yes, we are back from the cross examination by Mr. Katz and back to questioning by Ms. Kulaszka) something called ‘Maximum Disruption Doctrine’ and Mr Warman’s speech to the Orwelian-ly named ‘Anti-Racist Action’ (ARA – sounds a lot like ‘NRA’, does it not?).
If you are not familiar with them, ARA use nasty techniques to target people who say things they don’t like – and they are not above not just doc dropping someone (and their family), but showing up by the bus-load at their homes or kids schools and protesting in less than pleasant manner. Think ‘union thugs in training’…
Mr. Warman had testified earlier that he had given the ARA one of his ‘standard presentation’ speeches, with a preface and a few jokes tailored for this group, to make it more particular to them. So far, so good.
In the opening remarks of this speech (and, I am trying to write as fast as I can at court, but I am a scientist, not a stenographer, so, if any readers out there have the exact wording, please post it in the comments for accuracy), Mr. Warman had made a joke about ARA members finding it surprising to know that he, Mr. Warman, had friends who were policemen – just as his police friends would find it surprising that he was friends with ARA people.
Ms. Fournier testified that this information had greatly informed her opinion regarding Mr. Warman: the joke would not have made sense if ARA members were peaceful, law abiding citizens on good terms with the police…
Later in this speech, Connie explained, Mr. Warman had said that while he had lived in Toronto, he had been an old school ARA member, or words to that effect (again, please, help me out in the comments, if you can).
And, Mr. Warman had, in that speech, defined his ‘Maximum Disruption’ method of harassing Neo-Nazis and people who annoy him – for fun. It was this bit that convinced Ms. Fournier that Mr. Warman’s goal was not conflict resolution but rather that he enjoyed the conflict itself and that later, when he made demands on the Fourniers under threat of legal action, he was not dealing with them in good faith and it would not have been possible for the Fourniers to satisfy his ever increasing demands.
Connie also testified that she had formed her opinion of Mr. Warman from his postings on the neo-Nazi website Stormfront, to which she had been directed through having read about them when she read the transcripts and ruling from the Human Rights Tribunal. That was when she formed the opinion that he was ruining individual people’s lives as well as harming our society by giving support and encouragement to people who wanted to build Nazi organizations in Canada. She gave quotes of where he had done that, but I am not skilled enough to reproduce them accurately, so perhaps, later, when I can catch my breath and/or get access to the source material, I may re-visit this.
One very, very essential point that Ms. Fournier had made on the stand was that, while reading the Tribunal transcripts, she had realized that some of the speech Mr. Warman based this particular Section 13 complaint were actually verses from the Bible.
If verses from scriptures, the Christian’s Bible or any other religion’s holy books, were to be suppressed as ‘hate speech’, then freedom of religion would be seriously threatened!!!
It went on in much that flavour, until I had to leave during the afternoon break (previous obligation). I was fortunate enough to get this report about the last leg of the afternoon’s proceedings from another spectator (there were so many of us there today that we spilled over from the Fournier’s side of the courtroom benches to the middle, and Mr. Ike and a few others had to even sit on the prosecution side of the room!):
‘Too bad you couldn’t stick around for this afternoon’s proceedings in Court as Connie and Mark did very well in the hot seat up there.
David Icke even came up to Mark and later Connie and congratulated them on their testimony.Mark gave a moving account of what it was like to have been hounded by Warman all these years. He said with the exception of just one week, all of their marriage has been involved in fighting off the assaults that Warman has hit them with. He talked about working 70 hours a week driving for a living as a long haul truck driver, keep driving an old car, and Connie having to quit her job to devote herself to fighting Warman, and working the website. Mr Icke told Mark that his honest speech was sure to have hit the jury more forcefully than all of the legal banter of Mr Katz.’
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 