Lifetime gag order kills Free Dominion

January 25, 2014 — xanthippa

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

 

Posted in corruption, freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 65 Comments »

The Day Free Speech Died In Canada – October 2, 2013

October 4, 2013 — xanthippa

An 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.

Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does (the Jury Trial) – the Verdict

October 2, 2013 — xanthippa

I’ll be brief.

Today is a sad, sad day for all Canadians – and a tragic one for all freedom loving people.

The jury foreperson giggled as she said: “The answer is 42!”

As in, $42,000 awarded to Mr. Warman in damages…

In addition, Mr. Warman is seeking an injunction against Free Dominion – a gag order – that would see the Fourniers thrown into jail if anyone even mentions his name on FD, no matter how quickly it would be taken down.  If that happens, Free Dominion will cease to exist…

I’ll have some details later – am too upset to write more now.

UPDATE:

CodeSlinger has expressed eloquently what I feel – so, I’d like to share his comment here with you:

This is a sad day, but not a surprising one.

Being tried by “a jury of your peers” sounds right, and good and just… until you look closely at who these “peers” really are – by which I mean what values they have absorbed from their schooling and the mass media, both shaped by the cultural Marxist apparatchiks of the corporocratic state.

Especially in Canada.

Canadians, in general, have no concept of rights.

They speak of rights, but they really mean privileges.

Regarding the right to bear arms, they ask “what kind of arms should we be allowed to carry?”

Regarding the right to free speech, they say “what kind of things should we be allowed to say?”

And so on. It’s pathetic.

Canadians, in general, cannot imagine not being ruled.

To paraphrase what I wrote in another comment, cultural Marxists seek to breed independence and self-reliance out of us. They want to make us into Eloi. And their masters, the globalist Morlocks, are very pleased with their progress.

Especially in Canada.

In Canada, people like the Fourniers don’t have the option of being tried by a jury of their peers.

Eloi are not their peers.

 

 

Posted in politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 245 Comments »

Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 13)

September 28, 2013 — xanthippa

Week 1

Day 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.

Week 2

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.  An alternate narrative from a different observer can be found here.

Week 3

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.

Day 10’s events (the closing arguments) can be read here.

Day 11 was used for the judge to give instruction to the jury – a factor almost as important for a jury to reach the ‘just’ verdict as the evidence presented.  Unfortunately, I was unable to attend, but hope to report another’s observations of this soon.  From what I heard, however, Mr. Warman had been alternating between chewing his fingernails and pen – perfectly understandable, under the circumstances.  One can only admire the Fourniers for their grace under pressure!!!

Day 12, from the information I have gathered, the jury had spent in deliberations.

Day 13, on the other hand, had a little bit of action to offer…  If you’d like, I’ll share my observations with you.

Due to other-life-obligations, I only arrived at the courthouse around lunchtime – and all was quiet.  Courtroom # 35 at the Elgin St. Courthouse was abandoned and locked – though I did hear that Barbara Kulaszka, the defense counsel, had been seen in the vicinity recently.

The only thing I myself saw was a cart with take-out lunches being wheeled by the bailiff to the jury room…

Along with another observer, I went in search of the Fourniers – and found them in a nearby eatery, finishing their lunch.  And, they had some amazing news:  Connie’s daughter had just given birth to her first son!!!

CONGRATULATIONS!!!

If you follow my blog regularly, you may have realized that I have an over-developed (to put it mildly) mothering instinct:  just imagine ‘mothering’ and and industrial dose of OCD combined…(really – ask my past employees!).  So, though I know it is no achievement of my own, I could not help but experience a reflected feeling of bliss, radiating from Connie and Mark!!!

Bringing a new life into this world – what could be more wonderful?

And then I considered just how much this ‘Maximum Disruption’ shtick was costing – not just the brave Connie and the stoic Mark:  I understood why they are doing this!  For the good of all of us, our children and our grandchildren!

But, the cost is also born by their families:  Connie’s daughter was deprived of her mother, who was stuck awaiting the outcome of this trial, when she needed her mother to be with her, to share the moment her own son was born…

And, it is also born by the innocent baby boy – deprived of his protective family during this vulnerable moment.

This is not a trivial matter and something we must keep in mind when we consider the cost of our freedom!

And yet, I have no doubt that this young Canadian will understand that precisely because he, as a free human being and a Canadian, is precious and deserves to have his innate rights respected by everyone, especially by our government and those who are its agents, that his grandparents have sacrificed so much in protecting him and his future!!!

Would that all of our young Canadians knew that they were so cherished!  Would that all Canadians understood they were worth nothing less than this!!!

I’m sorry – please, forgive me…I’m going off on a tangent here.  Refocusing…

The afternoon brought some excitement to the courtroom:  we had a question from the jury!

To recap:  this is Friday, the 27th of September, 14:00 o’clock.

Jason Bertoucci and Roger Smith had to return to BC, so only Barbara Kulaszka, the counsel for the defense, and Mark and Connie Fournier were at the defense table.

Despite this being a Jewish holiday (as far as I understand), Mr. Katz breezed into the courtroom shortly after his law student had, and started putting his trim lawyer’s jacket and billowing lawyer’s robes over his crisp white shirt and black trousers.

Mr. Warman was absent – and it was his absence that made me wonder just how many holidays do employees of the Department of Defense get, that he can spend so many days in court…

Once Justice Smith came in and the court was reconvened, he opened the brown envelope and read the question from the jury:  on the defense of ‘fair comment’ – must all points be met or just a few of them?

OK – it is clear that I would understand this question better had I seen the charge to the jury…please, do forgive me.

But, instead of being sequential now, I’ll try to explain what I understand (in my layman’s mind) is going on, so as to make some sense of this.

The jury was provided with many, many documents.  One of these was a binder that contained (highlighted) each and every statement that Mr. Warman claimed was defamatory (taken out of context – the context itself would be in the other documents) as well as a multi-point question the jury has to answer regarding the statement.  It was regarding these multiple points that the question asked by the jury was about.

Now, to the best of my legally-untrained-understanding, the ‘a’ part of the question was whether the statement had the potential to be defamatory – a legal bit to be determined by the judge, not the jury.  I could, however, be very wrong in this – yet, that is what I think might have been the upshot of what was said.  (Yes, severe qualification, because I was unaware of the original charge to the jury and because I have no legal training, so following the arguments in court on this is not as easy as one might imagine, because I am quite ignorant of the legal principles that are just hinted at, not overtly stated, and so on…)

My understanding of the outcome is that the judge said that he will have decided the ‘a’ part, but the jury must answer all the following parts.  And, all but ‘malice’ must be satisfied for the defense of ‘fair comment’ to hold.

That is, the statement must:

  • be a comment/opinion
  • be understandable to be a comment/opinion (and not a statement of fact)
  • must be an opinion a ‘reasonable person’ could possibly have arrived at given the factual evidence

At this point, the onus of ‘proof’ shifts from the defendant to the plaintiff:  if the plaintiff can prove that the comment/opinion was stated with actual malice, then this would defeat the defense of ‘fair comment’.

There was a LOT of back and forth between the judge and both lawyers, both on the questions themselves as well as on the definitions of the words that went into the questions.  Phrases like ‘honestly held opinion’ and ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ floated about.

Yet, it began to seem to me that both the judge and the counsel (both Mr. Katz and Ms. Kulaszka) were beginning to have serious concerns about the original instructions to the jury!  (If only I had been there to record them…)

Also, there now arose serious reservations about the difference between the questions posed to the jury regarding each statement that was claimed to have been defamatory and the questions asked of the jury in that ‘concise’ document that was meant to help them.  Again, there was much back and forth (that went right over my head) between the judge and the two counsels, but, in the end, it was decided that the questions ought to be re-phrased to be more in line with the judge’s charge to the jury and that the new sheets with the statements under judgment and the questions to be answered shall be reprinted and provided to the jury.

The jury had let it be known that they do not plan to deliberate over the weekend.

Then, the jury had let it be known that they are tired and wish to go home now rather than wait for the revised questions.  Upon reading this, the judge joked about the jury wishing to keep the ‘civil service’ hours….

The upshot of all this was that the revised questions were to be submitted to the judge via email later that day and that the jury would be provided the updated documents on Monday morning, at which point they shall resume their deliberations…

I guess we shall see what next week shall bring!

 

 

 

 

Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 10)

September 25, 2013 — xanthippa

Day 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!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 10 Comments »

Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 8)

September 23, 2013 — xanthippa

Day 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.

 

Posted in corruption, freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , . 4 Comments »

Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 7)

September 18, 2013 — xanthippa

Day 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.’
Posted in freedoms, religion, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 7 Comments »

Some word-definitions

September 13, 2013 — xanthippa

Today was day 5 of the Richard Warman vs Free Dominion jury trial.

Unfortunately, I did not feel well today and could not attend – my apologies for those who came here for a report.  Nor have I yet heard from anyone who had been in the courtroom, so I truly have no indication of what transpired…

So, in the meantime, I would like to present you with some definitions I had rounded up on the interwebitudes…and took the liberty of bolding/colour highlighting  some bits.

CENSOR:

The Free Online Dictionary:

cen·sor  (snsr)

n.

1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
3. One that condemns or censures.
4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.
5. Psychology The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.
tr.v.cen·sored, cen·sor·ing, cen·sors

To examine and expurgate.

cen·sor

[sen-ser] Show IPA

noun

1.  an official who examines books, plays, news reports, motion pictures, radio and television programs, letters, cablegrams, etc., for the purpose of suppressing parts deemed objectionable on moral, political, military, or other grounds.
2.  any person who supervises the manners or morality of others.
3.  an adverse critic; faultfinder.
4.  in the ancient Roman republic) either of two officials who kept the register or census of the citizens, awarded public contracts, and supervised manners and morals.
5.  (in early Freudian dream theory) the force that represses ideas, impulses, and feelings, and prevents them from entering consciousness in their original, undisguised forms.

CENSORSHIP:

Wikipedia:

Censorship is the suppression of speech or other public communication which may be considered objectionable, harmful, sensitive, politically incorrect or inconvenient as determined by a government, media outlet or other controlling body. It can be done by governments and private organizations or by individuals…

PBS:

Censorship: The use of the state and other legal or official means to restrict speech.

The File Room:  There is a collection of definitions here, with citations, including:

Censorship is a word of many meanings. In its broadest sense it refers to suppression of information, ideas, or artistic expression by anyone, whether government officials, church authorities, private pressure groups, or speakers, writers, and artists themselves. It may take place at any point in time, whether before an utterance occurs, prior to its widespread circulation, or by punishment of commincators after dissemination of their messages, so as to deter others from like expression.

Cultural Marxism:

Excerpt from a guest-post by CodeSlinger on my blog:

In the 1920’s, Antonio Gramsci and György Lukács adapted the methods of the Marxist dialectic and critical analysis to the cultural sphere and applied it to the task of undermining Western science, philosophy, religion, art, education, and so on. The result is called the quiet revolution, the revolution from within, the revolution that cannot be resisted by force. This is cultural Marxism.

Now, that was quite bad enough, but then along came a group of sociologists and psychologists — chief among whom being Max Horkheimer, Theodor Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Erich Fromm, and Jürgen Habermas — and they combined the Marxist dialectic with Freudian psychology to produce an exceptionally corrosive concoction called Critical Theory, which they use to deconstruct Western culture and values, and to rewrite history in terms of sexual and racial power struggles (and we can all see how that is turning out).

Collectively, these guys are called the Frankfurt School, because they originally got together under Horkheimer at the Institute for Social Research (Institut für Sozialforschung), which was domiciled in a little brick building belonging to the University of Frankfurt am Main in the early 1930’s. They all published their work in the Journal for Social Research (Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung), edited by none other than Horkheimer himself.

Then Hitler consolidated his control of Nazi Germany, so, seeing as they were all Jewish, they fled to the USA, more or less as a group, in 1934. In America, they affiliated themselves with Columbia and Princeton Universities. The Zeitschrift für Sozialforschung was renamed Studies in Philosophy and Social Science, and they really got down to business.

Not a perfect definition, but the great late Andrew Breitbart said a few colourful words about Cultural Marxism…

OK, not an ‘official’ definition, but, it does give a flavour…

There is more that ought to be here:  if you have some definitions of these or other ‘terms of interest’, please, do leave them in the comments.

Note:  If you plan to troll, please, donate $100 towards the defense of Free Dominion per troll comment.  Thank you!

Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , . 8 Comments »

Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 4)

September 12, 2013 — xanthippa

Day 1′s events can be read here.

Day 2′s events can be read here.

Day 3’s events can be read here.

Today, Mr. Warman was being cross-examined by Ms. Kulaszka.

It seems that, over the years, Mr Warman had instigated or filed well over 70 lawsuits – and is very comfortable on the witness stand.

He continues to paint Ms. Kulaszka as a nazi-lawyer, sort of like a ‘mob lawyer’, and thus casts her clients as nazis and bad people in the eyes of the jury.

For all her great intelligence, Ms. Kulaszka is not a good orator.  Even the judge had difficulty following her questions at times and was asking for clarification.  After Mr. Warman would answer a question, she’d make minutes long pauses before acknowledging the answer…

Mr. Warman appeared to be trying to help her, and won much sympathy from the jury.

Half an hour into the afternoon session, I could not take it any more and I left.

EDIT:  during day 7 of the trial, the number of lawsuits initiated by Mr. Warman was said to be 69, which M. Katz side disputed by pointing out that some were multiple lawsuits against the same people but some were lawsuits with multiple defendants.

Also, I would like to clarify that the means through which Mr. Warman painted Ms. Kulaszka as a ‘nazi-lawyer’ was by name dropping and smearing, not through direct accussations.

Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . 35 Comments »

Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 3)

September 11, 2013 — xanthippa

Day 1′s events can be read here.

Day 2’s events can be read here.

Today is day 3 of the trial and, I am sad to report, I was not there for most of it.

Before day 2 came to a close, the jury had been excused so that the judge and the lawyers (and Mr. Smith) could discuss some technical details.  Much of it was very technical legalese and I must admit, I had a difficult time following it.

What it did drive home for me was just how physically strenuous being a trial lawyer is!

The first day of the trial had been long and exhausting, but, before they left, the judge gave the lawyers homework:  they were to write a short 1-2 page summary not of the facts, but from what positions they would be arguing the case.

Now, at the close of the second day, the judge gave out more homework!

And this time, it was not just a short summary:  the judge wanted each of the sides to look up precedent law on the technical bit they had been discussing and present him with it before the trial resumed today!

That is a lot of work, paying close attention to all the details of the trial and then having to spend the evening doing more detailed research – as well as work what had gone on in the courtroom into the next-day’s plans…you would have to be not just intelligent, but also have a lot of physical stamina in order to withstand this kind of a highly stressful workload.

But, again, I digress…

So, this morning had been more discussions between the judge and the lawyers and no presentation of evidence to the jury.  And, again, my lack of legal training is a sharp limiting factor on my ability to have followed the crux of it, but…this is the best I could glean.

The jury will be asked to rule if specific – certain, very specific – posts on the Free Dominion discussion forum (they keep referring to it as a message board) – if these constitute libel against Mr. Warman.

The problem is that these specific comments are in different conversation threads in different bits of the site, there are cross-references and soon, the mesh becomes very difficult to navigate.  Time-lines complicate things even more…  Yet, for the jury to render their decisions, things have to be as easy to follow as possible.  So, to the best of my understanding, they were discussing how best to achieve this, how best to organize the material for presentation to the jury.

The court adjourned while the counsel counseled their respective clients on the suggested organizational methodologies.

After all this had been agreed to by all the parties – an amicable process, at least when one watched it from afar, the court re-convened.  And – the judge made an exciting announcement:  we had another question from the jury!

Once they begin deliberating, will they have access to their original binders, with their notes in it?

This warrants a little explanation.

The jurors are permitted to take notes during the testimony, but are not allowed to take them out of the courtroom, for security.  Many of them have, indeed, been taking notes – either on note-pads or right inside the evidence binders, as they were following the testimony regarding the various posts and how they affected Mr. Warman and his reputation.  To the best of my understanding, the jurors were asking if they would have access to these same binders – with their notes in them – while they deliberate, which will, of course, not be inside the courtroom.

Justice Smith smiled and said the answer was yes.  Then, he asked the counsel if they think it would OK for them (judge and lawyers and Mr. Smith) to call the jurors in, give them the answer, but then excuse them until 2pm so that they (the judge, the lawyers and Mr. Smith) could finish going over the details of what and how organized and labeled and highlighted the ‘posts in question’ will be presented to the jury.

All agreed, the jury came in, got their answer, was dismissed till 2 and left.

And, even though my own load in just observing the process is much lighter than that of any other person there, I must admit, I was exhausted.  I am not very healthy and not being able to lie down for this long at a stretch, several days in a row, had taken its toll on me…I was tired, so very, very tired…

Plus my pen ran out of ink…

My backup pen was in the second bag from yesterday, which I had left in the car…

My backup backup pen was in the backup notebook, which I just could not find…

so, ladies and gentlemen, I apologize but, I, too left…

I hope to gather information on what happened after 2 pm from any observers who might have been there, but, up till now, I have not received any.

What I did do, however, was to try to get a perspective on how Mr. Warman behaved on the stand from a non-Aspie observer.  I am, after all, rather blind to social cues and body language, so I know my perceptions of how Mr. Warman performed on the stand are necessarily poor.

What I heard did not warm my heart.

It seems that Mr. Warman’s positioning himself as a victim was skilfully executed and that casually slipping in the ‘damaging’ (to him) information into what he said likely went quite unnoticed by the jury.

Let’s see what tomorrow brings!

 

UPDATE:  (at 22:22)  I have found my backup notebook with my backup backup pen!

Posted in corruption, freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 3 Comments »
« Older posts
Newer posts »