Recent Comments
RSS feed
Helping Muslim Girls is “Racist”: Edmonton Transit Submits to Sharia, Takes Down AFDI Bus Ads
October 29, 2013 — xanthippa
Fighting for Freedom of Speech
October 23, 2013 — xanthippaA young man I know well is taking a Civics class in High School. For his ‘Civics’ project on how to improve our society, he had chosen to seek to raise awareness of the importance of Freedom of Speech. He chose to do this in two ways:
1. Following the example of FIRE, he considered setting up a ‘Free Speech Wall’ at his school. He asked for and received a meeting with his Principal where he proposed the idea. Due to School Board constraints (High School kids are still minors), this was deemed not possible.
However, his Principal was very supportive of his overall goal and they did agree that a ‘Freedom of Speech Page’ in the school’s newsletter would be a good idea: all students would be encouraged to write why Freedom of Speech is important to them. Since this high school has students from very diverse backgrounds, it might help to be inclusive for students who have come to Canada recently from more oppressive countries to be encouraged to share their stories of what life without freedom of speech was like and why we, in Canada, must protect this most core of our civil liberties.
He is still negotiating with the teacher in charge of the school newsletter, but he has volunteered to do the work on it and is hopeful that this will become a reality.
2. Drafting and collecting signatures on a petition to ask our legislators to strengthen the legal protections on Freedom of Speech. He had sent me the petition and the accompanying letter: I have taken the names out of it and turned it into a template that each and every one of us can use, collect signatures on the petition and present our own MPs with the demand to strengthen or Free Speech protections!
The accompanying letter:
Petition to strengthen freedom of speech in our laws
To: ___________________________
Member of Parliament of Canada
Dear _________________________:
In the most recent Throne Speech, our Government stressed its committment to the protection of our core rights and fundamental freedoms. The most fundamental of these is the Freedom of Speech, without which no other right or freedom can be defended. There have been many attacks on freedom of speech as of recent, and despite it being the most crucial human right, many people see it as an optional bonus, despite how important it is.
Our Canadian laws are not in line with other democratic countries, like Australia and the United States of America, and make it very easy for unscrupulous people to abuse our laws to chill legitimate political debate. This type abuse was happening under ‘Section 13’ of the Human Rights Code, and you, our lawmakers, have listened to us, the citizens, and repealed that section. Thank you for that!However, our other laws are now being similarly abused and I would like you, and all our lawmakers, to take steps to pass legislation to strengthen our freedom of speech!
Sincerely yours,
The petition:
This is a petition to my Member of Parliament, Pierre Poilievre, to ask that our law-makers pass federal laws strenghtening protection of the freedom unpon all our civil liberties depend, the Freedom of Speech, from attacks by those wishing to silence political discourse, so that Canadians within all of Canada would have better protections under the law for our most fundamental freedom.
SIGNATURE NAME (Please Print) City, Postal Code
1. ______________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
2. ______________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
3. ______________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
4. ______________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
5. ______________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
6. ______________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
7. ______________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
8. ______________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
9. ______________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
10. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
11. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
12. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
13. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
14. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
15. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
This is a petition to my Member of Parliament, Pierre Poilievre, to ask that our law-makers pass federal laws strenghtening protection of the most fundamental of all of our civil liberties, the Freedom of Speech, from attacks from all directions, so that Canadians within all of Canada would have equal protections under the law for our mos fundamental freedom.
SIGNATURE NAME (Please Print) City, Postal Code
16. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
17. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
18. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
19. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
20. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
21. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
22. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
23. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
24. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
25. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
26. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
27. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
28. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
29. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
30. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
This is a petition to my Member of Parliament, Pierre Poilievre, to ask that our law-makers pass federal laws strenghtening protection of the most fundamental of all of our civil liberties, the Freedom of Speech, from attacks from all directions, so that Canadians within all of Canada would have equal protections under the law for our mos fundamental freedom.
SIGNATURE NAME (Please Print) City, Postal Code
31. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
32. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
33. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
34. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
35. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
36. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
37. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
38. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
39. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
40. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
41. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
42. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
43. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
44. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
45. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
This is a petition to my Member of Parliament, Pierre Poilievre, to ask that our law-makers pass federal laws strenghtening protection of the most fundamental of all of our civil liberties, the Freedom of Speech, from attacks from all directions, so that Canadians within all of Canada would have equal protections under the law for our mos fundamental freedom.
SIGNATURE NAME (Please Print) City, Postal Code
46. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
47. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
48. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
49. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
50. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
51. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
52. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
53. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
54. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
55. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
56. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
57. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
58. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
59. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
60. _____________________________ __________________________________ _________________________________
If you would like to receive these files as an attachment to an email, where the formatting is properly done up, please, drop me a line in the comments and I will be happy to send it to you.
Help Ezra Levant Protect Our Freedom of Speech
October 17, 2013 — xanthippaFrom an email I received:
Dear Xanthippa*,
Please help: tomorrow (Thursday) in a Toronto court house, I’m being sued by Khurrum Awan, the youth president of the Canadian Islamic Congress who tried to censor Mark Steyn.
In fact, he’s suing me for writing about what he did at Steyn’s trial — five years ago!
Of course, it’s just more “lawfare” — the abuse of our western legal process, as a soft jihad against our traditional freedoms.
I won’t get into the details of the lawsuit here — you can see Awan’s Statement of Claim, and my Statement of Defence, here. I’ll make my official comments from the witness box. And you can see a column I wrote about it in the Sun, here. And the great Mark Steyn himself wrote about the trial, here.
But my point is, these radical, Islamic censors are still at it, still trying to silence their critics.
Awan himself gave away the game, in an interview he did after Steyn won his case. Awan told a reporter, “we do not plan to appeal the decision because we attained our strategic objective—to increase the cost of publishing anti-Islamic material.”
That’s what this latest lawsuit against me is: the “strategic objective” of punishing someone who criticizes radical Islam. I published the Danish cartoons of Mohammed; I supported Steyn; and now I have a TV show where I regularly report on radical Islam.
Since joining the TV station, I’ve been protected by the company’s lawyers. But this lawsuit started when I was a blogger, on my own. So I’m on the hook for all of my legal bills. And unlike Awan, I don’t have a big benefactor financing me.
Would you please consider helping me out? I am reluctant to ask, because I know you’ve helped me before. But a lot is at stake here.
This lawsuit is an attempt to undo the free speech victories of the past few years, and to send a warning to any Canadian journalist who dares to speak freely about radical Islam or censorship. It’s designed to instill a sense of fear into the national discussion, to create a “libel chill”.
It’s not just me who’s being targeted — it’s everyone who might ever want to talk about radical Islam. That’s the “strategic objective” of getting everyone to shut up.
I’ve already spent tens of thousands of dollars on lawyers, preparing for the trial. The trial is scheduled to last a week, and could go longer. The total cost will easily reach $50,000 — even if I win, I’ll lose. That’s why they’re doing it.
Can you please help me level the playing field? Can you help fill up my legal war chest, so I can keep standing on guard for our western values of freedom of speech, and the separation of mosque and state? If you can help me with my legal bills, I promise I’ll keep fighting.
You can chip in right now using my secure PayPal button here.
Whether you can donate $5 or $500, it all adds up. Let’s show them we’re as passionate about freedom as they are about censorship.
Wish me luck – I go to court at 10 a.m. tomorrow!
Yours gratefully,
Ezra Levant
P.S. Please help me level the playing field in this lawsuit, by chipping in to my defence fund, here.
P.P.S. And please visit www.StandWithEzra.ca to see the latest news about the trial, and read comments from free speech supporters across the country!
P.P.P.S. Feel free to forward this email to your friends and family who care about freedom too!
*I substituted my ‘nom-de-keyboard’, Xanthippa, for my ‘real-life-name’
Does Tenure Really Encourage Free Speech? Megan McArdle Tackles Issues in Higher Ed
October 15, 2013 — xanthippa
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.
Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does (the Jury Trial) – the Verdict
October 2, 2013 — xanthippaI’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.
Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 13)
September 28, 2013 — xanthippaWeek 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!
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!!!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 