Connie Fournier’s take on the ‘Warman vs. Free Dominion’ appeal hearing, part 1

April 9, 2010 — xanthippa

With Connie’s permission, here is how she saw, heard and understood the hearings of the ‘Warman vs FD John Doe Appeal’, as transcribed from her notes and posted here, on Free Dominion.

I’m about to start transcribing the notes I made at the hearing today, and I’ll post them in chunks on this thread, so keep watching.

Keep in mind that I made no attempt to quote people verbatim because I can’t write that fast. I’ve recorded the gist of what everyone said, and added some of my own impressions.

*  *  *

I don’t know if there were FDers who tried to find us today and couldn’t locate the Court room. I know of one person who couldn’t find us, and everyone seemed to have difficulty. The issue was that our names weren’t on the docket, it only said “Divisional Court”. For those of you who tried to come and couldn’t find the room, I’m really sorry we missed you.

When we went into the Court room, there were a large assortment of lawyers at the front. It turned out that the majority of them were our intervenors, so we were happy to see this. The panel of three judges came in and asked the lawyers to identify themselves. In attendance were:

Wendy Matheson, representing the Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Madeline Biderman, Canadian Civil Liberties Association
Barbara Kulaszka, representing us
Tamir Israel, representing the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic
Stephanie Lewis, representing Richard Warman, and
James Katz, representing Warman

Also in attendance was David Fewer from the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic, but he didn’t make any submissions.

I will have to get back to you with the names of the panel of judges because I forgot to write them down.

The Court room was much larger than the one we were in for the motion hearing in Toronto last week, and there were lots of chairs for spectators. We had two friends join us, there was another young woman who sat on the far side and was, I believe, part of the Katz team, and one other young woman who sat in the very middle and didn’t talk to anyone. We were speculating that it might be Lucy Aubrack or Mary Dufford standing in for Richard Warman because he wasn’t there.

*  *  *

The first person to take the stand was our faithful lawyer, Barbara. I can’t imagine what it must be like for lawyers to stand up there and face down THREE judges!

The first point that Barbara made was that Free Dominion is a political message board where we talk about news from a conservative perspective. I was glad to hear this because I, like many people here, was annoyed by the way that the motion judge had characterized Free Dominion in the motion we were appealing.

She said that our appeal raises issues of what protections will be afforded to anonymous posters. Immediately, one of the judges jumped in and said, “You mean, what protections, if any.” Mark and I looked at each other and gulped. It was obvious this wasn’t going to be easy.

Barbara stressed that IP addresses and email addresses are capable of identifying John Does, and that they can reveal much more than their identities. She said that if you google an email address, you can often find it on many other sites. Some of those sites can contain postings that are of a very personal nature.

She went on to say that you can compile a total profile on someone using just their email address, and that profile can contain information about lifestyle choices, beliefs or health problems.

There was a bit of back and forth at this time because the panel of judges didn’t seem to be getting that information that could be obtained from an email address could also be obtained by tying a username to a real person. That was never really resolved satisfactorily because there were some misunderstanding in how the questions were being asked and answered. But, we knew from reading our intervenors’ factums (is that a word?) that they would be addressing this issue very shortly.

After Barbara made her brief preliminary statements, she deferred to the intervenors to address those privacy issues.

*  *  *

I got ahead of myself a bit there, and I forgot a bit of what Barbara said.

She talked about balancing the rights of the plaintiff and of the anonymous posters. One of the judges asked her if a publisher had published a book for an author who wrote under a pseudonym such as Mark Twain, would the publisher be required to reveal the name?

Barbara said that she believed he would, and that the online world is different because so much information can be obtained when a person has spent so much time online.

Another judge asked if we should use the emails ourselves to try to find the identities of the Does and turn the information over. Barbara said that there is nothing in the law that would oblige a defendent to go through multiple steps to find identities, that we are only to turn over existing documents.

As an aside, Barbara mentioned the issue with the server clock. It has been notoriously wrong at times and the dates on the posts in the database are not reliable. This really means that the IP addresses could be used and people could be misidentified, but the judges didn’t seem to understand her point…I guess it was a bit too technical. One judge just responded that he didn’t think that meant anything and that considering it would just be an open invitation to make sure people have a defective server clock.

Barbara mentioned that Richard Warman has been able to identify four of the John Does already. She said that, since he knows the identities, she felt that the appeal should be allowed on those four. The judges said that they didn’t want to allow the appeal on those four because it would set a precedent they might not intend to set, but that James Katz (Warman’s lawyer) could stay the motion with respect to those four people. That means that the email and IP information will not be turned over for the known John Does.

Barbara asked Katz if they knew who any of the other John Does were. Katz looked like he didn’t know what to say for a few moments, then one of the judges said, “You are working on it?” and he said, “Yes, we are working on it”.

Make of that what you will.

*  *  *

The next person on the stand was Wendy Matheson representing the CCLA. She was a very dynamic speaker, and she knew exactly what she was talking about. Wendy said that the position of the CCLA was that in NO CASE should the identities never be disclosed, but that it should not be automatic. Automatic disclosure of personal information on anonymous posters creates Charter Rights issues.

Wendy said that the basis on which the motion ruling was made was flawed in an important way. She said that people who are in possession of personal information should disclose that they have it, but state that they are objecting to the disclosure. Then, to order production, the Court must establish that there is a prima facie case against the anonymous posters. [This means that it has been demonstrated to a court that a case can be made that the anonymous posters actually defamed the plaintiff. It would mean that frivolous claims could be dealt with without ever having to disclose personal information of innocent posters].

Further, it is the position of the CCLA that the Party who is in possession of the information should take reasonable steps to inform the John Does that they are being sued so that they can choose to come forward and fight if they wish.

Wendy said that the CCLA was asking for a prima facie test to be applied in these cases, but, given the Charter Rights issues, the standard should really be even higher.

In describing what would be required to prove a prima facie case, Wendy suggested that it include an Affidavit from the plaintiff stating that the posts were made and that they were false and defamatory. When asked by the judge if she thought it was important that the Affidavit say that the posts were false, she said that it should.

She said that this would screen out people who are doing this for improper purposes.

*  *  *

There was a lot of discussion during this hearing about a case they called “Norwich”. The case law from that case requires that the plaintiff show a bona fide case before they get personal information about anonymous Does. A bona fide case simply means that the plaintiff has a genuine intention to sue them.

Wendy went on to say that there had been some discussion about the frailty of the information (the IPs might be wrong or might not exist), but that we needed to consider what the process should be if the information is right. She mentioned a case she called “Wagg”, where the ruling showed that obligations under civil procedure are subject to the Charter.

She came back to the Mark Twain analogy because that analogy was used in the Wagg decision, and the court concluded that anonymous speech is protected.

A judge said that you must decide if a post was made with a reasonable expectation of anonymity.

Wendy said that the Court must have the opportunity to balance the interests of the anonymous posters and the plaintiff in these cases.

Wagg indicated that Charter Rights are an issue. In the test for that case, it was asked:

Is it relevant?
Is it privileged?
Are Constitutional rights at stake?

Wendy continued, saying that freedom of expression is at the forefront of a defamation case. The Supreme Court of Canada has been talking a lot about this recently. Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental rights we have, and that true freedom of expression must protect speech we don’t agree with, even offensive speech.

*  *  *

The next case that Wendy brought us was a York University case. This ruling stated that a user has the ability to roam the internet with anonimity. In this case, the test that was applied was a bona fide case. The internet is a revolutionary tool for free speech, and anonymity is a critical component of that free speech. Nobody is suggesting, however, that freedom of expression provides a blank cheque.

The point was made that the Wagg case was not in front of the motions judge who made the ruling we are appealing. It came after.

In the York University case, apparently disclosure was eventually ordered.

A judge asked if, in that case, it was decided because there was no reasonable expectation of anonymity.

Another judge remarked that, in our case, there is no consent from the John Does so anonymity is expected.

Another case was cited, I didn’t get the name, which dealt with a City Ordinance that stated that hand bills must have a name and address on them, or you could not hand them out.

Wendy talked about how anonymous pamphlets have played an important part in history. Historically, anonymous speech has allowed for speech that would not have been possible. One example is the Federalist Papers.

*  *  *

Wendy said that any defamation case requires a consideration of freedom of expression. She said that the Supreme Court of Canada has shown a trend in favour of freedom of expression. Beginning with the Casey Hill case where the Supreme Court said that privacy is grounded in man’s autonomy and that reputation protection must be balanced with protection of privacy and that they are equally important.

In 2008, the Supreme Court considered a case against a controversial radio host. They said that traditional tort regarding defamation needs modification to protect free speech, and that there has been a chilling effect from defamation.

In a case last year, the Supreme Court said that the balance is off between freedom of expression and reputation protection, and that reputation protection is currently given too much weight.

Wendy said that the mere allegation of defamation is not enough to defeat freedom of expression. Commencing a defamation suit does not take away the Court’s responsibility to proect freedom of expression.

She went on to say that privacy finds its way into Charter rights. She said it is a component of Section 7. There was a case called BMG which was about music sharing. The court found that a test was necessary before the anonymity of the anonymous Does could be broken, this case involved a request on a third party for information. [this becomes important later] In any case, Wendy said that a test was required in this case and that the ability of a defendant to share music is surely less important than the right to anonymous speech.

One judge asked, “When someone chooses to use a very public forum, doesn’t he waive his right to privacy?”

Wendy responded that privacy is tied to their identity, and that privacy is a Charter value, if not a Charter Right.

She went on to say that interests of privacy are increasing, not decreasing. The Court below [the Motion court] has given no consideration of privacy.

*  *  *

There was a bit of back and forth discussion of a scenario where an abused wife could be posting on a forum and it could be decided that it was unsafe to reveal her identity. Both Wendy and the judges worked at fleshing out the scenario.

Wendy said that society is being forced to conduct our lives online. It is unreasonable to say that if you want to protect your privacy you should have to stay off the internet. She said that the most reasonable test would be to require a prima facie case and a balancing of Charter issues. She said that protection of 2B Charter Rights is more powerful than defamation.

The Supreme Court of Canada has acknowledged the chilling effect of defamation claims.

Wendy said that is a well established line of authority for discovering identity in order to sue someone in a case she called Norwich. In this case, the plaintiffs sued Customs and Excise for information related to a trademark case. This case required a five part test and a principled approach. Cases that used the “Norwich rules” were not constitutional, but discovery was still not automatic.

A very powerful argument was made by Wendy that, if this motion ruling stands, it will make cases like BMG where plaintiffs have to prove a prima facie case in order to get information from a third party, moot. She said that proving a prima facie case will be avoided when a plaintiff simply adds the information holder to the statement of claim as a party.

For instance, if you wanted the information on someone and Sympatico held the information, you could just name Sympatico and they would have to turn it over without meeting the usual test.

Wendy said that it is a disappointment to have to consider protential unprincipled behaviour in making this decision.

She closed her remarks by reiterating that disclosure should not be automatic on the issuance of a Statment of Claim. She said it is insufficient in a lawsuit to simply name the information holder and get the information, there must be a process. A process which ignores Charter right and values, she stressed, should not be adopted.

The Norwich test has been adopted by the Federal Court of Appeals.

That was the end of the sumbissions for the CCLA.

*  *  *

To be continued…HERE

Posted in freedoms, opression, technology, war. Tags: , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

A day in law-law land

April 9, 2010 — xanthippa

Yesterday, 8th of April, 2010, I spent the day at the Ontario Courthouse at 151 Elgin St, downtown Ottawa.

No – I am not in trouble.  At least, not more than the whole thing of ‘breathing’ implies.  Rather, I went to see how the appeal case of ‘Richard Warman vs Personal Privacy and Internet Anonymity’.

I will be writing that up shortly – and posting link to Connie Fournier’s write up of it.  But, I have about 48 pages of notes, so it’ll take me a while to write it up (most of that time will be spent in trying to decipher my handwriting).

This post is called  ‘A day in law-law land’ not because the case itself is not meritorious, nor because it was not argued well.  It was the ‘getting there’ that felt like being in one of those weird Kafkaesque dreams….much of it due to my unpreparedness, I’m sure, but also because I am so very unfamiliar with he mechanics of how a courthouse operates.

After packing my ‘little ones’ (OK – they are taller than I am) off to school, I headed downtown, to the heart of the City of Ottawa, to witness our legal future being made.  In my never-humble-opinion, this is a very important case because it is in the intersection of several really, really important issues which our society really needs to ‘figure out’ how to ‘deal with’:  privacy issues, freedom of the internet, freedom of speech.

You know, the biggies!

So I figured that I would have no problem figuring out where ‘the case’ was:  just follow the throngs of reporters and TV crews and all that!

Since the Courthouse is right next to the Ottawa City Hall, and since the Ottawa City Hall is -by far – the cheapest place in downtown Ottawa to park (it cost me just $12.00 for the whole day!), I parked there.  But, it meant that I entered the Courhouse through a door in the back, not the main entrance.  People stood all around, smiling so as not to look nervous – or just giving up and looking grim.

Lots of people were marching around in a self-assured way,  some pulling little suitcases on wheels.  You know, sort of like pilots and stewards/stewardesses do – but without the smiles.  Since we were nowhere near an airport, I figured that there had to be another purpose to this and resolved to devote some of my time to observing it further in the hope of figuring it out.  But not now – now I had to find the courtroom where this appeal case was being heard, in the hopes of getting there early enough to be able to squeeze in, get one of the last available seats in the courtroom…

No throngs of reporters in sight….

So, I started to walk around – I was bound to see them somewhere!

After wandering about for about 10 minutes, I still did not see any gaggles of reporters.  Nor any information booths – I’d been on the lookout for these for the last 7 minutes or so, too:   just in case.

Circling back to the main entrance, I began to suspect that the big desk with huge signs that people with disabilities ought to go talk to them there to get help might, perhaps, also double as an information desk.  So I approached it, hoping they would tell me where to go.

Taking a look at my walking cane, they started to want to help me with ‘accessibility’…  Now, OK, I was walking with a cane, but my issue was not ‘accessibility’, it was trying to find out where it was I wanted to ‘access’!

After claiming ignorance of any ‘Richard Warman vs. Personal Privacy and Internet Anonymity’ case, they offered me a list of the day’s schedule:  it listed times, court room numbers and the names of the judges who will be doing the judging in those rooms.  Not the names of the cases….

I did not know the names of the judges!

It was about then that I began to notice the beautiful architecture of the Courthouse – and just how much it looked like the descriptions of The Castle!

Any and all descriptions of the case I was looking for drew nothing more than blank stares…until one of the guys picked up on a clue:  did I say this was ‘an appeal’?  Yes?  Well, then I had to go down the hall to the right and sign in at kiosk #4.  That way!

All right – I guess it is a security measure.  Makes sense.

I followed the vague wave of the arm and, at the end of the hallway, there truly was a kiosk#4.  It was one side of a counter which sort of intruded into an area of cubicles:  I was on the ‘halway’ side of the counter.  On the ‘cubicle’ side, there was a lady searching through a bankers’ box of papers, another lady typing busily on her keyboard, a distracted looking person (also female, I think) dejectedly rushing around with a bunch of files clutched tightly to her chest…..

After standing at the counter for about 4 minutes, another person – this one young, male and smiling – appeared from the bowels of the cubicles and actually acknowledged that I was standing there.  After he finished his conversation with someone invisible from my vantage point, he came over to see what I wanted.

He was very nice.  Why would I think I needed to sign in?  He obviously thought me only partly ‘there’, if I thought I needed to sign in….  But, at least he did know that there was some sort of an appeal being heard that day.  He consulted his paperwork and directed me to courtroom #37.  He was really rather nice.

Now I regretted that when I wandered around earlier, I was only looking at ‘people’ and looking for crowds instead of paying attention to the numbers of the courtrooms I was passing by.  I had no idea where #37 was!  So, I wandered about some more….

Finally, I gave up and went back to the ‘information desk’.  They already suspected my ‘disability’ was not limited to the cane bt that I probably also had ‘diminished capability’ – explaining to me that courtroom #37 was on the third floor…

Makes sense – of course!

Now my forehead was hurting, too.

The Courthouse is really beautiful.  Built in the ‘open-middle-to-to-give-an-air-of-grandeur’ style.  Lots of skylights light up the spacious halls.  Very pretty.

The elevators are all glass – the back side exposed to the brightly lit, multi-story open area.  To access them, one has to sneak into the dark narrow hallway behind the information desk.  So I did – and was on my way to courtroom #37!

Disappointment!

I must have bumbled around so long, everyone must already be in the courtroom and these 3-4 people left out front must mean there are no seats left!

But, no – the courtroom is locked, nobody inside.

The people in front have never heard of Richard Warman.

My heart dropped.

Leave me a simple task, like showing up at the Courthouse to see the wheels of justice in motion – and I can’t even do that!

There were a lot of people in the room next to courtroom #37 – so I explored.  It was the ‘jury-duty-call-up’ room.

As I was preparing to leave, I noticed that two of the people who rode up in the elevator with me (and whom I saw walking purposefully towards some goal during a few different points in my adventure – one was even pulling one of them little suitcase thingies on wheels) were walking towards a small group of people…. Hey!  One of these people is Mark Fournier!  And there’s Connie!

YES!

I FOUND IT!!!

I asked Mark and Connie to pose for a photo.

Did you know taking pictures in the courthouse is forbidden?

My day in law-law land was off to a great start!

Posted in freedoms, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , . 5 Comments »

If we don’t stand up for our right to be offended…

April 7, 2010 — xanthippa

In Canada, we have freedom of speech!

At least, that is what our Constitution says….though many bureaucrats, apartchiks and pseudo-activists would like us to believe otherwise.   Don’t let them fool you!

…because each and every one of us has ‘the right to BE OFFENDED’ !!!

Why?

‘Being offended’ is a very human, emotional, natural reaction!

Nobody, truly nobody, has the right to dictate to you what you may – or may not – be offended by!

However, if we permit the government to silence speech that ‘offends’ some people, it paves the road for the government to not only regulate speech, but to also dictate what we MAY – or MAY NOT – be offended by!

Yes – if we permit the government to ban speech which ‘offends’ – or, as the abominable Section 13 puts it, ‘IS LIKELY TO OFFEND’ – we are, in a very real sense, permitting the government to regulate both our speech and our emotional reactions to ‘stuff’!

Think about it – it is the logical extension:  if the government regulates speech and ‘protects’ you from anything ‘bad’ which ‘might be likely to’ generate negative feelings of any kind – then you no longer have the right to ‘be offended’ by this ‘sanitized’ speech….  After all, it has been ‘filtered’ in the most rigorous manner to remove all ‘offensive’ things – so, if it is spoken, it cannot possibly cause you to react in a negative manner, to cause negative feelings in you!

If the message is ‘fine’ (approved), and you still react negatively to it, feel bad or – get offended by it – the  there has GOT to be something wrong with YOU!

….nothing a re-education camp ‘sensitivity training’ could not fix!

All ‘pubic entertainment’ – as well as ‘political discourse’ – might just be limited to ‘acts’ like this:

P.S. – This is NOT a diss at the Arrogant Worms –  they have enough ‘bits’ that would also be banned.  This one simply demonstrates ‘the limits’ of my point…

Posted in freedoms, human nature, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Free Dominion – court date is 8th of April, 2010

April 7, 2010 — xanthippa

Mark Fournier posted on Free Dominion:

Richard Warman vs Personal Privacy and Internet Anonymity

April 8, 2010

161 Elgin Street

Ottawa, Ontario

On April 8, 2010 in Ottawa a Divisional Court Justice will hear an appeal of a disclosure ruling in the Richard Warman vs The Fourniers and John Does 1-8.civil case. At issue is whether the Fourniers, operators of the Free Dominion website, should be compelled to disclose confidential information about the website’s members to the plaintiff, Richard Warman. Last year Superior Court Justice Stanly Kershman ruled for the plaitiff in a motion he brought forth seeking information he hopes to use to identify the John Does who posted anonymously in Free Dominion’s political discussion forum. Four of the eight John Does have already been identified by the plaintiff and have been added to the underlying defamation suit brought forth by Warman.

The defamation case itself will by necessity bring forth a number of public interest issues such as freedom of speech, political commentary and opinion but it will also venture into several areas where our laws are outdated by internet communications. The internet has given us a means to communicate that was inconceivable when our current defamation laws were written and those laws are now in need of legislative upgrades. Until those legal updates are made though we will have to fight for our internet anonymity and personal privacy in the courts.

This appeal of the disclosure ruling of Kershman is more important than the case from which it grew. There are now privacy issues at stake that didn’t previously exist. Outing someone’s internet alias can have far-reaching effects that should not be on the table in a minor civil squabble. Because of the serious privacy issues surrounding this appeal of Kershman’s disclosure ruling, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic will be intervening. This is good news for those on the freedom side of the debate.

Nothing will bring justice in our courts and action in our parliament like public interest and participation in these cases. If you are near Ottawa and can get the time to go to the courthouse on Elgin Street please do so on April 8, 2010. This is an important battle in the ongoing contest to protect our freedom and it should be witnessed by the public.

See you there!

Apparently, the time has not yet been set – but the Fourniers will be at the Courthouse by 9 am.

Posted in freedoms, opression, society. Tags: , , , , , . 1 Comment »

Is Guy Earle the ‘next George Carlin’?

April 5, 2010 — xanthippa

Or, perhaps, Lenny Bruce….

Actually, the ‘Lenny Bruce’ comparison works well – in some ways…

October 4th, 1961: Lenny Bruce performed a stand-up comedy routine (during which he tended to ‘riff-on-the-fly’) at a night club in San Francisco. He was promptly arrested and charged with violating Section 311.6 of the Penal Code of California – the clause which claims that banning ‘obscene speech’ is a ‘reasonable limit’ on ‘free speech’.

May 22, 2007: Guy Earle performed a stand-up comedy routine (which he adjusted to talk back to some hecklers in the audience) at Zesty’s in Vancouver.  He was promptly charged with violating Section 13 of the Human Rights Code of Canada – the clause which claims that banning ‘hurt-speech’ is a ‘reasonable limit’ on ‘free speech’.

Yet, like George Carlin, I suspect Guy did not expect such a vicious censorship attack form ‘the left’…

And – yes, we are banning ‘hurt speech’!

By now, the very people in charge of protecting human rights fail to recognize that the ‘right to be offended’ is essential in any healthy society!  Instead, they seem to be under the unjustifiable impression that there is some ‘right NOT to be offended’….silly bunnies…

Punishing people for saying things that offend is not just silly, it is contrary to the fabric of our society!


It was not justifiable when Lenny Bruce and George Carlin and Richard Pryor were persecuted for words that offended some within their audience and it is not justifiable when Guy Earle is persecuted for using words that offend some within their audience…

Hey!  Doesn’t this sound a little similar?

But, there ARE differences!

When Lenny Bruce and George Carlin were charged for saying stuff people found offensive (and, yes, regarded ass ‘dangerous’ to ‘morality’ the ‘fabric of society’), they faced an actual real court:  one where their rights as citizens who are innocent  until found guilty were respected.  Guy Earle – well, he is not that lucky.

Guy Earle is facing a ‘Human Rights Tribunal’….one which can try people not for their actions, but for how others might, perhaps, react to their words.

One where the investigators actively search out ‘thought crimes’, demanding ‘intentions’ are as actionable as ‘actions’.

One where the defendant, if found innocent, has no means of recouping the cost of his/her defense…which can run into tens, even hundreds of thousands of dollars.

One where the ‘process’ of being investigated and prosecuted is the punishment itself!

Even though the fateful night when Guy Earle talked back to his hecklers in Vancouver may have been almost 3 years ago, the ‘trial’ (it’s more of a semi-star-chamber thing than a real trial) is only taking place now.  After all, it takes a while to financially exhaust the HRC’s victim properly prepare the case!

Well, last week, to be exact….as Mark Steyn comments:

It ended a day early, due to Mr Earle’s inability to pay for a flight to Vancouver to defend himself in person and his lawyer’s decision to withdraw from the proceedings after pseudo-judge Heather MacNaughton, Chief Commissar of the British Columbia “Human Rights” Tribunal”, opted to ignore the BC Supreme Court’s ruling on potential jurisdictional overreach and carry on with the trial. It remains to be seen whether the defence’s actions were the right thing to do.

‘The ‘right’ thing to do”…

The right thing for WHAT???

Let us consider the implications of withdrawing one’s defense from the HR Tribunal:  unless I am mistaken (and I am certainly no legal expert), this means he is forfeiting his right to appeal any ruling they may pass against him.  And, once passed and registered with a real court, an HRT ruling is as legally binding as if it had been issued  by a court.

Among past rulings of various HR Commissions, lifetime speech bans have been know to be included….hardly something conducive to making a living as a cutting-edge comic!

Yet, it was not until after people like Lenny Bruce, George Carlan and Richard Pryor got their asses (the term seems appropriate, given the topic) tossed into jail that ‘people’ woke up – and began to fight against being oppressed by their own governments.

Last week, I had lamented what had happened when a bunch of thugs were permitted to use threats of violence to cancel the planned speech by Ann Coulter at the University of Ottawa.  While the condemnation of the thughs (both the students who threatened violence and the provost who had whipped them up into a frenzy) and of Alan Rock, the president of U of O has been very well covered, the criticism of the role the Ottawa Police played (or, rather, were either unable or unwilling to play) was not.

George Jonas put it rather well:

Resisting any temptation to enforce the law, Ottawa’s finest exemplified Canada’s definition of moral leadership by observing neutrality between lawful and lawless.Coulter later wrote the police “called off” her speech because they couldn’t guarantee her security. Interesting, if true. Will it start a trend? Will police call off property rights at the scene of robberies-in-progress? “Look, lady, it’s just a cash register. If they want it so badly, how about letting them have it?”

 

My own attempt to state this, phrased as a letter (and sent, among others, to the Chair of the Ottawa Police Services Board – the civilian body in charge of supervising the Ottawa Police) has been much, much clumsier.  The Chair – Mr. El-Chantiry (whom I had had great respect for) has sent me back a very brief reply, telling me in no uncertain terms that it is not the job of the Police to police.

His full response – along with my reply letter to him (sent just as the Easter long weekend began, so he really has had little or no chance to reply and defend his position) were the subject of my last post, found here.

The reason I mention this?

Aside from the obvious one, denial of freedom of speech,there is another connection.  In the comments to that post, CodeSlinger and I got into a bit of an extensive discussion about what happened, how, why – and what the best remedy is.  CodeSlinger suggests that it was wrong for Ann Coulter to permit her speech to have been canceled:  some things are worth fighting for, even if one must put himself or herself into potential danger of injury or arrest.

What does Mr. Earle plan to do – should the verdict of the BC HRT be unreasonable?  Oppressive?  Will he continue to behave in accordance with his innate rights, instead of submitting to the unreasonable intrusion of quasi-legal busibodies?

If he does, he will be arrested and his ass will be tossed into jail…

Is Mr. Earle showing he has the courage to be the next ‘George Carlin’?

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 3 Comments »

Chair of Ottawa Police Services Board: “It’s not our job to ‘police’!”

April 1, 2010 — xanthippa

Last week, I sent this email to the Mayor of Ottawa, my Councilor and the Head of the Ottawa Police Services Board, expressing my dissatisfaction with the failure of Ottawa Police to police the demonstration protesting Ann Coulter’s appearance.  This failure to police was so severe that, at the ‘strong suggestion’ of the Ottawa Police, the event was canceled.

My main point of was that it is inappropriate for the police in general, and Ottawa Police in particular, to dictate (through either direct action or through inaction) who does or does not have the freedom of speech!

Mr. El-Chantiry – the Chair of Ottawa Police Services Board – was the only one to reply.  Here is his response – in full:

Hi Ms. Belaire,

This event was not cancelled by the Ottawa Police. This was a University of Ottawa event. Please contact them for clarification.

Regards,

Eli El-Chantiry

Chair, Ottawa Police Services Board

Councillor, West Carleton-March

http://www.Ward5Eli.com

Here is my reply to Mr. El-Chantiry:

Dear Mr. El-Chantiry,

thank you for your prompt – if brief – reply to my letter of concern. I will be posting it on my blog.

It has now been a full week and neither Mr. O’Brien, the Mayor, nor my Councilor, Mr. Hunter, have replied. So, I do appreciate that you, sir, do care!

Still, your letter did not address my concern…

If my poor wording had misled you into thinking I was complaining about insufficient security at the University of Ottawa event where Ann Coulter had been invited to speak, I apologize and clarify: the University of Ottawa did indeed provide sufficient security to ensure the people attending the event (all of whom had to pre-register) did not breech any laws or bylaws. No problems or complaints there.

It was regarding the failure to provide sufficient ‘supervision’ and/or security at two additional events – both protest demonstrations (one opposing, one supporting Ann Coulter’s right to speak) – that my complaint is about.  Neither of these two outdoor demonstrations were organized by Ann Coulter, her sponsors or the University of Ottawa.

This would be comparable to, say, you hiring an entertainer to come to your home for your child’s birthday party….and, for some reason, this entertainer had earned the wrath of some people who gathered outside your home to protest this entertainer’s presence. Would it be your responsibility to provide the ‘supervision’ and ‘security’ at the protest gathering outside your home, against your will?

Your response would suggest that yes, it would be the homeowner (or the event’s organizer) – not the protest’s organizer – who is responsible…

With whom does the responsibility really lie?

From the official City of Ottawa website (the emphasis is mine):

Definition: For our purposes, a demonstration is a spontaneous or planned collection of people using the road allowance as a place to express an opinion. This type of event can be stationary (confined to a specific location) or one which moves from one point to another (commonly referred to as a “march”). Both types of demonstrations are subject to the criteria outlined in this section.

This seems clear enough: both of the protest demonstrations were indeed ‘demonstrations’, as defined by the City of Ottawa. As such, they were subject to very specific rules and regulations.

The City of Ottawa imposes very significant limitations (I might even argue these rules and restrictions are ‘unreasonable’ and ‘counter to common-sense’ – but, as long as they are the law of this land, we must all abide by them… ) on both organized and spontaneous demonstrations. Through imposing these limitations, the City of Ottawa unequivocally claims the sole jurisdiction – and thus responsibility for – over all outdoor demonstrations – for the Ottawa Police alone!

Point #9 of the bylaws governing ‘demonstrations’ states:

    Police supervision is required for a demonstration. It is the responsibility of the demonstration organizer to contact the Ottawa Police to arrange for supervision. The demonstration organizer may be responsible for any costs associated with the provision of this service.

Let’s take it one sentence at a time:

Police supervision is required for a demonstration.

This one single sentence states that it is the police – the Ottawa Police – who has the sole responsibility for the ‘supervision’ of any and every ‘demonstration’ within the City of Ottawa.

What is more, this one sentence also quite unequivocally denies the University of Ottawa the right – yes, the very right – to ‘supervise’ any ‘demonstrations’ which take place outside the walls of its buildings!

This one sentence, Mr. El-Chantiry, also puts the failure to provide adequate security at these ‘demonstrations’ squarely onto the shoulders of Ottawa Police – the civilian oversight board of which you, sir, are the chair!

If this is insufficient to convince you, let us consider the next sentence of point #9 of the City of Ottawa bylaw:

It is the responsibility of the demonstration organizer to contact the Ottawa Police to arrange for supervision.

If nothing else, this clearly states it is the organizers of the demonstration and the police – not the organizers of the event which sparked it – who are responsible for the ‘security’ at the demonstration!  And, it places the responsibility solely onto the Ottawa Police.

On the night of the ‘Ann Coulter’ fiasco at Ottawa University, the Ottawa Police were either unable or unwilling to fulfill their part of our social contract.  Therefore, it is essential that the Ottawa Police Services Board investigates this failure in governance and ensures that it does not occur again.

What is even worse, the context in which this happened – forcing the cancellation of a speech by a speaker whose views are known to be unpopular with many labour unions, including the one Ottawa Police officers belong to – opens the Ottawa Police to charges of ‘selective policing’ to further the political interests of their labour union.  I very much hope this is not so!  Still, this issue must also be thoroughly investigated, if only to remove the cloud of suspicion which is currently marring the reputation of the Ottawa Police even more that the simple failure to act did.

Mr. El-Chantiry,  please, find out what happened, and let me know.  Fix the problems – and restore the good reputation of the Ottawa Police!

Sincerely yours,

Alexandra Belaire

Posted in about, freedoms, opression, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 7 Comments »

ZOMGitsCriss on Ezra Levant and Macleans and Fitna

March 26, 2010 — xanthippa

ZOMGitsCriss is somewhat of a presence among the ‘pro-free-speech’ crowd on YouTube…

She is a part of what I think is a small but growing international group of young people (most of whom are quite ‘left-wing’ – though, I have no idea where Criss stands politically) who are fighting the anti-censorship, pro-free-speech attitudes and policies which are beginning to creep onto the Internet and which threaten the impartiality of this medium to carry all kinds of information and all kinds of messages without outright censorship or some of them nebulous, non-transparent machinations through search-engine algorithm-manipulation which seem to make some information on the internet easy to find while making other ‘stuff’ so hard to find, it is, for all practical purposes, inaccessible!

Anyhow….

When I saw that the latest video of this Romanian free-speech activist mentions Ezra Levant, Mcleans (the Mark Steyn thingy) and Fitna – well, I though I ought to share it with you.

So, without further ado, here is “Islam is so wonderful and sciency and peaceful”:

Posted in atheism, freedoms, opression, religion, science. Tags: , , , . Leave a Comment »

When the POLICE choose who gets to speak – and who does not…

March 24, 2010 — xanthippa

Lat night, Ann Coulter’s speech event thingy at the University of  Ottawa was canceled  at the last moment….  Here is the letter I sent my City representatives, asking for some answers…and actions:

Dear sirs!

I am writing to you, Mr. O’Brien, as my Mayor.

I am writing to you, Mr. Hunter, as my elected representative at the City of Ottawa.

And, I am writing to you, Mr. El-Chantiry, as the Chair of the Ottawa Police Services Board.

If you have not had the opportunity to hear about this already, last night, the City of Ottawa has abdicated its duties, responsibilities and obligations to provide ‘core services’ in a very public manner, which is likely to draw a very large amount of international criticism to our beautiful city. And – rightly so!

Let me cut through the niceties and get to the core of the issue:

Last night, 23rd of March, 2010, an American media pundit – Ann Coulter – was scheduled to speak at the University of Ottawa.

First, let me stress that I am not a fan of Ann Coulter: rather, I am rather vocal in my criticism of her.

Still, that does not excuse what happened….

Sponsored by International Free Press, Ms. Coulter had been booked to speak at the University of Ottawa last night. Even prior to her entry into Canada, M F. Houle – a provost at the University of Ottawa – had sent Ms. Coulter, a letter warning her ahead of time to self-censor her expression, else she will face prosecution. While this letter has received international condemnation (and, Ms. Coulter is apparently considering legal action of her own against M Houle due to this letter), this condemnation of Ms. Coulter for a presumed pre-crime is nowhere as explosive as what had happened last night.

According to Macleans, the ‘police’ had – at the last moment – refused to provide an adequate security response to this event and, as Ms. Coulter is reported to have said, ‘pulled the plug’ on the event! Yes – the University of Ottawa was the primary organizer, and had the primary responsibility. Still, Macleans is reporting that it was the Ottawa Police – not campus security – who canceled the event, claiming they could not provide sufficient security.

Since when is it the role of the police to decide who is – and who is not – permitted to speak at a previously booked, properly vetted event? And – let’s be clear on this: had the Ottawa Police been capable of supplying sufficient security, the event organizers would not have felt ‘threatened’…

The job of the police is to provide security: the event was well publicized in advance and any failure to staff it sufficiently enough, to not be able to provide adequate security – especially following the publicity from Ms. Coulter’s Monday night’s appearance at UWO, is an admission on the part of the Ottawa Police Services that either they failed to plan – or they planned to fail!

Either way, the result is unacceptable (to say the least)! When the police are the ones permitted to decide (through failure to adequately prepare ahead of time, fear of public reaction, or for any other reason) who may or may not be permitted to exercise our Constitutional freedoms, to dictate the tone of public debate – well, the implications are unspeakable!

I am an immigrant, who came to Canada seeking a better life of freedom and opportunity. Opportunity for myself, and, now – my children. I was forced to flee an oppressive police state, where peoples’ rights and freedoms could only be exercised when and where ‘permitted’ by an oppressive, totalitarian regime. And, I came to Canada because this WAS a great place!

Now – seeing police shut down events at the last minute because they chose not to provide adequate protection for a legal event where they presumed ‘unpopular speech’ would occur – well, it brings back nightmares! Very bad nightmares!

Nightmares of a place where only those whose words were approved ahead of time were permitted to speak.

Nightmares of a place where the police could choose what people had rights – and what people did not.

Nightmares of a place where only one point of view was permitted to be uttered in public: one which the police approved of – whether their reasons for approval were ideology or convenience!

Now – Ottawa has become such a place… Shame on all of us for permitting things to come to this!

As I said earlier, I am no fan of Ms. Coulter. Frankly, I find her to be an offensive git. And, I am a member of one of those ‘unpopular minorities’ this silly person really does not like – a lot – and is quite vocal about it…

But, that really is not the point.

A person’s a person, no matter how silly….and if THAT person’s civil rights can be stripped away at the whim of the police, so can mine – and yours!

This is a serious blight on the reputation of our city – as well as a serious threat to all our civil liberties. I would like to know what each one of you, gentlemen, will personally do to both find out where the failure occurred (and ensure the individuals responsible do not remain in the City’s employ) and what you yourself will do to ensure no such abrogation of civil rights and liberties can ever again occur in our fair City of Ottawa – ‘University campuses’ or otherwise!

Sincerely yours,

Xanthippa

H/T : BlazingCatFur

Posted in freedoms. Tags: , . 8 Comments »

A ‘Houle’ in the moral fabric of Ottawa University

March 22, 2010 — xanthippa

Goodness knows, I am not a fan of Ann Coulter.  My dad thinks she’s cute – I’m unconvinced.  Rather, I find her offensive, ill informed, un-objective and, well, not very bright.

Still, a person’a a person, no matter how brash!

This week, Ann Coulter is going to be embarrassing conservatives in Canada by speaking at 3 Universities.  You’d think that after the ‘Bash-a-Jew’ week most Canadian Universities held in March, they’d let up a bit on the anti-Jewish rhetoric on campus…

But no, no such luck!

Ms. ‘Jews-are-unperfected-Christians’ Coulter has been invited to demonstrate her ‘selective intelligence’ at 3 Canadian Universities this week.

And why not?

Why should ALL the anti-Semitism at our Universities come exclusively from the left of the political spectrum?  A little right-wing anti-Semitism brings ‘diversity’ to those institutions we entrust with shaping our young, bright minds!

Still, I do think that it is great that she gets to give her speech, do her bit.  I may not like her views – and diss her mercilessly for her open contempt for anyone not Christian, but, she has just as much right to speak her mind (if you can stretch the meaning of the word ‘mind’) as you or I or anyone else.  Freedom of speech must be given the greatest possible precedence because, just like with an infected cut: when you hide odious ideas out of sight, they don’t just ‘go away’ – they fester.

Therefore, anything short of immediately and directly inciting violence (notice I did not add ‘hate’ there) must be permitted. If – and only if – the speaker had already said/written things which were ‘slanderous/defamatory’ or in breech of a law in another way (revealing state or trade secrets, etc.), legal action (criminal and/or civil) can and should be taken against him/her.  Not before!

What is interesting, though, is the reaction from the Universities themselves!

While all care was taken to ‘protect’ the left-wing ‘JewsZionists-are-baby-killers’ anti-semites who were left-wing and/or Muslim from any criticism of their rhetoric and from putting limits on their freedom of speech, making sure nobody was permitted to say anything which might hurt their feelings as they call for the murder of citizens of Israel, the right-wing Christian anti-Semite has been threatened with legal action – should she not self-censor her words sufficiently to some unspecified level – before she even got here!

A Houle in the moral fabric of Ottawa University – François Houle, Vice-recteur aux études / Vice-President Academic and Provost, Université d’Ottawa / University of Ottawa, 550, rue Cumberland Street, Ottawa (ON) K1N 6N5, téléphone / telephone : 613 562-5737, télécopieur / fax : 613 562-5103, e-mail: francois.houle@uottawa.ca – that Houle, to be specific, has sent Ms. ‘Jews-have-to-obey-religious-laws-but-Christians-don’t-because-Jesus-will-Fed-Ex-their-souls-right-to-heaven’ Coulter, bullying her with the threat of lawfare if he does not approve of her message.

I’m not sure if you have picked up on my subtle hints:  I think that Ms. Coulter is a personification of  much of what is wrong with the ‘right wing’.  Voices like hers drown out sane voices, like, say Thomas Sowell, and cause many, many people to reject any and all messages coming from the right’.  But…

Freedom of speech is freedom of speech!

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, religion. Tags: , , , , . 7 Comments »

Nigel Farage on the need for ‘Rompuy – dumpy’ and more

March 8, 2010 — xanthippa

By now, most people have probably seen the video of the Brit elected member of European Parliament, Nigel Farage’s lambasting of the unelected President of the European Council, His Holiness Van Rompuy (pronounced ‘rumpy’).  If not, it is available at TheReferencFrame, JustRight, and many others wonderful places.

Farage is being told that he, as the elected official, has no right to criticize Von Rompuy.  Here on Alex Jones (OK – Alex Jones is a bit of a nut, but, every now and then, he does have good interviews), Nigel Farage explains how this is a victory of bureaucracy over democracy:

Part 1

Part 2

And, just to put it into perspective, take a peek at this: “Behind The Big News: Propaganda and the CFR”.  (Hat tip:  TheReferenceFrame.  Lubo Motl said he thought it sounded a bit conspiracy-theorist-like, so he fact-checked it  – it appears to be on the up-and-up.)

Just as it looks like the whole poitical/financial world is going down the toilet, we are being told that to be eco-friendly, we ought to be flushing our loved ones who pass away down the toilet!   (Just imagine the exorcisms we’ll need the next time the Ottawa homes’ basements fill with untreated sewage – once we begin to pour human remains ‘down the drain’!  Talk about throwing the baby out with the bath-water…)

MooseAndSquirrel has the reducing-humans-to-poop-sludge eco-cremation story, along with links to that Global Warming Alarmism classic movie, ‘Soylent Green’ (yes – the reason things are so desperate in movie-dystopia is because of anthropogenic Global Warming!).  Spooky:  the eco-cremation process, as described in M&S’s links, covers people in silk and dissolves them in a liquid…. JUST like in the movie!

It almost makes you wonder if the conspiracy theory nuts are less nutty than we give them credit for…

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »