If you are planning to attend the Manning Networking Confeence 2014, please, do stop by booth #302 – the booth that was generously donated to Free Dominion: I’ll be helping out there, so, please, do stop by and say ‘hello’!
In related news: blogging will be light as I’ll be ‘afk’ and at the conference.
When members of the media are afraid to criticize a member of their country’s Military, who they honestly believe had abused his position of authority for personal gain/power, we have a problem.
Yet, that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in, in Canada, in 2014.
More and more voices in the media are being silenced through lifetime gag orders against them, brought about through the actions of a specific Agent of the State (and member of the Military, none-the-less)!
This has created such an unprecedented chill on speech that news reporters – even when addressing the public – refer to him as ‘He Who Must Not be Named’!
Help one of his latest victims, Mark and Connie Fournier, by popping over to Indiegogo and listening to their story, spreading it through the internet and, if you have the means, perhaps dropping a few pennies to their legal fund.
P.S. This is an interesting twist on the story: the guy doing the silencing had, in the past, been a candidate for election as a member of a political party deeply philosophically opposed to the party one of his targets had been a candidate for… Do we really want to have the courts be the ones settling philosophical differences between various political parties and their candidates/supporters? In my never-humble-opinion, this is one very slippery slope…
Here is a list of 40 words (along with their definitions) that every free-speech lover ought to say out loud, at least once, while we still can:
Akhirat: The Islamic concept of the ‘afterlife’.
Al Qran: Literally ‘the recitation’, it is the central book of Islamic teachings. Muslims believe that these ‘revelations’ were made to their prophet Mohammed by the arch-angel Gabriel regarding the will of the Islamic god named Allah and are the literal word of God. These ‘recitations’ were not written down during the lifetime of Mohammed but only collected when it became apparent that Mohammed’s closest companions were dying out and so it became important for Muslims to preserve his teachings in a written form. It was compiled by the Caliph Abu Bakr, who ordered the Muslims who remembered Mohammad’s recitations to have them written down and sent to him. These he then organized into chapters which make up the Koran/Qu’ran/AlQran by the length of the chapters. This means that the sequence in which these chapters were dictated has not been preserved, which creates the problem regarding the Islamic principle of ‘abrogation’ which states that if two verses of the Koran/Qu’ran/AlQran are in conflict, the one that was revealed to Mohammad later is the valid one, as it abrogates the earlier revelation.
Allah: ‘The God’ in Arabic. At one point, Mohammed taught that Allah had three divine daughters, but later altered that teaching, making Islam monotheistic.
As Sunnah: Literally translates as ‘common practice’, in the Islamic context, it means the ‘righteous path’ of following proper Islamic customs.
Auliya: friend, helper, protector, patron or patron saint.
Azan/Adhan: Islamic call to prayer
Baitullah: Literally ‘house of god’ and may refer either to any mosque or to the main mosque in Mecca which houses the Kaaba, the box which houses a black meteorite, which the Muslims worship, and to which they are supposed to make a pilgrimage at least once in their lifetime (haj). Prior to Islam, Mohammed’s grandfather made his living from people making a pilgrimage to the Kaaba.
Dakwah/Dawah/Da’wah: Literally means ‘issuing a summons’ or ‘inviting’, in Islamic context, it means proselytizing Islam. It is unlawful for a Muslim to kill a non-Muslim without having first invited them to join Islam. Some Islamic leaders have criticized Osama bin Laden for the 9/11 attacks because he had failed to issue a Dawah to all the American citizens 1 year before the terrorist attack. Numerous Islamic scholars have since corrected this oversight and issued a Dawah to all Westerners. If we fail to heed this call to convert to Islam, killing us is not considered to be ‘murder’ under Islamic law (Sharia).
Fatwa: a legal judgment pronounced by an Islamic scholar. These legal judgments make up Islamic jurisprudence and ought to be followed by pious Muslims. There have been some interesting fatwas issued over the time. For example, the Penang Mufti Hassan Ahmad had issued a fatwa that prohibits non-Muslims from ever using (speech, writing, publishing or in electronic form) the very 40 words being defined in this humble post. This is legally binding in Malaysia. However, if someone reading these words in Malaysia realizes they were published by a non-Muslim, they may make a legal complaint, a warrant may be issued and Interpol will act upon it to deliver the culprits to the land where the warrant was issued. So, enjoy while you still may! Another recently issued fatwa prohibits women from sitting in chairs, because if they moved just the wrong way, they may become sexually aroused.
Firman Allah: As I could not find this exact phrase translated into English, the closes I can make it out to be is ‘that which Allah has made permitted’. Granted, I did just a quick Google search, as I’m trying to define quite a few terms here, but this seems to fit in with Islamic sayings rather well and captures the spirit of the phrase. Corrections would be appreciated.
Hadith: literally ‘tradition’, this refers to the habits and sayings of the Islamic prophet Mohammed.
Haji: Someone who had completed the haj and traveled to Mecca to see the Kaaba. As non-Muslims are not permitted to enter Mecca, only a Muslim may be a Haji/Hajji/Hadji. A Muslim who has completed the haj may add this honorific to his name.
Hajjah: Not sure of this one, but I suspect it means a female Hajji.
Ibadah: Literally ‘obedience with submission’, the term is derived from practice of slavery. In the Islamic context, it means worship of Allah.
Illahi: I suspect this is an alternate spelling of ‘Elahi‘, meaning ‘my god’ or ‘my awesome one’.
Imam: An Islamic leadership position, usually denoting an Islamic cleric.
Iman: Iman is a really, really hot model. However, I doubt that is whom the good Mufti meant in his fatwa. Rather, I suspect he was referring to the Muslim believer’s faith in the metaphysical aspects of Islamic teachings.
Kaabah: literally ‘the cube’, in Islamic context, it is a black cube that Muslims have been praying to since a little over 200 years past Mohammed’s death. All modern mosques face the Kaabah, which is located in Mecca, Saudi Arabia. (For the first few centuries following the death of Mohammed, all mosques faced the ancient city of Petra, as archaeological findings have demonstrated.)
Karamah: a divine miracle (and not a conjuring trick type magic, that the other religions have)
Khutbah: public preaching, refers to the sermons delivered during formal prayers.
Masjid: a mosque, defined by Mohammed as a place of worship as well as a community centre, barracks for soldiers and materiel storage depot.
Mubaligh: a missionary (just follow the link and click on English for translation), one who is practicing dawah.
Mufti: an Islamic scholar from the Sunni branch of Islam
Musolla/Mushola: Islamic prayer room
Nabi: Prophets of Islam. Most, but not all, Muslims believe that Mohammed was the last prophet.
Qadhi: I suspect this term denotes Sharia courts.
Qiblat: The direction in which Muslims should pray. According to tradition, Mohammed is first ordered Muslims to pray in the direction of Jerusalem and to have later changed this to be towards Mecca and the Kaaba. However, the earliest mosques (from the first 200+ years following the death of Muhammad) are pointing to Petra, not Mecca, indicting that the Kibla may have changed more than once.
Rasul: prophet or apostle
Sheikh: an honorific that means ‘elder’ and denotes the front man of a tribe.
Soleh: This word is not Arabic in origin, but Indonesian and means ‘religious’. Thus, according to this fatwa, if you are not a Muslim you may not call yourself ‘religious’.
Surau: another word for ‘mosque’
Syahadah/Shahada: a ritual Islamic prayer which is also used as an affirmation that one is a Muslim. It translates into English roughly as: ‘There is no god but Allah and Mohammed is his prophet.’
Syariah: Malaysia is one of the countries with a secular legal system for non-Muslims and Sharia law for Muslims living in the country. Syariah is Malaysia’s Sharia adherent legal system which applies to its Muslim residents.
Tabligh: ‘propagation’ of Islam by ‘spreading awareness’ of the teachings of Mohammed.
Taqwa: While this definition varies somewhat between sects, the meaning ranges from ‘god-consciousness’ to piousness, love/fear of Allah, self restraint and so on.
Ulama/Ulema/Uluma: In the stricter sense of the word, it refers to the upper echelon of Islamic scholars trained in the whole field of Islamic law, but it is often applied to any senior Muslim cleric. Especially in rural areas, the cleric’s scholarship is not a significant issue.
Wahyu: This word is of Indonesian origin. From English-language version of this link: ‘In religion and theology, revelation is the revealing or disclosing of some form of truth or knowledge through communication with a deity or other supernatural entity or entities.’
Wali: Guardian – with all that it implies: being responsible for someone, managing their material wealth as well as having the right to enter into legal agreements on their behalf. This is an important concept in Islam. A father is the wali to all his minor male children and all his female children until the daughters are married, at which point the guardianship of the woman in question is transferred to her father. If there is no father, then the closest male blood relative takes on the role of a wali for any minor males and any females. As the wali manages their wards property and is the only one permitted to enter into legal contracts on their behalf, it means that an Islamic marriage contract is between the groom and the bride’s wali, with the bride having no legal standing in the matter. Thus, a petition for divorce in a Sharia court may need to be filed by the wife’s male relatives, as she has no legal standing in the marriage contract. It also means that under Sharia, the highest legal status a woman can achieve is that of a minor.
Zakat Fitrah: At the end of Ramadan, during which Muslims fast from sun-up to sun-down, there is a celebratory feast. While ‘zakat’ means taxes (a portion of which must go towards jihad), zakat fitrah is the specific obligatory gift of food to the poor so that they may participate with other Muslims in the end-of-Ramadan feast.
Now that I have tried to define these words for your convenience, please, do speak them as often and as publicly as you can, before you loose the freedom to do so! There is already a fatwa that forbids us to speak these words, if we are non-Muslims. It is up to us, freedom-loving people, to make sure that this and/or any other fatwa never becomes applied as a law onto us.
Rights are like muscles and cognitive abilities: if you don’t exercise them, you loose them!!!
With the Federal court in Toronto awarding $10.5 million dollars in statutory and punitive damages for running a website which merely linked to Simpsons and Family Guy episodes, one might wish to know how best to protect their identity in the interwebitudes…and with some VPNs touting their security while handing over users info to the US government, it’s hard to know where to turn.
Helpfully, TorrentFreak has reviewed the different VPN services to see which one take your anonymity most seriously:
‘More than a year ago TorrentFreak took a look at a selection of the web’s VPN services to see which ones really take privacy seriously. During the months that followed we received dozens of emails begging us to carry out an update and today here it is. The first installment in our list of VPN services that due to their setup cannot link user activity to external IP addresses and activities.’
Read the full article here.
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:
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!
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!!!
Day 1’s events can be read here
If you want to skip through my rant, please, do scroll down to the un-indented section!
Before I get into today’s events, there are several things I’d like to get ‘out there’.
First and foremost, I am quite sad and a little upset that I appear to be the only person who is coming to watch the trial and is daily reporting on it. After all, I am an Aspie and, as such, have a non-typical way of perceiving the world around me.
People with Aspergers have, according to the latest research I am aware of, many more undifferentiated cells in our amygdalas (when compared with the neurotypical majority). As such, we tend to both perceive and process what goes on around us a little differently than most people do. At least two standard deviations from the mean differently….for most diagnostic norms.
So, I am fully aware that my perceptions and my parsing of what is happening in the courtroom is not how most people are likely to see it. And, without another report from a more neurotypical person to which I could link for ‘control’, I am afraid that, despite my best abilities, I may not be painting as accurate picture as I wish I could!
So, I beg you to to bear with me as I briefly describe my ‘Aspie lens’ so that you can strip it off my account!
Most of us Aspies are rather blind to appeals to our emotions rather than our rational thought. To the contrary, what other people perceive as display of emotion, we perceive as attempts at manipulation and are rather repelled by them. Also, we usually have a very rigid sense of ‘fair play’ and given the choice between ‘doing the right thing’ and ‘helping our friend’ – should those two be in conflict – we will pretty unanimously pick the ‘doing the right thing’.
Of course, what we consider ‘doing the right thing’ to be depends much on our upbringing and life experience.
I, myself, an am immigrant to Canada. I escaped from a totalitarian dictatorship, where I was the daughter of a known political dissident and, because of this, I had experienced some rather unpleasant things from early on in my childhood.
Having lived under an oppressive, totalitarian regime, I have become fully aware that ‘a state’ cannot just oppress because that is a political construct. Rather, it is always the ‘agents of the state’ – flesh and blood people – who carry out the actions of oppression against their fellow citizens on behalf of the state by enforcing the very laws which restrict human freedoms. And, these ‘agents of the state’ – more often than not – consider themselves to be upstanding citizens who are protecting society by upholding the laws of the land. But, I digress…
Thus, I am an anti-slavery fundamentalist and a free-speech absolutist. Yes, I truly think that even yelling ‘FIRE!’ in a crowded theater ought to be permitted speech, because the damage done by people being afraid to call out when they see some smoke, which later turns out to be a fast-spreading-fire, is potentially much, much greater than if they spoke freely and warned their fellow citizens of a potential danger!!!
Also, English is neither my first, second or third language, so, at times, I may be quite deaf to some linguistic nuances.
These are my biases and limitations – I state them here clearly and honestly. Please, when you read my report, keep them in mind and try to apply your own lens to neutralize them!!!
The next thing I’d like to raise is (sorry if I come across as whining – I don’t know how to state this without sounding so wussy) the state of my health.
I am not exactly well. At this point, I have outlived the MD’s ‘best predictions’ by several years already, so I count myself incredibly lucky for every day I am still here. But, I do have physical problems…and, being out of bed for this many hours, two days in a row, is a very, very serious strain on me.
As such, I have had to take my maximum prescribed pain meds. There is a saying ‘out there’ – thou shall not drink and blog! Well, I may not be ‘drinking’ my meds, but that is a bit of a technicality…
Yet, I do know that there are many of you who are eager to read what had gone on in the trial today!!!
And, regrettably, I am the only one who seems to be reporting on this…and thus I do feel a sense of obligation to report what I had observed in the trial…
Unfortunately, I was a little late in arriving at the court-house today: the jury trial had already been underway for a little over half an hour . Yet, from what I have understood later, from the comments of others, the very first thing the brilliant Mr. Katz did was to have Mr. Warman clarify the ‘potential misunderstanding’ that Mr. Warman’s testimony of the previous day may have created.
Good!
The jury ought to form their opinion on true facts, not accidental mistakes.
The whole day’s testimony before the jury was taken up by Mr. Warman being up on the stand. I have to say, that would be a physically stressful day! Yet, he bore it well and the only signs of fatigue I noticed was that, while he had been speaking so fast on day one that one of the jurors had to ask him so slow down, by the end of the day today, he spoke much slower than in the morning.
And, towards the day, as he spoke, he was making more grammatical errors in his sentences. Minor ones, like who/whom, and so on, but I am a bit of a grammar-nazi (I plead Aspie!), so each one struck me.
Otherwise, he appeared as fresh at 4 o’clock as he had when I walked into the room.
Again, just like yesterday, Mr. Katz talked Mr. Warman through the various threads on the Free Dominion website where Mr Warman explained the context, timing – in relation with communicating with the defendants, too – what he found defamatory and why. This had the jury flipping from tab to tab in these huge, thicks binders of evidence.
Alas, without one, I could not follow it as closely as the jury, so I’ll not even attempt to go into the details. Instead, I’ll report on the few instances where this ‘normal’ state of things was interrupted.
For example, when the court convened after lunch, before the jury had been brought in, with an indulgent smile on his face, Justice Robert Smith announced that he had a question from the jury!
He tore open the brown envelope in which it had been delivered and read it out. At the beginning of the trial, the jury had been instructed not to do independent research on any of the subjects of this trial because it must be judged on what is presented in the courtroom and not elsewhere. But, this question was not about Mr. Warman or Free Dominion or any of the John Does themselves…
Rather, the juror wanted to know if they could do independent research to learn what the libel laws in Canada actually are.
The judge said it seems like the jurors might seek to know the law in order to have context for the testimony before them. But, it would be difficult to do quickly – the full instruction to the jury is usually at the conclusion of the testimony and is long and complex, and could not really be done at this point. Perhaps he could give a general idea…
Barbara Kulaszka, the counsel for some of the defendants, thought it would be better for the jurors to listen to all the evidence without this framework, so they don’t accidentally shut information they mistakenly thought was irrelevant.
There was some back and forth between the Judge and the lawyers on this. Justice Smith ensured that he also asked Mr. Smith’s opinion (as Mr. Smith is representing himself), but Mr. Smith deferred to the judge’s opinion.
In the end, the judge did indeed give the jury a very general framework for what these laws are, but he was cautious to point out that, like in every profession, these terms are all technical terms that have very specific meanings in the legal context, meanings which may differ from the general usage of those terms.
So, he briefly outlined the law and the defenses, but told the jurors that he will not only explain it better later, he’ll give them all the definitions in writing so they will be able to refer to them in their deliberating.
But, I am out of temporal sequence here…
First the question came, the judge and counsel discussed it, and the jury was sent for. But, instead of the jury, another question came: now, one (or, perhaps more) juror wanted to know if they may visit the Free Dominion site itself. This, of course, was a simple ‘no’.
Thus, when the jury did come in and the judge was giving them answers, he answered question 2 first, then the more complex question 1.
One thing that struck me about Mr. Warman’s testimony was that, over and over, he insisted that any claims that he was damaging people’s lives with his actions, were false. To him (or, so I perceived), this was about personal accountability: these people were saying things that it was illegal to say and he was a fine and upstanding citizen who simply made sure the laws of the land were applied to them. It was the duty of righteous citizens, like himself, to protect the society at large from those citizens who speak things that are illegal to say.
I am, of course, describing here how I perceived Mr. Warman’s testimony – these are not his direct words, just my understanding of them.
Yet, this was a recurring reference that he kept making – he was just enforcing the laws!
Therefore, any reference associating him with an agent of a totalitarian state enforcing unjust laws on the citizens, like the Stasi, SS or Stalin’s goons, is completely unfounded.
At one point, he did mention that Section 13 (often referred to in the media as ‘the censorship provision’) of the Human Rights code may have been ‘gotten rid of’ (here, I did not perfectly follow the details, just the bigger meaning, but I think it was gotten rid of because so many people thought it to be unconstitutional), that it is still the law of our land until next summer. So, it was perfectly proper for him to lay ‘Section 13’ complaints against people who said illegal things and it is not he, but the people who said the illegal things that is the cause of their suffering.
There was one point in particular that stands out in my mind.
He was speaking about some woman (I did not catch the name – my apologies) who said illegal things and whom he had brought a ‘Section 13’ complaint against, but who later claimed that Mr. Warman had ruined her life. I don’t even know whom he had been referring to, much less what it was she had said that brought this upon her, but it was clearly illegal and Mr. Warman testified that she was no misguided young girl but a full-out baddie who claimed that these illegal-to-say things (I don’t want to repeat the things and accidentally re-publish them, because, from what was said in the trial, this, too, might land me in trouble…thus the self-censorship)….lost my thread, sorry.
So, Mr. Warman testified that this woman said these ‘illegal-to-say-things’ were her deeply held beliefs and formed the core of her self-identity. So, the Tribunal did what it always does (I do believe the term ‘boilerplate’ was used) and issued a ‘cease and desist’ against her (sorry, lack of legal term understanding here, but I understand it to mean a lifetime gag order). So, if in the future, this bad woman were ever to say aloud or write the things she believes and which form the core of her identity, she would indeed be jailed.
What struck me was how cold and clinical he was as he said this, as if he did not realize the implications of what he was saying. He made it seem ‘matter-of-fact’ and ‘normal’.
At this point, my stomach clenched, my head began to spin…
There is more, but I am too upset to type now….perhaps I’ll update more when my hands stop shaking…
Yet another installment in the Warman vs Free Dominion saga began today (9th of September, 2013) – and I was lucky to be there to witness it. While I am no legal expert so I could only follow what was happening through my layman’s eyes, I am happy to share my personal observations with you.
As this was a jury trial, the first thing that had to be done was the selection of the jury. One thing I learned was that while there are 12 jurors in a criminal case, there are only 6 in a civil case. The process itself is interesting, if lengthy and, for the prospective jurors, I imagine it would be quite tedious and more than a little stressful.
The jury selection room at the Elgin St. Courthouse in Ottawa, where this trial is taking place, is located on the 3rd floor. As soon as I came off the elevator, I spotted Connie Fournier from Free Dominion with her lawyer, Barbara Kulaszka and a group of supporters standing in front of Courtroom #37. Roger Smith, one of the John Does (who is representing himself) was seated nearby, and the highly charismatic Mark Fournier soon also joined the group. All were either smiling hopefully or looking thoughtful.
Connie Fournier looked elegant in a pretty brown blouse with a simple silver necklace, charcoal slacks and black cardigan and understated black shoes. Mark wore a simple dark green shirt, sporty black pants and his usual aura of immense energy, coiled just beneath the surface! The distinguished-looking Roger Smith wore a tan shirt, darker tan pants (brown shoes, of course), blue blazer with a blue tie with a subtle tan stripe. Barbara Kulaszka wore her lawyer’s robes, which drape pleasingly about her slender frame, flattering her tall figure.
Richard Warman breezed in just at the time appointed for the action to start, in his regulation crisp, flawless business suit (dark) with a light shirt and a tan-ish patterned tie. He was accompanied by his handsome and extremely capable lawyer, James Katz (who appears to have moved from Brazeau Seller LLP to Nelligan O’Brien Payne LLP) and his assistant (grey suit) whom Mr. Katz later identified as a law student.
In the meantime, all the prospective jurors (there were to be several juries, for both criminal and civil suits, to be selected today) had gathered in a crowded room just off the Court Room #37. When the first judge (not for our case) was ready to start selecting the jury for the criminal case he was to preside over, they (the prospective jurors) were all led in (by the bailiff) and seated in the large and comparatively plush courtroom – however, as this did not concern us and the room was quite full, we left.
We moved to Court Room #35, a much smaller one, where the presiding justice, Judge Robert Smith, wanted to go over some points of procedure with the lawyers and Mr. Smith prior to selecting the jury.
Justice Robert Smith seems very kind and good natured, explaining to the self-represented Mr. Smith that, as he (Mr. Smith) is not a lawyer himself, he (Justice Smith) will explain all the procedures to him and his rights in how to represent himself and he (Justice Smith) urged him (Mr Smith) to ask questions if he has any and he (Justice Smith) will be happy to answer them.
Then there was some amicable procedural back and forth between the judge and the two lawyers and things seemed to be going quite well. For example, Mr. Katz explained that the 10 days set aside for the trial was spread over 3, rather than 2, weeks due to his obligation to observe some religious holidays, and so on.
Procedural stuff!
The judge asked the counsel to prepare a brief 1 to max 2 page summary not of the facts of the case, but of the positions they’ll be arguing them from, for tomorrow morning.
In addition to the Fourniers, Barbara Kulaszka is also representing one of the John Does, (Jason Bertucci, from BC, aka ‘Faramir’ – who will attend the trial next week). Several of the John Does Mr. Warman was suing had settled out of court and he had not discovered the identity of a few more, so, as per an earlier court order, the proceedings against the unidentified John Does was vacated. In case Mr. Warman was to win and damages were to be awarded to him, the terms of the settlements with the John Does would be revealed so as to prevent ‘double dipping’ (my term, not the legal one) of having overlapping (again, my imperfect understanding, not the legal words) damages awarded in both the settlement and the court case.
…haggling over some late-submitted evidence, the essence of which was quite lost on me…relevance – rulings, binding so stuff can be removed from evidence books if deemed irrelevant….procedural stuff!
Once Justice Robert Smith was happy, we went back to Court Room #37 where the criminal case jury selection was just finishing up (under the watchful eye of Justice Patrick Smith). (It seemed like metal-workers were everywhere today!!!)
As it concluded, we were told that there was to be a brief break – and all the prospective jurors had to file out of the room, back into the cramped holding room off Court Room #37.
Ten or so minutes later, we went back in to do our jury selection – and all the prospective jurors had to file back in. It was at this time that I observed something peculiar, but very, very human!
Being in a stressful situation, as being in a jury pool, with its inherent loss of control over one’s ‘destiny’ – at least, circumstances in the short term – is much more stressful that one might imagine and which was accentuated by all this ‘group herding’ from one room to the other over and over… but this bonds people together!
And, as the prospective jurors filed in this time around, from the guy carrying his bicycle helmet to the young woman in those ridiculously high heels, these people began to form ‘familiar stranger’ social bonds. Some sought to sit near the same people as earlier. Others exchanged smiles and acknowledging nods. Many began to engage in ‘familiar stranger’ social chatter…
It is exactly this ability of humans to bond under stressful situations, regardless of race or creed, that makes humanity so awesome!
But, I am rambling. My apologies – I’ll re-focus.
Justice Robert Smith spoke of the supreme importance of jury duty to our system of governance and I fully approved of all the wonderful, important things he said.
So, the process of jury selection, patiently explained by Justice Robert Smith, was to select 20 potential jurors by drawing their pre-assigned number from a box, which looked a lot like a Bingo drum. They will come up if their number is called. Then, if any of them had undue hardships, they could tell the judge and he’d excuse them from jury duty. A gray-haired woman came forward and explained her English was not good enough for her to follow the testimony properly, a young man had been booked to travel on business during trial dates, and so on. The judge excused them, if their ‘hardship’ were genuine.
The rest of the 20 who were up then stood facing the lawyers and the self-representing Mr. Smith, one by one, and they (the lawyers and Mr. smith) could either accept them as jury members or reject them. Each side could reject up to 4 potential jurors, this number being split equally between Ms. Kulaszka and Mr. Smith on the defense side, giving each of them 2 rejections. Mr. Katz rejected a computer-savvy looking man. Ms. Kulaszka rejected a nuveau-hippie looking young woman. That was it. The next 6 people were sworn (on either the Bible or the Koran) or affirmed in as jurors, the next two as alternates (these were dismissed at the beginning of the trial, when it was apparent that the 6 jurors would indeed be able to serve).
Thus, the jury of 4 men and 2 women was selected!
It was not even noon, and we were free till the body of the trial would start at 2 pm, in Court Room #35.
Perhaps not as exciting a process as the trial itself, but, as I had never seen anything like jury selection before, I found it fascinating. Hence the recounting thereof…
Promptly, at 2 pm, the Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does jury trial began.
Once the jury was brought in, Justice Smith again spoke to the importance of their role to our society and went on to explain their prospective roles: his job was to instruct them on what the law is and their job was to listen to the evidence, all of the presented evidence (and no more or less), for themselves, and then draw conclusion on what the facts were and apply the laws, as they are and not necessarily as they think they should be, to these facts and render a decision. They could take notes, but not take them away with them – and taking notes should not interfere with their paying attention to the testimony.
Justice Smith further instructed the jury as to how things will proceed, how the testimony and cross examination will work, and all that procedural sort of stuff. He was very good at covering the important points and, if the jurors looked puzzled, he explained closer. Very well done.
Aside: at some point in the proceedings, the exact moment of which I cannot right now find in my horribly scrawled notes (as I am hurrying to write this all up), Justice Smith announced that any witnesses who are to testify in the case (none for Mr. Warman, though he himself would testify, but as a plaintiff and not a witness and for the Fourniers [who would each also testify, as defendants – not witnesses], there will be four witnesses called: Tom Kennedy, Paul Fromm, Jerry Neumann and David Icke) are to leave the courtroom and isolate themselves from any testimony before they themselves are called. (Sorry for the convoluted sentence – it’s a lot of information condensed together, but it is important ‘stuff’.)
All right – if I go into all the details, I will not get this typed up before having to head in again tomorrow morning (I am a slow thinker and an even slower writer). So, I’ll simply hit the headlines and explain my perceptions of what took place.
Mr. Katz, a most competent lawyer (without whose brilliant work I suspect Mr. Warman’s lawsuit record would be quite dismal – and who is, unfortunately, not sporting that sexy beard of his right now) made his rather brief opening statement. Quite well, but not as well as I would have expected from his past performances. (Sad … I love to see a brilliant mind at his best!)
Then, he called Mr. Warman to the stand.
Exciting!!!
But again, the testimony itself was so much lower quality than what I had expected to see that it left me faintly sad…
Mr. Warman, aided adroitly by Mr. Katz, attempted to paint himself as ‘the victim’. The courageous human rights activist who saw wrongs being done and took up the challenge to try to make the world a better place…and got nothing but grief and abuse as a reward!
At least, that is what, to my eye and ear, he attempted to sound like. Just a little too hard…
I don’t know if the jury bought it, but, it did not ring true to my proverbial ear.
Why?
Because even when he attempted to cloak it is ‘oh, poor me, I’m doing good and the world is picking on me’ whines, he did make some rather stark factual admissions.
For example, Mr. Warman testified that there was a detestable man in the United States of America by the name of Bill White (if I am not mistaken) who got charged by the FBI for uttering death threats against a whole slew of people – and Richard Warman got himself added to that list, somehow. It went to trial and, that detestable, horrible person was indeed found guilty of uttering death threats against every single person on that list – EXCEPT against Mr. Warman…
Aside: if I am not mistaken (and I might be), Mr. Warman appealed this and lost – so not one, but at least two courts found his allegations of ‘death threats’ to be less than ‘provable’. If any of my readers have more info on this, I would appreciate your ‘hard evidence’ because I am very sketchy on this and would like the legal record to be as correct as possible! The corollary is: this is my highly imperfect understanding of the testimony Mr. Warman gave, not a statement of fact, and it should not ever be mistaken for one!
This bit is important because one of the defamatory comments Mr. Warman is suing about, from what I understand, is that someone claimed that he (Mr, Warman) had, in the past, made false claims that he got death threats…though, the bulk of his (Mr. Warman’s) testimony today was about ‘all the death threats’ from evil and detestable ‘neo-nazis’ (not even remotely connected to any of the people he is suing here – so I can only guess he’s laying groundwork against the claim of ‘his false claim of death-threats’) that he had, over the years, received…
Ah, what a web we weave…
Another ‘fact’ that Mr. Warman had testified to today was that, while employed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, he was also a complainant who brought cases before the Canadian Human Rights Commission…
Actually, to my untrained mind, Mr. Warman had made himself sound much worse than I suspect the facts of the matter are. From previous information (which, I suspect, is not available to the jurors), I don’t think there is any evidence that Mr. Warman had himself investigated ‘Section 13’ (the ‘hate-speech’ section) of the Human Rights Code complaints. Yet, the way he had phrased it on the stand, it would be easy for the jurors to misunderstand his statement to imply that he both brought the complaint to the Human Rights Commission and then investigated it himself….a clear conflict of interest, in my eyes. A conflict of interest I do not think he is guilty of, but which the jury might misunderstand his words to suggest…
Don’t get me wrong – I am no fan of the past totalitarian actions of Mr. Warman. But, being an Aspie, I cannot stand it if ‘the rules’ are broken and if ‘the truth’ is not clearly visible – whether that ‘advantage’ is in favour of the team I am ‘cheering for’, or against!!! Which is why this bothers me so…
I want freedom of speech and freedom of the internet to win – but on the true facts and their merits, not on poorly given testimony which is then misunderstood!!! That would be a hollow victory!
OK, that is my OCD speaking… sorry, I’ll move on…
Another fact Mr. Warman had testified to was that, while an employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, he had brought complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission which were investigated by it,then referred to its ‘Tribunall’ – which then awarded him tens of thousands of dollars in ‘damages’…while he was also drawing a salary from the CHRC. Again, I can not read the minds of the inscrutable jury, but, my to mind (rightly or wrongly) this screamed ‘double dipping’ and ‘corruption’! Yet, when Mr. Warman testified to it, he tried to make it seem like a good thing. And, again, I cannot but suspect the appearance Mr. Warman’s testimony created was much worse than the truth of the matter…
Indeed – everything Mr. Warman testified to was couched in the ‘I am a victim – neo-Nazi’s are trying to kill me’ language. But, the facts he himself put into evidence…to my layman’s mind, they were seriously damaging to his cause, his credibility – and in my highly imperfect comprehension, the way he had painted himself – his very own words on the stand today – were way more damaging to his reputation that anything I have, over the years, read on the internet. Much worse than what I suspect is the actual truth of the things he had so clumsily testified to today…
It remains to be seen if the jury parsed his testimony the same way I did – most unlikely, as I am much more familiar with the background material so some things that were casually ‘slipped in’ practically ‘screamed’ at me…plus I have a very Aspie mind, and thus are much more sensitive to perceiving even camouflaged injustices/misrepresentations than the average person might be.
One final point: during some bit where Mr. Warman was explaining just how damaging to his reputation, both as a lawyer and as a person, the posts at Free Dominion were, he flatly said (and I may be paraphrasing slightly, as I am working from notes, but not in the substance of the statement): they might as well have said I cut heads off of babies!!!
Several jury members visibly cringed at this simile.
I have no idea if this means they had empathy with him for such damaging statements on ‘that accursed website’ or if they thought he was over-exaggerating and thus losing credibility with them…
Only time will tell!
For ‘Feminism’, read ‘Cultural Marxism’.
It seems that the ‘Plus’ in ‘Atheism-Plus’ (A+) quite accurately describes that this is not a form of skepticism, but a list of dogmatic beliefs which just happen to be non-theistic…but no less destructive!
Most recently, PZ Myers (one of the pillars of A+ – and the unquestionable boss of the Orwellianly-named ‘Freethought Blogs’) had smeared the prominent skeptic thinker Michael Shermer with accusations of ‘rape’ and got himself a ‘cease-and-desist’ letter from Shermer’s lawyers.
But, that is just the latest drive-by-smearing to come from that group of Cultural Marxists who are poisoning the atheism movement. There have been many before…
Thunderf00t has been speaking out against the A+ bullies for a while. Here is his latest, which, chronologically, pre-dates this latest smear-campaign:
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 