Vigna vs Levant: first installment on the last day

June 26, 2010 — xanthippa

What a day today has been!

I admit, I am a little overwhelmed by all that has been happening.

And, I will try very, very hard to put down what happened, as best as I can with my very very limited legal background (which consists solely of watching ‘Jurisprudence’ on TV whenever I can).  But, most of it will not come tonight.

As those of you who read my blog on and off, I have some long term health issues.  These last two days have seen me more up and about than I have been in months, and I admit that I am exhausted.  Yeah, I know, I am a wimp….

Still, I really don’t want to try to give an exhaustive report while I am not in a serene state of mind.

I will only offer the briefest of observations… (well, brief for my standards!)

Mr. Levant appeared more patient today.  Now, I don’t know how Mr. Levant felt – he didn’t tell me.  But, it seemed to me that he had moved past the exasperation (not completely, and with a few re-lapses, of course, but he seemed less ‘overall’ exasperated ‘much’ of the time – perhaps because he was not having to explain over and over and over how his ‘sainted father’ felt bullied by Mr. Vigna’s representative(s) trespassing on his (the father’s, not Mr. Ezra Levant’s) property for reasons Mr. Vigna claims are legitimate) and, if you can believe it, I think Mr. Levant actually pitied Mr. Vigna.

Mr. Levant’ lawyer sounded every bit as good as I had hoped for, from having watched his demeanor yesterday.  I have to admit, I really like him – he has a way of understating things that permits the listener to draw his own conclusion without ‘beating him/her over the head with it’ (if you know what I mean), but which is ‘louder than shouting’…

Mr. Vigna continued in a manner similar to the one I observed yesterday.  Much of the time (when standing up) he would rest his hands on the desk and lean forward in a bullishly aggressive manner (at least, it looked so from my point of view).  At one point the judge requested him (and it almost seemed to me that the judge was a little exasperated at having to do so) to not lean so far forward because he was so close to the microphone, it was interfering with the microphone’s proper function.

(Aside:  I think Mr. Vigna was using one of the new super-awesome Sharpie pens – guaranteed not to bleed through to the next page. There are two types of this new pen – the ‘click’ type and the ‘cap’ type.  To the best of my observations, Mr. Vigna was using the ‘cap’ type, blue, if I am not mistaken.  I rather like these ones, and used the same kind (Sharpie, cap-type, blue ink) to record my notes from today between the first break and the lunch break (approximately 12:20 and 13:00 hours… I always switch pens and ink colours between breaks….  These ‘cap’ type Sharpie pens come in black, blue, red, green and purple – but, as far as I know, you can only get the purple and green ones if you buy a multi-pack.  The GTEC-C4 pen multi-packs include the same colours – but also add orange, which the Sharpie ‘cap’-type multipack does not have.)

At other times, when Mr. Vigna was not leaning against the desk, he seemed (in my layman’s eyes) to have had difficulty containing his ‘energy’ – or, in other vernacular, one could say he seemed to have had ‘too much sharp chi’, if you will.

He kept shifting his weight from one foot to the other.  Even in between ‘weight shifts’, he kind of bobbed up and down on the balls of his feet.  In addition, he kept making small little nervous movements with his hands.  And, yes, he did pull his pants up a few times – but aside from a few little glances he threw Richard Warman who sat in on part of the morning proceedings (and one glare at me that started by looking over his left shoulder, than turning about 345 degrees and finishing the glare over his right shoulder), he did not seem to pay much attention to the audience.

While I’m on the topic of ‘audience’…

When I wrote my initial observations on the ‘Warman vs Free Dominion’ appeal hearing (yeah, I know – I never DID finish my write up….I’m still thinking over some bits of it, especially the broader implications of the Irwing case), I noted that there was a pretty young blond woman with awesome shoes in the audience who looked like she had had a tooth ache,  She arrived just after things would get under way and leave just before the breaks, preventing me from saying ‘hi’ and complimenting her on her shoes (I like shoes almost as much as I like pens).

Well, that same young woman was in the audience yesterday.  You’ll be relieved – she no longer looked like she had a tooth ache.  That made me feel glad for her.  I would not have noticed her, because she sat behind me, except that her manner of arrival and departure jogged my highly imperfect memory.

And while I’m on the topic of the audience…

At just about 10 am, Mr. Richard Warman walked in and sat down in the front row in front of me.  During this time, Mr. Vigna was cross-examining Mr. Levant, and they just happened to be talking about the part of the suit where Mr. Vigna believes his reputation was damaged by Mr. Levant’s claim that he (Mr. Vigna) ‘had access to’ a neo-nazi  website.

Now, here, I have got to be careful in how I word things…. This was one of those things ‘under dispute’ and at the heart of the lawsuit – and I freely admit, I am not trained in the legal profession.  So, please, do take this as a lay person’s highly imperfect impressions and observations and nothing more.

The issue which was discussed was what Mr. Levant had written regarding the ‘Jadewar’ membership in a neo-nazi site, and its role in ‘stuff’.  And, I do not want to get into the ‘nitty gritty details’ of the case while I am tired and before I have had a chance to think it through.

Still, it is a fact that Mr. Levant specifically said under cross examination that he believed Mr. Vigna was much better a person than to join a neo-nazi group/party/site/whatever.  He (Mr. Levant) did not believe Mr. Vigna WAS a neo-nazi at all,  All he (Mr. Levant) wrote and asserted (and, I presume, still believes to be true, based on the sources he cited) was that Mr. Vigna ‘had access to’ it – as in, was aware of and could, if he so wanted, have looked up the password or found some other means (like asking Mr. Dean Stacey) to access it (because the information and password were contained ‘in the files’ which he, Mr. Vigna, presumably had access to – at least, that is my highly imperfect understanding of the testimony).

On several occasions, Mr. Levant said he did not think Mr. Vigna himself was a neo-nazi, like ‘Richard Warman’ or ‘like that man there’ – while he indicated Mr. Warman….

More to come tomorrow!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Ezra Levant and Giaccomo Vigna ‘cross swords’ inside a courtroom

June 24, 2010 — xanthippa

Ezra Levant is a colourful character – to say the least.

He is the Canadian lawyer who became a household name as the guy who is willing to put his money where his mouth is when it comes to defending the most important and fundamental of all the human rights – the right to freedom of speech.

Because of his responsible self-conduct as both a human being and a journalist (he was the editor of Western Standard),  he had become the target of the Human Rights Commissions – both the Canadian federal version as well as its various provincial tentacles.

It is difficult for most of us, reasoning human beings, to understand just how badly twisted things have become in our society, just how endangered our rights as human beings have truly become, until this Kafkaesque nightmare Mr. Levant found himself in brought it to our awareness.  Once there, there was no going back.

Even kids could figure it out!

What is the best way to fight injustice?

Expose it – so everyone can see it for what it is and judge for themselves.  Most people are actually much smarter than the ‘Nanny State’ gives them credit for!

What is the best way to take power away from a bully?

Humour.

Mr. Levant has, over the years, combined these two weapons very, very effectively.  Which is what got him in trouble with Mr. Vigna….

Mr. Vigna is a fascinating person.

He is (or was – I don’t know his current employment status) a lawyer for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.  His one and only claim to fame (to the best of my knowledge) so far has been to be the lawyer who, during the Mark Lemier case, asked for the court to adjourn because he was ‘ not feeling serene’ and thus unable to argue the case…

Today (thanks to email by BCF alerting me to this), I went to watch what happened during the court case where Mr. Vigna is suing Mr. Levant for defamation or libel (I can’t keep those two things straight…), based on what Mr. Levant wrote about Mr. Vigna on his blog.  It was the second last scheduled day of the trial:  Mr. Levant finished his testimony and Mr. Vigna began his cross-examination of him.

Tomorrow were supposed to be the closing arguments only, but Mr. Vigna was unable to finish his cross examination today.  The judge suggested another day be added to the proceedings:  this seemed (in my never-humble-opinion) to throw Mr. Vigna into a panic!  He promised to be more focused and brief – he already has his closing argument written up (he said).  To a non-lawyer type person like me, the level of Mr. Vigna’s agitation at the suggestion that another day be added to the proceedings seemed rather out of proportion.  What do I know!

Anyhow, after Mr. Vigna swore up and down that he’d be brief (sic!), the judge just said we’d start earlier in the morning so we could hope to get through it…

So, what went on today?

I am a notoriously slow thinker.  It will take me a while to mull this through – so, these are really really really preliminary observations.  I’ll do a better write-up, with the proper links and all, later.

What I WOULD like to focus on, though, are the ‘big things’.  The major topics, true, but even more than what was said, I’d like to focus on how it was said and the body language that went on.

Why?

Because I think that our brains are very curious organs.  They process information on many levels – and they don’t always tell us all of what they are doing.  But, they DO tell our bodies…which is why body language can tell us more about what is going on (at times) than words can.  And, Mr. Vigna seemed so delightfully unaware of what his body language was projecting, it made quite an impression on me…

Even before things got underway, the two main characters in the trial presented very different demeanor.

Mr. Vigna was first nervously arranging numerous boxes of ‘stuff’ he had wheeled in (in those ‘Staples’ boxes that hold many bundles of printer paper).  Then he sat at his desk/table, leaned forward over papers, head resting on the tips of the fingers of his right hand (which also held a cheap pen) as if thinking hard through a headache (we’ve all been there!).

Mr. Levant was  full of excited energy – sort of like what you see in an athlete before a race.  He was busy telling his lawyer about Atatürk and analyzing his policies – including his take on the whole freedom of speech and libel ‘stuff’:  it seemed to me Mr. Levant had gone to quite a lot of depth as well as breadth to prepare for this issue!

When the case resumed, Mr. Levant was giving testimony.  Then, after he finished, Mr. Vigna began to cross examine him.

While he testified, Mr. Levant’s body language was pretty natural.

Mr. Vigna, at times, objected:  during the objections, his body language varied between frustrated and aggressive:  lots of little ‘fussy’ movements with his hands, head tilts and so on.  Otherwise, his body language suggested to my layman’s eyes that he was still ‘working through a headache’.  I ought to mention:  he did wear a lovely tie with beautiful, serenely blue stripes on it.

The judge’s (the Honourable Mr. Justice Smith)body language was ‘carefully neutral’.

Mr. Levant’s lawyer (remind me not to play cards against him) had non-existent ‘natural’ body language, but maintained the ‘professional blankness’ that seems the preferred body language of the most highly paid lawyers (from my limited observation

OK – this is getting long.  I wish I had the ability (like this consise write up by thenice dude who sat next to me) to percolate the pertinent facts into a brief article…. while I’m getting ‘up there’ in the word count…

During the cross examination, Mr. Vigna rested his hands on the edge of his desk and really, really leaned forward with his upper body, giving him a very ‘bull-like’ aggressive body language – until Mr. Levant answered (in response to one of Mr. Vigna’s questions)  asserted that he thought Mr. Vigna WAS a ‘political bully’.  It was at exactly THAT point that Mr. Vigna’s body language ‘softened up’….

Mr. Vigna seemed to think that the ‘best’ way to cross examine Mr. Levant was too, at times, fire several questions with mutually contradictory answers at once – and hoping Mr. Levant answers one of them in a way Mr. Vigna could ‘paraphrase’ (as, in, twist).  Another approach he also seemed to take was to fire ‘statements’ at Mr. Levant – without a question – and waiting…..if Mr. Levant responded, he’d say ‘THAT’ was ‘NOT the question he asked’ – until even the judge began to point out to Mr. Vigna that he had failed to ask an actual question….

Mr. Levant’s body language went from ‘anticipation-excited’ to ‘passionate’ (freedom of speech bits) to frustrated (having to repeat himself 7-8 times).

The judge’s body language?

Hard to read.

In my never-humble-opinion, the judge’s body language went from ‘guardedly impartial’ to ‘suppressing the giggles’ to ‘bored’ to ‘mildly frustrated’ to ‘seriously disturbed’ by Mr. Vigna’s behaviour (which, at one point, included Mr. Vigna actually physically pulling up his pants as he shot a self-satisfied ‘we got him now’ look to his only supporte in the audience over something that was NOT a ‘goth-cha’ moment, but rather another demonstration of how Mr. Vigna just ‘did not get’ what was happening around him….)

OK, I am not a lawyer or any kind of legal mind….  These are just my personal observations.  But, today was the first time I saw Mr. Vigna in any circumstances whatsoever.  Yet, I was forced (by his dmeanour as wll as his behaviour) to conclude that he is not really aware of what he is doing, how he comes across or just how irrelevant his arguments to the court are…

Sorry to quit before I told the whole story – I plead fatigue and hope (not certainty) that I’ll make it back to the  courthouse tomorrow….

Either way – more to come later!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , . 9 Comments »

There is hope for us yet!

April 13, 2010 — xanthippa

The Canadian Senate is actually doing useful work!

YES!!!

Four senators, Finley, Duffy, Wallin and Tkachuk ‘get it’!

They even quote Kathy Shaidle from her ‘Tyrany of ‘Nice”!

Blazing Catfur has the scoop…

I just  hope Justices Kent, Heeney and Wilton-Siegel are reading this!

Posted in debate, freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , . 1 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 »

Machette attack on Jewish students – in Ottawa!

April 5, 2010 — xanthippa

Update:  the attack occurred not in downtown Ottawa, but just on the other side of the Ottawa river in Ottawa’s twin city, the Gatineau, PQ.  This area is still within sight (and walking distance) of both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Parliament buildings. BCF has the Michael Coren interview with Nick Bergamini.

Nick Bergamini is a student at Carleton University and active in student government.

According to his facebook page:

…

“Quickly, we both responded that yes we were Zionists. All of a sudden we were surrounded by 10-15 men who began to shout at us in Arabic. We tried to back out and run away. All of a sudden, I was struck in the back of the head. I’m not sure if it was a fist, a rock or a pipe but it left me dazed and bleeding.

We quickly ran back to the bar and stood beside the bouncers. The crowd of anti-Israel thugs dispersed.

About 10 minutes later, assuming that it was safe, we began to walk home. We were walking through a parking lot when a car pulled up next to us. The driver shouted “I fucking hit you, you Jew.”

We stood our ground. Quickly we had three guys around us. We were able to push them away. As the cowards that they were, they retreated. Then I heard, shouts of “Open the trunk!” One of them opened the trunk and I saw glistening in the street light the reflection of a 12-inch machete. “Fucking Jew,” he shouted. I began to run for my life as he was only 5 or 6 feet away.

I ran, and as I looked back, I saw the long shiny blade slicing through the air about 12 inches from my neck. I ran as fast I could and, thanks to my grade 9 track and field training, got away.

People who were around the scene said the blade came within inches of my neck.

Read his whole post here!

Is this really happening here, in Canada?

Here, in Ottawa, Canada’s Capital?

Here, right downtown Ottawa – just blocks from our Parliament and the Supreme Court of Canada?

Now?

Yes, that would indeed appear to be true!

Question:  This happened in the club district, downtown Ottawa.  At 1:45 in the morning, this is hardly an abandoned or ‘quiet’ part of town – being so close to the University of Ottawa campus, there are usually quite a few people about!  The Ottawa Police usually have a ‘presence’.  It’s their job!

So, I am curious to hear their side of the story:  how come these guys are not arrested yet?

OK – so Nick Bergamini and Mark Klibanov got themselves beaten up and bloodied.

OK – so some guys with a machete chased them, trying hard to decapitate them.

Goodness knows, we all loose our tempers, some times!

A much more dangerous crime occurred in Ottawa that night!

They were engaging in hate speech – right in the middle of a crowd!

Do you realize just how many people might have had their feelings hurt?

How many might have been traumatized: by hearing there were 2 Zionists in our midst?

How do the police expect us to be able to sleep tonight?  We are a city – nay, a community – traumatized!

After all, we ran that Zionist Ann Coulter right out of town (yes, she may be an anti-Semite, but she is still a Zionist!)! Yeah, the Ottawa Police made sure she was not permitted to speak!

We thought we could relax a little…..

But no!  Now these two Zionists crop up!  Right in the middle of the City!

They even freely and openly admit they are Zionists – and through the admission of their very existence, they traumatize a whole crowd!

Just think of those poor thugs – they must really have had their feelings hurt!  They were so traumatized, they got their machete out and went after the Zionists!

This is really, really terrible!  These two Zionists have provoked these poor guys so much, they might never calm down from it and suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder for the rest of their lives.

Yet, Nick is obviously still free to write this up for his facebook page!  Writing down all this self-incriminating evidence – how he admitted openly that he was indeed a Zionist!

So – how long do YOU think it’ll take the Ottawa Police to arrest Nick Bergamini and Mark Klibanov for their hateful speech!?!?!

And the Ottawa Police have still not arrested them… Sheeeeesh!!!

Hat tip:  Blazing Catfur

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, religion, society. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 4 Comments »

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 »

Is a Canadain Government agent attempting to ‘influence’ a court?

March 17, 2010 — xanthippa

Read it and weep…

When I first read this – that the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) is retaining a lawyer who is attempting to intervene in a private lawsuit between two citizens, and that the CHRC may have been giving quite a lot of legal advice to only one of the parties in the lawsuit, making us the taxpayers pick up the tab, I was angry.  And, I started to write this up as exactly that.

Ezra Levant exercises his freedom of speech to ridicule another lawyer, Mr. Vigna.  Mr. Vigna sues Mr. Levant for damages to his reputation.  A court will decide whether the line between ‘fair comment’ and ‘slander/libel’ has been crossed:  and so it should be.  The CHRC ought to butt out and it is wrong of it to meddle and to pursue its vendetta against Mr. Levant simply because he dared to stand up to them.

In other words, I was angry – but focused on this  ‘Serene Queen‘  case.

But, the more I thought about it…

The CHRC is an arm of the government.   As such, any lawyer retained by the CHRC and acting on the CHRCs behalf is, legally speaking, an agent of the state.

Now – IF I understand this correctly – this agent of the state has just disregarded proper legal procedures (not filing for an intervenor status prior to the case and therefore being bound to give the defender access to what they will argue, so the defender can prepare a defense) and has inserted herself into the proceedings, approached the judge and attempted to influence the course of the court case!

Please, consider the implications!

An agent of the  state can influence the courts, without following proper legal procedures!

Is this not a thing that only happens in states so corrupt that there is collusion between the courts and the government?

Our judiciary is there as a check on the power of the government – to ensure the government is not able to circumvent the constitution and rob citizens of their rights and freedoms.  Is it  not?  I am not a lawyer, but, this is what we were taught in our civics class…

So, for the government agent to be able to CIRCUMVENT follow proper law and procedures and all that, and INFLUENCE A JUDG in case where the government is not an interested party (as in, they are not doing either the suing or the defending) – that is a really, really dangerous thing!

This is much bigger than just some government agency wasting taxpayer dollars.

This could very well constitute an attempt by the government (through this agent) to corrupt our courts!

As such, I think we need an immediate police investigation of this!

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

My MP’s reply to my letter

October 29, 2009 — xanthippa

A little while ago, I wrote to my MP (Member of Parliament) with some questions and concerns regarding the CHRC (Canadian Human Rights Commission).

This afternoon, I received this reply from my MP:

Thank you for taking the time to write to me with your question. I looked into it for you, and have this information from the Ministry of Justice:

· The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal are independent agencies that administer the Canadian Human Rights Act without interference from the Government.

· The Member of Parliament from Westlock-St. Paul (Brian Storseth) brought forth a motion this Parliament asking the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to study the Commission’s mandate, operations, and its application and interpretation of section 13.

· The Committee adopted this motion. I look forward to the committee’s study of these issues, as well as the study of Professor Moon’s report.

With respect to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, Warman v. Lemire, we cannot comment as the matter is before the court.

Warman v. Lemire:

At issue is whether the hate messages prohibition in s.13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is inconsistent with freedom of expression and other Charter rights, and whether the 1990 judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in Taylor , which held that s.13 is constitutionally valid, should

be reconsidered as a result of the evolution of the Internet and legislative amendments.

On September 2, 2009 the Human Rights Tribunal ruled s. 13 unjustifiably infringed on the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression.

Sincerely,

Pierre Poilievre, M.P. Nepean-Carleton

Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister

and to the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs

LP

Posted in freedoms, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , . 2 Comments »

Heading up the CHRC: an explanation of my comments on Ezra’s site

October 27, 2009 — xanthippa

Yesterday, Ms. Lynch (Chief Commissioner of our Canadian – federal – Human Rights Commission) had testified in front of Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (or something like that – I confuse easily…).  Our valiant defender of the right to not be annoyed – at the expense of the freedom of expression – was at her most patronizing!

Everyone’s favourite WebElf, Binks, has put the video on his site:  enjoy! And, he has some fun linkies tossed in, for good measure!

Walker Morrow also has all the best links on his blog, with a regular round-up of all ‘Jennifer Lynch-related’: The Lynch Mob

Of course, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant have had a few words about this, too!

Actually, Ezra Levant has a whole set of posts, as he was blogging it live!  (As were many other fine people – thanks to all of them!)  And, of course, I could not help myself:  while commenting at Mr. Levant’s site, I made a comment that can hardly be understood unless one knows some of my views on ‘things’….

Here is my comment:

OK – one more tiny little question…

If there were a job opening coming up for the head of the CHRC (as I suspect after today’s testimony, there just might be): how would one go about applying for the job?

My husband says I’d be good at it! (‘Change’ is still the ‘good’ mantra, right?)

 

The key here being ‘change’…. because, I do have a ‘slightly’ different idea of where the ‘balance of rights’ lies….

I do not have a passport, because as much as I am a Canadian patriot, I do not recognize the government’s jurisdiction over me on this issue.  I am not the slave (chattal) of my government, for them to issue me some ‘papers’ which permit or deny me the right to travel, inside or outside of my country!

Sorry, that is just too much of a government encroachment upon me and my person!

Nor do I believe that a government has the jurisdiction to tax people against their will.  A government only exists at the sufferance of the populace:  its role is to provide external defense and to uphold internal laws.  Citizens ought to be free to contribute to the upkeep of the government at their will – the government does not have the moral (and ought not have the legal) right to extort taxes from its citizens by coercion or force.

Do you think people would then not pay their taxes?  I think we would.  When is the last time you received an awesome service in a restaurant, and did not leave a tip?  I have certainly never skimped….provided the service was acceptable and I am known to ‘overtip’ if the service is excellent!  The same should go for taxes.

Because, if a government has the power to set the tax rate AND to FORCE the citizens to pay the taxes it sets, regardless of democracy or anything else, we will see irresponsible government spending, waste in the civil service, corruption… We all know the story!

Thus – in my never-humble-opinion – it is a gross violation of human rights and freedoms for a government to exact taxes by force of law, to collect personal information about its citizens, to issue ‘travel permits’, and so on.  And, if I were the Chief Commissar of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, my first target would be the overbloated, over-reaching, oppressive government which is smothering us, our rights, denying us our freedoms!

THAT is the ‘change’ I was referring to in my comment….

Though, my husband thinks I’d be very effective at it!

 

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

Section 13(1) and Aspergers

October 7, 2009 — xanthippa

OK – this is a topic that people who know me have had to listen to me rant on and on and on….

And, I have tried to write it up – and have at least 18 drafts to prove it…

Because… this is something SOOO IMPORTANT that it deserves the most perfectest write up ever!

Because… this shows an internal inconsistency in the Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code – the ‘Hate Speech’ bit!

It clearly demonstrates that Section 13(1) is in contravention of itself!!!

That, if I my layman’s understanding of our legal system holds, would render the whole thing illegal.  After all, a law may not contravene itself, may it?

Yesterday, I got a comment on my last post, which said exactly the same thing I had been ranting on and on about.  (The comment, not the post – well, the post, too, but that is implied.)

Actually, I read it out loud to my husband, who thought I was reading my words, so close was the sentiment!

Hi Xanthippa.

Your blog has got me thinking… Perhaps we Aspies particularly resent censorship boards like Canada’s because we are used to “saying it like it is”, speaking the truth (as we see it) bluntly and plainly, and not being stopped by thin-skinned people taking offence. Aspies can’t detect _likely_ offence in advance, and if we played it safe and avoided all _possible_ offence, we’d never say anything!Whereas those who support Canada’s state censorship system are probably neurotypicals who are good at treading their way carefully, taking cues from context. They have picked up, for example, that joking about assassinating President Bush is “brave dissent” while joking about assassinating President Obama is “racist hate speech” that will get you visited by the FBI.

Aspies like to have the rules laid out clearly, neutrally and consistently. They/ we don’t like implications, winks and nods, and “It just is, okay?!” So you get someone like Ezra Levant (almost certainly an Aspie) asking why the Emperor has no clothes, why Canada’s censorship rules are applied differently to Christians and Muslims, and a lot of people regard him with distaste: he’s rude, he’s offensive, he’s loud, he’s rocking the boat, he “just doesn’t get it”.

Perhaps Section 13 could be struck down as discriminating on basis of a disability, do you think?

That is exactly correct!  I’ve been ranting on this for years!

*  * *

Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Code is the ‘hate speech’ section which has, lately, been applied to silence people with unpopular views.  The key bit of the wording is that a person is forbidden from communicating anything which could potentially give offense to someone or a group.  No, not ‘just anyone’ – only people who are members of ‘protected groups’.

In other words, it is illegal, in Canada, to communicate anything that might offend people, based on their sex, race, religion, disabilities, sexual orientation, and so on, or stigmatize them, or is likely to increase ‘general hate’ against them.

*  *  *

Now, let us look at  the diagnostic criteria for Asperger’s Syndrome (an Autism-spectrum disorder):

Aspies For Freedom (an Asperger’s support group) lists, among others:

  • Criterion A. Severe and sustained impairment in social interaction
  • Criterion C. The disturbance must cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

About.com tells us that

“The essential features of Asperger’s Disorder are severe and sustained impairment in social interaction…

“…  The disturbance must cause clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

Dr. Leo Kanner, a psychiatrist at Hopkins and a recognized authority on Asperger, wrote in ‘Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry with Practical Neurology’ about ‘Aspergers’:

It is characterised by impairments in reciprocal social interaction and communication

I could go on, in a typically Aspie obsessive manner… but, you get the picture.  Aspies (people with Asperger’s Syndrome usually prefer the nomicker ‘Aspies’ – it is less cumbersome) have a neurological disorder, which prevents us from having ‘normal’ social interactions.

We cannot tell when we are boring you.

We cannot tell when what we are saying is offensive to you.

We cannot tell if people are so fed up with us, they are about to loose their patience and beat us to a bloody pulp, because we have just said something they consider ‘insensitive’ or ‘offensive’.

We think the rest of the world ought to get over themselves and their stupid emotionalism and its burdensome public display and grow up!  (And get some logic, while they’re at it.)

We also lack the ability to ‘believe’.

Oh, we can accept rules – and love to adhere to them scrupulously.  So, Aspies CAN follow religions.  We just can’t believe in them.

We can take some God(s)’s existence ‘as given’ or ‘pre-defined parameter’ – but not as an ‘article of faith’ to be ‘believed’.  There IS a difference.

Despite what some clinicians think, we CAN accept ‘alternate realities’ (make-believe) – as long as it is presented as a concept (not ‘truth’ – but a ‘different game’) and is internally self-consistent.  That  is why we love Spock (the first ‘real’ Aspie character on TV who was not a villain – at least, not intended to be perceived as a villain, even though his appearance followed an ‘evil-man’ archetype) and why we CAN accept alternate reality rules.

But we recognize them to be ‘non-real’.  And – naturally – we say so.  Especially when somebody is wrong and thinks it is ‘real’.

It is our responsibility to educate them!  To do any less would be insulting to them…

We are especially good at pointing out internal inconsistencies – within belief systems, ‘holy’ books (scriptures), the behaviour of clerics vs. the tenets of their faith and all kinds of things like that.  Good and persistent!

And THAT is why so many Aspies earn the wrath of religious people….. because we will never understand why it is OK to correct someone’s misconceptions regarding physic or mathematics, but not regarding bronze-age myths and demonstrable reality.

Actually – any age myths…

With our lack of social skills and inability to ‘take things on faith’ – both conditions are documented as being biologically based and not something we can just change because we want to – we are BOUND to offend a lot of people. Or, so I am told.  Especially with all that religious nonsense!  And I mean NON-SENSE!!!  As defined…

(Is this a good demonstration?  I hope so… I was trying to convey the understanding of our internal thought processes….)

I suppose it would be a fair parallel to describe Aspies as ‘offensiveness-deaf‘!  And, this disability is a well documented, recognized medical condition.

*  *  *

Ah – but our constitution states that no person shall be discriminated against on the grounds of a medical disability!

Would it be legal to pass a law that penalizes people for not standing when the National Anthem is played – even if they were deaf and did not hear it?  Or of they were a paraplegic or otherwise disabled and unable to stand?

Would passing such laws, which punish people because they have a disability, be tolerated if that disability were anything other than Asperger’s Syndrome?

NO!  IT WOULD NOT!

We would not tolerate such laws!  And, our constitution specifically forbids discrimination on these grounds!

Yet, Section 13(1) is a blatant and shameful discrimination against people who have a medical disability which prevents us from knowing when we are likely to ‘give offense’!!!

*  *  *

OK – this is where I tie it all together….bear with me, please, I’m almost there.

1.  Section 13(1) makes it illegal to communicate anything which ‘is likely to offend’ or stigmatize a group or individuals (on ‘protected grounds’), or expose someone to hate.

2.  One such ‘protected ground’ is ‘medical disability’.

3.  Asperger’s syndrome is a medical disability, whose defining characteristic is an inability to successfully socially interact with others:  in other words, rude and offensive behaviour is an invountary symptom (and even a diagnostic criterion) of this medical condition.  As such, Aspies cannot tell if they are ‘likely to offend’, just as deaf people cannot hear and react to sounds, or just like people cannot significantly change the amount of pigment in their skin!  By just existing, we are ‘likely to give offense’!

4.  Therefore, Section 13(1) makes it a criminal offense to live with this specific medical disability!

5.  By criminalizing our very existence, Section 13(1) seriously stigmatizes Aspies, simply because of how we were born! It is very likely that we, as an identifiable and protected group, will be stigmatized and we are likely to be exposed to hate, as a direct result of the existence of Section 13(1).

6.   However, Section 13(1) forbids anyone or anything to stigmatize a group on protected grounds, or expose anyone to hate – and having Asperger’s IS a ‘protected ground’!

7.  That is an internal inconsistency.

8.  Therefore, Section 13(1) is in contravention of itself.

Q.E.D.

    Posted in Aspergers, atheism, ignosticism, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 12 Comments »
    « Older posts
    Newer posts »