From ‘Rules for Radicals: A Pragmatic Primer for Realistic Radicals’ by Saul D. Alinsky:
(Pg4 of the ‘Vintage Books Edition, March 1972)
“To diminish the danger that ideology will deteriorate into dogma, and to protect the free, open, questioning, and creative mind of man, as well as to allow for change, no ideology should be more specific than that of America’s founding fathers: “For the general welfare.”
My post on the Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does verdict has received an unusually high amount of comments – especially for an obscure little blog like mine. While this is flattering, it does not really diminish the pain this verdict has inflicted on me – even if my interest was not financial (as I was not associated with either the plaintiff nor the defendants, though, I have developed great respect and affection for the defendants over the years that I have followed this case for).
No, my interest may not have been financial, but it is as personal as it gets: this verdict, as it currently stands, restricts freedom of speech to such a degree that had major media outlets dared to honestly report on it, the populace would rebel. I honestly believe that to be true – though, some of the comments I received do make me wonder…
For example, one commenter, ‘harebell’, said:
‘You keep posting a series of quotes, that is not an argument for anything it’s a list of people’s opinions.
To claim there are some inalienable, a priori rights based on individual preferences and desires is fine in theory. But each of those individual ideas on rights and preferences will come into conflict with those of others and then both sets will be accused of infringing on the rights of the other and therefore wrong. A person’s rights are what a community agrees they are especially if the community has the power to enforce what it says. It really doesn’t matter whether that community is based on a moral system or an ethical system they will create laws limiting behaviour because my idea of what constitutes freedom will be different to yours. Giving up absolute freedom is the price we pay to live in Canada because we have to live with others.’
Obviously, I tried to explain this, in the following, highly imperfect way:
Individual freedoms are the cornerstone on which our society is built – just read up on our history.
While Americans valued equality, Canadians have always cherished individual freedoms – until, that is, Cultural Marxists re-wrote our textbooks and educated the last generation in revisionist history, depriving it of even the knowledge of its true heritage.
Historians like Professor John Robson have written extensively on this.
But, if you wish to go into some detail here, let me give you a very, very short version:
Canada is a Constitutional Monarchy: this is a form of democracy which is not an absolute democracy ( ‘absolute democracy’ is also called ‘the tyranny of the majority’, as exemplified by two wolves and a lamb taking a vote over what to eat for dinner).
This form of democracy recognizes that each and every citizen has inalienable rights which, no matter how large a percentage of the majority votes to take away, must not be violated. The only legitimate role of government is to protect these rights, so that each and every citizen may exercise them freely.
One such basic right – one we can most easily understand – is the right to bodily integrity. This means that if there are 4 people who need a kidney, a liver, a lung and a heart each, the government cannot arbitrarily appoint a 5th person to be the organ donor, on the grounds that ensuring 4 citizens live outweighs the 1 citizen’s right to live.
(There are very good books by much more intelligent people than I that explain this well – I do urge you to read up on our history.)
In other words, our society is based on the proposition that the majority must not be permitted to harm minorities – even the smallest minority of one citizen. To the contrary, when a government begins to strip citizens of their human rights, that government becomes illegitimate and loses it justification to govern.
It is sad that this was not covered in your civics class in high school…
Of course, the wise and eloquent CodeSlinger answered her much better:
‘harebell:
You write “To claim there are some inalienable, a priori rights based on individual preferences and desires is fine in theory.”
Well, no. It’s not. It’s a contradiction in terms. Rights, being a priori, are derived from first principles and therefore cannot be based on individual preference.
You also write “A person’s rights are what a community agrees they are especially if the community has the power to enforce what it says.”
This, too, is a contradiction in terms. A person’s rights are derived from what kind of creature a human is, and therefore cannot depend on anyone else’s agreement.
Like most Canadians, you have been taught to confuse privileges with rights, and lulled into accepting the poisonous lie that the collective supersedes the individual – in other words, that might makes right. As soon as you accept that, you have enslaved yourself: you cease to be a free individual and become a ward of the state.
The whole idea that rights can somehow be based on consensus is fundamentally flawed.
Consensus, to be productive, requires that each individual contribute independently out of his experience and insight. When consensus comes under the dominance of conformity, the social process is polluted and the individual at the same time surrenders the powers on which his functioning as a feeling and thinking being depends.
— Solomon A. Asch
This concept, “powers on which [a person’s] functioning as a feeling and thinking being depends,” is the core of what we mean by a right. To clarify this, let’s go back to basics. Let’s start with some definitions:
privilege: a special advantage, benefit, or exemption, selectively granted to some but denied to others.
right: a freedom, entitlement, or immunity, so fundamental to human nature it cannot justly be taken away or given up.
See the difference? See how you are disempowered by confusing privileges with rights? See how the government benefits at your expense by using the schools it runs to confuse you in that particular way?
When we speak of “inalienable individual rights,” by the way, the words “inalienable” and “individual” are added only for emphasis and clarity. Strictly speaking, these qualities are already inherent in the definition of “rights.”
Okay. So, what are these inalienable individual rights? They are:
Life, liberty, property, privacy, self-defence, and self-expression.
Why these and only these?
Well, the rights to life and liberty are the essential primary rights and the rights to property, privacy, self-defence, and self-expression are necessary and sufficient to guarantee life and liberty. By necessary and sufficient, I mean that nothing more is needed, and anything less would not be enough.
These six rights form an irreducible core: you either have all of them, or you may as well have none of them.
The inalienable individual rights give form and substance to the idea that every individual is inherently entitled to live and to act in his own self-interest and is immune from being interfered with in so doing. Further, since man is a rational animal, mental life and liberty are as important as physical life and liberty. Neither has value without the other.
Now, these ideas are crystal clear and incontrovertible when people live alone in a state of nature. It is when they come together in groups that confusion often starts – but it need not, if we think carefully and ignore those who have a vested interest in confusing us.
After all, the whole reason individuals form communities is to increase the benefits they derive from exercising their rights in return for accepting some responsibilities to the community – be it a family, village, city, province or nation. This, in a nutshell, is the social contract.
The crucial concept of a contract is quid pro quo: you give something in return for receiving something. Meaning, unless the community increases the benefits you derive from exercising your rights, you owe the community nothing at all.
Thus we must never allow the collective to take precedence over the individual, otherwise we negate the whole reason for forming a collective in the first place! Unless we hold inviolate the principle that the rights of the collective are derived from – and subservient to – the rights of its constituent individuals, the entire social contract becomes null and void, and any attempt to enforce it amounts to tyranny.
From this we can immediately see that the primary duty of the state must be to equally guarantee the equal rights of each and every individual. Whenever the government oversteps the boundaries defined by this primary duty, it breaches the social contract and thereby forfeits its legitimacy.
The whole foundation of the legal system follows just as immediately: a crime is committed whenever any person’s rights are violated and harm results. The severity of the crime is proportional to the harm which results. Thus, where there is no harm, there is no crime. Any law which is incompatible with these principles is unjust, and an unjust law is no law at all.
In other words, your right to swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose, and vice versa.
The whole purpose of the law and the state is to guarantee that to both of us equally, and anything else it does is unnecessary or illegitimate.
Yes, it really is that simple.
And it all rests on the absolute primacy of inalienable individual rights.
The quotes I posted say all that much more clearly and eloquently than I ever could – and also give proper credit to the great men I learned it from. Read their words again, and you will see what I mean:
A right is not what someone gives you, it’s what no one can take away from you.
— U.S. Attorney General Ramsey Clark
No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him.
— Thomas Jefferson
Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add ‘within the limits of the law’, because law is often but the tyrant’s will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual.
— Thomas Jefferson
It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error.
— U.S. Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson
Must a citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? … It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right.
— Henry David Thoreau’
We so need much more of this!
Among a deluge of news about Islamic extremists burning/demolishing/desecrating Christian churches, Hindu and Buddhist temples and Synagogues all throughout the Muslim world, among the news of religious murders and bombings, it is most excellent to see moderate Muslims standing up for religious tolerance and protecting their Christian neighbours during worship:
‘Hand in hand as many as 200-300 people formed a human chain outside the St Anthony’s Church adjacent to the District Police Lines at the Empress Road, in a show of solidarity with the victims of the Peshawar church attack two weeks back, which resulted in over a 100 deaths. The twin suicide attack on All Saints church occurred after Sunday mass ended and is believed to be the country’s deadliest attack on Christians.
Standing in the small courtyard of St Anthony’s Church, as Mufti Mohammad Farooq delivered a sermon quoting a few verses of the Holy Quran that preached tolerance and respect for other beliefs, Father Nasir Gulfam stepped right next to him after having conducted a two hour long Sunday service inside the church. The two men stood should to shoulder, hand in hand as part of the human chain that was formed outside the church not just as a show of solidarity but also to send out a message, ‘One Nation, One Blood’.
As part of an attempt to sensitize the public at large, the human chain was the second such event after a similar had been organized in Karachi last week outside the St Patrick’s Cathedral by an organization called Pakistan For All – a collective of citizens concerned about the growing attacks on minorities.
“Well the terrorists showed us what they do on Sundays. Here we are showing them what we do on Sundays. We unite,” said Mohammad Jibran Nasir, the organizer who made the calls for the event on social media.’
Go over to Express Tribune to read the full article and to see photos.
It takes a lot of bravery for people to stand up against the fanatics within their own group, whatever that group may be – religious, political or social. But, when they do, we must do all we can to support them and spread the word about their actions!
Clare Lopez, a strategic policy and intelligence expert with a focus on Middle East, national defense, WMD, and counterterrorism issues, will be appearing at a call-in radio show on CFRA on Saturday, the 5th of October, 2013, at 8pm East coast time.
If you are not in the Ottawa region, you can listen over the internet.
I hope she can shed some light on what is happening in Syria and Iran and what other regional threats there are. It should be an interesting thing to listen to.
From BCF:
‘Evidently the Protocols of the Elders of Zion isn’t a strong enough message for the faithful of the Muslims of Calgary, nor is provision of publications that declare Jews and Christians to be the enemies of Allah. No, not at all, the MCC has instead decided to go the direct route and invited Imam Siraj Wahaj, an unidicted co-conspirator and ally of the Blind Sheikh, Omar Abdel Rahman, convicted in the World Trade Center Bombing. You can read the joyous announcement to their Youth Group of the Imam’s return on the MCC site.’
I’m sorry, but I have no patience for those who promulgate ‘The Protocols’ and make their hateful poison part of their message. We need to bring this kind of bigotry out into the open where we can refute it with facts!
I’ll be brief.
Today is a sad, sad day for all Canadians – and a tragic one for all freedom loving people.
The jury foreperson giggled as she said: “The answer is 42!”
As in, $42,000 awarded to Mr. Warman in damages…
In addition, Mr. Warman is seeking an injunction against Free Dominion – a gag order – that would see the Fourniers thrown into jail if anyone even mentions his name on FD, no matter how quickly it would be taken down. If that happens, Free Dominion will cease to exist…
I’ll have some details later – am too upset to write more now.
UPDATE:
CodeSlinger has expressed eloquently what I feel – so, I’d like to share his comment here with you:
This is a sad day, but not a surprising one.
Being tried by “a jury of your peers” sounds right, and good and just… until you look closely at who these “peers” really are – by which I mean what values they have absorbed from their schooling and the mass media, both shaped by the cultural Marxist apparatchiks of the corporocratic state.
Especially in Canada.
Canadians, in general, have no concept of rights.
They speak of rights, but they really mean privileges.
Regarding the right to bear arms, they ask “what kind of arms should we be allowed to carry?”
Regarding the right to free speech, they say “what kind of things should we be allowed to say?”
And so on. It’s pathetic.
Canadians, in general, cannot imagine not being ruled.
To paraphrase what I wrote in another comment, cultural Marxists seek to breed independence and self-reliance out of us. They want to make us into Eloi. And their masters, the globalist Morlocks, are very pleased with their progress.
Especially in Canada.
In Canada, people like the Fourniers don’t have the option of being tried by a jury of their peers.
Eloi are not their peers.
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!
Xanthippa's Chamberpot 