BlazingCatFur: the one sane man in ‘occupy Toronto’ protest

Plus – he has a loudspeaker!

And HE IS RIGHT!!

UKIP’s Nigel Farage on the Slovak ‘no’ vote

The Fourniers will set another Canadian legal precedent

It is the nature of laws – at least, in free societies – to be passed in response to new developments in society.  That is why, in the common law tradition, legal precedents affect not only how old laws are applied but also how new laws evolve.

This creates a feedback mechanism:  the laws affect how the rules of society evolve, the rules of society affect how the laws evolve.

Currently, the courts are trying to interpret the existing laws to accommodate the changes due to our ‘communications revolution’.  Since more and more of our public and private communication as well as our public and private information is online, the impact these ruling will have over the coming decades is truly profound.

This makes Connie and Mark Fournier’s ongoing legal battles very important to all of us:  if you are reading this on a computer, then the rulings in their legal battles will affect the rules under which you live your life.  And not just in Canada – the world is fast becoming one electronic family and slowly but surely, internet-affecting legal precedents set in one Western country reverberate in the whole world.

That is why I have started to document the Fourniers’ legal journey – even though I have no legal training and my understanding of what is being said in court is imperfect.  But, if I document it to the best of my ability, perhaps others who are more knowledgable will be able to comment  on what I have witnessed and explain it better to all of us!

Last week, the Fourniers were in Federal court in Ottawa – charged with copyright infringement by Richard Warman.

To my mind, some of the things the Fourniers are charged with are difficult to understand – but one of them is very clear and will very likely set the legal precedent for Canada on a very hot topic: ‘inline linking’.  The legal precedent on copyright issues regarding the insertion of an inline web link has been ruled by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, clarifying that inserting them does not violate US copyright laws.  For search engines, anyway…

There has not been a comparable ruling in Canada – yet.

Richard Warman has brought a lawsuit against the Fourniers for violating his copyright in 3 separate ways.

One – and, perhaps most important regarding the abovementioned legal precedent – is for having permitted the insertion of an ‘inline-link’ on the Free Dominion forum they operate which linked to a picture of Richard Warman, on his own website.

In other words, the picture was always posted only on Richard Warman’s own personal website and he had full control over it.  An inline-link was posted on Free Dominion which would show the reader Richard Warman’s picture from Richard Warman’s site.  The picture was, at all times, on Mr. Warman’s server and under his complete control – he could have, at any time, blocked inline-linking to the picture…yet he chose to permit inline-links to the picture to function.

Inserting the inline-link on Free Dominion, according to Mr. Warman’s claim, constitutes displaying his image without permission and thus infringes on his copyright.

Therefore, the ruling on this will have important implications for internet use in Canada, perhaps further.  Should the ruling go against the Fourniers, then any time anyone inserts a hot-link when they comment on something on a blog or site you control, you could be liable for copyright infringement.

The other two counts of copyright infringment Mr. Warman is suing the Fourniers for are regarding words, not images, and words which were posted on the Free Dominion site and not words that were simply linked to.

Jonathan Kay had written an article for National Post in which documented how, at various court hearings, it was revealed that Mr. Warman appears to have made some highly inflammatory racist, misogynistic and anti-immigrant comments (specifically targeting Senator Anne Cools) on a white supremacist website/forum.  (I myself have heard the same assertions during the ‘Vigna v Levant’ defamation hearing, where Mr. Levant had clarified that to the best of his knowledge, it was not Mr. Vigna but rather Mr. Warman who was the card-carrying member of a neo-nazi organization and the author of this most vile hate speech directed against our first black female Senator.)

This newspaper article was re-printed (with credit – but it was not stated during the hearing if fully or partially) on the Free Dominion forum.

Mr. Warman sued the National Post for publishing that article and the National Post and he reached an out-of-court settlement with them.  As part of this settlement, Mr. Warman got the copyright of the article.

Once he owned the rights to the article, Mr. Warman’s lawyers contacted the Fourniers and demanded that they remove the article from their website.  This they complied with immediately, as was confirmed by Mr. Warman’s lawyers.

Despite this, at some subsequent time, the Fourniers were contacted by Mr. Warman’s lawyers and were requested to pay some sum of money to Mr. Warman to avoid a lawsuit for having posted the article in the first place.  The Fourniers believed that they had complied with the request to remove the offensive material in a timely manner and therefore did not think they were obligated to pay any money as well.  Subsequently, Richard Warman filed a copyright violation lawsuit against them on these grounds.

The last, third count of copyright violation has me puzzled more than the previous two.

The Fourniers had posted on Free Dominion sections of court documents – public documents, to the best of my knowledge – which had contained the phrases on the basis of which Mr. Warman was taking legal action against someone (the phrases he had found offensive) which had also been published in the article from point two.  Even though the Fourniers had clearly published these phrases as part of a public document, as they were also part of the article which Mr. Warman’s lawyers asked them to take down, Mr. Warman had charged them with copyright infringement for having posted them.

This, in a nutshell, is the background to this particular lawsuit Mr. Warman is pursuing against the Fourniers.

The Fourniers had filed their defense statement with the court – representing themselves.  Mr. Warman’s lawyers had informed the Fourniers that some of the things which they listed in their documents were inadmissible in court and asked the Fourniers to remove them.  The Fourniers refused to do so, because they believe this information to be relevant to their defense and would like the judge in the case to be the one to decide what is admissible and what is not.

Mr. Warman’s lawyers then filed a motion to have parts of the Fourniers defence statements struck from the record (not all the bits they had originally wanted removed, but still a significant amount)- something the Fourniers believe will affect their defense not only in this copyright violation lawsuit but also in three additional lawsuits (for defamation, I believe) that Mr. Warman is pursuing against them.

Last week, there was a hearing in federal court for this motion – a most interesting event in its own right (which I had gone to see for myself and will write up very, very soon, I promise!).

Thunderf00t: My real name is…

This is disgusting!

Yes, there are some people who abuse anonymity on the internet.

Then there are others who eschew it – they believe that attaching their real-life name to an online communication will add weight and respect to it.  This is, to some degree, true:  if their real-life name has some earned public credibility, attaching it to their online persona will add credibility to the online persona.

BUT!!!

Name is just a label.

If a person has built up his or her credibility using an online persona – truly built up credibility – by time and time again providing solid, verifiable, quality information, then their real-life name is really quite irrelevant.

To the contrary:  it is a very useful shield!

Journalists who publish in traditional media have an organization that stands behind them and offers them at least a modicum of protection should they become threatened by those who wish to silence them.

Online communicators do not have this luxury!!!

But ‘online’ is not the beginning of ‘anonymous protest speech’!

No, nowhere near…  Even the most basic bit of research into the history of anonymous protest speech demonstrates brings us to Colonial North America.  Printing presses were used to print anonymous pamphlets which were distributed and which informed the public of facts that the government did not want known and which fostered the atmosphere necessary for the fight for independence.

In fact, most of the works by America’s Founding Fathers were originally published as anonymous pamphlets!

So, let’s not go down the role of silly posturing:  anonymity is essential for free speech!

(Sorry if I am not particularly coherent in this post – I am so angry as I write this, I can hardly keep myself calm enough to type!)

To hear that Thunderf00t’s real-life name has been ‘outed’ by an Islamist group (which claims to be made up of ‘moderate Muslims’), that his job has been threatened, that his address has been published – and now, that his family members are being threatened with physical violence…THAT IS AN OUTRAGE!!!!

I guess all we can do is spread the word…

…and hope for the best.  Because I am at a loss for what else to do to help him.

 

P.S.:  It took me a second viewing to pick up pn it, but it does seem that the online Islamists just may have attracted the attention of ‘Anonymous’.  THAT would be interesting, to say the least!

Salim Mansur: ‘Delectable lie’

In September 2011, Dr. Salim Mansur came to Ottawa to launch his book ‘Delectable Lie a liberal repudiation of multiculturalism’.

I went to hear him speak, and ever since, I have been waiting for the video of the event to be posted on YouTube because Dr. Mansur expresses what is wrong with multiculturalism so eloquently and he delivers his words so passionately that I could not wait to post the video and share it with everyone!

There is a lot I would like to say – but Dr. Mansur does it better!

 

Last few words about last night’s Ontario election…

Last night, after coming home from having voted, I was surfing the blogosphere a little.  My husband looked over my shoulder to read this and wanted to know if I wrote it…as it is almost verbatim what I had said to him in the morning:

Election day is here and at some point I will drag myself to the polling station. This time will be different though. I will not be casting my vote for the Conservative party.  I just can’t.

I can’t cast a vote for a party whose leader thinks miming Dalton McGuinty is a good thing. I can’t hold my nose and vote conservative just because some guy who claims to be conservative finagled his way to the leadership of the party, just because he may not screw me over quite as thoroughly as McGuinty will.

I will not opt for the lesser of two weevils this time out. I’m just not going to vote for any weevil. My vote will go to the Freedom Party, in part in protest, in part because they do hold views compatible with my own, views that seem alien to the weevil currently in charge of Ontario’s PC party.

So long weevils.

Except that I did not make the clever weevil analogy….

Pat Condell: The great Palestinian lie

I have, for a time, lived in a UN refugee camp – as a refugee.  While the physical needs of the refugees are provided for – and I am very, very grateful for that – the UN refugee camps are not designed for a person to be a contributing member of the human race.

Not at all.

They are a place to seek physical shelter from persecution or hardships – a transit point along one’s journey.  They are resting place, not a place of permanent settlement.  Just a safe rest stop that lets you, the refugee, make arrangements for a productive life elsewhere without worrying about your immediate physical needs.

We, humans, form communities:  our social bonds are forged in the back and forth of giving and taking, helping and receiving help.  To be a balanced human being, we need to both give and receive.  We cannot function properly only giving or only receiving.

My family lived in the UN refugee camp for only 5 months, but even during that short time, I have noted that most adults (especially the men) had begun to undergo some serious identity crises.  Being a dependant – and idle – gnawed at them, even though they knew it was a temporary situation until some country checks through their background and decides to accept them as immigrants.

Yet, the UN refugee camps are now seeing the third or fourth generation of Palestinian refugees!

The Palestinian leadership and the agencies which profit from the Palestinian refugee situation are conspiring together to keep the Palestinian people in these camps and dependant on them.  For what?  A power rush?  Shame on them!

Will ‘Arab Spring’ turn into an ‘Arab Fall’ in Saudi Arabia?

In the spring of 2011, many predominantly Arab countries have seen civil unrest – the so-called ‘Arab Spring’.

While  the sentiments that started these revolts/revolutions/civil wars may have been driven – at least partly – by a desire of the citizens to have their voices heard, the movements soon became dominated by the well organized and well financed Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates/allies.  (It is not clear whether these were truly populist movements or if the uprisings were indeed orchestrated from the start by the MB – I doubt the outcome will be affected, either way.)

Saudi Arabia, the homeland of Mecca and Medina, has not seen unrest on the scale of, say Egypt, Lybia or Syria.  It is possible that the people there are simply happier – or that the brutal suppression of any public demonstration by the Saudi tyrants has simply left the populace too cowed to do much…  Until now, that is.

Will we now see the ‘Saudi Fall’?

Will we rush to the aid of the protesters, like we did in Egypt, with moral and political support?

Will we establish a ‘no-fly zone’ and ‘put boots on the ground’, like we did to protect the rebels in Lybia, vowing not to stop until the tyrants (that would be the Saudi royal family – you know, the guys who are friends with that evil man, Bush) are ousted and tried?

Or will we do nothing, barely even report on it, like we are doing in Syria now and had done with the ‘women’s revolution’ a few years back in Syria’s sponsor, Iran?

Who knows?

There certainly isn’t much consistency one could go by in our behaviour so far…

Things to think about before Thursday’s election

Before the Ontario election on Thursday, let’s not forget to think about a few things.

Like, Caledonia

Like, healthcare – which is being so rationed in Ontario that it is ridiculous…

For example, on the 2nd of September of this year, my friend was hit by a truck (while she was riding her motorcycle).  She was hurt pretty badly, with an open compound fracture of one of her legs.  While in the hospital, she kept complaining that her other leg was seriously hurting her – doctors would look at it (without touching it) and tell her that it’s just a sprain and to tough it out…until, on the 21st of September, a different doctor came by who actually did his job.  Yes, you guessed it – her other leg was fractured as well. But, as the bones were not actually sticking out through the skin, the patient was told ‘it’s just a sprain’ and the doctors did not bother taking even a single X-ray.

It took 20 days of being hospitalized (after being hit by a truck) in an Ontario hospital, with our ‘world class’ medicare, before the doctors noticed their severe trauma patient had a broken leg. 

It just makes me want to scream!

All three major political parties have had a hand in bringing about the deterioration of our society to these appalling levels.

Remember that when you go to vote.

Rick Dagenais: the troll at my door

During elections, it is the custom for the various candidates vying for our votes to knock on the doors of the constituents in the riding where they are hoping to win the seat, assure the voters that you care about each and every one of them – personally – and, hopefully, convince the voters that they are worthy of their trust.

I have experienced this many times – politicians of all political stripes and polka-dots have had a discussion with me at my front door, from federal, provincial and municipal levels.  This has led to interesting discussions (though usually, not particularly long ones as the candidates are eager to hit as many homes as possible in the little time available to them) and even when we do not see eye-to-eye politically, the politicians have always been on their best and most affable.  After all, you never know when a neighbour is listening and might be impresses….

With the current Ontario election in its last week, I was not particularly surprised to see a political candidate on my doorstep, hoping to convince me to give him my vote.  What shocked me was that almost from the first moment, the dude trolled me!

The only thing I can think of was that it was a cold and rainy evening when Ric Dagenais of the NDP  happened upon my abode – so his demeanour might have been a reflection of the elements… because I cannot imagine why on Earth anyone hoping to convince me to vote for them would behave like a such a small-minded troll.  Truly…

What came out of this guy’s mouth was astonishing.  I find it difficult to understand what possessed him to behave as he did, to say the stuff he said.  It made him sound, well, uneducated, slightly unhinged and patronizing all at the same time.

Let me expand on that.

He started ‘on script’ and asked if I had considered voting for the NDP.  I said that while still undecided, I was seriously considering the Freedom Party of Ontario.

Mr. Dagenais’s eyes glazed over as he said:  “Who?”

It took him a bit, but he finally remembered who that was.  Then he said:  “They are running a candidate in this riding?”

When I assured him that they were (Marco Rossi), he reluctantly agreed that yeah, he guessed they were.

So far, he has sounded just a bit grumpy and a more than a little ignorant – he could not even remember who was competing against him for the seat in the Ontario legislature.

Then he asked me why I was considering the Freedom Party.

I told him my honest opinion:  that we needed to move towards smaller government and that I thought the Freedom Party was the best choice for people who do not like big government.

This seemed to shock him:  “You think the NDP does not stand for small government?”

At first, I thought he wassimply  jesting – facing a voter with insurmountable ideological differences from him, that he would depart on a light note.  I was wrong.  He was serious…

Then he began to explain to me that the NDP was the ONLY party that would guarantee me ‘smaller government’.   With a straight face, he was honestly trying to convince me that NDP was the only logical choice for people who want to reduce the size of the government.

Now – let’s do a little recap.  I was aware of more candidates in this riding than he, as one of the candidates, was.  This should obviously put me into a category of ‘at least somewhat informed voter’ – or, at least, not an absolute political ignoramus who is unaware of the NDP’s policies and their inherent incompatibility with ‘small government’.  OK – I am blond…and since my left shoulder has still not fully healed, my pony tail was not well centred or actually styled, just sort of sraped back off my face.  And, when he knocked on my door, I was in the process of cleaning my house and dressed in  my ‘grubbies’.  So, I probably looked ditsy and grubby at once. Still, treating me like an idiot by offering me such transparent lies, in such a patronizing manner, was a bit of a strain on me.

In order to re-focus the conversation, I tried to explain that I thought the government should be much smaller than the NDP suggests – that governments should really not provide any services beyond the military, policing and judiciary.  Pretty standard stuff – right?  Mr. Dagenais had a very weird reaction to this:  he accused me of wanting to live in a police state!

He got quite heated, too, leaning forward and pointing a finger to deliver the message.  Needless to say, I was not prepared for such an irrational statement, nor the passion with which it was delivered.  I still don’t know if Mr. Dagenais was just trolling (I hope so) or if he is truly so ill informed that he thinks that wanting less government truly means wanting to establish a police state.

I tried to explain it – I really did.  I good faith and everything.  But his claims kept getting more and more irrational, at one point claiming that if citizens were granted property rights, then multinational corporations would build poisonous factories across the street from  my house and kill my children!

Yes, he actually went that far.

The thing he said were so irrational that I asked him to stop with the ‘straw men’ arguments because it was silly, but I don’t think he even heard me.  But he seemed like he was just getting started…  He actually shouted that I would build a Nazi state and demanded to know if that was what I really wanted!

Rather than stand there and continue to be insulted, I asked him to please leave.  It took him several sentences to register what I said, then he looked up at me in shocked surprise – so I repeated my request.  He said he guessed he’d better – and stalked off…

The encounter had left me rather baffled.  I am grateful to Ric Dagenais and all the candidates for participating in the political process:  without people willing to devote their time and energy and running for public office, our system would simply cease to function.  People of all political opinions and views ought to have someone to vote for who represents their views.  Without people like Ric Dagenais, this would not be possible – so I am sad to have had such a discouraging encounter with him.

Still, I hope this was just stress coming through, that I had unknowingly pushed some buttons that led him to troll me…and that he truly does not believe that giving property rights to citizens would lead to multinational corporations killing all the children and reducing the size of the government would lead to a Nazi-style police state.