John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 1, part 2

March 27, 2014 — xanthippa

All the caveats from part 1 (more or less forming most of part 1) apply.  Please read them….DLDR:  borrowed clunky tech and limited internet time, cannot highlight (thus link etc.) – will update once my computer is fixed.  Also, these are all jut my highly imperfect personal observations and opinions and ought not be treated as anything more than that.

An account of Day 1 can be found at The FreedomSite Blog.

I have been struggling with how to write up this part, because things got quite sensational at some points and I am quite terrified that if I repeat what I believe to have heard in court, I will open myself up to being sued because as I understand the current state of Canada defamation laws, truth is not a defense there, either, as a person is presumed to be guilty and malicious and if the words are ‘spoken maliciously’ then their truthfulness is irrelevant.

In my online persona, I have chosen to emulate Xanthippe, the wife of Socrates and THE proverbial nag:  I am good at nagging, so I thought I’d go with it.  But, as Xanthippa, I try my best to channel Xanthippe with all her vitriol and sharp tongue – that’s part of the fun of creating an online persona:  it is not you you, but that persona you, so you can say what the you you might, but in a different way, more in line with the persona you are attempting to channel.  (Remember, if it were not for anonymous speech, the Federalist Papers could never have been published and the USA would still be a Crown possession.)

Something that Xanthippa says with the persona-appropriate vitriol which defines her and signifies no more than a reflection of her nature could, quite easily, be misinterpreted as ‘malicious’ when all I am doing is role-playing…presenting my opinion, but with a satirical twist.  And satire does not come across too easily in the courtroom!

Aside:  there will be more personas I am developing in a different, non-written online project, but more about that later.  (But, if anyone has an old but nice wig they’d be willing to donate to that effort, I would be eternally grateful.)

Back to the trial:  first on the order were some legal tidying-up thingies and once these were out of the way, Madam Justice Polowin esplained that she is a bit of a luddite and barely knows how to use email…and has never ever read a blog.  A ‘clean slate’ she called herself.  I am not convinced this is the best background for this case, as it may get very technical, but (and I am jumping ahead in time somewhat) she took copious notes of everything and whenever she needed to understand a point, she not only asked for a clarification, she actually repeated her understanding of the point and asked for confirmation that it is accurate.  That, in my never-humble-opinion, is a good thing.

Another point of interest was that  motion was introduced that any potential witnesses are to be excluded from the courtroom until after their testimony and cross examination, so as not to be influenced by what they hear and see before they testify.  All parties agreed and a nice-dressed gentleman (Mr. Bow, Dr. Baglow’s IT guy) got up and left the courtroom.

Now the opening statements.

Mr. Burnet, Dr. Baglow’s lawyer, went first.  He seems like a competent lawyer and he assumed that reasonable, avuncular style that must be effective because it is affected by so many lawyers (good and bad).  Personally, I find that particular form of arguing patronizing and irritating at best because the Aspie in me considers it to be a form of manipulation.  And we, Aspies, are very allergic to being manipulated:  we see such manipulation as using a subtle form of shaming in order to disguise the lack of convincing evidence.  This opinion of mine was only strengthened by Mr. Burnet’s nervous habit of scratching the inside of his left ear with the arm of his glasses.

But, that is my perception of his mannerisms and not a reflection on Mr. Burnet’s case because a lot of lawyers affect that style – and a lot of lawyers will try to act as if they have a weak case in order for their opponents to underestimate it and not prepare adequately.  And I am sufficiently poor judge of human body language that I would never venture to guess if he was really nervous or pretending to be nervous as part of his courtroom strategy.

If I understood Mr. Burnet’s opening statement accurately, it boils down to a few major points (and I am paraphrasing, at times quite heavily, as my notes are incomplete and I cannot but channel Xanthippe – so, any vitriol you detect below is ‘satire’ and, at times, dark sarcasm, and not malice whatsoever in any way, shape or form):

  • he anticipates that the defendants will try to defend themselves by trying to suggest that there ought to be one set of laws in real life and a different set of laws on the internet and that this is wrong:  the same laws should apply the same way to everybody, for a person’s a person, no matter how small or virtual
  • his client is a retired civil servant, openly and proudly (sic) left wing, enjoys political discourse and enjoys being a blogger in order to promote intelligent (sic)political debate in the public sphere and that while his blog is the primary vehicle for this, he also does so on other blogs and in traditional media.  He engages with people with differing political views.
  • the defendants’  site is ‘extremely right wing’ and their political views are ‘extremely right wing’ which makes them offensive, which is why his client did not usually engage at Free Dominion, but he did engage in a discussion with Mr. Smith on a different blog…

Aside:  up to this point, Mr. Burnet had very considerately explained all the technical terms and jargon patiently answered the many detailed questions the judge had asked.  He kind of got into the habit of talking for a bit, then looking up and asking if any explanations were needed.  So far, so good.  Now, Mr. Burnet delved into how Mr. Smith and his client had gotten into a heated debate about Mr. Baglow’s glaringly hypocritical position* on the re-patriation of Omar Kadr…and he looked up to the judge and asked if she had heard of Omar Khadr.  Madam Justice Polowin smiled amusedly and said that even though she may be a luddite, she does read the papers…

  • His client learned about the offensive comment on the Free Dominion site from somebody else, contacted the Fourniers and demanded a takedown and an apology, but got none.
  • Articles with his client’s negative views of the Taliban were freely and publicly available and clearly contradicted that statement, even though his client continued to vociferously support Omar Khadr in his efforts at repatriation
  • his client may have used caustic and vulgar language against his opponent – including the defendants – while on the blogosphere but that does not give them the right to do the same to him (implying, though never quite stating, that if they did not like it, they could have sued him like he is suing them)
  • the defamatory comment never caused his client any harm, financial or otherwise, but the Canadian defamation laws are so flawed that this does not matter, he can still get money out of this and so he should (the proper legal term Mr. Burnet used, I think, was ‘damages at large’, demanding there not be a breakdown of what were damages and what were penalties, so that the ridiculousness of this situation could more easily be glossed over
  • Mr. Burnet stressed very vigorously that under our current Canadian defamation laws, guilt and malice are PRESUMED and almost impossible to disprove, so they should just win by default
  • facilitating putting something onto an obscure and unread spot on the internet = PUBLISHING and having editorial control
  • this is NOT a Charter challenge because the proper notices have not been filed (with the implications that what the defense is demanding is nothing short of a ‘Charter challenge’  (the judge raised her proverbial eyebrows at this)
  • this is not a SLAPP suit (methinks the lady does protest too much)
  • this is NOT a case of limiting freedoms of citizens  or (I could not help but chuckle at just how sincerely Mr. Burnet managed to deliver this one) libel chill, freedom of speech, blah blah blah…they’re not being silly bunnies or anything like that…..
  • just because the internet is evolving does not mean that the tort of defamation ought to evolve with it, to keep pace with emerging technologies is a silly bunny thing to do and any0ne who says otherwise is a snotling-fondler (Please, google ‘snotling-fondler’ for definition as I cannot currently link:  it is defined as a vulgar insult and not an actionable term of defamation….’snotlings’ are the lowest form of goblins, which are fictional, so this cannot, by definition, be actionable. And, yes, these are obviously not the actual words Mr. Burnet used, but, in my never-humble-opinion, they capture the ‘spirit’ in which this particular point was offered.)
  • (and I think I got this argument’s wording down closely to how it was presented, with a saintly hallow hovering over Mr. Burnet’s head) The tort of defamation is the SOLE LAW that underpins civil discourse & keeps it from descending into a cacophonous, vitriolic shouting match dominated by those with the loudest & most strident voices….  (The reason I think I got this one down relatively closely to what was said is because the judge asked for the statement to be repeated and commented amusedly on the terms used.)

It is not exhaustive nor, obviously, word for word, but I hope this captures the spirit of the opening statement by the plaintiff’s lawyer.

Next up was Barbara Kulaszka, the lawyer representing Mark Fournier.

Honest declaration of bias:  I have met Ms. Kulaszka and observed her in the courtroom.  In person, I think she is brilliant and very, very nice.  I have read some of her writings and been deeply impressed by them – insightful, well researched, documented, eloquently phrased and any other praise you wish to heap upon her head.  I have, however, been less impressed by her past verbal performance in the courtrooms:  that Barbara Kulaszka, however, did not show up today!

I saw passion and fire – and it was excellent!  Not just in her opening statement (sorry, jumping ahead again), but she was up on her feet, objecting, arguing passionately and eloquently.  In other words, I liked what I saw!

Anyhow:  re-focusing!!!

I may not have captured everything, but here are some of the highlights of her opening statement (again, as with the rest of all my writing, paraphrasing, satire, sarcasm, hyperbole and all that, are in play)

  • pseudonyms not the same as the people who use them (quite right – I may have similar opinions as Xanthippa – but I would not express them in the same way that, as Shakespeare calls he, ‘the proverbial shrew’ would!!! – ok, back to Xanthippa’s voice)
  • Dr. Dawg called Connie Fournier ‘his worst cyber enemy’ – superhero analogies  (In my never-humble-opinion, Connie Fournier IS a real-life super-hero!!!  Please, don’t ask me what that would make her cyber-opponents…I don’t want to get sued!)
  • the argument started on the Jay Curry blog  (Aside:  I like his new blog much more than his old one.)
  • heated argument, August 2010, Omar Khadr…election year…
  • argument started on Jay Curry’s blog, went on to Dawg’s Blog, then there was 1 post on Free Dominion where Roger Smith put up an op-ed type of a post
  • Omar Khadr, Canadians getting killed – back to Dawg’s Bawg ‘They dare call it treason’…
  • traitor, treason. +++ – John Baglow does not find being called that ‘objectionable’ (unstated implication: is he proud of those epitaphs?  Just what kind of a cat is this ‘Dawg’?)
  • For his support for Omar Khadr’s repatriation and opposition to the was in Afghanistan, Jack Layton earned the nick-name of ‘Taliban Jack’:  this is the same thing!  A vocal supporter of the Taliban-linked Omar Khadr’s propaganda message gets tarnished with a Taliban-linked position….logical and natural – and not actionable.
  • her client, Mark Fournier, had never wrote or approved those words, Roger Smith did – so he should not be liable for them
  • Mark Fournier never repeated those words (though Dr. Baglow did re-publish them on the internet, several times)
  • Mark Fournier never received any complaint about those words or any request to remove them – at any point, as the plaintiff only contacted Connie Fournier, never Mark.
  • WIC Radio vs Simpson, Hill vs Church of Scientology (precedents)
  • not a Charter challenge, ‘incremental changes’ to the law
  • ‘publication’ should not be found for something anonymous 3rd parties posted in an un-moderated medium
  • Cost of freedom of speech is getting too high, chilling effect, need legal guidance
  • words were not capable of defamation in that context
  • test is contextual, interactive…quoted justice Labelle in the Simpson case (thick skin quote)
  • political rhetoric…
  • words do not carry the meaning assigned them by the plaintiff…
  • public interest
  • malice? – ‘comment’ = editorial comment = hyperbolic language
  • comment may not be fair, but that is not what ‘fair comment’ means
  • Dr. Dawg had means to refute, used Miss Mew as a sock-puppet
  • 3rd of April, 2011 – 10’s of thousands f comments suddenly disappeared, denying Mark Fournier access to information needed for his defense
  • justice Annis found the words were not defamatory
  • her client is being sued for his political positions and how people react to them, then 10’s of thousands of comments he could have used for his defense disappeared…

There may have been more, but this is what I ‘caught’.

Next came Connie Fournier’s opening statement.

I will not report on what it contained because I am not as brave as Connie and I am afraid that if I told the truth of what was said in public court, I would get sued and loose the family home and my ability to provide a home for my children.  Let it suffice to say it included allegations of statements made by Dr. Baglow regarding justice Annis as well as several other, un-named judges which made the judge’s jaw to, quite literally, drop.

Next came Roger Smith’s opening statement.

He was extremely eloquent and, in  my never-humble-opinion, totally  brilliant.

First, he explained that while his legal name is Roger Smith, his birth name is Roger O’Donnell  and he is widely known under that identity in  professional circles, specifically in the weather forecasting circles and in Ireland.

Next he explained (to a ‘knowing’ and ‘understanding’ head-nodding of the judge) that by defining his client as ‘proudly left wing’ and the Free Dominion forum as ‘extremist right wing’, the plaintiff (through his judge) had made this a case that is NOT about defamation, but about one’s position on the political spectrum…and, in his opinion, the court of law is NOT the appropriate place to rule on which political opinions are permissible and which ones are not.

By the plaintiff’s lawyer’s opening statement alone, this case is not about defamation of an individual but about which political opinions are legally permissible and which political opinions are against the law…

He was, by far, the most  eloquent of the bunch  – so much so that I stopped taking notes and listened to him (regardless of the judge’s annoying interruptions) with ever growing respect and admiration (and I do NOT say this lightly!!!).

Next, the judge asked the CCLA lawyer, who did not have the ‘right’ to make an opening statement, to briefly sketch what the CCLA position is, which is what he did, in 5 points:  all of which boiled down to ‘we want the law to evolve with freedom of speech in mind and something as ludicrous as this case ought to be tossed out of court…

Actually, it was quite brilliant:  the young man (oh, I feel so old) argued their position logically and eloquently and really, really well, bringing in some of the phrases Dr. Baglow’s lawyer used and demonstrating just how ridiculous and absurd those arguments were, without needing to resort to any manipulative means or methods.

I think I love the CCLA!

OK – this is MY highly personal and admittedly prejudiced perception of what went on in court – please, do not treat is as anything more than my highly imperfect and admittedly ignorant opinion of the proceedings.

 

*   *   *

*  I consider this position to be highly hypocritical because I cannot believe that an intelligent man, with a doctorate to boot, could possibly honestly think that using a colloquial definition of some words which are identical to a ‘legal jargon’ label with a very, very narrow and specific legal meaning, applying them in the colloquial sense to a person who glaringly does not qualify for the legal definition of that term, and then, wrapping himself in the tattered cloak of self righteousness, demanding the legal protections for that person for which he would only qualify had he satisfied the ‘legal definition’…and branding anyone who fails to buy in to his glaringly flawed argument as evil and unfeeling and somehow less than human.  Sorry, the man I see in front of me seems much too intelligent not to grasp exactly what the difference between the colloquial and legal definition is, and how Omar Khadr does not qualify for the UN legal definition of ‘child soldier’.  Sure, some of the ‘unwashed & uneducted masses’ could have fallen prey to such glaringly obvious propaganda, but not an intellectual with a doctorate!!!  In the absence of stupidity/ignorance, the only other possible explanation, in my never-humble-opinion, is hypocrisy…for partisan political ends.

 

 

 

Posted in Aspergers, atheism, education, freedoms, human nature, language, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

John Baglow vs Connie Fournier, Mark Fournier and Roger Smith: the ‘FULL TRIAL’, day 1, part 1

March 25, 2014 — xanthippa

Today, Monday, March 24th, 2014, was the first day in the ‘FULL TRIAL’.

First, a few caveats:

*       My computer has died and I am sending it in for service:  this means I have borrowed equipment (my long suffering hubby’s tablet) and this is NOT the ‘ideal’ blogging medium under any plausible definition… so, instead of highlighting or bolding, I will have to capitalize for emphasis.  I am not shouting, just emphasizing  – my apologies.

*       Due to this really, really slow machine with none of ‘my stuff’ on it (and my limited access to it, as I get to ‘share’), I don’t have the quotes/links to previous/cited cases and so on.  I could get them, if I had the time online, but, currently, I do not.  I may – time and technology permitting – re-visit this post and insert quotes and/or links at a later date when time and internet access are more under my control.

*        Due to me being me – and a certified Aspie to boot – my observations are very, very limited.  They are limited both by my lack of legal training (my area of education is Physics, not Law) and my linguistics (while I may have beecome fluent in 5 languages by the age of 13, I have never mastered ‘legaleese’).  I cannot highlight it this mchine, so I cannot link:  please check out ‘Asperger’s on Wikipedia to understand my limitations in abilities to ‘get’ some of the nuances of what went on:  however, if you are ble to correct me or explain any of my observations more accurately than I, please, I TRULY BEG YOU:  COMMENT!!!  Help others get a better, more accurate picture of what is going on,  I would much rather be corrected than go on in ignorance at any time, on any topic, so, please help me and anyone else reading this get a more insightful picture of the situation, if you possibly can.

TLDR: this will be  a condensed, highly personal and highly imperfect account of my admittedly falliable observaions of this first day of the FULL TRIAL of this particular defamation case.  If you can correct me and/or are willing to add to it, please, do!  As I have borrowed and klunky tech, I cannot highlight or link or spellcheck – sorry…

Background:

Connie and Mark Fournier are the operators of Free Dominion, oldest and longest running political forum in Canada until it was sued into silence by Richard Warman.

Roger Smith, aka Peter O’Donnel (and not just online), is a member and frequent content supplier on Free Dominion and elsewhere on the blogosphere.

John Baglow, aka ‘Dr. Dawg’, aka ‘Ms. Mew’, is a guy who is a retired civil servant and unionist, a self-proclaimed leftist activist, an avid blogger, a Richard Warman groupie (imnho), and a guy with a pechant for black riding boots with the most adorable little silver trimmings.

Please note:  all my own dealings with either John Baglow or ‘Dr. Dawg’ have been very amicable and positive.  I have, in the past, asked him to get me in touch with another progressive blogger I have crossed swords with amicably in the past (I may hold many of the so called ‘progressive views’, but disagree with most of the so called ‘progressive metods’ of achieving them) and he had done so very quickly and courteously.  I was seeking some help/publicity for some Tibetan refugees to Canada and Mr. Baglow has provided it and been very nice to me throughout – and, by extension, to them.

I have found him to be pleasant and charming when ever I have interacted with him.  In fact, I find him quite charismatic.

And, I find it admirble that he has brought a young man I presume to be his step-son to the courthouse to observe civic cases:  it is imperative that we get the next genetration interested in our civics, and I give praise to all who do.  Kudos to him for that!!!

Yes, I bash when bashing is due, but I also give credit when that is due, too…so, please, don’t sue me!!!

This particuar ‘flame war’ started on the blog of Jay Curry and bled over to a number of online spots, including Free Dominion, where the 7-word phrase this courtcase is about was posted by Roger Smith.  I am afraid to report what those 7 offending words were, because from the Richard Warman legal precedent, if I, as a private person, publish the ‘public’ documents of what had been filed at court, I, too, might become liable for ‘re-publishing’ those ‘defamatory’ words.

Yes, it is a matter of ‘public record’.

And, yes, it is ‘factual reporting’ of a ‘public document’….or what was said on public record in a court of law and thus apart of ‘public record’…

BUT!!!

Afte the latest Warman vs. Free Dominion and John does decision, that is no defense:  if the factual record is, at some later point in time, found to be defamatory, the factually reporting on it on the internet is considered to be ‘re-publishing the defmatory statements’ and it would open me to liability.  So, my reporting of tody’s events will necessarily be highly constrained.

The subject of the ‘flame war’ was Omar Khadr, his inaccurate (as per UN’s definition) characterization by ‘Dr. Dawg’ as a ‘child soldier’ and the implications of willfully promulgating this demonstrably inaccurate legal description.  Peter O’Donnel’s opinions complied with the UN’s legal definition (thus leaving Omar Khadr outside of the protections UN grants to ‘child soldiers’) while Dr. Dawg attempted to draw the moral high ground by inaccurately describing the Taliban terorist as a ‘child soldier (in the legal, not colloquial, definition) and then demanded the legal protections for Omar Khadr that are only available to UN-defined ‘child soldiers’….a demostrable and rather glaring hypocrisy which ‘Peter O’Donnel’ pounced and opined upon.

In many online spots.

On Free dominion, he opined so in 7 words which I dare not repeat.

These 7 words that ‘Peter O’Donnel’ posted – and which, he asserts, are his honestly held opinon, shared by some 8 million Canadians (according to his opening statement), are the ‘basis’ of this lawsuit.

It was originally dismissed as a frivolous and a vexatious lawsuit. (And, I reported on it – oh, how I wish I could link!!!  The more I use it, the more I loathe this borrowe tech!!!)

Then, it was appealed – and several judges agreed that internet ‘flame wars’ were ‘legally uncharterred terrtory’ and that some ‘precednt-setting rulings’ need to be made here.  Just so us iternet folks would know where the actual boundaries lie…you know, so we could stay within the lines, the lines are your friends…..(OK, old commercial – but applicable!)

Thus, we have a ‘FULL TRIAL’

TLDR:  trial, ruling against Baglow (frivolous), but no legal rules for ‘internet flam war’ so FULL TRIAL to set ‘legal precedent’.  Baglow:  cute guy, charismatic and nice, wrong side of argument here.

OH, MY – OVER A K OF WORDS AND I HAVE NOT STARTED ON TODAY’S EVENTS YET…..deepest apologies, just trying to get the parameters in before I start today’s observations, as I honestly cannot afford to get sued…

FACTS:

These are the facts as posted outside the courtroom #24 at the Elgin St. Courthouse on the 24th of March, 2014:

Justice:          Polowin, J.

Plaintiff:        Baglow, John

Lawyer:          Burnet, Peter Francis

Defendant:     Smith, Roger

Unrepresented

                 Fournier, Connie

Lawyer:             Kulaszka, Barbara

                 Fournier, Mark

Lawyer:            Kulaszka, Barbara

Mr. John Baglow turned up as well groomed as ever:  a dark suit, a blue-collar shirt and them cute riding boots with the adorable silver trimmings he has become so well known for.  He knows what he looks good in and uses it well!

Connie Fournier wore a classy, slim-line dark skirt with a gray pattern, a pretty blouse with a multi-red abstract pattern and a red blazer that accented the blouse perfectly – with an understated, classy gold/gold-tone diamond/rhinestone necklace (sorry – I am not knowledge-able enough to tell the two apart…it was ‘understated’ and ‘classy’ at the same time and I wish I could pull a similar look off….Connie looked smart and classy and – well, we have words for women like that!!!).

Roger Smith wore a blue blazer and khakis – understated, yet elegant.  With his silver-kissed hair, he was easily the most attractive person in the courtroom.

The charismatic Mark Fournier wore a tweed jacket and slacks and, despite his bigger-than-life persona, tried his best to stay in the background.

In addition to the people listed above, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association were interveners in this case – as friends of the court – on the side of the defendants.  The lawyer sent to represent them was a young man named Steven Frankel – and while he had a wedding ring on the ring finger of his left hand, he looked younger than either of my sons.  OK – I officially feel old now….but, when he spoke, he sounded really, really smart!

And, of course, the judge…

Madam Justice Polowin, J., presided over the case.

She looked sharp, with her pale hair cut short-ish, slicked back at the temples and wonderfully fluffy on top, she wore understated light stud earrings (pearls?) and her judge’s robes flowed playfully about her slight frame.  She self-admitted to being a luddite (knowing how to send and receive emails – but nothing else on the internet) and asked for every bit to be explained, internet technology and jargon and culture included.

I see now that it is way late, and I plan to be back in court to observe tomorrow – so I must suspend my narrative here.  Let me just state that, at the end of the day, Madam Justice Polowin stated (at the end of the day) that even though the trial had been scheduled for Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday, she sees no way they’ll get through it all (while doing a proper and thorough job of examining the underlying issues, as the appellate court had directed) by the end of this week and so participants ought to alter their travel plans accordingly…

MORE LATER!!!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in Aspergers, freedoms, human nature, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 6 Comments »

An Email form Connie Fournier of Free Dominion

March 6, 2014 — xanthippa

Here is the email:
Thanks to YOU, Free Dominion is Appealing!
Hi, FD Friends!

Once again I’m emailing you with a Free Dominion legal update because you have helped us in the past, and/or you are on our list of friends who are interested in keeping up with our cases. (Please let me know if you no longer want to get these status reports.)
Thanks to all of you for your support, prayers and encouragement!  

 

Even though Free Dominion is still closed to the public due to the Court Order obtained by Richard Warman, we have some GOOD NEWS! 

 

We WON the copyright case against Richard Warman and the National Post that was scheduled to be heard in the Federal Court of Appeal on February 19th!  Just days before the trial was to begin, both Warman and the National Post dropped out of the case. 
Now Warman and the National Post must pay our costs!

On March 24th we will be in Ottawa for the long-awaited Baglow trial.  It will last for three days and it will be at the Courthouse at 161 Elgin St.

Drop by if you can!

Our fundraiser is doing well…we have raised nearly 50% of our goal…so we have filed our Appeal of the John Doe decision that forced us to close the site.

Mark Steyn very kindly donated some of his books and shirts for us to offer as perks on our fundraiser!  Click on the link below if you want to do some shopping! 🙂

We have one week to go, so please share our fundraiser info with your friends!

Please note that the fundraiser is in US funds, so take that into account if you decide to donate.

If you feel more inclined, you can also help out using an Interac Email Money Transfer to connie@freedominion.ca.

And our mailing address is:

Connie Fournier
2000 Unity Rd
Elginburg, ON  K0H 1M0

Thank you so much to all of you for being there for us!  We said we were going to continue on fighting for your freedom, and we are marching on!

We hope that some day we have the opportunity to thank each and every one of you in person!
Fondest Regards,
Connie and Mark
Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Free Dominion ‘copyright’ case finally won – for good!!!

February 14, 2014 — xanthippa

This is most excellent news!!!

As I reported earlier, when the court ruling for the Fourniers and Free Dominion came down, the ruling had indeed been in their favour.  However, Richard Warman had appealed and so, having won, their federal case dragged on…

Today, the appeal had been dropped.  From Free Dominion:

‘Today we received notices of discontinance from the National Post and from RWarman in the copyright case that was set to be heard in the Federal Court of Appeal this coming Wednesday!

We were self-represented in this this case and we won in the lower court but R ichard W arman decided to appeal and the National Post lawyered up and joined in against us.

We fought hard and were so blessed to get two great interveners. The CIPPIC, who also intervened in the privacy motion in the John Doe case, and the CCIA (and American advocacy group that represents Google, eBay, Facebook and many other heavy-hitters).

On the eve of the trial, after all was prepared to go ahead, our opponents just dropped out with no explanation.

We are now entitled to costs on this case, and it is OVER! Great case law has been established, and we have one less lawsuit to think about.

Just a few more weeks and we hope to cross the Baglow one off the list, too!

Onward and upward! 8) 

Connie and Mark’

One down, so many more to go…  So, while celebrating, why not pop by their legal fund fundraiser and give them some help with the rest of the battles they are fighting on all of our behalfs!

 

P.S. – I wonder if the EU ruling earlier today had anything to do with the dropping of the appeal…

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

Fundraising for Free Dominon

January 27, 2014 — xanthippa

When members of the media are afraid to criticize a member of their country’s Military, who they honestly believe had abused his position of authority for personal gain/power, we have a problem.

Yet, that is exactly the situation we find ourselves in, in Canada, in 2014.

More and more voices in the media are being silenced through lifetime gag orders against them, brought about through the actions of a specific Agent of the State (and member of the Military, none-the-less)!

This has created such an unprecedented chill on speech that news reporters – even when addressing the public – refer to him as ‘He Who Must Not be Named’!

Help one of his latest victims, Mark and Connie Fournier, by popping over to Indiegogo and listening to their story, spreading it through the internet and, if you have the means, perhaps dropping a few pennies to their legal fund.

P.S.  This is an interesting twist on the story:  the guy doing the silencing had, in the past, been a candidate for election as a member of a political party deeply philosophically opposed to the party one of his targets had been a candidate for…  Do we really want to have the courts be the ones settling philosophical differences between various political parties and their candidates/supporters?  In my never-humble-opinion, this is one very slippery slope…

Posted in corruption, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , . 6 Comments »

The Day Free Speech Died In Canada – October 2, 2013

October 4, 2013 — xanthippa

An excellent post about this most sad day…

It has quotes, links and goes through the logical steps of where this ruling will lead.

‘The verdict by the jury in the “Warman vs Fournier et al” has effectively killed good, old-fashioned, political discourse and debate in cyberspace, in Canada. Even minor insults and common hyperbole of innocent nature and made-up words not in the dictionary, can now be construed as defamation.

 
The law lesson learned from the verdict is that defamation court actions are designed to stifle online discourse and healthy political debates that used to commonly take place around kitchen tables and then graduated to cyberspace are now less likely to happen in the blogosphere, since all owners of blogs, forums, chat rooms etc. must now become ruthless, editorial police to avoid the risk of libel suits.
 
The law definition of libel states: “Any communication that is likely to lower that person in the estimation of reasonable people and in particular to cause that person to be regarded with feelings of hatred, contempt, ridicule, fear or dislike.”
 

Each and every Canadian ought to now be motivated to action in a gallant effort to redeem free speech in Canada. Most likely, our elected representatives are not yet aware of the significant impact that the verdict in the Warman vs Fournier et al is having on our fragile and ever diminishing right of free speech in Canada.’

Read the full post here.

 

UPDATE:  Another insightful analysis can be read here.

Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does (the Jury Trial) – the Verdict

October 2, 2013 — xanthippa

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.

 

 

Posted in politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , . 245 Comments »

Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 13)

September 28, 2013 — xanthippa

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:

  • be a comment/opinion
  • be understandable to be a comment/opinion (and not a statement of fact)
  • must be an opinion a ‘reasonable person’ could possibly have arrived at given the factual evidence

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!

 

 

 

 

Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , . Leave a Comment »

Ezra Levant debates CHRC’s Ian Fine on Human Rights

September 28, 2013 — xanthippa

H/T:  Maikeru

Posted in politics, society, technology. Tags: , . Leave a Comment »

Warman vs Free Dominion and John Does – the Jury Trial (day 10)

September 25, 2013 — xanthippa

Day 1′s events can be read here.

Day 2′s events can be read here.

Day 3′s events can be read here.

Day 4′s events can be read here.

I’m afraid that I was unable to attend on day 5.  I have heard some accounts which I would like to share with you.  However, do remember I have not seen this myself, so it is just a person on the internet repeating a rumour….so give the account weight accordingly.  Mr. Warman was still on the stand and acted up the self pity, even bringing forth tears for the jury, when he recounted just how difficult this has all been for him, the righteous protector of our society.

Day 6′s events can be read here, as a real newspaper sent the liberal Glen McGregor to cover the appearance of Mr. Icke as a witness.

Day 7′s events can be read here.

Day 8’s events can be read here.

Day 9  was a procedural day, without the jury present.  It was to involve discussions between the judge and the counsel about procedural matters.  As such, I chose to conserve my strength and skip day 9.

Which brings us to day 10 – the closing arguments.

The jury filed in at about 10:25, each one of them encumbered with an arm’s length of documents:  the exhibits submitted during the trial.  It sure is a LOT of material to go through and keep in mind!!!

For some reason which escapes me, the defense was to go first with the plaintiff having the last word.  I don’t understand why this was so, but it was.

As such, Ms. Kulaszka was up first.  At the judge’s suggestion, she moved over to the lectern (which was rotated to more closely face the jury (though, the room was too crowded for much  movement) and Connie Fournier (wearing the white blouse with black embroidery detail, red cardigan and gray/tan slacks) moved a box of documents to her side at the lectern and then returned to sit not at the defense table, but in the spectator seats.

As a matter of fact, today, the courtroom was packed!

The whole ‘plaintiff’ side was taken up with legal students who were on a field trip to the courthouse today…so, even ‘Dr. Dawg’ (who is also suing the Fourniers in a separate suit, in a vain effort to emulate Mr. Warman) and his young, bald companion had to sit in the ‘defense’ side.  And, yes, for all of you who’ve asked:  Dr. Dawg was wearing those cute riding boots with the most adorable silver embellishments on them!  (Yes – the same ones he posted a picture of himself wearing while riding a horse or a mule or something…as if the courthouse were equivalent to a barnyard.)

At this point, Ms. Kulaszka introduced yet another binder – a compillation of some of the other exhibits.  Mr. Katz objected to not having had a chance to verify that all the documents therein were indeed the previously submitted exhibits, but the judge ruled that he ought to trust the opposing counsel, until proven otherwise.  Thus, everyone in the jury (and the judge, clerk and Mr. Katz) got yet another binder with the same evidence herein, just organized slightly differently.  I don’t claim to understand the process, but, my highly imperfect understanding was that this ‘exhibit’ had things in the proper context, as far as the defense was concerned – and, in this case, context is everything!

Ms. Kulaszka then delved into the ‘meat’ of the matter:  political forum, context is important, current political issues from a conservative point of view, comments not censored, fair comment, not defamatory, true statement, David Icke…’Maximum Disruption’…ARA…Jessica Beaumont (Connie has daughters)…Paul Fromm’s testimony…public figure…

She had proceeded to go through each and every posting, explaining the defense, stressing one point or another.  I must admit that as a ‘free speecher’, I found this very exciting and was at the edge of my seat – but, I don’t think the jury was like-minded.  I saw a few suppressed yawns and a few not so suppressed ones…even when she (Ms. Kulaszka) had pointed out that one of the people from Free Dominion that Mr. Warman had accused of anti-Semitism was actually Jewish…at least, that is what I understood from what had been said, in my highly imperfect comprehension.

This took us to a bit past the lunch break.  I think she had done a good job explaining why each and every single posting was not defamatory, but it was a long and necessarily tedious process.  Ms. Kulaszka did not address the greater picture of freedom of speech or what impact on the current internet practices in general as well as chilling free political speech in particular a guilty verdict would make.

Before she thanked the jury and the judge and rested her case, Ms. Kulaszka pointed out that Mr. Warman had sued 69 people – including her clients, in part for what Mr. Ed Kennedy had posted and for not ‘banning him from Free Dominion’,  but, despite the fact that Mr. Ed Kennedy did not hide his identity, Mr. Warman had never sued Mr. Ed Kennedy himself… a fact which resonated very deeply with me.

Next up was Mr. Roger Smith, who was representing himself in this matter.

He had made a passionate speech, painting the big picture as far as freedom of speech in general is concerned.

Actually, he was really awesome!

Understated as he is in his mannerisms, the distinguished and highly credible-looking Mr. Smith addressed the jury and the judge.

He explained how, following Mark Steyn’s persecution (my word, not his) by the BC HRC (which he had attended as a spectator) had affected him and motivated him to protect freedom of speech in Canada.  We had won the greater ‘Section 13’ battle – and this case was necessarily embedded in this context…

He explained how this lawsuit was a leftist’s attempt to abuse the courts to censor a right-wing political discussion he did not like.  Mr. Smith explained lawfare and SLAPP suits…and how they attempt to use courts to regulate public opinion – an abuse if there ever was one!

Should we have 1/2 of the country suing the other 1/2, just to have their political views suppressed by the courts?!?!?

He had explained the motivations (and results) of all his actions, though he did stop short of comparing them to and contrasting against the plaintiff’s own actions (letter to employers, etc.) – something I thought ought to have been highlighted.

Mr. Smith passionately explained his unease with a civil servant using the organs/powers of the government to go after his political opponents…as a daughter of a political dissident under a totalitarian regime, I found his arguments most compelling.  Yet, I am not sure to which degree the jury members had undergone Political Correctness and Cultural Marxism indoctrination, so it is hard to tell if they will have comprehended his meaning.

 

At 14:45, the most eloquent Mr. Katz took the podium to deliver the plaintiff’s closing remarks.  And, while all his points were predictable and, to my way of thinking, irrelevant, he made them in an animated and highly persuasive manner of speech.

Tomorrow, will be the 11th day of the hearings – the court will reconvene at 9 am to discuss the charge to the jury, which the judge expects to deliver at 11 am…and, then, it will be up to the 4 men and 2 women of the jury to decide!!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Posted in freedoms, politics, society, technology. Tags: , , , , , , , , . 10 Comments »
« Older posts