Richard Warman v Free Dominion: the ‘prima facie’ hearing, part 1

December 7, 2010 — xanthippa

Today, I spent observing more ‘courtly manners’.

In the court-room, that is.

With Madam Justice Blishen presiding over the next installment in the ‘Warman v Free Dominion’ saga.

Background:

  • FreeDominion is the oldest, longest-running online message board in Canada which deals with political matters.
  • Richard Warman is a former Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer and the most frequent user of Canada’s Human Right’s Legislation’s controversial ‘Section 13’, often described as ‘the censorship clause’.  Richard Warman has also personally pursued complaints under ‘Section 13’ where he was not the ‘injured party’ – on the grounds that there could, one day, be an injured party – and collected a tens of thousands of tax-exempt dollars in ‘damages’ as a result.
  • Richard Warman has also initiated tens, perhaps hundreds, of civil lawsuits against people whom he perceives as having slandered or defamed him
  • Many people on the internet call Mr. Warman all kinds of things….some of them not nice things.
  • Several people have made posts on FreeDominion which Mr. Warman believes defame him – and he has attempted to sue them, as well as the people who run the FreeDominion site, Mark and Connie Fournier.
  • As they have posted under pseudonyms, Mr. Warman has not been successful in discovering the identity of all the people who posted the comments he believes to be defamatory.  He has therefore demanded that the Fourniers reveal to him the identities /IP addresses of these anonymous people, so he can sue them
  • Earlier this year, in an appeal, FreeDominion successfully argued that they should not be expected to just hand over this information when asked:  a ‘prima facie’ case has got to be made that there are indeed grounds for a lawsuit for defamation there, first!  There were two ‘other parties’ permitted to speak to the appeals court about this:  the Civil Liberties people and Michael Geist’s ‘Internet Freedom’ people.
  • THIS HEARING was to determine whether or not the conditions for the disclosure of identities of anonymous bloggers (including a ‘prima facie case’ for a defamation lawsuit in these posts) have indeed been met.

 

And what a hearing it was!

Since this hearing was to determine whether there was there was sufficient reason for the disclosure of the identities of anonymous bloggers, perhaps it is best to re-state the conditions, as per the above-mentioned appeal.  From Defamation Law Blog:

After surveying previous decisions, Justice Wilton-Siegel set out four considerations, aimed at preventing abuse of the Rules and respecting the privacy of internet users, that should have been considered by the motions judge in deciding whether to order disclosure under the Rules:

  • whether the unknown alleged wrongdoer could have a reasonable expectation of anonymity in the particular circumstances;
  • whether the Respondent has established a prima facie case against the unknown alleged wrongdoer and is acting in good faith;
  • whether the Respondent has taken reasonable steps to identify the anonymous party and has been unable to do so; and
  • whether the public interests favouring disclosure outweigh the legitimate interests of freedom of expression and right to privacy of the persons sought to be identified if the disclosure is ordered.

[Warman, at para. 34]

To reduce the anticipation a little, let me first state that the third point was not much discussed:  everyone agreed that Mr. Warman had indeed done a lot to ferret out the identities of the anonymous bloggers.  So, the arguments revolved around the other 3 points:expectation of anonymity by the posters, whether there is enough material there to proceed with a defamation suit (as in, not just a nuisance lawsuit) and last but not least, balancing of ‘legitimate interests’.

The morning arguments opened a little late:  there was another motion scheduled ahead of this hearing – one involving an almost 30-year lawsuit over some inheritance, which was in the 2nd and 3rd generation of litigants.  I suppose this set the tone a little…

This earlier motion hearing meant that Madam Justice Blishen did not begin to hear this case until two minutes to noon.  To my untrained, layman’s eyes, it looked like this was very good news for Warman and his legal team (headed up by the eloquent and expressive Mr. James Katz).  Mr. Warman kept leaving the court-room and coming back with more and more papers, which he quietly discussed with his lawyers.  Mr. Katz’s student also kept running into the room, bringing in reams of paper and passing them to her boss.

I wondered what this was all about… and I suspect the reason might have been the second lawyer, sitting on the Free Dominion side of the lawyer’s table.  The ever-loyal and very intelligent Barbara Kulaszka was, again, representing Connie Wilkins-Fournier and Mark Fournier of Free Dominion.  The other lawyer was representing several of the other co-defendants in the lawsuit – and was none other than the formidable ans wholly unexpected Mr. Doug Christie!

No wonder there was some serious scrambling from the Katz team!

As the hearing opened, Mr. Katz argued that as this is a hearing to determine if the conditions for revealing the identities of the anonymous posters has been met and not the defamation hearing itself, it only concerns the Fourniers and not the other co-defendants in the defamation suit.  Therefore, Mr. Katz suggested, Mr. Christie had no standing there and should not be permitted to address the court.

In my completely legally untrained mind, it looked like ‘they’ really really really really did not want to give Mr. Christie a chance to speak at all – more than just mere procedural jostling for position or some type of lawyer-bickering.  It almost smelled like ‘they’ were afraid of M. Christie.  And here, I thought he was best known for making good cookies…

All right – I am getting silly.  It has been a very long and exhausting day for me – if I continue now, the likelihood that I will craft my report to accommodate as many puns as possible will increase with every new line.

So, please, forgive me:  I will sign off for now and continue my tale tomorrow.

 

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

Food for thought

November 26, 2010 — xanthippa

Update: WorPress updated their ‘linking’ thingie – perhaps that is why some of the links below were pointing to ‘general’ website instead of the specific story I wanted to link.  I fixed this, I hope, switching some links out and updating others.And took one out altogether..

Catching up on just few of the interesting things over the last little while:

Remember,  just because something is a ‘policy’ does not mean it is the law!

Posted in society. Tags: . 1 Comment »

More on airport ‘security’ procedures

November 16, 2010 — xanthippa

People who give up freedom for security will get neither.

This phrase – in various permutations – has been attributed to several different people:  perhaps because it is very true.

Last week, I posed questions about the propriety of the current procedures we are asked to submit to at airports in the name of security as well as an audio of an interview with a woman who, along with her children, was subjected to what amounts to sexual assault during an ‘airport security check‘.

Since the state derives its rights from us, citizens, nobody – not even when they are acting on behalf of the state – has more rights than any other citizen:  because if ‘regular citizens’ do not have the right to touch you in private areas of your body, then they cannot delegate this right to the State and its agents.  Therefore, if a touch is assault if another person on the street touched you that way, it is assault if a TSA or another agent of the State touches you that way.

This week, there is renewed debate on this topic following a YouTube video of a guy who refused to enter the full body scanners telling the TSA agent:  “If you touch my junk, I’ll have you arrested.”

Here he describes the encounter in his own words. (H/T –TheRawStory)

Perhaps the most interesting part of this story is the flat assertion by the TSA agent that by purchasing an airline ticket, every citizen  is voluntarily surrendering their rights and freedoms…

And – even after the police and TSA agents escorted him out of the screening area on the instructions of their supervisor’s supervisor because he chose to not proceed with his travel plans, he was told that as a condition of leaving the airport, he had to go back to the screening area and submit to the patdown!

From his blog (my emphasis) – this conversation is taking place after he was escorted out of the secure area by the police and got his ticket refunded:

‘He informed me that I could not leave the airport. He said that once I start the screening in the secure area, I could not leave until it was completed. Having left the area, he stated, I would be subject to a civil suit and a $10,000 fine. I asked him if he was also going to fine the 6 TSA agents and the local police officer who escorted me from the secure area. After all, I did exactly what I was told. He said that they didn’t know the rules, and that he would deal with them later. They would not be subject to civil penalties. I then pointed to Mr. Silva and asked if he would be subject to any penalties. He is the agents’ supervisor, and he directed them to escort me out. The man informed me that Mr. Silva was new and he would not be subject to penalties, either. He again asserted the necessity that I return to the screening area.

…

‘I asked if tried to leave if he would have the officer arrest me. He again said that no one was forcing me to stay. I looked him in the eye, and said, “then I’m leaving”. He replied, “then we’ll bring a civil suit against you”, to which I said, “you bring that suit” and walked out of the airport.’


A few very interesting points in there….

  • the TSA agents, nor their supervisors, ‘knew the rules’ – according to the person who claimed to be in charge of the airport security
  • nor did the police officer on-scene
  • these officials were not going to be penalized for ordering the passenger to do the wrong thing – yet the passenger was liable for following their orders
  • the passenger faced a choice:  disobey the orders of the police officer who told him to leave the secure area OR face a $10,000 fine and a civil lawsuit
  • “You are free to leave – but if you do, we’ll sue you and fine you $10,000!”

No wonder everyone is talking about this incident!

But, that is not all…

Then there is that report of an airline pilot who was traveling with his teenage daughter and overheard the person who checked their bags say into a mike to the people running the full body scanners:  “Heads up –  got a cutie for you!” The daughter found the following patdown ‘invasive’…

When the video of the little girl (perhaps 2-3 years old) being ‘patted down’ while screaming hysterically that she does not want to be touched that way surfaced,  we were told this was an isolated incident of a child which got cranky and just went hysterical for no good reason.  yet, perhaps this child’s instincts were not as wrong as all that:  now we learn that  pedophiles have been shown to be applying to become TSA agents who perform the ‘patdowns’ on children…

Sounds to me like this child is telling us the Emperor is wearing no clothes!

(Well, actually, this is worse:  at least the naked Emperor was not groping anyone!)

Posted in corruption, freedoms, society. Tags: , , , . 5 Comments »

Free Thinking Film Festival starts in Ottawa this Friday

November 10, 2010 — xanthippa

This does sound like an awesome film festival to go to!

And, it offers more than just films:  on Saturday, 13th of November 2010, Ezra Levant and Elisabeth May will debate, live, at the National Archives building, as part of this festival.

If you like to think for yourself, and you happen to be in Ottawa between the 12th and 14th November, 2010, check them out!

Posted in freedoms, society. Tags: , , . 1 Comment »

Your choice: nude photos or sexual assault

November 9, 2010 — xanthippa

Usually, I rant and nag about ‘stuff’.

Not this time.

This time, I am full of questions, not answers.

Frankly, I don’t really know what to make of it all.

Where it began, how it became accepted, how come this is happening!?!?!

As in, how has this behaviour become so normalized in our society that we accept it without questioning?

OK – I need to back up a little bit….and explain what I am talking about.

When a citizen of a ‘Western Democracy’ wishes to travel from one point to another, they are supposed to be ‘free’ to do so.  They are not to be hindered by any government actions.

Of any kind.

This is all about that ‘freedom of movement’ thingy…..one of them pesky ‘innate’ human rights!

Now, if a said person contracts someone (a person or company) to facilitate his/her travel, it is a private contract between a free citizen and either another free citizen or, more frequently, a company.  Let’s call it ‘a concern’…

Like, say, a concern that runs taxis, buses, horse-dawn carriages, trains or airplanes from one city to another – within the city or without, within the country or internationally.  (A government has the jurisdiction to control who crosses the border, but not how ‘free citizens’ travel within them….)

Therefore, said contract is a private, civil business transaction between a free citizen and a private concern.

Since the citizen has the right to freedom of movement, any and all security measures are strictly a matter of the contract between the free citizen and the private concern which is providing said transportation service.

Therefore, in my never-humble-opinion, any security involved in a private individual contracting a private concert to transport them, is a matter strictly between the two contracting parties.  A strictly ‘civil’ matter!

Yet, somehow, we have permitted ‘government’ to play that role!

How?!?!?!?

How in the world did ‘government’ get to dictate the security terms of civil contracts of private citizens?

How could, in a truly free society, any such government regulation be permitted, much less legislated?!?!?

And from what I read and hear, the government is now dictating the terms of all air travel, forcing private citizens to either submit to scanners which render photographic-level images of the citizens’ nude form (which, of course, also reveal a huge amount of bio-graphic data which can – and likely will – be used to identify that person in the future) – or submit to a ‘pat down’ which, in any other situation, would be grounds for charging the government agent performing said ‘pat down’ with sexual assault!

Of course, if we submit to this treatment – guilty until proven innocent – during air travel, it WILL spread to other venues…using the same justification:  security above freedom!

Admission – I do not often listen to Alex Jones; sometimes, he is a bit ‘out there’.  But, there are instances where the ‘outliers’ truly are the proverbial ‘canaries in the coal-mines’.  So, I invite you to listen to his interview of a woman who was traveling with her children and all of whom (including the very young children) were subjected to having their genitals probed in a highly intrusive manner:

(Caution:  this is disturbing and graphic description of what, under any reasonable circumstances, would be described as sexual assault of a woman AND her children – the interview starts a few minutes into the video)

This is more intrusive than what used to happen in the slave markets!!!

Yes, you would be naked and exposed – no more than the ‘naked scanner’ machines do now – but at least, in slave markets, the buyers were not permitted to touch your genitals out in the open…..and nobody was permitted to store the biometric data gained from the ‘naked body scans’!!!

And THAT just involves ‘VOLUNTARY’ examinations:  the ones you permit yourself to be subjected to in order to be permitted – by your government – to exercise your innate freedom of movement, as agreed to in a private contract between yourself and a non-government controlled private individual/company!!!

I simply do not understand why this is acceptable.

Why do we permit our governments to pass laws which permit them such intrusive regulation of our freedom of movement?!?!

An ‘airline ticket’ is a private, civil contract!

It is the business of the airline to provide the security sweeps of the people who contracted them for transport.

If one private company’s security checks are more intrusive than another’s, it will be a matter of private contract made at the time the services of the transport company were contracted.

Companies whose security measures were ineffective would soon loose their customers.

Ditto for companies whose security measures were way too intrusive.

But, throughout it all, the customers would have a choice:  do I choose to travel with company A, whose civil contract does permit the performance of highly intrusive security checks before permitting their customers entry onto aircraft….and who, presumably, offers greater ‘security’, or do I choose to travel with company B, who does no real security checks at all?  Or, do I choose company C, who is somewhere in-between?

Either way, it is the customer’s choice to enter into a private contract which specifies the level of  inspection/security one is both ‘subjected to’ and ‘protected by’.

And, it is a part of a civil contract!

It is, in no way-shape-or-form, the government’s business!!!

So, why do we permit the government and its agents to be the ones who not only perform all security scans, but also have jurisdiction over who is or is not permitted to exercise his or her rights to freedom of travel?

To collect and store all this data about us?

Why do we permit our governments to regulate a whole industry which permits us to exercise one of our  core human rights?

How did we ever permit governments to usurp this level of control over us?

Leto was right:  a population which walks is easier to control!

Not a single terrorist has been caught through any of these ‘security measures’:  so, what is their actual purpose?

Truly, do think about it…..and ask yourself:  Why do we permit this?

…

If you figure it out, please, let me know:  I sure cannot see any reason  for all this beyond conditioning us towards ‘general acceptance’ of greater and greater oppression….of normalizing greater and greater infringements on our freedoms!

In the name of keeping us ‘safe’, of course!

Of course, this type of ‘surveillance’ is not limited to airports:  we now have disguised vans roaming our streets, taking x-ray images of everything they encounter:  the dose of x-ray radiation we unknowingly receive, we are assured, is no greater that that received during a routine x-ray….

How is that ‘safe’ for, say, a fetus during the first trimester?

Can somebody please explain to me how this is ‘enhancing our freedom’?!?!?

Or even ‘respecting’ our bodily security?

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

When bloggers do more investigative journalism than actual, ahmmmm, journalists

November 4, 2010 — xanthippa

BCF does it again…

You might as well laugh as cry!

Talking about using humour to relieve the pressure of a stressful situation:  have you ever noticed just how similar the name ‘Delic’ is to ‘Dalek’?  Considering ‘Delic’ is trans-scribed from a different alphabet (one without really expressing vowels, to boot), it makes me wonder if Imam Delik ever walks around saying:  “Exterminate!  Exterminate!”

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

The origin and nature of human rights

November 4, 2010 — xanthippa

This is an excellent series of videos which explain the how different ideas about the where human rights originate affects how we think of them and how we think human rights ought to be exercised.

Yes, I have posted these in the past.  However, the versions I had linked have since been found to have violated copyright by putting some music in the background of the videos without proper permission.  The whole audio, including the spoken voice, has therefore been pulled from them.

Rather than edit the old post to insert these links – with functioning audio – I decided to re-post the videos again.  If you have seen these before, my apologies.

Introduction

Part 1:  The Nature and Origin of Human Rights

Part 2:  Group Supremacy

Part 3:  Coercion vs Freedom

Part 4:  Equality and Inequality under the Law

Part 5:  The Role of Government

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

White Poppy Campaign: plans to desecrate the National War Memorial on Rememberance Day

November 3, 2010 — xanthippa

Where:  National War Memorial

When:  11th of November, 2010

Time:  12:30 pm

What:  Come and protect the National War Memorial from desecration

The ‘White Poppy Campaign’ is out in force again: Ian Harvey of the Ottawa White Poppy Coalition announced that they are planning to lay a wreath of White Poppies at the National War Memorial this Remembrance Day.

They have done it last year, and the year before that….

….after the official ceremony, of course.  More precisely, at 12:30 pm.

Why?

Vince McDermott reports in the National Post:

“The red Legion poppy, in my opinion, represents the nostalgia and romanticizing of war,” said Ian Harvey, an activist in the Ottawa White Poppy Coalition. “We should remember that you don’t have to go to war to get peace.”

 

The ‘White Poppies for a Culture of Peace’ website explains their philosophy:

How many people is it acceptable to kill, or maim, or chase out of their homes, so that we can live in comfort?

WHERE DO I BEGIN?!?!?!?!?

I, for one, will take the advice of a caller to the Lowell Green show on CFRA today.  I will come to the War Memorial, this Remembrance Day, and stay until 12:30.  When these people attempt to desecrate the memories of all those who sacrificed of themselves so that we may live, I will stand in their way.  Peacefully, but firmly (and not necessarily quietly…).

Hopefully, enough of us will come to form a protective wall.

If these ‘White Poppy Coalition’ people truly believe in the principles of non-violence, they will not attempt to use force against us:  either the force of their own hands or the force in the form of civil authorities.

The Veterans have done for us.

Now, it is time for us to do for them!

 

 

 

Posted in freedoms, society, war. Tags: , , , , , , , . 23 Comments »

Blazing Catfur needs our help!

October 28, 2010 — xanthippa

BlazingCatFur is one of the most steadfast warriors in our fight for freedom of speech.

He is not afraid to speak his mind – and to speak up for others who have been oppressed.

In his own words:

About 18 months ago everybody’s favourite Ex-Canadian Human Rights Commission employee Richard Warman launched one of his many, as in very many, SLAPP suits against yours truly for, among other dastardly deeds, linking to the “far-right web site http://www.steynonline.com/“. Sheesh everybody knows Mark Steyn is controversial.

…

Warman is also suing for comments made by multiple readers. In one instance for the heinous crime of calling him a “Bully”. We all know what this SLAPP suit is really all about. Warman is using every lawfare tactic he can to prevent a discussion in the public interest of Section 13 (1) and the CHRC. A discussion in which he must feature prominently.

…

Warman is suing me for $500,000.00 Dollars. A ridiculous amount for an equally ridiculous lawsuit. Nonetheless even nuisance suits such as this must be defended against. To date legal fees have run me about 10K. I’ve covered that from my own pocket. I am now asking for your help. I know times are hard for many of us but if every reader who visited daily were to contribute 5 or 10 dollars then that would go a long way to helping all of us out.

This is your fight too, well except for the lawyer stuff anyway 😉

To help, either go to his site and click the PayPal ‘Feed-the-Kitty’ button, e-mail an internet banking transfer to blazingcatfur@gmail.com  or send a cheque to:

“Christopher Ashby in Trust”
Attn: Blazingcatfur defence fund
Suite 1013
8 King Street East
Toronto ON M5C 1B5

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

Pat Condell: ‘God or Nothing’

October 26, 2010 — xanthippa

It keeps baffling me just how many people are either unable or unwilling to grasp the difference between ‘not believing something’ and ‘believing in something else’.

A non-deity centered example of this would be, say, the question:  do you believe that my mother has ‘naturally blond hair’?

Never having met my mother – and therefore not holding an opinion on the topic of her hair colour – seems the most obvious and logical position.

Yet, to have some people explain it, not having any opinion on the topic either way somehow implies a belief that her hair is NOT naturally blond – or even that it is ‘naturally red’!

Like Pat Condell, I find the suggestion that a ‘belief’ should be treated with respect similar to or greater than ‘fact-based reality’ actively offensive!  Whether that belief is religious or secular, it is a belief – a notion (perhaps deeply held, but a notion none-the-less).  It must never be afforded the level of respect that the anti-blasphemy movements demand.

No, I will not deny them the right to believe whatever they want to.  It is their right to believe whatever they wish.

But it is NOT their right to demand that I, you, or anyone else respects their beliefs and goes around pretending that just because they believe something, we must all behave as it it were true!

Yet that is exactly what the UN’s new anti-blasphemy laws demand…

Now, couple the religious beliefs with political ambitions and you have a recipe for oppression – of the worst kind.

 

 

Posted in atheism, freedoms, ignosticism, opression, politics, society. Tags: , , , , , , , . 1 Comment »
« Older posts
Newer posts »