Earlier this afternoon, Judge Katherine Blake of the US District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed all my claims against the SPLC, Heidi Beirich, and Marc Potok. Judge Blake’s memorandum opinion is attached below.
Although Judge Blake’s opinion is 17 pages long, only a few pages provide substantive legal analysis. The essence of that analysis is this: 1) all my state law claims are disguised defamation claims and are therefore subject to defamation claim defenses such as the opinion doctrine, i.e., the SPLC, Beirich, and Potok merely made statements about me that cannot be verified as true or false or merely expressed their opinion and are protected; and 2) I failed plausibly to allege that the SPLC defendants committed illegal or unethical acts.
I find both propositions flagrantly flawed. I alleged numerous claims that cannot properly be characterized as defamation claims, including, for example, a negligent supervision claim that the court hardly addressed at all. And to say I did not plausibly allege illegal and unethical conduct by the SPLC in accordance with federal “plausibility” pleading standards for a motion to dismiss distorts that standard beyond recognition. The court states, for example, that I did not plausibly allege that the SPLC defendants bribed or otherwise improperly induced a National Alliance employee to turn over confidential documents. But my complaint describes in detail who was bribed or induced and when, the circumstances surrounding those events, and why they were illegal and / or unethical. The court essentially is requiring me to plead full and detailed evidentiary facts, but I cannot do that without discovery, i.e., document requests and depositions. This is not the proper pleading standard.
We live in an upside down world, so I had steeled myself for an unfavorable result. I am nonetheless disappointed in the manifest infirmity of Judge Blake’s opinion. I do not feel my claims got a fair shake.
I will appeal to the Fourth Circuit. My co-counsel, Fred Kelly, is just as defiant as I am. I will of course keep you apprised as the appeal progresses. For your continued support I am continually grateful. Here again is my website for donation purposes: https://breathing-space-for-dissent.com/
Thank you for staying with me on this endeavor. Our choices, it seems to me, are either to lie supinely on our backs or to stand on our feet and fight. You have taken the second option with me and I’m grateful for that.
Liberal Ken My Safety is More Important than Your Freedom! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e45X25nuMIU&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3XKVf1E0LDjuAz1xg7Tp27eiDCXo2kElkl2oYobZ_dAf5sEr12h_tv1nMEffeminate snowflake society.
Several dozen supporters of free speech from a number of groups, including the Canadian Association for Free Expression, the Canadian Nationalist Party and the Yellow Vests, rallied in support of fired broadcaster Don Cherry Saturday afternoon. The protest took place outside Rogers HQ, which owns Sportsnet and which fired the controversial broadcaster for pointing out last weekend that immigrants, who feast off Canada’s milk and honey and freedoms, should honour the veterans who fought to preserve these rights. Under the old Red Ensign, the flag of the Real Canada, they called for the reinstatement of this iconic hockey and broadcasting legend. Mr. Cherry is the latest victim of the “cancel culture” of political correctness.
Signs denounced corporate cowardice, the intolerant cancel culture and called for defunding the far leftist Canadian Broadcasting Agency that leeches over $1-billion a year to pump Cultural Marxist propaganda into our living room.
It was greatly to my disgust that I learned, yesterday, that Sportsnet
had fired the legendary Canadian institution, Don Cherry, over remarks
he made on Coach’s Corner this past weekend. Here is what he said on
“You know, I was talking to a veteran. I said ‘I’m not going to run
the poppy thing anymore because what’s the sense? I live in Mississauga,
nobody wears — very few people wear a poppy. Downtown Toronto, forget
it! Downtown Toronto, nobody wears a poppy.’
He says, ‘Wait a minute, how about running it for the people that buy them?’
Now you go to the small cities, the rows on rows.
You people love — that come here, whatever it is — you love our way of
life, you love our milk and honey. At least you could pay a couple of
bucks for a poppy. These guys paid for your way of life, the life you
enjoy in Canada. These guys paid the biggest price.
Anyhow, I’m going to run it again for you great people and good Canadians that bought a poppy.”
There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, it needed to be said, and kudos to Grapes for saying it.
Of course, the lily-livered whiners, the woke snowflake mob, got all
triggered by the words “you people” and started throwing conniptions.
(See the opening scenes of the 2000 Farrelly Brothers film Me, Myself and Irene
staring Jim Carrey and Renee Zellweger for a hilarious satire of those
who read all sorts of ridiculous things into just this phrase).
For a day and a half these modern day Salomes were all over the social
media demanding that Don Cherry’s head be given them on a platter.
Corrupt mainstream media outlets, such as the CBC which for decades
carried Hockey Night in Canada in which Coach’s Corner was featured,
provided them an additional platform to make these demands. Finally,
on Remembrance Day, the sniveling scoundrels at Sportsnet, issued a
statement about how Cherry’s patriotic call to respect and honour our
veterans was “divisive remarks that do not represent our values or what
we stand for” and so he would no longer be appearing on their program.
In an interview with Joe Warmington, Cherry said that this was not a
problem and that “I know what I said and I meant it. Everybody in
Canada should wear a poppy to honour our fallen soldiers.”
This is exactly how everybody ought to respond when some politically
correct mob takes offence at his words and calls them “racist”, “sexist”
or some other of the growing list of -ists and -phobics. If there
were more of these refusals to grovel and apologize, there would be a
lot less of these politically correct mobs.
Mr. J. Cassils, Principal
Stonewall Collegiate Institute,
297 5 St W, Stonewall, MB R0C 2Z0
Dear Mr. Cassils: I write to protest your suspension of
Natalie Salisbury and another student for a pamphlet they published outlining their support for the traditional red and black poppy instead of a rainbow poppy to commemorate Remembrance Day. The facts, as we understand them, are as follows: 1. Natalie Salisbury, 17, and a friend unnamed in media reports, are students at
Stonewall Collegiate Institute
2. Her music teacher urged the school orchestra to wear rainbow poppies for the school Remembrance Day ceremonies. She told LifeSite News:
“It all started when teachers, counselors, and some students said we
should wear the rainbow poppy … ” Natalie said, adding that she
disagreed. “I typed up papers on a computer, printed them off, and taped
them up in the halls.”
3. Natalie and her friend refused and put up posters explaining her reasons, chiefly that the LGBTQ community had a whole month dedicated to them. 4. She was called to the principal’s office and suspended for “hate speech.” When she tried to record the suspension order on her cellphone, it was seized. She was warned that reporting the incident on social media would lead to further consequences. I want to protest the bullying of this student by the school administration. The accusation of “hate speech” is outrageous. I have provided support and advice at numerous human rights hearings. The accusation of “hate speech” in legal terms can only be made if a person has been charged, tried and convicted for “wilful promotion of hate” against one of a number of privileged groups under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code (the “hate law”). Clearly, Ms Salisbury has never been convicted. The accusation of “hate speech” is inflammatory and intimidating. The accusation usually tells one more about the accuser than the impugned speech. “Hate speech” is speech the accuser hates. It is ironic that Natalie Salisbury’s right to free speech, to express herself in decent terms on an issue of the day, was throttled in regards to Remembrance Day, the very day on which we honour those who fought in the belief they were securing our rights and freedoms. Your behaviour was shameful. You owe the two young women an apology. Sincerely yours,
Paul Fromm Director p.s. I phoned the school at 2:00 p.m. Manitoba time on Friday to try to obtain your correct e-mail address. The phone rang for a very long time but there was no answer nor was the call directed to an answering machine.
Ursula Haverbeck, nominated the grand Dame of German Revisionism by the late Prof. Robert Faurisson, “celebrated” her 91st. birthday in prison. Yes, you read that correctly: Frau Ursula Haverbeck is ninety one years of age and she finds herself incarcerated in a prison cell, charged and found “guilty” of questioning the allegation of the so-called “Holocaust”, the allegation that the Germans during the Second World war murdered millions of Jews in homicidal gas-chambers. For expressing her non-violent opinions on aspects of the history of the Second World War which she herself lived through as a teenager, the current ruling establishment of the Federal Republic of Germany, in its viciousness, has locked this 91 year old up in a prison cell in an attempt to silence her.
Saturday, the 9th. November, the very day of Ursula Haverbeck’s 91st.
birthday, hundreds of German nationalists, patriots and friends,
well-wishers and admirers of the grand Dame of German Historical
Revisionism marched through the centre of the north German town of
Bielefeld where Ursula is imprisoned. With great gusto we paraded with
flags flying and with banners held high proclaiming Ursula Haverbeck to
be a Heroine for Germany and demanding Truth and Justice for Germany.
The authorities gave us permission to hold a public rally right in the
centre of Bielefeld. There was of course a large contingent of Police
present. And there were of course large numbers of demented Lefties
shouting their usual obscenities. However our loud-speaker system
drowned out all that Sound and Fury signifying nothing (Shakespeare’s
Macbeth). Our rally lasted the best part of two hours; right in the
centre of town; the traffic was stopped; the trams ceased running; and
we held our rally without any interruption. Here is the translation of
the speech that I gave on this historic occasion:
“Dear German friends, my name is Richard Edmonds, I am British.
“I have travelled here to Bielefeld to show solidarity with the very brave patriot, Ursula Haverbeck, whom I have known for many years.She is a wonderfully brave campaigner for the honour of Germany and now this fine woman must “celebrate” her 91st. birthday in prison. Shocking. Ursula Haverbeck, an educated and cultivated woman, has posed questions regarding the topic of the “Holocaust”; she has posed the most serious questions, forensic, scientific, objective questions. And for this, she finds herself on her 91st. birthday in jail here in Bielefeld.
I know , we are in the Federal Republic. In order to make the situation
clear, I will refer to the trial that took place in Mannheim in 2003,
the trial brought against the German-Canadian, Ernst Zundel, yet another
individual charged with “Holocaust”-denial. At Zundel’s trial, the
presiding judge, Dr. Ulrich Meinerzhagen, found himself obliged to state
in the open court, and I quote him: ‘It is completely irrelevant
whether the “Holocaust” took place or not. It is the act of denial of
the “Holocaust” which is a crime. And that is all that matters in this
court.’ : Presiding Judge Dr. Meinerzhagen.
with absolute modesty can I (R.Edmonds) state that in Great Britain and
in the United States of America, we have complete Freedom of Speech on
the subject of the “Holocaust”; this means that every type of question
may be posed on this topic; and eveyone has the right to publish answers
which are based on forensic, scientific, objective facts.
a guest here in Germany, I can only quote the former, now retired,
judge sitting on the supreme court in Germany, the Constitutional Court,
Judge Wolfgang Hoffmann-Riem:
would not make the questioning of the Holocaust a criminal offence.’
Judge Hoffmann -Riem, July 2008 (Der Tagesspiegel, 10. July 2008)
dear friends. I would like to quote the famous German hero, Ulrich von
Huten, who five hundred years ago, said: ‘Germany is there, where strong
hearts are beating.’ Thank you.” FINIS.
let me make this comment: one does have to wonder if a change is now
taking place in the Federal Republic of Germany, set up as it was by the
western Allies at the end of the Second World War, the twin in fact of
the Communist regime set up in Eastern Germany by the forces of the
Soviet Union. How else might one explain the readiness of the
authorities to give permission for this “Birthday celebration” right in
the centre of the town where Ursula Haverbeck is held prisoner in the
local jail ? The activity must have cost the town a great deal of money;
vast numbers of Police were employed, and the centre of the town was
effectively shut down for the afternoon: what with several hundred
Nationalists and possibly as many as two thousand Lefties plus large
numbers of Police officers, the result was that no trams were running
through the town, no cars or delivery vehicles, access to the main-line
railway station was barred for a time, little business could have been
conducted that day; all this was predictable, but permission was given,
in spite of counter-pressure from the usual suspects, permission was
given for the go-ahead. A historic week-end. A privilege to be there.
No doubt, you’ve heard of Dr. Greg Johnson’s recent arrest and deportation from Norway that occurred prior to his scheduled speech at this year’s Scandza Forum in Oslo. The outcome was far better than we feared. Johnson was not banned from Schengen. He was not even banned from Norway. Moreover, significant questions have arisen regarding the actual legal circumstances under which Johnson was arrested. While it’s plainly obvious that this arrest was political, not much attention has been paid to the murky mechanisms by which Johnson was actually placed into custody.
News broke of Johnson’s arrest almost immediately after it occurred on Norwegian news outlets, specifying that police arrested him under Section 106 of the Norwegian Immigration Act. Confusion over what actually happened begins here: 106 only details the reasons for which a foreign national may be expelled on the grounds that they have deliberately provided false information or otherwise evaded the normal process of entering the country. Johnson did none of those things: He did not arrive in Norway with a fake passport, having committed a crime, or having attempted to dodge a connection elsewhere inside of an airport. This detail – which is being mostly overlooked by those glancing at one of the many news articles on the incident and satisfied by seeing some kind of legal statute pertaining to this incident referenced – was mentioned by Johnson’s lawyer, John Christian Elden.
In an interview withScandza organizer Fróði Midjord, Elden stated that Johnson was taken into custody by police under Section 126 of the same act. This particular statute makes allowances for the government of Norway to order the removal of any person for “fundamental national interests” and “foreign policy considerations” as they relate to a particular individual’s visit to Norway. In Johnson’s case, this statute was invoked on account of the false allegation that he expressed support for Anders Behring Breivik’s terrorist attacks in 2011.
Because of this, Johnson was not truly “arrested” in the sense of the word we usually understand in the West. He was taken into custody immediately outside the Scandza Forum venue under rules that pertain to immigration, not criminal offenses. It’s curious that he wasn’t stopped at the airport, where such things generally take place. Officially, Dr. Johnson was placed under “detention, pending removal,” which the government has argued does not actually qualify as arrest or deportation – despite the fact that Johnson was being held inside a detention facility and forced to either accept a flight out of the country on behalf of the government or purchase one himself. The government also argues that he was not actually jailed, since the facility that Johnson was held inside is administered by the police, and not corrections officers, per the regulations set forth in the statute he was arrested under. Because of this, the Norwegian government almost explicitly admits that Johnson’s presence in Norway was not a crime, nor was the means by which he entered the country.
While Johnson is an obvious target for persecution, the rest of us would do well to observe a few rules while traveling internationally in order to avoid troubling situations like this one, especially within Europe and Anglophone North America:
Generally speaking, signing out of your social media accounts on your cell phone and encrypting your computer’s hard drive, if you are carrying one, will make it more difficult for governments to deny you entry on the basis of national security or claim that you are attempting to radicalize their populations.
Avoid carrying sensitive materials, such as literature or propaganda, in your luggage.
Always be forthcoming, but not overly explanatory, about your itinerary and intentions in the countries you visit. A simple “I’m on holiday” to customs and immigration officers works wonders.
You’ll often be asked with whom you are staying on your first night. Beyond that, however, avoid mentioning the names or locations of those you are visiting.
As always, be vigilant in public.
In the event you are detained or otherwise held up at a border, your country’s consulate will most likely be helpful in your endeavors, sometimes to a surprising degree, even if it is to assist you in your return home or to retrieve documents like passports from other authorities.
Note:The follow-up story, including exclusive comment from one of the girls suspended, can be found here.
The 17-year-old cousin of a former Conservative MP hopeful in the 2019 federal election and her friend have been suspended from Stonewall Collegiate for distributing a poster explaining her rejection of the idea of wearing a rainbow poppy.
Cyara Bird of the Little Black River First Nation, who was on the ballot for the Churchill-Keewatinook Aski riding of northern Manitoba this past election, took to Twitter tonight to express her anger after learning her cousin and another student had both been suspended for “hate speech” after rejecting the idea that rainbow poppies should replace the traditional red-and-black ones worn during their school’s Remembrance Day performance.
The young woman, who is half African-Canadian, asked instead to wear the red-and-black poppy traditional to the festivities, finding the rainbow poppy “disrespectful” to the World War 2 veterans in her family. Upon expressing her opinion, she and another student who shared her sentiment were sent to the principal’s office. According to Bird, the girl’s parents were not notified until after the suspension was applied.
Bird also posted a message from her cousin’s father which read that the young woman had attempted to record the school administrators admonishing her using her cellphone, but that they noticed and confiscated her phone in response.
Speaking to The Post Millennial, Bird said her cousin, Natalie, had attempted to record the suspension orders in her voice memos application, wanting to show her parents what was happening. When the principal saw, her cellphone was “snatched away” and she was told there would be “consequences” if she posted about the suspension on social media or went to the press.
Natalie will not be allowed to return to school until after Remembrance Day.
Bird believes the suspension is unjust, and will negatively impact her cousin’s self-esteem.
“At 17, you are growing into yourself, you are learning to speak out against things you think are wrong.” she says, “What kind of message does this send to a young woman? That they are not supposed to speak out against something they disagree with.”
Rainbow poppies were introduced as a concept in 2016 by some LGBT groups in a push they say is to honour LGBT veterans, but it has caused controversy amongst those who say it is unnecessary, with the red poppy honouring all veterans regardless of sexuality.
Bird, whose grandfather is a World War 2 veteran, expressed frustration at the entire ordeal. “The pride we have because of our grandfather fighting in World War 2 is strong. We all wear poppies. [Natalie] was not opposing wearing one—she just did not want to wear one she felt was disrespectful to the veterans.”
The Post Millennial has reached out to Stonewall Collegiate for confirmation but has not heard back by the time of publication.
Update:The Post Millennial attempted to reach out to Stonewall Collegiate Thursday morning for comment, but was told they would not provide comments to media, aggressively advising us to “Google” the number for the Superintendent before hanging up. The Interlake School Board Superintendent did not return calls, but a statement issued on the Board’s twitter read that no staff member “mandated” a student wear a rainbow poppy.
They did not comment on the suspensions, or whether a student was suspended for voicing an opinion which rejected the rainbow poppy as a symbol, as in the case of Natalie.
Clarification: This article has been updated to clarify that the student was suspended for distributing a poster that detailed her reasons for rejecting the rainbow poppy.
More LGBTQ Tyranny: Manitoba Student, Natalie Salisbury, Suspended for Defending Black and Red Poppy
17-year-old Natalie Salisbury was suspended
after defending the traditional red and black poppy.
STONEWALL, MANITOBA – November 7, 2019 (LSN) 17-year-old Natalie Salisbury was suspended by Stonewall Collegiate Institute in Stonewall, Manitoba, after defending the traditional red and black poppy. Natalie refused to don an LGBT-inspired rainbow poppy so she printed off posters to defend her decision and explain why the traditional red and black poppy means so much to so many Canadians.
Natalie’s father called us to express his outrage at the school’s decision.
He said Natalie is worried that no-one will stand up for her, which is a damned shame after she proudly stood up for our veterans and our right to remember their sacrifices.
The Grade 11 student refused to don an LGBT-inspired rainbow poppy so she printed off posters to defend her decision and explain why the traditional red and black poppy means so much to so many Canadians.
Natalie’s father called us to express his outrage at the school’s decision. He said Natalie is worried that no-one will stand up for her, which is a damned shame after she proudly stood up for our veterans and our right to remember their sacrifices.
So we’re going to prove to her that that is not the case — people do care and will stand by her.
We will be sending this petition to Natalie to prove to her that thousands of Canadians stand with her in protecting our traditional red and black poppies.
We will also be sending a copy of this petition to the school administration to show them that Natalie is not alone — and this disgrace will not stand!
We stand by Natalie Salisbury — let’s protect our poppies!
So, we’re going to prove to her that this is not the case in Canada — people do care and will stand by her.
We will be sending a petition of signatures to Natalie to prove to her that thousands of Canadians support her desire and passion to protect our traditional red and black poppies.
We will also be sending a copy of this petition to the school administration to show them that Natalie is not alone — and this disgrace will not stand!
We stand with Natalie Salisbury — let’s protect our poppies!
P.S. Canadian traditions and values are being eroded everywhere you look and we’re getting tired of it — we need to stand up for what we believe in! So, if you agree with us and want to support Natalie in protecting our poppies, please click here to sign our petition.
The views expressed in this opinion article are solely those of their author and are not necessarily either shared or endorsed by Lake Superior News / Lake Superior Media.