Mark and Connie FournierDay 2 of the Baglow v. Smith & Fourniers Defamation Hearing

Baglow testifies and hearing delayed due to medical problems

 
March 25, 2014 OTTAWA:  Today is the second day of the pseudonymous defamation trial of “Dr Dawg” vs “Peter O’Donnell”.  For background on the case and my comments on the first day, see my blog posting here: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/03/day-1-of-baglow-v-smith-fourniers.html
 

For the entire day, “Dr Dawg” a.k.a. John Baglow gave testimony about his defamation lawsuit and introduced documents that form the case he is presenting to the court.  The hearing today was significantly shorted due to an apparent medical situation which effected one of the main parties. After the morning break, one of the court staff made a comment about the health (high blood pressure / stroke potential?) of one of the main parties.  While the person insisted he was fine and could proceed with the case, the court staff seemed to react that the medical situation needed to be addressed immediately.  After a short confab with the lawyers and self-represented parties, it was ordered that the trial should stop immediately and could reconvene after a 2+ hour break at 2:00pm.  On the bright side for the affected party, I am a former medic and would intervene if I saw the individual go down. J

Day 2 – “Dr Dawg” Testifies – In-Chief.
 
The day started off with Peter Burnet calling his witness to the stand “Dr. Dawg”.
 

The Fourniers, Connie & Mark, Battling for the Rights of Bulletin Board Hosts
 
In a brief series of questions, Burnet asked “Dr Dawg” to give some biographical information.  “Dr Dawg” is 67 years old and lives in Ottawa.  He attended several Universities in Canada and in Scotland and has a BA and Masters in Literature.  For years “Dr Dawg” was employed by the Social Sciences and Research Council as a grant officer.  While working at SSRC, “Dr Dawg” became interested in labour issues and was elected to a position with the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) where he was a vice-president until 2003.  In 2003 “Dr Dawg” went into a consulting business called ‘First Write”.
 
Dr Dawg” describes himself as “a man of the left” and in his youth was a member of the NDP Youth wing.  After that, he “gravitated towards the Communist Party and was a member until the Czechoslovakian invasion”, when he left the party and rejoined the NDP.  He is a card carrying member of the NDP, with the exception of a couple of years when he was upset with the party and “ripped up his NDP membership card”.
 
The Blogosphere is made up of “millions of blogs … maybe hundreds of millions of postings”.  On his own blog called “Dawgs Blawg” he receives “up to one thousand unique visits a day”.  “Comments are not moderated on my blog and go directly up”.  “I chose not to moderate my blog” but on occasions has had to ban “up to 30 people” for postings he finds offensive.  On his website “I use Site Meter to track visitors.  I can see new and returning visitors.  I can see the IP Address”.
 
“In 2005 I decided to set up a blog about left wing issues and perspectives”. And as part of that he has “three co-bloggers on the site”, though the number of co-bloggers has fluctuated over time.  He named the site “Dawgs Blawg; because I like dogs and didn’t want to take it that seriously.  It is a cartoonish name”.
 
“I welcome comments from people with different and divergent opinions”, which includes “Dr Dawgs” own lawyer – Peter Burnet who admitted to being a poster on the Dawg’s Blawg website.
 
“I really enjoy the cut and thrust of debate” says “Dr Dawg”, and over the years has been officially served twice with defamation for his blog.  The first case apparently involved a mistaken name on an article he wrote.  “Dr Dawg” was served with a libel notice, and ended up removing the post and publishing a retraction.
 
The second defamation complaint came from Ezra Levant, who served a libel notice for comments made surrounding a law society complaint where it was claimed to have been upheld by the law society.  “Dr Dawg” removed some of the comments and apologized to Levant.  “Dr Dawg” claims that “Levants lawyers then apparently wanted to remove other allegedly defamatory material which I did not comply with or remove”.  Levant did not follow up on the lawsuit after that point.
 
In regards to the website FreeDominion, “Dr Dawg” describes them as “radically conservative and pretty extreme.  Use of the ‘N’ word.  Muslim bashing, homophobia and an unpleasant place”.  The website “champions the rights of white nationalists, holocaust deniers, neo-nazis, white supremacists, homophobes and supports the right to unrestrained hate in society”.  Over the years “Dr Dawg” posted “once or twice on FreeDominion”.
 
In terms of speech restrictions, “Dr Dawg” says that “I strongly supported Section 13 and was sad to see it go”.  That is a reference to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Canada’s internet censorship legislation, which was repealed by the government last year (See more on Section 13 @ http://www.stopsection13.com)
 
Dr Dawg” talked about a posting entitled ‘Freedom of Speech’ which I think was a posting on the FreeDominion message board.  In his testimony “Dr Dawg” made some sort of reference to a “technical relationship” between Connie Fournier and myself.  I did not understand his testimony on this point or what was meant by “technical relationship”.  I believe it has something to do with computers, and perhaps an affidavit from a computer expert which was introduced in my Section 13 hearing (Bernard Klatt).   Perhaps we’ll know more on this point during the cross-examination tomorrow.
 
In reference to Connie Fournier, one of the owner/admins of the FreeDominion website, “Dr Dawg” posted a few times that she was the “FreeDominatrix”.  He was sorry and “sometimes I can’t help myself being uncivil to the uncivilized” and was “mocking her for a hyper-aggressive posture”.  “There is a hostility between the Fourniers and myself”.
 

Traitor = Not Defamatory.  Vocal Supporter of Taliban = Defamation

Dr Dawgs” testimony then centered on why he did not sue Roger Smith for calling him a traitor on Dawgs Blawg, but did sue over the Taliban comments.  This gets a bit convoluted for me, since “Dr Dawg” was going very fast, and I just managed to write down smaller points of what he said.  But basically the “traitor” comment written by “Peter O’Donnell” was “incoherent” and that “the comment self-destructs” due to its context.
 
The statement about “Dr Dawg” being a more vocal supporter of the Taliban “was a long and rambling post about a different topic” and when the post mentions “Dr Dawg”, “there was no context to the statement” which made it defamatory.  “Dr Dawg” took the comments on the Taliban to be similar to calling him “an enemy agent”.
 
From there “Dr Dawg” moved on and discussed some posting he had made on the Internet where he was critical of the Taliban and called them “an odious bunch of people” that are a “murderous band of thugs” and their “cult of religious insanity”.  While “Dr Dawg” had been critical of the Taliban, he was opposed to Canada’s intervention in the war in Afghanistan for a variety of reasons which included that the Taliban was originally supported by the US government in their war against the Soviets.  “I don’t support another foreign intervention, when multiple foreign interventions are what originally caused the problems in the region”.
 
After that “Dr Dawg” moved on to some other commentary, where apparently a prominent member of Canada’s B’nai Brith (Harry Abrams) referred to him as being Anti-Semitic for his comments on the State of Israel. “Dr Dawg” stated that he is “quite critical of Israeli treatment of Palestinians and Bedouin’s” and in terms of “Israeli Apartheid” he says that “it is unfair to label Israel as an Apartheid state, but there are some apartheid like elements in the Israel’s treatment of Palestinians and Bedouins”.
 
The day came to a close with a series of questions by Burnet on the context of the Blogosphere.  “Dr Dawg” testified that “context is important” and that “the political blogosphere could be characterized as polemical”.  But “we should not allow plain falsehood.  And the internet does not make it ok to lie online”.
 
Stay tuned for the cross-examination tomorrow of “Dr Dawg”.
 
 

: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/03/day-2-of-baglow-v-smith-fourniers.html

Reining in Australian Anti-Free Speech Laws; Jewish Lobby Howls

Reining in Australian Anti-Free Speech Laws; Jewish Lobby Howls
 
Good news from Down Under. The Liberal Party — well, actually, they are conservatives — Government of Tony Abbott proposes to amend Australia’s anti-free speech “hate laws.” Ideally, there should be no restrictions in expressing political opinions.. Only direct incitement to violence or lawlessness on ANY basis should be prohibited.
 
Photo: Reining in Australian Anti-Free Speech Laws; Jewish Lobby Howls

Good news from Down Under. The Liberal Party -- well, actually, they are conservatives -- Government of Tony Abbott proposes to amend Australia's anti-free speech "hate laws." Ideally, there should be no restrictions in expressing political opinions.. Only direct incitement to violence or lawlessness on ANY basis should be prohibited.

Nevertheless, the proposed changes are a small step in the right direction. Needless to say, the Jewish thought control lobby is in full howl. Maybe an increasingly aware population will begin to notice just who it is who seeks to interfere with free debate and open expression.

Israel's Haaretz reports on the unhappiness of their co-religionist censors in Australia: "Jewish community leaders in Australia are on a collision course with the federal government over its proposed new race hate laws, which could complicate litigation against Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites.
The Liberal government on Tuesday unveiled a draft of its proposed legislation to replace race hate laws that have existed for almost 20 years and have been used successfully by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

Under the proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, it would no longer be illegal to “offend, insult or humiliate” an Australian because of their race or ethnicity. It would, however, be illegal to vilify or intimidate someone based on their race or ethnicity.

Defending the draft legislation in parliament on Tuesday, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said: “What the government are proposing to do is to maintain the red light on inciting racial hatred, but we are removing the amber light on free speech.”

Jewish groups are fuming over the proposed changes. Robert Goot, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said the draft law was “deeply flawed” and “rips up key protections” to ethnic groups in Australia.

“This legislation gives the green light to unleashing racial hate speech in Australia, no matter how unreasonable and lacking in good faith,” he said.

Dr. Colin Rubenstein, of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, concurred. The proposed amendment “removes any protection against public insults and humiliation on the grounds of race,” he said.

“To pass the amendments as they stand would risk emboldening racists, threatening the quality of life of ethnic minorities in Australia and seriously straining the fabric of our social cohesion and harmony.”

The showdown has been brewing since the government’s pre-election pledge last year to repeal race hate laws in a bid to protect freedom of speech. It has become the only major fault line between Jewish leaders and the government, which is unapologetically supportive of Israel. ...

Attorney-General George Brandis, who has consulted with Jewish community leaders on his proposed amendments, said in parliament this week that Australians had “a right to be bigots.”

His comments were met by a chorus of condemnation from a diverse array of ethnic community representatives.

“I have always said that freedom of speech and the need to protect people from racial vilification are not inconsistent objectives,” he said. “Laws which are designed to prohibit racial vilification should not be used as a vehicle to attack legitimate freedoms of speech.”

 
Nevertheless, the proposed changes are a small step in the right direction. Needless to say, the Jewish thought control lobby is in full howl. Maybe an increasingly aware population will begin to notice just who it is who seeks to interfere with free debate and open expression.
 
Israel’s Haaretz reports on the unhappiness of their co-religionist censors in Australia: “Jewish community leaders in Australia are on a collision course with the federal government over its proposed new race hate laws, which could complicate litigation against Holocaust deniers and anti-Semites.

The Liberal government on Tuesday unveiled a draft of its proposed legislation to replace race hate laws that have existed for almost 20 years and have been used successfully by the Executive Council of Australian Jewry.

Under the proposed changes to the Racial Discrimination Act, it would no longer be illegal to “offend, insult or humiliate” an Australian because of their race or ethnicity. It would, however, be illegal to vilify or intimidate someone based on their race or ethnicity.

Defending the draft legislation in parliament on Tuesday, Prime Minister Tony Abbott said: “What the government are proposing to do is to maintain the red light on inciting racial hatred, but we are removing the amber light on free speech.”

Jewish groups are fuming over the proposed changes. Robert Goot, president of the Executive Council of Australian Jewry, said the draft law was “deeply flawed” and “rips up key protections” to ethnic groups in Australia.

“This legislation gives the green light to unleashing racial hate speech in Australia, no matter how unreasonable and lacking in good faith,” he said.

Dr. Colin Rubenstein, of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, concurred. The proposed amendment “removes any protection against public insults and humiliation on the grounds of race,” he said.

“To pass the amendments as they stand would risk emboldening racists, threatening the quality of life of ethnic minorities in Australia and seriously straining the fabric of our social cohesion and harmony.”

The showdown has been brewing since the government’s pre-election pledge last year to repeal race hate laws in a bid to protect freedom of speech. It has become the only major fault line between Jewish leaders and the government, which is unapologetically supportive of Israel. …

Attorney-General George Brandis, who has consulted with Jewish community leaders on his proposed amendments, said in parliament this week that Australians had “a right to be bigots.”

His comments were met by a chorus of condemnation from a diverse array of ethnic community representatives.

“I have always said that freedom of speech and the need to protect people from racial vilification are not inconsistent objectives,” he said. “Laws which are designed to prohibit racial vilification should not be used as a vehicle to attack legitimate freedoms of speech.”

Defamation Law in Absurdistan: Two pseudonyms battle it out in an Ottawa Courtroom while freedom of speech is dealt a death blow

Defamation Law in Absurdistan: Two pseudonyms battle it out in an Ottawa Courtroom while freedom of speech is dealt a death blow

 

Defamation law in Canada is a glaring example of the archaic state of our laws. This week in an Ottawa courtroom, two Internet bloggers – who both use pseudonyms – are going to state their case before a judge.  In one corner is the defendant, an inveterate blogger who uses the pseudonym Peter O’Donnell (AKA Roger Smith) who is being sued for saying that another pseudonym “Dr Dawg” (AKA John Baglow) is “one of the Taliban’s more vocal supporters”.  And caught in the middle are Mark and Connie Fournier who run a message board called FreeDominion, where 1 alias apparently defamed another alias in a back and forth message thread.
 
This case initially started back on August 10, 2010, when pseudonym Peter O’Donnell made a posting on FreeDominion (as part of a larger conversation which occurred across multiple blogs).  The posting in part said “I will return to that rather astounding claim but first, the other salvo in the offensive, Dr. Dawg’s colourfully illustrated op-ed that describes the conservative base (for which nobody has claimed non-existence) amounts to “yokels with pitchforks.” This coming from one of the Taliban’s more vocal supporters. I suppose they are super-yokels with Kalashnikovs.” (Complained of words in bold) [Quoted from court judgment on case)
 
So one Internet pseudonym named Peter O’Donnell commented on another internet pseudonym named Dr. Dawg in the heat of a spirited debate.  How on earth could two internet pseudonyms ‘slagging’ each other in an online debate … end up being an on-going 3+ year legal ordeal and costing tens of thousands in legal bills?  Welcome to the antiquated world of defamation law and its application to the medium of the Internet.  While I am not going to specifically refer to validity of the “Dr. Dawg” vs “Peter O’Donnell” case which is currently before the courts – I have some thoughts on the law itself.
 
Ontario’s defamation law is absurd in its entirety, a relic of the pre-internet world.  Once a defamation claim is filed, ‘damages’ are presumed.  There is a very low bar to meet, which is that the words … tend to lower a person’s ‘reputation’ in the eyes of a reasonable man.  But in the Blogosphere and the Twitterverse, what does that even mean nowadays?  How could you quantify what a person’s alias is really worth and should Canada’s over-burdened court system really be the arbiter of these petty disputes?
 
The internet is unique as a communications medium.  When Ontario’s defamation laws were written; a world where individuals could post and communicate ideas by themselves without vast publishing empire could have never even been conceptualized.  Perhaps defamation laws were written to protect the reputations of little people against huge publishing empires. 50 years ago, the only outlet for mass communications were limited to TV stations, newspapers and magazine publishers.   Nowadays anyone with access to a computer and an idea they wish to communicate can do so with just a few clicks of a button.  There is no middle-man controlling the flow of information and this is the inherent design of the Internet, and what makes the internet so popular.
 
The Internet allows all sides of an argument to present their ideas and enables the readers to determine what is correct and reasonable to them.  Just take the mystery surrounding Malaysia flight 370.  A quick google search shows over 1 million webpages discussing the topic, with comments ranging from terrorism, pilot error, to an equipment malfunction. The free flow of ideas is liberating to see and empowering for the populace.  Most of those webpages are people without a vast publishing empire, or a multi-billion dollar TV station.  Readers who are interested in that topic can peruse the various websites and make a determination themselves as to what is real and legitimate information.
 
What role does the court have in this?
 
Thanks to Ontario’s absurd defamation laws, the court has jurisdiction on any information that is from or about someone living in Ontario.  As a resident of Ontario, I could file a defamation lawsuit against almost anyone, so long as the information appeared (or was accessible) on a computer in Ontario.  If the person was outside of Ontario/Canada, it might be difficult to collect any purported damages tho. 
 
Take the above mentioned case (indexed by the court as “Baglow, a.k.a. “Dr. Dawg” v. Smith, a.k.a. “Peter O’Donnell”, et al.”).  Here you have “Dr Dawg” who apparently lives in Ottawa, who sued “Peter O’Donnell” who apparently lives in British Columbia, for a post on a website located in Panama (!), operated by two people apparently living in Kingston, Ontario.  Now an Ontario court is going to decide if a pseudonymous posting on a Panamanian webserver was defamatory of pseudonym living in Ottawa? Can it get any more absurd?
 
Defamation law has really ‘jumped the shark’.  When the courts have to sit and be arbitrators for content on a website located 7,000 KMs away, posted between two internet aliases, what has the law really become and how far will the law go to restrict freedom of expression?  If ‘Beast from the East’ can’t be critical of ‘Vancouver Veronica’ on a website located in Moldova, what value does freedom of speech even have in Ontario? 
 
Under Ontario’s crazy defamation law, Kim Jong Un could file a defamation lawsuit against an Ontario Blogger for poking fun at his recent 100% election ‘victory’ via a website in Timbuktu. Is Canada Absurdastan?  Absolutely!
 
It’s time to consider a full repeal of Ontario’s defamation law.  We have tried this horrible law for over 50 years; why not give freedom a chance?
 

Day 1 of the Baglow v. Smith & Fourniers Defamation Hearing

Day 1 of the Baglow v. Smith & Fourniers Defamation Hearing

March 24, 2014, OTTAWA: Today was an interesting day in an Ottawa courtroom at the pseudonymous defamation trial of “Dr Dawg” vs “Peter O’Donnell”. It started off with a bang and ended early with the judge handing out a homework assignment for the defendants.
This long running internet defamation case started back in August 2010, when the defendant using the internet pseudonym “Peter O’Donnell” posted a comment on the FreeDominion message board which accused the plaintiff who uses the internet pseudonym “Dr Dawg”, of being “one of the Taliban’s more vocal supporters” [
1]. The plaintiff “Dr Dawg” (a.k.a John Baglow) then filed a defamation action against the owners/system operators of FreeDominion; Mark and Connie Fournier, and the poster “Peter O’Donnell” (a.k.a. Roger Smith). The whole story gets even more bizarre as the allegedly defamatory comment was posted on a webserver in Panama.

Shortly after receiving the defamation notice, Mark and Connie Fournier applied to the Ontario Superior Court of Justice for a summary judgment dismissing the libel claim by “Dr Dawg”. My understanding is that a summary motion is a way to have your case quickly heard and a decision by a judge on the facts could be obtained expeditiously which would reduce the costs on the parties from having a full blown trial.

Mark & Connie Fournier, Recipients of the

George Orwell Free Speech Award, Victoria, BC, 2009

On August 30, 2011, Justice Annis of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice summarily tossed out the defamation claim by “Dr Dawg”. The judge found that the statement by “Peter O’Donnell” was not defamatory as it constituted opinion and was made in context of ongoing comment thread on a blog. (Para 75: For all of the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the comment that the plaintiff was a vocal supporter of the Taliban is not capable of conveying a defamatory meaning) [See full decision here: http://canlii.ca/t/fmvmp]

Dr Dawg” appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal for Ontario saying that the original Judge (Annis) erring in granting the summary judgment dismissing “Dr. Dawgs” defamation action. The Court of Appeal for Ontario ruled on June 14, 2012 in “Dr Dawgs” favour that “The motion judge erred in granting summary judgment. The issues raised in this action were important because they arose in the relatively novel milieu of Internet defamation in the political blogosphere. They were not issues that lent themselves to determination on a motion for summary judgment, particularly where the action was being processed in the simplified procedure regime. Novel questions of law or of mixed law and fact in defamation matters ought generally to be determined at a trial.” (Quoted from case summary) [See full decision here: http://canlii.ca/t/frphh]

That is a seriously condensed version of the three year back story to this case … now let’s fast forward to what happened today in the Ottawa Courtroom.

The hearing was held in a small court room usually slated for criminal cases. There were not too many seats and no room at the lawyers table. In fact, the court attendants had to fetch more chairs for the battery of lawyers and self-represented litigants.
The parties at the hearing were:

Plaintiff: (person who brought the defamation action)
·“Dr Dawg” (a.k.a John Baglow)
·Peter Burnet, lawyer
Defendants: (defending the defamation action)
·“Peter O’Donnell” (a.k.a Roger Smith) – Self-represented
·Connie Fournier (self-represented)
·Mark Fournier (represented by Barbara Kulaszka)
·Barbara Kulaszka, lawyer
Interested Parties: (These are ‘friends of the court’ who make submissions to assist the judge in coming to her decision, based on the organizations they represent)
·Mr. Frankel, lawyer (Representing the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, who support freedom of expression)
The day started off around 10:15am, with a series of ‘housekeeping’ matters. Discussions on the timing of the case; some back and forth about various minutia of the case; and a brief introduction to the participants of who the judge is. The Madame Justice’s opening remarks were quite surprising. She said that she has “never been on a blog before. Never uses the internet, except for a bit of email and doesn’t use twitter or facebook”. The judge summed it up as “I’m a clean slate when it comes to the internet”.


Perhaps a skeptical observer might wonder why on earth would a Judge be assigned to a case which is 100% based on internet content, (blogs, message boards, etc) and involves highly technical evidence about the internet, and it’s inner workings in relation to a blog’s comment section software? Equally important (if not more important) is that the judge will not even have the opportunity to hear expert opinion and be able to weigh various expert reports on the issue. Honestly, with no possible way to relate or conceptualize any of the information on what the internet is and has become, it would be like trying to explain to Mesopotamian Scribe the intricacies of the Gutenberg Movable Type printing press and how revolutionary the concept of a movable type printing press was. The revolutionary informational change in society brought forth by the Internet is undeniable and transformational.

This Madame Justice has been tasked with a very important decision which will have impacts on the very core of political discourse and she doesn’t even know what (or use) any interactive website such as Facebook or Twitter. As a person that loves and cherishes freedom of speech, it is really worrisome that a decision which will effect tens of thousands of bloggers, writers, media websites, and message board operators, will be decided by a person that can barely use an email client (by her own admission!).

Even if “Dr Dawg” is right and it is defamatory to say what “Peter O’Donnell” said, to have this important fundamental question of online political discourse decided by a Judge who has “never been on a blog” is a pretty scary thought and unfair to BOTH parties, who have battled it out in the legal trenches waiting for this day to decide this important and novel question of law. In my mind, this is yet another reason why Ontario’s defamation law needs to be repealed in its entiretybut I digress, who knows, this judge might well come out with a great decision on an important and novel question of law that would make Lady Justice blush with envy.

After the judge gave a short opening statement it was time for each of the parties to give their opening statements. The opening statement is an opportunity for each party to layout the case and what their view of it is. Up first was “Dr Dawgs” lawyer, Peter Burnet.

(All the comments below are taken from my quickly scribbled notes of what happened, so take them with a grain of salt. There might have been parts that I missed, or not fully understood. These are simply my opinions on what happened, not statements of fact. In the event of any errors or inaccuracies, please email: marc (at) lemire.com for corrections)

Trial – Day 1:
Mr. Burnet went through the evidence and highlighted who “Dr Dawg” is in real life a.k.a John Baglow. “Dr Dawg” is a retired civil servant and labour activist who blogs on a website called Dawgs Blog, which is his “principle vehicle” for posting commentary. Burnet proclaimed that “Dr. Dawgs” views are “proudly lefist”. Furthermore “Dr Dawg” “welcomes the opportunity to debate those who do not share his views”. “Dr Dawg” believes that the defendants are “extreme right-wing”. In regards to the effect of the defamatory posting by “Peter O’Donnell”: “Dr. Dawg” “cannot identify any loss of income and has not interfered in his professional life”. “Dr Dawg” is looking for ‘damages at large’, as opposed to a breakdown on special, general and punitive damages. Mr. Burnet stated that “this case is not about freedom of speech” and furthermore, “this case is not a SLAPP suit”.

Up next was Barbara Kulaszka, who is representing Mark Fournier. Many readers to my blog will recognize that Barbara Kulaszka was also my lawyer and is the one who exposed the censorship provisions of the now repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Mrs. Kulaszka gave an informative opening statement which covered all the legal aspects of this case. She quoted frequently from various libel cases from the Supreme Court of Canada, and highlighted the case of Kari Simpson. Mrs. Kulaszka raised the fact that the complained of words (defamatory content) “identifies only Dr Dawg”, the internet pseudonym of a.k.a. John Baglow. In effect “Baglow has a different persona online”. In his personal life he has a certain reputation and on the internet with his Internet alias he is a different person, with a much different reputation. Kulaszka equated this dichotomy between online aliases and the real life person to that of Superman; who in ‘real life’ was Clark Kent, a nerdy photographer from the Daily Bugle but after he visits a phone booth, and rips off his shirt to show his superman side, out comes a totally different person.

After a short break, Connie Fournier who is part of the FreeDominion message board gave her opening remarks. While earlier in the trial she was represented by Barbara Kulaszka, Connie chose to represent herself at the actual trial. Connie’s opening remarks were to the point and highly directed at the effect of being hit with a lawsuit – at times you might have thought she was a plaintiff in the case, and many accusations were hurled at the opposing side. Connie Fournier started her opening statement by alleging that this lawsuit was “part of an ongoing cyber-bullying campaign” against her, which included “taunting and harassing on Twitter” and “threatening and attacking others who associated with her”. Connie expressed some serious reservations about being “sexualized” in the ongoing heated political discourse surrounding this case, which included comments such as she was a “freeDominatrix”.

With reference to the on-going back-and-forth discussions on various blogs and message boards, Connie summed up her views of the apparently invective-filled discourse by stating “discussions with Dr. Dawg are more like a ballroom brawl than a dinner party”. At the end of her submissions Connie reflected on the fact that this case has taken 3 years of her life and $13,000 to get to this point.

Up next was “Peter O’Donnell” a.k.a. Roger Smith, who was representing himself. Mr. Smith attempted in his best non-lawyer fashion to craft an opening statement which was constantly interrupted by the judge who pointed out that Mr. Smith should not be testifying, but rather to give an opening statement. Mr. Smith explained a bit about who he was, and when he got involved in political discussions on the Internet. Mr. Smith stated that “freedominion satisfies a need in the opinion marketplace of ideas” and is not an “extreme right wing website”. In reference to the allegedly defamatory posting, Mr. Smith stated that “5… maybe 6 people read the impugned words”.
Roger Smith summed up his views on the trial in 6 concise words “this entire process is a travesty!” When the judge asked about his posting, Mr. Smith answered “political opinions should not be adjudicated in courts”

After lunch was the lawyer representing the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Mr. Frankel. While the CCLA was not originally granted an opening statement, the judge offered Mr. Frankel the opportunity to state the CCLA’s position on the larger societal issues of this case. Mr. Frankel made it clear from the outset that the CCLA takes no position on the facts of this specific case, but rather intervened in this case because of the broader public interest with respect to freedom of expression. The CCLA wants to see defamation law “develop in accordance with the Charters protections for freedom of expression in mind.”
The CCLA’s position has 5 pillars:
1.Heated political debate on the internet should be factored into the test of a “reasonable person” with respect to the context of the overall debate
2.Context of the meaning of the words is critical.
3.Administrators and blog operators should not be held to a strict liability test under defamation law. And that by holding message board operators (such as Mark and Connie Fournier) to a strict liability test it has a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
4.The broader context needs to be looked at for statements of facts vs opinion. And that comments should be looked at in a contextual fashion if they are facts or opinions
5.An adequate factual foundation needs to be established in accordance with overall context of the posting. The court should not adjudicate in vacuum. And the court should “not be restricted to the four corners of the case”.
That was the end of the opening statements by the parties.

After the CCLA was done, Mr. Burnet rose to address the court on some issues that came out in the opening statement of Connie Fournier and Barbara Kulaszka. Mr. Burnet described some of the allegations by Connie Fournier as “blindsiding” him, and those allegations apparently have not been previously particularized. A lengthy debate ensued over these allegations and what particular information supports the inferences that Connie was attempting to raise and if those inferences would prejudice the other side.

At the end of the day, the Judge ordered that Connie particularize her claims in writing, and similarly that Barbara Kulaszka also particularize some of the statements she raised during her opening statement. The parties were given until 9:00pm this evening to e-mail them to “Dr Dawgs” lawyer Mr. Barnet.

The trial continues tomorrow at 10:00am in the Ottawa courthouse.

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/03/day-1-of-baglow-v-smith-fourniers.html

Jewish Lobby Group Demands Suppression of Candidate Who Questions the Kosher Tax

Jewish Lobby Group Demands Suppression of Candidate Who Questions the Kosher Tax

Canadians are a tolerant people. I don’t believe many people wake up in the morning burning with hatred for Jews, or Jains or Jehovah’s Witnesses. Few look in the mirror with a face twisted with rage wanting to kill a Jew or a Jain or a Jehovah’s Witness that day.  I suspect most people devote barely a thought to Jews or Jains or Jehovah’s witnesses.

Therefore, I have often wondered why so many lobby groups who claim to speak for Jews go out of their way to call attention to themselves as people who want to silence others.

 

The National Post (March 14, 2014) reported: “On Thursday, the Quebec office for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) called on the Parti Quebecois to disavow one of its candidates’ apparent support for what CIJA describe as the anti-Semitic ‘kosher tax’ conspiracy theory. The ‘kosher tax’ canard holds that companies pay extortionate fees to Jewish groups in order to achieve kosher certification, thus driving up overall food costs. In reality, such companies as Coca-Cola acquire the certification as a marketing strategy to attract Jewish customers.”

 

In a separate article the same day, the National Post (March 14, 2014) elaborated: “After a PQ candidate was discovered to have supported a fringe conspiracy theory holding that Jews use kosher food to fund clandestine political causes, Quebec Premier Pauline Marois publicly declared Friday that her party is not anti-Semitic. At Friday campaign stop, Ms. Marois stood by Louise Mailloux, and told reporters the Parti Québécois is not an anti-Semitic party.`

Ms. Mailloux has made repeated public statements backing the idea of the “kosher tax,” a widely debunked canard claiming that kosher certification drives up the cost of food and imposes a de facto tax on secular consumers. ‘This is a religious tax, and it’s a tax we pay directly to mosques, to synagogues and to religious groups. It’s a theft,’ Ms. Mailloux said on a March 2012 edition of Bazzo.tv, a panel show on Tele-Quebec.

Ms. Mailloux, a philosophy professor at the Cégep du Vieux Montréal, had been invited to speak on the issue of halal and kosher certifications, and quickly dominated the discussion with accusations that Quebecers were unwittingly funnelling tens of thousands of dollars to potentially shady religious causes.”

 

This is a clear case of the suppression of free speech and inquiry.

 

Where to start? Strictly speaking, the fees companies pay rabbis for certification is not a “tax”. Government has nothing to do with it. Note the term “canard”. It is used almost like a mantra any time this issue is discussed by Jewish lobbyists. Canard, from the French word for “duck”, according to the Oxford English Dictionary is “an unfounded rumour.”

 

The term sounds as if it’s saying the material is false, but that’s not exactly what is being said.

 

An amazing number of food products bear one of several kosher certifications. Kosher law forbids the eating of certain foods — pork, shellfish, among others. So, you’re not likely to see kosher pork and beans. Basically, a kosher kitchen seeks to keep dairy and meat strictly separate, even requiring separate sets of dishes.

 

A random rummaging through a fridge and pantry reveals the following products with kosher certification:

 

* Cheerios [ with a U in a circle, standing for kosher]. A glance at the ingredients in Cheerios shows no meat or dairy.

 

* Unico Red Kidney Beans [The can has COR 125 in a circle, standing for kosher.]  A glance at the ingredients reveals no meat or dairy.

 

* Hunt’s “Thick & Rich, spicy red pepper and chilies pasta sauce”. [The can has a K in a circle, standing for kosher.] The contents show no hint of dairy or meat to be kept separate.

 

* EQUALITY 6 Bean Medley [The can has COR 96 in a circle, standing for kosher certification.] The contents indicate no dairy or meat to be kept separate.

 

* Kroger Roasted Peanuts and Honey. [with a U in a circle, standing for kosher.] The plastic jar indicates no meat or dairy

 

* Minute Maid pulp free orange juice [The container features the COR 226 in a circle, standing for kosher certification.] The contents indicate no dairy or meat to be kept separate.

 

* Selection manzanilla olives. [The jar features MK Pareve 357 in a double circle, standing for kosher certification.] Again the contents don’t seem to indicate the presence of either dairy or meat products.

 

And, here’s one that floored me. TRULY (Natural spring water bottled for Hudson’s Bay Company) [with a U in a circle and lower case p outside it, standing for kosher]. Kosher water?!!! What could this possibly have to do with mixing dairy and meat?

 

One begins to wonder why these products must seek kosher certification and at what cost to the consumer.

 

The rub comes in the process for kosher certification. Various groups of rabbis have the power to certify foods as meeting kosher requirements. It is generally agreed that this service is not free. The companies pay for it. But how much? I have seen a dozen letters over the past number of years written seeking this information from companies. Seldom is there a response. When there is a reply, it is vague, suggesting that the cost to consumers is “modest.”

 

That term is open to interpretation. Suppose on the $4.00 box of Cheerios, certification costs 8 cents, that is “modest” but, extended over the food purchases for a year — say $100 per week — the “modest” cost of kosher certification adds up to over $100 for the unwitting and unwilling shopper.

 

The sucky neo-con National Post seems to offer an explanation for the food processors` attachment to the cult of kosher, whether costly or “modest.” “In reality, such companies as Coca-Cola acquire the certification as a marketing strategy to attract Jewish customers.” Again, why would Coke be paying for kosher status unless there’s a mouse eating an ice cream cone floating in the coke vat? Neither meat or dairy are involved.

 

Superficially, the marketing explanation seems to make some sense. However, consider that only a small minority of Jews keep kosher. In fact, Emilty Geitz, writing “Ìs keeping kosher good for the environment?” (Scientific American, September 25, 2008),  says just one in six American Jews or a tiny .37% of the American population keeps kosher. Canada has about 310,000 Jews or less than one per cent of our 35-million population. If the same one in six figure holds, only about 53,000 Canadian Jews even worry about kosher. So, all this certification is to please a tiny minority of a tiny minority, not all of whom would even like a product, say, such as Coke.

 

Why not just market a separate brand called Kosher Coke and add the price of certification in, rather than forcing everyone to pay for what is a tiny minority dietary peculiarity. The injustice is that, large or modest, the cost of certifying this huge range of food products as kosher ought to be borne by those whom it benefits and not be loaded off on to the general population

 

Articles criticizing those who mention the kosher fees all consumers are forced to pay, almost always  use the unusual term `canard`, as I`ve noted above. So, it comes as no surprise that foaming and fuming, former CEO of the now defunct Canadian Jewish Congress Bernie Farber rushed into print to denounce “this anti-Semitic canard” (Toronto Star, March 18, 2014) and further blasts Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois for not having dropped Professor Louise Mailloux as the PQ candidate in the Montreal riding of  Gouin.

 

“Propagated by neo-Nazi and other anti-Semitic groups, it [the kosher levy complaint] suggested that governments and citizens worldwide are tricked by international Jewry into paying a secret tax for kosher foods. Once collected, the hoax goes, these millions in revenue are funneled towards funding Zionist wars and causes.” But while Farber assures us the story of the kosher levy, not really tax, is a hoax, he offers no proof. For instance, he doesn`t deny that groups of rabbis are paid to certify foods and even water as kosher. He doesn`t explain where the money, modest or otherwise, goes.

 

In an editorial “The Parti Quebecois` Small Minds,” the National Post (March 15, 2014) notes coyly: “Fourteen years ago, a conservative Alberta-based magazine published an article, titled “Ìs this Kosher?”, in which the author reported credulously on allegations that kosher food labelling in Canada comprises a `Jewish tax` that rabbis use to siphon money out of the pockets of gentile consumers. The source of the allegations turned out to be an eccentric retired Ukrainian-Canadian psychologist. At first, the magazine stood by the report. But when it became clear the article was indefensible, the editors backed down. … This is the last time any mainstream English-language Canadian publication has advanced the theory that Canadians are being victimized by a ‘Jewish tax.’”

 

The publication was Report Magazine. Senior editor Kevin Michael Grace told me at the time that the magazine had come under incredible pressure to recant. And, yes, the National Post is quite right. Canada`s not-very-free and very cowardly press is, indeed, well whipped and more and more topics, especially those that might offend some minority or other, are forbidden.

 

Back in the late `90s, widespread circulation of information about this kosher levy led to the suggestion that taxpayers determine how much of their food budget had gone to the levy and claim that as a charitable donation. The reason was that it had been determined that, in Canada, the “kosher” certification fees were paid to a certain Jewish charity. Thus, the taxpayer could claim, with some justification, that he had contributed unwillingly to that charity and should claim that sum as a tax creditable deduction. Many people did and many succeeded. The weakness with this approach, I counselled, was that Revenue Canada requires a tax receipt to support a deduction and, of course, taxpayers could supply no such receipt. Many claims that were audited were, of course, rejected. The situation was similar to the person who throws $20 into the church collection plate each Sunday. Without a receipt, he cannot claim a $1040 charitable deduction at the end of the year. Most churches urge their regular donors to use envelopes with their names on them for their donations. At year`s end, the church issues each envelope user a charitable receipt.

 

Bernie Farber`s article continues:   “In the mid 1990s it became so prevalent that even some legitimate accountants and bookkeepers were advising their clients to demand a $250 tax refund from Revenue Canada for unknowingly paying this secret levy. Indeed, in 1997 the Canadian Jewish Congress wrote to then-revenue minister Jane Stewart asking the government to make it abundantly clear that the ‘tax’ was a fraud. The minister, to her credit, reacted swiftly with a statement that fully rejected the anti-Jewish hoax and warned of potential consequences and fines for those trying to claim a refund.”

 

Interesting how Farber reveals that when a certain lobby barks an order, the obedient political pooches wag their tails. According to Wikipedia “Kosher Tax (Anti-Semitic Canard)”– there`s that word again! — then Canadian Revenue Minister Jane Stewart said: “The intent and message in this literature is deeply offensive to the Jewish community and, indeed, to all Canadians. The so-called ‘deduction’ described in these flyers does not exist and I urge all taxpayers to ignore this misleading advice”.[`Actually, she doesn`t say the information about the kosher levy is false, just that it is “offensive” to Jews. She does add, and legally rightly so, that the imputed kosher levy is not a deduction open for Canadians to claim,.

 

What to do? Ideally, the House of Commons should hold an investigation and require supermarkets to reveal under oath just how much kosher certification costs and whether, as often reported, food processors are under pressure to obtain, that is, pay for kosher certification, in order to have their products carried. Consumers should be given maximum choice. If mainstream goods have a kosher certification, the same product should be offered without the certification, presumably somewhat cheaper, just as shoppers often can choose between ordinary carrots and the somewhat more expensive organic”carrots.”

Actually, the entire issue could be set to rest if the rabbis who certify food products as kosher did their work gratis, much as a priest or minister wouldn’t have his hand out if asked to say a prayer at a public function. Surely, certifying food as kosher is part of the rabbis’ duty to those of their faith who choose to keep kosher. The public shouldn’t be asked to pay the freight. If, indeed, the fees are “modest” there seems no valid reason not to make this gesture of good faith and make this issue go away naturally, without threatening punishment to those who have the temerity to raise questions. – Paul Fromm

 

PQ candidate Louise Mailloux is under fire for spreading "anti-Semitic" conspiracy theories.

Topham “Hate” Case Committed to Trial; Crown Demands Total Internet Gag on Radicalpress

Topham “Hate” Case Committed to Trial; Crown Demands Total Internet Gag on Radicalpress


QUESNEL, British Columbia. March 13, 2014. Anti-Zionist critic and Internet blogger Arthur Topham’s preliminary hearing ended here today with Judge Morgan committing he case to trial in Superior Court, A date to set a date or trial has been set for March 31, On January 14, the Crown ambushed Mr. Topham with a further charge under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law” for more recent posting and commentary on his Radicalpress.com website. After the preliminary hearing, Crown Jennifer Johnston sought a total gag order as a bail condition on this charge.
Mr. Topham had been advised that new bail conditions would be dealt with on April 2. However, the Crown sought new Soviet-style silencing provisions forthwith. Her new proposed conditions were presented to Mr. Topham after the noon lunch break. They are:

 Frederick Fromm's photo.

 

Thought criminal Arthur Topham heading to Provincial Court in Quesnel, BC 

 

Requested terms:

 

1) You shall not post any information on any Internet site that can be read by members of the general public.

 

2) You shall not operate, post to, manage or allow anyone to operate, post to or manage any Internet site owned by you that can be accessed by the general public.

 

3) You shall make RadicalPress.com unavailable to the general public. You shall not be in breach of this condition if you place a default page on RadicalPress.com, if the wording of the default page has been previously approved by this Court.

In short, Mr. Topham is not to post anything on the  Internet and is to shut down Radicalpress.com — the entire site — even though only a tiny portion of its eclectic contents is the subject of this complaint.

 

The bail conditions, if granted, would have the effect of totally gagging this dissident until his trial which could be a year or more in the future. He would be unable to post legal updates to his support base and would be cut off from reporting to those who financially support him.

 

Mr. Topham also runs a small placer (surface, as opposed to hard rock) gold mining business. He runs a non-political website CaribooPlacer.com in pursuit of this business. Posting there too would be denied to him under condition 1.

 


Arthur Topham & CAFE Director Paul Fromm

These conditions utterly violate the underlying concept of Anglo-Saxon law, that a person is INNOCENT until proven guilty and should not be punished unless and until tried and proven guilty.

 

Seeking the silencing of a victim charged under the “hate law” seems now to be standard practice in the increasingly politicized Canadian legal system. Terry Tremaine endured a gag period of 55 months when charged under Sec. 13. Political prisoner Brad Love has faced similar parole conditions that have now extended 10 years after the original conviction in 2003.

 

Judge Morgan was reluctant to go order this gagging. When Mr. Topham indicated that he had only just been advised of the Crown’s draconian demands, the judge ordered another hearing, March 18, to set a date for argument on these proposed bail conditions.

 

Indicating his uneasiness with the Crown’s proposals to silence Mr. Topham, Judge Morgan said: “Bail conditions are usually a way to prevent future offences before trial in a normal case, like break and enter, which is clearly against the law. However, Sec. 319 is different and no offence has been proven. Mr. Topham believes in free speech and believes what he has written is legal. The Crown, on the other hand, says it’s hate. If there is a concern on the part of the Crown about harm to the public caused by Mr. Topham’s website, the Crown should seek an early trial date.”

 

Judge Morgan added: “The sledgehammer the Crown is talking of is to close you down entirely.” He wondered why Mr. Topham continued to leave up books like The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion which are already available elsewhere on the Internet.

 

Perhaps realizing the brutality of what seemed to be her marching orders, Crown Jennifer Johnston, who favours tall black leather boots and navy blue skirts and jackets,  phoned Vancouver to see whether Mr.Topham’s strictly business-oriented site might be excluded. Whom did she call? Det. Const. Terry Wilson, head of the B.C. Hate Squad. Does that mean that the political police are essentially calling the shots as to bail conditions demanded of political dissidents? Fascinating!

 

The outcome of the preliminary hearing was never really in doubt. It is sometimes said that a U.S. grand jury could indict a ham sandwich. Similarly, Canadian preliminary hearings also require a very low threshold of proof. The Shephard decision by the Supreme Court held that a case must be sent on for trial if the evidence, if believed by a properly instructed jury, could lead to a finding of guilt.

 

Judge Morgan focused on the book Israel Must Perish, a satire published by Arthur Topham on the 1941 Kaufman book, Germany Must Perish, a blueprint for the genocide of Germany and Germans that was very influential in the U.S. during the war. Despite the fact that the Topham posting is a satire, the judge chose to rule that “it would be open for a jury to find Mr. Topham’s writings could stir up anti-Jewish hatred in Canada.”

 

The morning was taken up with Mr. Topham cross-examining RCMP Constable Normandie Levas [pronounced “leave-us”] who is the junior member of the B.C. “Hate Squad.” She explained that she’s been a Mountie for 11 years and was formerly with the Organized Crime Squad.

 

Constable Levas looks like a younger Suzanne Pleshette. Mr. Topham, dapper in a grey suit, spoke with a gentle and lilting voice as he worked his way through carefully prepared questions. Though just recently having joined the “Hate Squad” Miss Levas swore out a 54-page ITO [Information to Obtain a search warrant.] Both Mr. Topham’s former lawyer, the late Doug Christie and Mr. Topham  challenge the scope and contents of this warrant.

 

Mr. Topham, asked: “Are you aware that Sec. 319.2 includes ‘intent’ as a requirement to prove the charge of ‘promoting hatred’” against a privileged group?

 

She indicated she knew that. He then asked what caused her to believe  his writings had intended to promote hatred.

 

“Books posted on-line. I believe these promote hatred against an identifiable group – the Jewish population,” she replied,

 

“Do you have any expertise in psychology to know my intent?” he asked.

 

“I don’t have any expertise in psychology. I am a police officer,” Miss Levas replied.

 

“Your evidence would not be expert testimony?” Mr. Topham pursued.

 

She agreed: “I have not been deemed an expert.”

 

“I put it to you,” the anti-Zionist critic pounced, “all the evidence you gave in your information was unqualified opinion.”

 

“I would not agree,” she replied.

 

“Do you have a university degree?” he asked, trying to determine her qualification to judge the intent of his writing.

 

“I was a certified dental assistant,” she replied. It was not clear whether she had a university degree of any sort as dental assistants usually get their training from a community college.

 

Not to belittle anyone’s occupation, but there’s the B.C. Hate Squad: Det. Constable Terry Wilson, a committed dirt-bike rider who has twice been struck by lightning, and a former dental assistant. They sit in judgement as the thought police over their fellow citizens.

 

It will be an interesting trial. – Paul Fromm

Vanier Centre for Women Censors Prisoner’s Political Mail

Vanier Centre for Women Censors Prisoner’s Political Mail
 
A visit to the Vanier Centre for Women, a provincial prison for women in Milton — about 30 miles west of Toronto — is an immersion into cloying political correctness and Big Brother, well, I guess, it’s Big Sisterism.
 
As you pull into the crowded visitors’ parking lot and search for a spot, you spy six empty spots close to the institution. Hooray, you’re in luck However, not so fast: four are for the handicapped and two are for pregnant mothers. So, you have to turn around and search the distant rows for a vacancy. Most people unquestioning accept their fate and the empty parking spaces for the privileged, but I wonder are there really THAT many cripples and pregnant women visiting women in prison?
 
 
Where visitors sit to await being allowed in to visit a prisoner, a sign informs the visitor that he is under surveillance by video cameras “for your safety and security.” Let’s shake our heads and THINK before swallowing the “security” rationale. Prisoners are far removed behind concrete walls and barriers. The often unfriendly prison staff are behind their heavy plexi glass barriers. Just who would likely endanger any of the  mostly sad sack visitors “security”?
 
Anyway, as your eyes look at the various signs hectoring you about “inappropriate remarks” or “dress”, you notice a sign proclaiming this as being a scent free institution. The illiterate sign instructs that, out of deference to our “asthma” or “allergy employees” , visitors refrain from wearing perfume or scented deodorants or after shave products. One really wonders whether, if guards are that fragile, that they might be in the wrong line of work. However, in this precious society, apparently, it would be quite acceptable to show up not having bathed for a month all sweaty and reeking of curry or gimchi, just as long as you don’t foul the air with scented deodorant or perfume. And, by the way, the desk guards are behind their plexi glass and only one guard gets to watch you go through the body scanning security check? Just how many personnel are really being protected from a visitor’s Brute or Channel No. 5?  It’s a strange old world.

Photo: Vanier Centre for Women Censors Prisoner's Political Mail
A visit to the Vanier Centre for Women, a provincial prison for women in Milton -- about 30 miles west of Toronto -- is an immersion into cloying political correctness and Big Brother, well, I guess, it's Big Sisterism.
As you pull into the crowded visitors' parking lot and search for a spot, you spy six empty spots close to the institution. Hooray, you're in luck However, not so fast: four are for the handicapped and two are for pregnant mothers. So, you have to turn arou9nd a search the distant rows for a vacancy. Most people unquestioning accept their fate and the empty parking spaces for the privileged, but I wonder are there really THAT many cripples and pregnant women visiting women in prison?
Where visitors sit to await being allowed in to visit a prisoner, a sign informs the visitor that he is under surveillance by video cameras "for your safety and security." Let's shake our heads and THINK before swallowing the "security" rationale. Prisoners are far removed behind concrete walls and barriers. The often unfriendly prison staff are behind their heavy plexi glass barriers. Just who would likely endanger any of the  mostly sad sack visitors "security"?
Anyway, as your eyes look at the various signs hectoring you about "inappropriate remarks" or "dress", you notice a sign proclaiming this as being a scent free institution. The illiterate sign instructs that, out of deference to our "asthma" or "allergy employees" , visitors refrain from wearing perfume or scented deodorants or after shave products. One really wonders whether, if guards are that fragile, that they might be in the wrong line of work. However, in this precious society, apparently, it would be quite acceptable to show up not having bathed for a month all sweaty and reeking of curry or gimchi, just as long as you don't foul the air with scented deodorant or perfume. And, by the way, the desk guards are behind their plexi glass and only one guard gets to watch you go through the body scanning security check? Just how many personnel are really being protected from a visitor's Brute or Channel No. 5?  It's a strange old world.
When you finally get the call to visit the prisoner, you must pas through the sort of metal detector you'd go through at an airport. You must leave everything -- overcoats, wallets, papers, pens, coins in a locker. Only you light clothing and your locker key are allowed. Why can't one bring paper and pen? Until about a year ago, these were permitted. Remember, visitors are separated from the prisoner by thick plexi glass. You can't stab the prisoner or pass her a note. The restrictions, however, interfere with effective notetaking. When I ask, why, I am told: "Security concerns." Aw, that catch-all excuse for restrictions and repression!
However, as the bored visitor awaits the call to enter and pass security, his eye lights on a statement on the waiting room wall. It is from Donna M. Keating, the institution's superintendent. She proclaims: "I lead with the courage to stand against racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and all forms of bigotry." Well, bully for her! That takes "courage"? Come on, it's the standard ideology of the politically correct. It takes about as much "courage" as for a Christian minister to proclaim he believes Jesus in Lord.
The proclamation goes on: "I support an environment that appreciates the diverse cultures of our society." Again, bully for her!
So, with all this talk about "diversity" and "anti-bigotry" how does the institution stand on diverse political points of view?
This brings us to the case of Michelle Erstikaitis. Michelle's legal problems are not entirely about her rightwing politics. So, we don't classify her as a political prisoner. However, her self identification as a White Nationalist has not endeared her to the legal establishment. Recently, her mail has been interfered with on a number of occasions. I send her photocopies of political stories -- she is very interested in Mayor Rob Ford whom she has supported -- and copies of some of my commentaries. Recently, she was told that an envelope containing  some news stories and my snarky commentary on Jason Kenney's gushing support for Black History Month was being held back from her. Apparently, I had used the word "Negro". That was deemed "racist" and a guard loudly told the whole range she could not receive "racist" literature. She, then, had to  be moved into protective custody as the many Negro inmates were giving her nasty looks.
So, what about tolerance, which is the opposite of the "all forms of bigotry" courageously opposed by the superintendent's "leadership"? Also, as of yesterday, she had not received the February mailing of the Canadian Immigration Hotline or the March issue of the Free Speech Monitor, mailed, February 11 from Toronto.
She has had a clear admission that her mail is being held and that not all of it is being passed on to her. She has received virtually no mail -- personal or political -- from another political contact for whom she has written some articles on prison life.
Censorship of Her Majesty's Mail is dead wrong. It is even more appalling that mere guards would presume to determine which political views -- left, right or centre -- an inmate should be allowed to receive.
Several complaints have been filed with the Halton Regional Police in this matter.
Here are the relevant sections of the Criminal Code of Canada:
Sec. 345 STOPPING MAIL WITH INTENT "Every one who stops a mail conveyance with intent to rob it or search it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life."
Sec. 356 (1). THEFT FROM MAIL " Every one who
(a) steals
(I) any thing sent by post after it is deposited at a post office and before it is delivered ... is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years."
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
p.s. Lest anyone thinks the commentary on Black History Month was anything other than legitimate political commentary, I append it to this message. This is what Miss Erstikaitis was not allowed by the political censors to read.
Hey, Jason, Will You Be Issuing a Formal Recognition of White History & Achievements?
Dear Jason:
I received your perky little announcement about Black History Month and all the contributions of Negroes to Canada. I have no problem with recognizing people's achievements, but all this minority-sucky celebration ignores or diminishes the overwhelming contribution of the European founder/settler people to this land.
Canada was settled and built by Europeans -- Basque, French, English, Irish, Scottish, German, Italian, Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Icelandic and many others. Our official languages are European (English and French); our legal and political system is British and the religion of the overwhelming majority of Canadians is Christianity, despite the vicious Christian-hating rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada (See the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Bill Whatcott and Malcolm Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 decisions, among other cases), many of whose members YOUR government appointed.
 Lester Pearson changed our flag before he initiated the 1965 changes to our immigration law which turned Canada's back on the founding/settler people and began a programme of population replacement that is ongoing and continues sadly even under your government. The Red Ensign, the flag he replaced celebrated the European and Christian nature of Canada. Photo: Hey, Jason, Will You Be Issuing a Formal Recognition of White History & Achievements? Dear Jason: I received your perky little announcement about Black History Month and all the contributions of Negroes to Canada. I have no problem with recognizing people's achievements, but all this minority-sucky celebration ignores or diminishes the overwhelming contribution of the European founder/settler people to this land. Canada was settled and built by Europeans -- Basque, French, English, Irish, Scottish, German, Italian, Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Icelandic and many others. Our official languages are European (English and French); our legal and political system is British and the religion of the overwhelming majority of Canadians is Christianity, despite the vicious Christian-hating rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada (See the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Bill Whatcott and Malcolm Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 decisions, among other cases), many of whose members YOUR government appointed. Lester Pearson changed our flag before he initiated the 1965 changes to our immigration law which turned Canada's back on the founding/settler people and began a programme of population replacement that is ongoing and continues sadly even under your government. The Red Ensign, the flag he replaced celebrated the European and Christian nature of Canada. So, Jason, let me ask you, now that you've lauded Black History Month in the interests of "inclusiveness" , will you be issuing a formal recognition of white or European history & achievements? Paul Fromm Director Canada First Immigration Reform Committee Statement — Minister Kenney issues statement celebrating Black History Month Ottawa, February 6, 2014 — The Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister for Multiculturalism, issued the following statement after the official launch event for Black History Month at the Canadian War Museum: “Every February, Canadians mark Black History Month, an important annual celebration of the accomplishments of Canadians who trace their family heritage to Africa and the Caribbean. “The proud legacy of black Canadians goes back to the early beginnings of Canadian history. The great sacrifices and tremendous contributions of their community have helped to create the Canada of today. “This year, as we mark the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the First World War and the 75th anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War, Black History Month provides an opportunity to recognize the efforts of black Canadian soldiers during these wars, and in other military campaigns. “Canadians should learn more about many inspirational stories of heroism and service, including that of the largely black Number Two Construction Battalion, which proudly served our country during the First World War. “Another great story is that of William Hall, the first black recipient of the Victoria Cross. He was also the first Canadian sailor and the first Nova Scotian to receive this honour. “This year, Canada Post’s 2014 Black History Month stamps will honour two historical communities that were located on opposite sides of our country: Africville in Halifax, and Hogan’s Alley in Vancouver. “Both of these communities played significant roles in black Canadian history, and their stories are well worth learning during Black History Month. “Canadians can explore these and many other stories on the Government of Canada’s Black History Month website, which hosts the Black History Virtual Museum. It can be found at this address: www.cic.gc.ca/blackhistorymonth. “As Minister for Multiculturalism, I also encourage Canadians to participate in the many celebrations that will take place across the country throughout February in honour of Black History Month.” For further information (media only), please contact: Alexandra Fortier Minister’s Office 819-994-2482 Media Relations Communications Branch Citizenship and Immigration Canada 613-952-1650 CIC-Media-Relations@cic.gc.c
So, Jason, let me ask you, now that you've lauded Black History Month in the interests of "inclusiveness" , will you be issuing a formal recognition of white or European history & achievements?
Paul Fromm
Director
Canada First Immigration Reform Committee

Statement — Minister Kenney issues statement celebrating Black History Month

Ottawa, February 6, 2014 — The Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister for Multiculturalism, issued the following statement after the official launch event for Black History Month at the Canadian War Museum:

    “Every February, Canadians mark Black History Month, an important annual celebration of the accomplishments of Canadians who trace their family heritage to Africa and the Caribbean.

    “The proud legacy of black Canadians goes back to the early beginnings of Canadian history. The great sacrifices and tremendous contributions of their community have helped to create the Canada of today.

    “This year, as we mark the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the First World War and the 75th anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War, Black History Month provides an opportunity to recognize the efforts of black Canadian soldiers during these wars, and in other military campaigns.

    “Canadians should learn more about many inspirational stories of heroism and service, including that of the largely black Number Two Construction Battalion, which proudly served our country during the First World War.

    “Another great story is that of William Hall, the first black recipient of the Victoria Cross. He was also the first Canadian sailor and the first Nova Scotian to receive this honour.

    “This year, Canada Post’s 2014 Black History Month stamps will honour two historical communities that were located on opposite sides of our country: Africville in Halifax, and Hogan’s Alley in Vancouver.

    “Both of these communities played significant roles in black Canadian history, and their stories are well worth learning during Black History Month.

    “Canadians can explore these and many other stories on the Government of Canada’s Black History Month website, which hosts the Black History Virtual Museum. It can be found at this address: www.cic.gc.ca/blackhistorymonth.

    “As Minister for Multiculturalism, I also encourage Canadians to participate in the many celebrations that will take place across the country throughout February in honour of Black History Month.”

For further information (media only), please contact:

Alexandra Fortier
Minister’s Office
819-994-2482

Media Relations
Communications Branch
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
613-952-1650
CIC-Media-Relations@cic.gc.c

 
When you finally get the call to visit the prisoner, you must pas through the sort of metal detector you’d go through at an airport. You must leave everything — overcoats, wallets, papers, pens, coins in a locker. Only you light clothing and your locker key are allowed. Why can’t one bring paper and pen? Until about a year ago, these were permitted. Remember, visitors are separated from the prisoner by thick plexi glass. You can’t stab the prisoner or pass her a note. The restrictions, however, interfere with effective notetaking. When I ask, why, I am told: “Security concerns.” Aw, that catch-all excuse for restrictions and repression!
 
However, as the bored visitor awaits the call to enter and pass security, his eye lights on a statement on the waiting room wall. It is from Donna M. Keating, the institution’s superintendent. She proclaims: “I lead with the courage to stand against racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia and all forms of bigotry.” Well, bully for her! That takes “courage”? Come on, it’s the standard ideology of the politically correct. It takes about as much “courage” as for a Christian minister to proclaim he believes Jesus in Lord.
 
The proclamation goes on: “I support an environment that appreciates the diverse cultures of our society.” Again, bully for her!
 
So, with all this talk about “diversity” and “anti-bigotry” how does the institution stand on diverse political points of view?
 
This brings us to the case of Michelle Erstikaitis. Michelle’s legal problems are not entirely about her rightwing politics. So, we don’t classify her as a political prisoner. However, her self identification as a White Nationalist has not endeared her to the legal establishment. Recently, her mail has been interfered with on a number of occasions. I send her photocopies of political stories — she is very interested in Mayor Rob Ford whom she has supported — and copies of some of my commentaries. Recently, she was told that an envelope containing  some news stories and my snarky commentary on Jason Kenney’s gushing support for Black History Month was being held back from her. Apparently, I had used the word “Negro”. That was deemed “racist” and a guard loudly told the whole range she could not receive “racist” literature. She, then, had to  be moved into protective custody as the many Negro inmates were giving her nasty looks.
 
So, what about tolerance, which is the opposite of the “all forms of bigotry” courageously opposed by the superintendent’s “leadership”? Also, as of yesterday, she had not received the February mailing of the Canadian Immigration Hotline or the March issue of the Free Speech Monitor, mailed, February 11 from Toronto.
 
She has had a clear admission that her mail is being held and that not all of it is being passed on to her. She has received virtually no mail — personal or political — from another political contact for whom she has written some articles on prison life.
 
Censorship of Her Majesty’s Mail is dead wrong. It is even more appalling that mere guards would presume to determine which political views — left, right or centre — an inmate should be allowed to receive.
 
Several complaints have been filed with the Halton Regional Police in this matter.
 
Here are the relevant sections of the Criminal Code of Canada:
 
Sec. 345 STOPPING MAIL WITH INTENT “Every one who stops a mail conveyance with intent to rob it or search it is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for life.”
Sec. 356 (1). THEFT FROM MAIL ” Every one who
(a) steals
(I) any thing sent by post after it is deposited at a post office and before it is delivered … is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.”
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
p.s. Lest anyone thinks the commentary on Black History Month was anything other than legitimate political commentary, I append it to this message. This is what Miss Erstikaitis was not allowed by the political censors to read.

Hey, Jason, Will You Be Issuing a Formal Recognition of White History & Achievements?

Dear Jason:

 
I received your perky little announcement about Black History Month and all the contributions of Negroes to Canada. I have no problem with recognizing people’s achievements, but all this minority-sucky celebration ignores or diminishes the overwhelming contribution of the European founder/settler people to this land.
Canada was settled and built by Europeans — Basque, French, English, Irish, Scottish, German, Italian, Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Icelandic and many others. Our official languages are European (English and French); our legal and political system is British and the religion of the overwhelming majority of Canadians is Christianity, despite the vicious Christian-hating rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada (See the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Bill Whatcott and Malcolm Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15decisions, among other cases), many of whose members YOUR government appointed.
 
 Lester Pearson changed our flag before he initiated the 1965 changes to our immigration law which turned Canada’s back on the founding/settler people and began a programme of population replacement that is ongoing and continues sadly even under your government. The Red Ensign, the flag he replaced celebrated the European and Christian nature of Canada. Photo: Hey, Jason, Will You Be Issuing a Formal Recognition of White History & Achievements?

Dear Jason:

I received your perky little announcement about Black History Month and all the contributions of Negroes to Canada. I have no problem with recognizing people's achievements, but all this minority-sucky celebration ignores or diminishes the overwhelming contribution of the European founder/settler people to this land. 

Canada was settled and built by Europeans -- Basque, French, English, Irish, Scottish, German, Italian, Ukrainian, Russian, Polish, Icelandic and many others. Our official languages are European (English and French); our legal and political system is British and the religion of the overwhelming majority of Canadians is Christianity, despite the vicious Christian-hating rulings of the Supreme Court of Canada (See the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission v. Bill Whatcott and Malcolm Ross v. New Brunswick School District No. 15 decisions, among other cases), many of whose members YOUR government appointed.

 Lester Pearson changed our flag before he initiated the 1965 changes to our immigration law which turned Canada's back on the founding/settler people and began a programme of population replacement that is ongoing and continues sadly even under your government. The Red Ensign, the flag he replaced celebrated the European and Christian nature of Canada. 

So, Jason, let me ask you, now that you've lauded Black History Month in the interests of "inclusiveness" , will you be issuing a formal recognition of white or European history & achievements?

Paul Fromm

Director

Canada First Immigration Reform Committee

Statement — Minister Kenney issues statement celebrating Black History Month

Ottawa, February 6, 2014 — The Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister for Multiculturalism, issued the following statement after the official launch event for Black History Month at the Canadian War Museum:

“Every February, Canadians mark Black History Month, an important annual celebration of the accomplishments of Canadians who trace their family heritage to Africa and the Caribbean.

“The proud legacy of black Canadians goes back to the early beginnings of Canadian history. The great sacrifices and tremendous contributions of their community have helped to create the Canada of today. 

“This year, as we mark the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the First World War and the 75th anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War, Black History Month provides an opportunity to recognize the efforts of black Canadian soldiers during these wars, and in other military campaigns.

“Canadians  should learn more about many inspirational stories of heroism and service, including that of the largely black Number Two Construction Battalion, which proudly served our country during the First World War.

“Another great story is that of William Hall, the first black recipient of the Victoria Cross. He was also the first Canadian sailor and the first Nova Scotian to receive this honour.

“This year, Canada Post’s 2014 Black History Month stamps will honour two historical communities that were located on opposite sides of our country: Africville in Halifax, and Hogan’s Alley in Vancouver.

“Both of these communities played significant roles in black Canadian history, and their stories are well worth learning during Black History Month.

“Canadians can explore these and many other stories on the Government of Canada’s Black  History Month website, which hosts the Black History Virtual Museum. It can be found at this address: www.cic.gc.ca/blackhistorymonth.

“As Minister for Multiculturalism, I also encourage Canadians to participate in the many celebrations that will take place across the country throughout February in honour of Black History Month.”

For further information (media only), please contact:

Alexandra Fortier
 Minister’s Office 
 819-994-2482

Media Relations 
 Communications Branch
 Citizenship and Immigration Canada
 613-952-1650
CIC-Media-Relations@cic.gc.c
 
So, Jason, let me ask you, now that you’ve lauded Black History Month in the interests of “inclusiveness” , will you be issuing a formal recognition of white or European history & achievements?
 
Paul Fromm
Director
Canada First Immigration Reform Committee

Statement — Minister Kenney issues statement celebrating Black History Month

Ottawa, February 6, 2014 — The Honourable Jason Kenney, Minister for Multiculturalism, issued the following statement after the official launch event for Black History Month at the Canadian War Museum:

“Every February, Canadians mark Black History Month, an important annual celebration of the accomplishments of Canadians who trace their family heritage to Africa and the Caribbean.

“The proud legacy of black Canadians goes back to the early beginnings of Canadian history. The great sacrifices and tremendous contributions of their community have helped to create the Canada of today.

“This year, as we mark the 100th anniversary of the beginning of the First World War and the 75th anniversary of the beginning of the Second World War, Black History Month provides an opportunity to recognize the efforts of black Canadian soldiers during these wars, and in other military campaigns.

“Canadians should learn more about many inspirational stories of heroism and service, including that of the largely black Number Two Construction Battalion, which proudly served our country during the First World War.

“Another great story is that of William Hall, the first black recipient of the Victoria Cross. He was also the first Canadian sailor and the first Nova Scotian to receive this honour.

“This year, Canada Post’s 2014 Black History Month stamps will honour two historical communities that were located on opposite sides of our country: Africville in Halifax, and Hogan’s Alley in Vancouver.

“Both of these communities played significant roles in black Canadian history, and their stories are well worth learning during Black History Month.

“Canadians can explore these and many other stories on the Government of Canada’s Black History Month website, which hosts the Black History Virtual Museum. It can be found at this address: www.cic.gc.ca/blackhistorymonth.

“As Minister for Multiculturalism, I also encourage Canadians to participate in the many celebrations that will take place across the country throughout February in honour of Black History Month.”

For further information (media only), please contact:

Alexandra Fortier
Minister’s Office
819-994-2482

Media Relations
Communications Branch
Citizenship and Immigration Canada
613-952-1650
CIC-Media-Relations@cic.gc.c

Political Prisoner Brad Love Turned Down For Parole & All Outgoing Mail is Stopped

Political Prisoner Brad Love Turned Down For Parole & All Outgoing Mail is Stopped
 
LINDSAY, March 5, 2014 “I have urged political prisoner Brad Love to change his name to WeiGuang Love, profess a fascination for carving off people’s heads and eating their flesh and then plead that his bizarre behaviour is caused by voices speaking to him,” says Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression which has advocated for Mr. Love for over a decade. ” In that case, Canada’s nutty ‘justice’ system wouldn’t be able to get rid of him fast enough or, as they put it, ‘re-integrate him into society.'”
 
 
Photo: Political Prisoner Brad Love Turned Down For Parole & All Outgoing Mail is Stopped

LINDSAY, March 5, 2014 "I have urged political prisoner Brad Love to change his name to WeiGuang Love, profess a fascination for carving off people's heads and eating their flesh and then plead that his bizarre behaviour is caused by voices speaking to him," says Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression which has advocated for Mr. Love for over a decade. " In that case, Canada's nutty 'justice' system wouldn't be able to get rid of him fast enough or, as they put it, 're-integrate him into society.'"

However, Brad isn't the Chinese cannibal and the voices he hears are not from some whacked out deity mumbling to him but his own conscience and passionate concern for the land where he was born.

"I hadn't heard from Mr. Love for over a month," Mr. Fromm reports. "This is unusual as he sends frequent letters. About a week ago,  I called his brother and determined that Brad was well and still looking forward to a date being set for his appeal against a draconian 18-month sentence for 'breach of probation' (sending information to several Toronto Jewish groups), where the usual punishment for such a minor infraction is 30 days."

On March 4, Brad Love called CAFE with double disappointing news. For the past month all -- well one or two letters did sneak through -- his outgoing mail to friends and supporters across Canada has been held by the prison authorities. Despite the fact that Peter Lindsay, Mr. Love's lawyer, has provided transcripts and documentation that a North Korean-style bail condition  imposed in another matter last May in Alberta, that he not "communicate by post, e-mail or text" to any person, had been modified and no longer applies, and despite the fact that, on February 4 the Crown withdrew a charge of "breach of undertaking" (bail conditions) in this matter, referring to a letter Mr. Love had sent to his own lawyer, the message hasn't apparently reached other wings of the "justice" system. The system reminds one of the legendary dinosaur with a brain in his tail and that it took many minutes for an impulse, say something seen, to travel to the beast's far off brain.

On February 3, the Crown, now presented with the documentation which confirmed what Mr. Love had asserted all along, withdrew the charges. However, the message still hasn't reached the beast's tail-bound brain.

On March 4, Mr. Love was turned down for parole. He was actually due for parole in December -- after serving one third of his sentence. However, because he has the bogus "breach" charge hanging over him, he could not apply. His hearing was March 4. The parole board panel scolded him: "Mr. Love, when did you intend to stop writing letters?" BUT, one almost wants to scream at the slow witted beast, "HE IS NOT FORBIDDEN TO WRITE LETTERS."

As in the old Soviet Union, the "politicos" are always treated the most harshly. If he were Vincent WeiGuang Li, the system wouldn't be able to release Brad fast enough. (The human cannibal was recently granted unescorted day passes and will no longer have to stay in a secure ward -- all this just six years after he beheaded and partially ate Tim McLean, a fellow bus passenger he had never met. Those pesky voices, you know, told him to do so.

On March 4, Peter Lindsay filed for a date for the appeal against Mr. Love's sentence, which is nearly half served.

Much evil is done in the name of "security". We can't send political prisoner Brad Love books -- he's a voracious reader. So, CAFE is sending him Pat Buchanan's book Suicide of a Superpower, chapter by chapter, one a week. The pages are reduced, four to one side of a letter-size piece of paper and printed on both sides of the paper.

On March 5, we received a form from the prison. We won't deign to call this unsigned fill-in the blanks piece of paper a letter. Dated, February 27, it advised that "per the Ministry of Correctional Services Act (R.R.R.O, 1991, Reg. 778,s. 17(1), letters with stickers, significant amount of correction fluid, or attachment(s) adhered with glue ... are not accepted." The original printed was smudged in several places. So, several thin strips of paper with a more legible copy of the smudged line of print had been lightly glued over the original. Apparently, not acceptable.

Are you feeling any safer yet?

A newsy personal letter had accompanied the chapter reprint. It too was returned. The CEEC form  further stated: "The CEEC [Central East Correctional Centre] will not separate the contents of any envelope. It is your responsibility to make efforts to prevent this type of unacceptable material to be transmitted through correspondence at CEEC." In other words, the well paid "security department" and snoops are just too damned lazy to hand the unobjectionable letter on to the prisoner.

No we don't expect prisons to be a vacation. Yes, many of the liberties of the inmates are curtailed, but the receipt of mail is not just a human right but it is also important for prisoner morale and, very likely, for reducing frustration and tension in the institution.

However, Brad isn’t the Chinese cannibal and the voices he hears are not from some whacked out deity mumbling to him but his own conscience and passionate concern for the land where he was born.
 
“I hadn’t heard from Mr. Love for over a month,” Mr. Fromm reports. “This is unusual as he sends frequent letters. About a week ago,  I called his brother and determined that Brad was well and still looking forward to a date being set for his appeal against a draconian 18-month sentence for ‘breach of probation’ (sending information to several Toronto Jewish groups), where the usual punishment for such a minor infraction is 30 days.”
 
On March 4, Brad Love called CAFE with double disappointing news. For the past month all — well one or two letters did sneak through — his outgoing mail to friends and supporters across Canada has been held by the prison authorities. Despite the fact that Peter Lindsay, Mr. Love’s lawyer, has provided transcripts and documentation that a North Korean-style bail condition  imposed in another matter last May in Alberta, that he not “communicate by post, e-mail or text” to any person, had been modified and no longer applies, and despite the fact that, on February 4 the Crown withdrew a charge of “breach of undertaking” (bail conditions) in this matter, referring to a letter Mr. Love had sent to his own lawyer, the message hasn’t apparently reached other wings of the “justice” system. The system reminds one of the legendary dinosaur with a brain in his tail and that it took many minutes for an impulse, say something seen, to travel to the beast’s far off brain.
 
On February 3, the Crown, now presented with the documentation which confirmed what Mr. Love had asserted all along, withdrew the charges. However, the message still hasn’t reached the beast’s tail-bound brain.
 
On March 4, Mr. Love was turned down for parole. He was actually due for parole in December — after serving one third of his sentence. However, because he has the bogus “breach” charge hanging over him, he could not apply. His hearing was March 4. The parole board panel scolded him: “Mr. Love, when did you intend to stop writing letters?” BUT, one almost wants to scream at the slow witted beast, “HE IS NOT FORBIDDEN TO WRITE LETTERS.”
 
As in the old Soviet Union, the “politicos” are always treated the most harshly. If he were Vincent WeiGuang Li, the system wouldn’t be able to release Brad fast enough. (The human cannibal was recently granted unescorted day passes and will no longer have to stay in a secure ward — all this just six years after he beheaded and partially ate Tim McLean, a fellow bus passenger he had never met. Those pesky voices, you know, told him to do so.
 
On March 4, Peter Lindsay filed for a date for the appeal against Mr. Love’s sentence, which is nearly half served.
 
Much evil is done in the name of “security”. We can’t send political prisoner Brad Love books — he’s a voracious reader. So, CAFE is sending him Pat Buchanan’s book Suicide of a Superpower, chapter by chapter, one a week. The pages are reduced, four to one side of a letter-size piece of paper and printed on both sides of the paper.
 
On March 5, we received a form from the prison. We won’t deign to call this unsigned fill-in the blanks piece of paper a letter. Dated, February 27, it advised that “per the Ministry of Correctional Services Act (R.R.R.O, 1991, Reg. 778,s. 17(1), letters with stickers, significant amount of correction fluid, or attachment(s) adhered with glue … are not accepted.” The original printed was smudged in several places. So, several thin strips of paper with a more legible copy of the smudged line of print had been lightly glued over the original. Apparently, not acceptable.
 
Are you feeling any safer yet?
 
A newsy personal letter had accompanied the chapter reprint. It too was returned. The CEEC form  further stated: “The CEEC [Central East Correctional Centre] will not separate the contents of any envelope. It is your responsibility to make efforts to prevent this type of unacceptable material to be transmitted through correspondence at CEEC.” In other words, the well paid “security department” and snoops are just too damned lazy to hand the unobjectionable letter on to the prisoner.
 
No we don’t expect prisons to be a vacation. Yes, many of the liberties of the inmates are curtailed, but the receipt of mail is not just a human right but it is also important for prisoner morale and, very likely, for reducing frustration and tension in the institution.

The Fourniers & Free Dominion Appeal Life Sentence and Gag Order

The Fourniers & Free Dominion Appeal Life Sentence and Gag Order

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tkCYUMhzNRo&feature=player_embedded

Defamation Law is strangling the Internet
As long time bloggers and forum hosts (13 years so far), we recently finished a long battle against Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (CHRA) that resulted in the Canadian Parliament repealing the section.
During that time we have also been fighting several defamation and copyright lawsuits that were launched against us by supporters of Section 13. (see Footnote)
[i]
Yesterday we received news that is devastating, not only to us, but to anyone who loves freedom of speech on the internet and that includes forum hosts, bloggers and media outlets that allow listeners, readers or viewers to make uncensored comments on their web site.
The two of us and two Free Dominion posters, Peter O’Donnell and Faramir, have been ordered to pay $127,000 to litigant Richard Warman. This is bad enough, but the judge also gave Warman an injunction that states that we are prohibited from publishing anything about the plaintiff that has been found to be defamatory. (In this context, “publishing” includes anything posted on the Free Dominion web site, with or without our knowledge or consent.)
This injunction lasts for life, and can result in prison time for contempt of court if the terms are violated!
We had no choice but to close the forum!
Given the propensity of our political opponents to use agent provocateurs to post inflammatory material on the internet, including on our web site, we knew that given enough time, an anonymous agent would post material on our site that would violate the injunction, so we had to close the forum to protect ourselves.


Paul Fromm, Witness for the Fourniers (right), Ottawa, September, 2013

The Impact
Defamation law is becoming every bit as dangerous for Canadian internet users as Section 13 was!

Defamation law says that a statement is defamatory if it “tends to lower the esteem of the subject in the minds of the ordinary members of the public“.
As you can see, that could apply to any remark viewed by the subject as negative.

Once an action is filed, you have to incur the legal costs of making a defence or accept whatever verdict and penalty the court may decide to impose.

If you are a forum or blog owner and the comment was made by an anonymous poster, you have no defence of “fair comment” because you are not allowed to give “opinion” evidence of the state of mind of the poster or to state what facts the poster relied on. You are effectively taken to task for not censoring the commentary of a third person and not allowed to defend yourself.
You are 100% responsible.

If an anonymous poster makes comment on your blog and someone sues you for it, you can lose everything you have…even if you remove the allegedly offending words or post from your site.
What can we do?
We must appeal this decision because an injunction that could impose jail time for the actions of someone else is grossly unfair and, undoubtedly unconstitutional. We cannot let this precedent stand.
Operating a blog or forum and allowing readers to post their opinions should not lead to financial ruin or put a person’s entire future at risk. As the
Ontario Civil Liberties Association recently stated, the Tort of Defamation needs to be abolished. We will fight on both of these fronts.
We must appeal this decision, and we have two other hearings coming up before the end of March. We desperately need help with our legal expenses so we can keep up our fight for freedom of speech on the internet!
Any contribution would be greatly appreciated and we promise to put it to good use!

If you prefer to donate by mail, please send your cheque here:

Connie Fournier
2000 Unity Rd.,
Elginburg, ON K0H 1M0

Thank you!
Connie and Mark Fournier