Free Dominion faces possible Human Rights attack

Somewhat related:

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=84752&start=90

http://www.chp.ca/arc-CHP-Communique/communique_9_35.htm

September 23, 2002 - Vol 9 No 35

Speak Up Now, or Wear Your Chains in Silence

In British Columbia - where the Provincial Government has wisely canned the Human Rights Commission's chair (who had a discernable pro-gay bias) and is dismantling the Commission itself - the militant gay lobby is now turning to the Federal HRC for help to force its agenda on a sleeping public.

Its current target is a website with which the principal gay spokespersons disagree - and that's a very dangerous posture, in Canada today. A complaint about the website has been lodged before the Federal Human Rights Commission, which has obediently ordered the website shut down, and its owners fined $20,000. And when the website reported the name of its accuser, the HRC amended the complaint to add an accusation of "retaliation", and raised the fine to $40,000!

Say, who's doing the really heavy "retaliation" here? Complain about the HRC, and get a heavier fine; complain again, and we'll fine you more until you shut up.

Can you spell I-N-T-I-M-I-D-A-T-I-O-N?

While the website may not be aesthetically appealing to some tastes, and while some of its postings could be considered 'rants', two points must be made:

1 - In my scan of the site, I found nothing that qualified as 'hate'. Disagreement, yes; dislike, yes; antipathy, yes; arguments, certainly; even accusations... but nothing I would call 'hate'.

2 - The issue here is much, much larger than the quality of the statements on any specific website. The issue is whether there can be a public discussion of the issue at all.

The issue is free speech. Period.

There's intense pressure in Canada today to silence all critics of the gay agenda; the gay lobby is pushing its propaganda in many arenas simultaneously:

• Their most effective victories have been in those kangaroo courts wrongly called 'human rights tribunals', all of which ought to be shut down. They operate with quasi-judicial power in areas that relate to constitutional rights, and yet they do not follow normal rules of evidence, nor the presumption of innocence that is fundamental to our system of justice.

A judgment by Madam Justice Tremblay-Lamer in the Federal Court of Canada [in the Canadian Telephone Employees Association v. Bell Canada (2000), 194 D.L.R.(4th) 499, decision rendered last November] stated that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal "is not an institutionally independent and impartial body." Because this Tribunal deals with quasi-constitutional rights and freedoms and is purely adjudicative in nature, she said, it must perform at the high end of the spectrum in impartiality. The Federal Court says it fails to do so. An article in the Globe and Mail by one of the HRC's staff lawyers (you can read it at the disputed website, http://www.citizensresearchinst.com) and another article (from Canadian Lawyer magazine) about how the HRC took revenge on that lawyer for speaking to the media (also on the website) shows just how corrupt the 'human rights' industry has become - and why it ought to be dismantled.

• The public schools have been co-opted by militant gays, working through the teachers' unions and other 'professional' groups as well as organizing recruitment venues called 'Gay-Straight Alliance' clubs.

An example is the case of Chris Kempling in Quesnel, BC - a teacher and counsellor with many commendations on his record, he was threatened by the BC College of Teachers with loss of employment. Why? Because he wrote a letter to the editor of his local newspaper, expressing (in very moderate terms) his disagreement with the gay agenda. Bye-bye, freedom of speech!

• The courts have been used by the gay lobby to get the changes to laws that it cannot win by democratic means. It was also the BCCT that tried to block Trinity Western University from certifying its graduates to teach; they lost that bid in the courts, but the Supreme Court of Canada tacked an egregious rider onto the decision, in effect saying that Christians should keep their faith to themselves. Later, the minority opinion in that case was used by the BCCT in its persecution of Kempling.

A court upheld a human rights tribunal's fine of Christian printer Scott Brockie, and put severe limits on his freedom of conscience. An Ontario court went so far as to (a) ignore a previous BC Court ruling,

and (b) overrule the decision of the Federal Parliament (which has sole constitutional jurisdiction), and ORDER Parliament to legalize same-sex 'marriage'!

The courts, in fact, are trampling the Constitution - in the name of the Constitution!

• The media, as Boston Herald columnist Michael Medved pointed out in a brilliant speech before the National Press Club in Washington DC last June, has decided there is no controversy: the 'gay rights' movement is right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong - period. No discussion.

Yet millions of people in Canada - probably a majority - believe the homosexual lifestyle is immoral, unnatural and unhealthy. And they're right. The crucial point at issue is whether anyone will be able to say so in public.

• In the legislatures, where formerly pro-gay propaganda used to meet resistance from the elected representatives of the people, the persistent pressure of the gay lobby - coupled with many politicians' abject fear of the pro-gay media - is now beginning to pay off: Svend Robinson's Private Member's Bill C-415, which would make public criticism of homosexual behaviour a crime.

Less than one percent of Private Members' bills get passed into law. So why did C-415 float through second reading without dissent? One reason: the Liberals were happy to have the NDP carry the ball for them; the Federal Cabinet favours the bill, but fears public reaction. This way, they get the gratitude of their gay supporters, but any negative fallout will be dumped on the NDP. The Tories and BQ are also pro-gay but timid, so they simply stayed away and let it happen. And the Alliance leadership seems to be terrified of awakening all the media dogs that are just waiting to bark, "Homophobia!" at them.

In the midst of all this, the Internet remains an uncensored arena where opposing voices in this otherwise one-sided debate are possible. So, of course, the gay lobby must move to shut down any renegade website. Watch for the CRTC to weigh in on this... and the useless Canadian Broadcast Standards Council - look at contemporary programming and advertising: do you think Canadian broadcasting has any standards any longer? - CBSC has already exposed its pro-gay, libertine bias.

Free speech is at risk in Canada right now. That was why I signed the 'new Magna Carta for Canada' after it was created by the Wilderness Committee at Tumbler Ridge: it is, indeed, "a voice crying in the wilderness." We will either defend free speech now, or we will lose it. Canada has already become a de facto judicial oligarchy... and all the major power vectors have been captured by the anti-intellectual pro-abortion, pro-gay forces that are working to destroy Western Civilization.

Canadians must speak up now, or wear their chains in silence.

I am still investigating the ability to record these interviews off the air (or live on line) without having to pay for them or download in a proprietary format like iPod.

I hope Freepers are able to post links somewhere to enable all of us to have free copies of these radio and TV interviews.

Text of the CHRC instructions to Free Dominion

bump

Thanks for the bump- I’ll have a little more, later.

For your consideration, in light of Free Dominion's plight:

Thought Police English Style

Charter flawed

Related to "UnFree Dominion's" problems:

About this “hate site”

July 26, 2007 08:35 PM by Michelle Malkin

50 Comments | 2 Trackbacks "Glad to see you calling out the nutroots and liberals, Michelle. We all know the definition of “hate speech” is:

1) Anything said by a conservative. No matter how well-researched, reasoned, or correct. This is double if that conservative happens to be a woman, or African-American, Asian, etc.

2) Anything liberals disagree with.

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=84864&start=60

backhoe wrote:

LAR wrote:

What really bugs me is that my government thinks I'm too stupid to read something and form an intelligent opinion.
Someone posts that Martians are imbedding microchips in our children and I need to be protected from thinking "Oh my! I hate Martians. All Martians should be shot."
Give people some credit for being able to sort through the information in the world.
If what the complainant read makes people hate a group then I guess she now hates that group too.

Exactly.

Since I'm American, I can't presume to speak for you folks Up Nawth- but I'll tell you this:

Like anyone whose legal system is based at its heart on English law, this whole affair appalls me-- I thought the "free, and self-governing citizens of a democratic nation" had certain inalienable rights:

1)- the right to speak freely, without fear, or favor.

2)- the right to assemble- joining those you like, and avoiding those you dislike.

3)- the right to confront your accusers- no Star Chambers, no secret witnesses-- everything above board and transparent.

4)- all people have equal standing before the Law. No person, or favored group, is better than another, or worse.

5)- the truth is an absolute defense- if "the truth" doesn't matter, then neither does "the law"-- this is an open invitation to mob rule and anarchy.

This whole thing reminds me of dictatorships, where the man at the top decides from one day to the next, what "the law" will be- based on a whim.

It is offensive, ghastly, and gruesome to see it played out with people you know- somewhat like witnessing a lynching, and being unable to do anything about it.

backhoe, that's the best response to the CHRC's questions that I have read here. It's the best description of a free society I have seen in a while. ( leewgrant )

FD vs. CHRC Strategy Moving Forward - Please read [ 1, 2 ]

FD CHRC complaint on Coren

Rally for FD, Connie, Mark, and Bill [ 1 ... 12, 13, 14 ]

Evidence Collecting in Support of FD's Defence [ 1 ... 6, 7, 8 ]

Text of the CHRC instructions to Free Dominion [ 1 ... 3, 4, 5 ]

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=84864&start=60

Posted: 27 Jul 2007 16:08 Post subject:

A few comments from someone who has spent his whole working life dealing with government agencies in one capacity or another. I still deal with the CHRC on general public policy issues (eg, drug and alcohol testing, employment equity) but have not handled an HR complaint in a decade. Over that time there have been substantial changes to their procedures.

First of all this is the big leagues. It's not some fun debate over transubstantiation in the Religion Forum. The Commission will be hoping for cooperation from the respondent but will expect intransigence. If there is a complete lack of cooperation the investigation will still continue based on the posts identified in the complaint and the case will almost certainly go to a tribunal.

I have found that if you approach the invesigators in a business like way they generally respond the same way. If you try to dick them around, they push back and you get a confrontation.

In spite of all the talk about mediation and ADR it's still an adversarial process and give them the minimum you can get away with and tell them only that which they are entitled to know.

Give them what they are legally entitled to get. They will get it anyway. Through subpoena. I know instances of the RCMP showing up in offices and carting filing cabinets away. (Note to Connie and Mark: if there anything you don't want them to see, store it south of the St Lawrence. Now)

In the very, very, few instances I was in the wrong I fessed up and settled. Smile

I would answer their questions. But only with advice of counsel. The first three questions are tricky.

When you have been in as many government investigations as I have you get an early sense of what's a winner and what's a stinker. This is a winner. First of all, I don't see a violation of the CHRA because I can't see any "hate messages" within the intent of the Act. Secondly, the nature of the website needs some flexibility in permitting posting or its ability to be a free exchange ideas breaks down. Often a dubious website is linked, not to demonstrate "hatred and contempt" but to illustrate a legitimate point the poster was making. Often Bill does this, as do others.

Final note: I know that I have been critical on occasion of the way the site has been run but not, I hope, to the point of obnoxiousness. I've tried to restrain myself since it's not my site, not my ass on the line when things go wrong. The owner of the site has to have the final say in running it.

Now we have a problem. The site is run well, all legitimate opinions are allowed even those contrary to the principles on which the site was founded - something that definitely can't said about all discussion sites. There is no charge to be a member - and all contributions are voluntary.

I would like to add my voice to the many others to point out that Mark and Connie need our help. And let's give them our help any way we can - and give hell to the bastards that are trying to ruin this website that we all enjoy so much. ( leewgrant )

Michael Coren TV show discussed the Human Rights Commission's investigation of FD. http://media.putfile.com/Freedominion

The panelists included 2 lefties against Menzies and Coren. A heated exchange, but very good. Both lefties were all for the investigation, Menzies and Coren defended their case very well. Coren distanced himself from Whatcott though.

Those two lefty commissars are awful shrews.

They sure shut their yaps pretty quick when Menzies brought up some anti-Jew conference that the female "activist" had attended.

Ok for them to speak their minds, not for others though.

Here it is: http://media.putfile.com/Freedominion

Those two lefty commissars are awful shrews. They sure shut their yaps pretty quick when Menzies brought up some anti-Jew conference that the female "activist" had attended.

I've long noted.

"Scratch a Leftist, and you will find a fascist inside..."

( Good Gawd! I have the video running in the background- those voices! My ears! Aeehh! )

--more-

From North America's most popular Catholic website:
http://www.catholicexchange.com/node/64145

"A Free Dominion" Declaration

A Free Dominion

July 18, 2007

We, the undersigned Canadians, declare our firm and unequivocal support for free speech.

We categorically reject any effort on the part of the government or any of its organs to limit free expression of opinion on any issue, except in the case where there is a clear communication to do physical harm to another person or group of persons.

We affirm that controversial opinions are a constituent part of a healthy and vibrant democracy, and that to silence any opinion, however seemingly offensive to any member of the public, is harmful to a free and open society.

We believe that Canadians themselves, and not unelected quasi-judicial bodies, will decide which ideas are advanced and which ideas are rejected in forming the values and laws of our country. We believe that government should not intrude in this dialogue between Canadians and among Canadians.

We believe that free speech should not be fined or taxed because it does not meet the requirements of government bureaucracies. We believe that Canadians should not live under the yoke of intimidation and threats when they seek to speak their minds on the issues of vital importance to the future and security of our nation.

We believe that every Canadian is entitled to due process under the law if a complaint is lodged against him or her. We believe that truth is a defense against any and all allegations. We believe that without the acknowledgement of the truth, there can be no justice or peace in Canada.

In the matter of the complaint registered against Ms. Connie Wilkins and FreeDominion.ca regarding so-called “hate” speech:

- We categorically and completely reject that the cited material in question is in any way “hateful”. Many of us who own websites have posted the material (in whole or in part) on our own websites.

- We consider the complaint a frivolous and political tool of a bankrupt ideology which, if accepted, will have far reaching and destructive consequences for freedom of speech for all Canadians, irrespective of their political views.

- We consider any fine or sanction whatsoever against Ms. Wilkins or any other relevant party in this complaint to be a defeat for Canadian civil liberties.

- We respectfully request an immediate dismissal of this frivolous complaint and we ask that the complainant apologize to Ms. Wilkins and her family for the unnecessary pain and suffering which this ordeal has caused them.

Signatories:

_____________________

Comments and suggestions please.

We can have 4 sets of signatures to this petition:

Canadian:
1) Conservatives
2) Liberals
3) "Other"

4) International

When did opinions get outlawed? ***

Internet censorship spreading: OSCE study

FREE DOMINION'S OWNERS TIE THE KNOT! PICS

FREE DOMINION'S OWNERS TIE THE KNOT! PICS [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

July 28, 2007 - Connie and ESquared tie the knot! [ 1 ... 12, 13, 14 ]

TODAY IS THE BIG DAY [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

BTW, some of the best writing about the attack on Free Dominion has come from member Theresa:

Not in order:

I find this to be so appalling that I am at a loss for words. Our tax dollars pay the salaries of these people and this system. This is inhumane to do this to someone, policy and procedure, cover my butt, before treating my fellow human being like a person. Meanwhile you have to wait and worry plus look after your children your home and the rest.

Canada what have we done to ourselves?

Did a better democracy exist then this great country before this nonsense took hold of our country?

Was my grandfather buried alive at Vimy Ridge for this Canada?

Did my husband lose a part of his father, because he fought in Europe for four years defeating Nazis, for this Canada?

Do you people on the left appreciate the sacrifices that have been made for you, by those who fought and by those who loved the ones who fought, to live in freedom you have enjoyed. Now you live in prosperity and you want to take those same freedoms from others?

I truly feel like walking away from the whole mess of the world and living my life quietly and as best that I can. If this country wants to be so stupid and whiny then let the chips fall where they may. It will not be pretty when those chips fall. I guarantee you that the people of today who cannot handle offensive speech, will not be able to handle a real fight to protect their country when anarchy breaks loose.

So many of my hopes were put on Harper to change some if this nonsense and he does not seem too concerned about principled conservatives, a little lip service here and there. Where can a person turn? I have been worried about this charge since it broke. Worried for you personally Connie and Mark, selfishly worried for myself, and worried for our country and our freedom of expression.

As paycheck stated, everyone will be a little more careful because somebody is watching and listening ready to silence their opponents. Is this the country we want? To be treated as children. To whisper so nobody can hear what we really think? Do you lefties actually think that you can suppress thought after you have suppressed the speech you do not like?

RSF, I truly do not mean to pick on you, but you are a prime example of a leftie. A truly nice person, with a sense of humor and fun, but you do not seem to handle anyone saying anything that you construe as criticism or rude to your person. What kind of life is that? This is what happens when you live in an insulated world of phony politeness, and political correctness. You do not learn to defend yourself or to identify with anything substantive. Its like overprotecting a child when they are young and they do not build an immune system to fight off the serious attacks when they are older. I truly hope that you stick around and let the men and women here toughen you up, you will become a happier person I am sure.

This is actually scarier then I originally thought it would be. A person can put people through this mess both emotionally and financially, (you already need lawyers) because she feels discriminated against by a comment that has no association with her person in any way shape or form. Is this for real? Unbelievable. I am truly stunned.

How much money do we Canadians pay for the HRC?

... This is whole ordeal is nuts, this is further reason the CPC will not get a dime from me until they cleanup wasted spending like this.

I woke up this morning asking myself how dare this woman waste our money like this. She found Bill on a public forum she could have debated him fair and square, she has the educational credentials , surely she can engage in a debate. No she remains hidden and brings a case like this to the CHRC.

How dare the CHRC waste our money like this by proceeding with this frivolous case?

This is insanity. We have Canadian men dying in Afghanistan, fighting the extreme version of Islam, and people at home behaving like this Gentes, trying to suppress a fellow Canadians freedom to speak.

To have an effect, can everyone reading this send out the link to this blog or any blog that sums up this case to your personal email list, especially conservative members?

http://www.tiny.cc/Aq3KR

...This is actually scarier then I originally thought it would be. A person can put people through this mess both emotionally and financially, (you already need lawyers) because she feels discriminated against by a comment that has no association with her person in any way shape or form. Is this for real? Unbelievable. I am truly stunned.

How much money do we Canadians pay for the HRC?

http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1026212#1026212

Marc Lemire:

The Canadian Human Rights Commission is out of control. Plain and Simple.

I am a current victim of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, and have been under going a three year legal battle with them, due to a message board I had on my website (www.freedomsite.org) back in 2003. Not a single word I have written is at issue, but rather messages others posted (that I did not even know about) As part of my vigorous defence, I have challenged the Constitutionality of Section 13 (Internet gag law) and Section 54 (fines) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Here is a few statistics from my case that tells the whole story about the CHRC:

Active and Past cases: 43
Cases the tribunal ruled on: 29

• 0% of respondents have ever won a section 13 case before the tribunal.
• 100% of cases have Whites as respondents
• 98% of cases have poor or working class respondents
• 90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers
• So far, $80,500 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since May 9, 2003.
• 72.4% of complaints specifically identify "jews" as victims.
• 48.8% of all cases (Past and active) are by Richard Warman

So far the case against me has run for 25 hearing days, and Marc Lemire’s team has called 3 expert witnesses, 2 witnesses and subpoenaed 3 witnesses from the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Constitutional motion my lawyers have filed and my entire case have been posted on my website.

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal

Constitutional Motion:
http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/dec13-05_writeup-on-case.html

The misnamed Canadian “Human Rights” Commission is currently undertaking a ideologically-driven war against speech and political commentary on the Internet. They are self-righteous censors that care little about removing so-called “hate” from the Internet, but want to silence and harass political activists, who dare to question issues such as immigration, multiculturalism, and homosexuality.

Canadian Human Rights Commission abuses Section 37 of law

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/june11-07_chrc_abuses_section_37.html

It’s all out war in the Marc Lemire Internet case. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, like some mobster in a U.S. trial who keep invoking the Fifth Amendment, is trying to keep the veil of secrecy wrapped tight around its spying operations on Canadian Internet dissidents. It’s tool of choice is Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act.

Section 37 reads:

“A Minister of the Crown in right of Canada or other official may object to the disclosure of information before a court, person or body with jurisdiction to compel the production of information by certifying orally or in writing to the court, person or body that the information should not be disclosed on the grounds of a specified public interest. If an objection is made under subsection (1), the court, person or body shall ensure that the information is not disclosed other than in accordance with this Act.”

“Public interest” is a sweeping catch-all and can include the safety of any person. The mischievous effect of invoking these magic words – “Section 37” – is that the information cannot be revealed or the question even asked. The only route of appeal is to a Federal Court and that’s where the Marc Lemire Defence Team is now headed.

Cover-up? You bet!

We know, according to Richard Warman’s testimony in Warman v. Jessica Beaumont that a page was downloaded from Stormfront using the sign-in name ”Jadewarr.” Warman testified that he was not “Jadewarr” but that the document was downloaded in his presence by the Commission. When Marc Lemire’s attorney Barbara Kulaszka asked CHRC investigator Dean Steacy whether he knew who “Jadewarr” was, Commission lawyer Giacomo Vigna squelched as answer by invoking Sec. 37.

Similarly, when Miss Kulaszka asked Mr. Steacy whether he’d ever signed on to a political message board and made postings, Mr. Vigna used Sec. 37 to prevent an answer. We know that “Jadewarr” extensively discussed Sec. 13.1 complaints with people on Stormfront and has even tried to engage victim/Respondent Marc Lemire in conversations – perhaps to entrap him?

The Member (Judge) in this Tribunal lawyer Athanasios Hadjis of Montreal expressed serious reservations at Vigna’s wholesale use of Sec. 37 and all but invited the Defence to challenge Vigna in Federal Court: “Don't say it's privilege. It's not privilege, it's 37. It is a large tool that you have chosen to use, and I hope that one day the Federal Court has a chance to assess it.”

Quotes from Member (Judge) in the Marc Lemire case

Athanasios Hadjis

I am asking for some discretion to be utilized by the single party that has this tool in this room.

Transcripts, Page 4429

MR. VIGNA: Mr. Chair, I would raise an objection, again, in terms of the relevance, and also under section 37. This is an ongoing investigation, so section 37 would be --

…..

MS KULASZKA: I don't think that question in any way threatens the Commission.

THE CHAIRPERSON: No, it doesn't. I am going to allow that question. If there is a problem with that, ask somebody upstairs.
Transcripts, Page 4714

But I see your point, Ms Kulaszka. You want to know, if you resolve on 52, is 37 still -- is that sword of Damocles still hanging over your head.

Transcripts, Page: 4388

Amazingly, in the Warman v. Glenn Bahr and Western Canada for Us Tribunal, when Paul Fromm asked Sgt. Stephen Camp whether “Estate” was an Edmonton Police Officer, Sec. 37 was not invoked. Camp eventually admitted “Estate” who had posted inflammatory and racist comments on Stormfront was a police officer. [Subsequently, in Glenn Bahr’s preliminary hearing on Sec. 319 – “hate” – charges, Camp came clean and admitted he was “Estate”]

In the Bahr case, acting as his agent, I originally asked, about the identity of “Estate.” There was a bit of an argument. Camp refused to answer. Vigna them talked about "Section 38 of the Canada Evidence Act" but did not invoke it. More discussion ensued over whether the question was relevant. After it was ruled relevant by Tribunal Charperson Julie Lloyd, Camp returned to testify on the following Monday. During Constable Camps testimony, he revealed that “Estate” was an Edmonton police officer, but refused to identify which officer it was.

The only reference to Section 37 came from. RICHARD WARMAN who said this:

MR. WARMAN: -- the last point I would make is that Sergeant Camp over the break has had an opportunity to speak with his colleagues and superiors at the Edmonton Police Service as well as others -- I won't go into -- he has had a chance to confirm that there are no further ongoing issues in relation to -- we won't be continuing with the Section 37 Canada Evidence Act objection. ( Warman v. Bahr and Western Canada for Us transcript, page 683)

Interestingly, Warman doesn't continue the objection!!! Objections under Section 37 of the Canada Evidence Act can only be invoked and certified by “A Minister of the Crown in right of Canada or other official” Just what on earth is going on here? Does Richard Warman represent a Minister of the Crown or other official? If so why it this not revealed? During most of the testimony Richard Warman has done, he has testified he is doing this on his own initiative, and has no “special relationship” with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

We are battling a secrecy obsessed Canadian Human Rights Commission bent on throttling dissent on the Internet and equally determined to keep Canadians in the dark about their spy operations. They have all the money and resources. We need your help in this ongoing battle.

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal

Constitutional Motion:
http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/dec13-05_writeup-on-case.html

The misnamed Canadian “Human Rights” Commission is currently undertaking a ideologically-driven war against speech and political commentary on the Internet. They are self-righteous censors that care little about removing so-called “hate” from the Internet, but want to silence and harass political activists, who dare to question issues such as immigration, multiculturalism, and homosexuality.

Witchhunt on the Hill

Is there a moral equivalence between FD and Israr Ahmad?

Montreal Simon doesn't like FD [ 1, 2, 3 ]

This just in:

“Beware of this Marc Lemire Guy

He’s a Stormfront Poster, and some would call him a racialist and anti-semite.
Believe me, you don’t want to associate your name or FD’s with his.”

Backhoe notes:
Duly noted, and passed on for your consideration.

But also note well- censor one side and the others will follow— where do you draw the line?

Let everyone speak, and the average Joe and Jane can separate the Kooks & Moonbats from those who deserve consideration.

Let the government censor speech, and pretty soon only those parroting the Gooberment line will be saying “unhate speech.”

Double-Plus Good, Comrade, err, I mean “citizen...”

Support for FD website to be launched