A lawsuit has been served against our Canadian "sister" site, Free Dominion.

Free Dominion: Defense Fund [ 1 ... 9, 10, 11 ]

fourhorses wrote:

One for the Gipper ?

I still miss Reagan...

Link:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvg7lRsCVJ8

Quote:

Fasting For Freedom

Now, as far as the Starvin' Ed goes?

He's welcome to dine with us every day...

Of course, there's that little matter of being a thousand miles away...

...and I'm the cook...

...but I haven't poisoned anybody...

yet...

Criminalizing Free Speech

by Baron Bodissey

Nowadays, within the European Union, it’s no stretch to criminalize free speech. Under the draconian new legal guidelines issued by Brussels, virtually any Counterjihad writings can be cast as “inciting religious hatred” or “promoting racism”, or some other Orwellian classification. Speech is cast in these terms to render it doubleplus ungood, and therefore unutterable. Christine of Vigilant Freedom has detected a pattern in the attempts by the Left and the Islamists to criminalize free speech. She found and researched six examples of this strategy and posted them today at the CVF blog. Read further... 13 comments

Have you seen this editorial?

http://ibdeditorial.com/IBDArticles.aspx?id=281319472675670

It includes the question: "Is violence integral to Islam? It's a valid question. When the pope raised it, Muslims proved him wrong by threatening to cut off his head. Message: Don't call us intolerant or we'll kill you."

From the Mouths of Babes

by Baron Bodissey

This is an unpleasant news story. If it were only another “political correctness run amok” article, I could simply post it with a snide comment or two as an introduction, and that would be it.

But this is more than that. It’s not just the fact that a nine-year-old boy was charged with a hate crime.

It’s what his teachers, his parents, and the newspaper writer consider normal and acceptable.

Here’s the story from The Arizona Republic:

9-year old suspended for ‘hate crime’

A Glendale elementary school principal has admitted to telling a 9-year old boy that it is OK to have racist feelings as long as you keep them to yourself.

“As we said to (the boy) when he was in here, in your heart you may have that feeling, and that is OK if that is your personal belief,” Abraham Lincoln Traditional School Principal Virginia Voinovich said in a tape-recorded parent-teacher conference.

OK, we’re only two paragraphs in, and already we’ve hit a couple of bizarre things. A little boy suspended for a hate crime. A principal having a parent-teacher conference about it, with the whole thing on tape.

But at least the principal showed some sense right? Telling the boy it’s OK to have thoughts in your heart that you don’t act on — that’s a good thing, isn’t it?

Maybe; maybe not. Read on:

The boy was suspended for three days this month for allegedly committing a “hate crime” by using the expression “brown people.”

“Brown people” is an acceptable term to the PC crowd, at least some of the time. I can’t count the number of times I’ve seen signs or ads saying “George Bush went to war with the Brown People because etc blah yak”.

However, it apparently depends on who’s saying it. If Barbra Streisand says “brown people”, no problem. If a racist schoolchild says it — time for the re-education camp!

But let’s continue:
- - - - - - - - -

In an interview Monday, Voinovich would not address her comments, first saying she didn’t remember the incident, then demanding a copy of the recording and finally insisting that she could not talk about a student’s discipline.

So the principal obviously has a guilty conscience.

Why? What does she feel she did wrong?

The circumstances of the boy’s suspension itself raise troubling questions about student discipline, interrogation and oversight at Abraham Lincoln.

According to school officials, the boy made a statement about “brown people” to another elementary student with whom he was having a conflict. They maintain it was his second offense using the phrase.

But the tape recording indicates this only came out after another parent was allowed to question the boy and elicited from him the statement that he “doesn’t cooperate with brown people.”

OK, we see part of the problem here: the adults badgered the kid until he said the proscribed phrase, and then they were able to nail him.

“Comrade, how long have you been aiding the counterrevolution? Admit to your crime, and it will go easier for you…”

Do you think I’m engaging in excessive rhetoric about this? Well, look what happened to the poor kid next:

After that was reported to the boy’s teacher, he was made to stand in front of his class and publicly confess what he’d said.

That’s straight out of The Little Red Teacher’s Handbook: public confession of wrong thinking, followed by group correction.

Now the plot thickens: apparently, as is usual in such cases, a personal conflict caused the boy to be denounced to the commissars by one of his comrades:

The boy maintains that he never said it; that the words were put in his mouth by the parent who questioned him. That parent happens to be the mother of the student with whom he is having a conflict—and she happens to work for Abraham Lincoln as a detention-room officer.

And there were leading questions (used on a nine-year-old!):

The tape indicates that rather than just spouting off with racial invective, the boy was asked first why he didn’t want to cooperate with brown people by the parent/school official.

In court, this might be called entrapment. Not to mention a conflict of interest.

No kidding.

The school system has circled the wagons, and the boy’s mother is loaded for bear:

Officials at the Washington Elementary School District, who are supposed to oversee Voinovich, wouldn’t comment about the boy’s suspension. They said only the principal is qualified to talk about it.

Well, the boy’s mother is talking, and she is angry. She has also removed her son from the school.

“I want parents to know … that principals can abuse their powers,” Sherry Neve, 35, said. “Principals need to have pro-active supervisors. I want the parents to know that the principal was influencing my son in a way I wouldn’t want him to be raised.”

Neve said school officials didn’t advise her of the incident until several days after they questioned her son. When Neve objected to the suspension during the conference, Voinovich told her that she didn’t have any rights; that parents give up their rights to discipline when they send a child to school, the tape shows.

“If you don’t want that, you can take him out of here,” Voinovich said tersely.

The mother denies that her son is guilty of the Sin of Racism:

Neve insists that her son is not a racist and that he never differentiated a person’s color until the school made it in an issue.

“We were raised to be color blind,” she said. “My children were raised the same way.”

And now The Arizona Republic editorializes a little bit:

But let’s assume for a minute that the boy actually made the comment. Does this make him a racist and guilty of a hate crime? Or does it make him a confused 9-year-old in need of counseling?

And finally, here comes the punch line of this sordid little Multicultural joke:

Instead of taking an opportunity to educate the boy and get to the root of the problem, the principal taught him another lesson altogether: It’s OK to feel like a racist as long as you keep your feelings to yourself.

Kids often say the darndest things. Apparently, so do principals.

Except for the school principal, nobody in this set piece thinks there’s anything wrong with condemning this little boy for what he thinks to himself.

Nobody has a problem with controlling what feelings a little kid holds in the privacy of his heart.

Not even his parents.

I can think we can chalk this one up as a big success for the Forty-Year School Indoctrination Project.

Thanks, Big Ed.

Hat tip: Fjordman.

Read further... 5 comments

<

Thanks for the bump...

The Letter that Started It All -- In short - the Human Rights Commissions exist to reinforce the most disparating insult that a body of government can offer its citizens: that we Canadians are stupid and unworthy of the freedoms of a civil democracy.

Panel finds writer of anti-gay letter broke human rights law... [ 1, 2 ]

CHRC Censorship legislation:

CHRC: Jackbooting Us

See here for links: http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=473

Dear Mr. Warman

Punishing People Who Haven't Broken the Law --"The Canadian Human Rights Commission exists to punish people who haven't broken the law." There really is no way to pretty this up. continued.

If you want opinions that maybe show some weight, Small Dead Animals has a Richard Warman poll in the works and tells us to stay tuned.
(see: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com

(Which reminds me - I have a Richard Warman poll in the works. Stay tuned.)

This is a follow up to SDA's October 18th story about ~~Free~~ Dominion lawsuit, Warman and the Canadian Human Rights Commission mess.
( http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/archives/007240.html )

FReegards, from THEG
( The Heavy Equipment Guy-- yeah, that's a backhoe bucket in the background... )

Here we go again... -- The Canadian Islamic Congress has a new partner in its censorship campaign: the state

http://www.freedominion.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1106108&highlight=#1106108

styky wrote:

Connie Fournier wrote:

We met with a lawyer yesterday who is filing our Intent to Defend (or, whatever it's called).

I don't want to post any specifics about our plans, but I will tell you two things. We have a decent chance, but it is going to very expensive. I think we are going to have to look beyond membership donations for enough funds to see this thing through to the end.

But, Warman wants a fight, so he's got one! Mad

I had that sinking feeling that it would be expensive and that's partly why people usually settle out of court. Of course that was then and this is now. In order to carry this through then you must have the backing you need to fight back and that's when other blogs and forums should step up to the plate. There for the grace of God go I......think about that. Well if I (Connie and Mark) don't fight it then it could very well be you next time.

Everyone- Right, Left, or Center- should view this as a direct challenge, and as a direct threat-- because that is precisely what it is. Nothing more, and nothing less.

http://www.freedominion.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1106552#1106552

WestViking:

A solid defence filing can cost upwards of $10K and another $50K if this goes to trial is conservative. I would guess an overall estimate of anywhere up to $75 to 100K depending on complexity (motion filings and responses, mediation efforts and trial if it goes that far). There is an element of poker in this type of action and much depends on the cards showing. Many suits are settled 'on the courthouse steps'. Once a trial starts at about $3K in legal costs per side, there is a lot of money on the table for whoever loses and faces legal and court costs...

Freedom of Expression Act

A gentleman from Alberta forwarded me this legal proposal to limit the tyrannical powers of the so-called Human Rights Commissions. It’s about time the Conservative Party of Canada started getting serious about protecting the civil right to freedom of speech for all Canadians.

Motion to quash Complaints to Human Rights Commission

Whereas there have been complaints to the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission, which are frivolous or vexatious, or brought with malicious intent, or which have the effect, substantially,

1 a. to shape or to chill the valid exercise of Charter rights of freedom of speech or other Constitutionally protected activities, or
b. to retaliate against a person for exercising such rights, or
c. to obtain media attention for a particular point of view, and
d. which originate directly or indirectly from private individuals, or other interests, in the furtherance of their personal or corporate objectives, and which
e. which bypass otherwise existing common law and statutory civil actions and criminal prohibitions but which are unlikely to succeed, and
f. which bring significant personal and economic consequences on the subject of a complaint, and

2 Whereas it is in the public interest,

a. to encourage the unhindered participation by Alberta citizens in the free expression of opinion on any subject, and in particular, on any issue of public
significance, or other Constitutionally protected activity, and

b. to limit the use of the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission to inhibit activities contemplated in 1(a) to (f) above,

3 This legislation shall be construed broadly.

4 A complaint to the Commission, upon a motion by a defendant to quash claiming the furtherance of 2(a) and (b) above, shall not be acted upon by the Commission without the permission of the court.

5 In making its determination, the court shall consider the pleadings, and supporting and opposing affidavits stating the facts upon which the complaint and defense are based.

6 If the court determines that the complainant has established a probability that he or she will prevail on the complaint, neither that determination nor the fact of that determination shall be admissible in evidence at any later stage of the case, or in any subsequent action, and no burden of proof or degree of proof otherwise applicable shall be affected by that determination in any later stage of the case or in any subsequent proceeding.

7 In any action subject to sec. 4, a prevailing defendant shall be entitled to recover his or her solicitor’s fees and costs from the Commission.

8 If the court finds that a motion to quash is frivolous or is solely intended to cause unnecessary delay, the court shall award costs and reasonable solicitor’s fees to a complainant prevailing on the motion.

9 As used in this section, “the free expression of opinion on any subject” includes, but is not limited to:

a. any written or oral statement or writing made before a legislative, executive, or judicial proceeding, or any other official proceeding authorized by law,
b. any written or oral statement or writing made in connection with an issue under consideration or review by a legislative, executive, or judicial body, or any other official proceeding authorized by law,
c. any written or oral statement or writing made in a place open to the public or a public forum in connection with an issue of public health or any other
public interest,
d. any other activity in furtherance of the exercise of a Charter right.

10 The defendant’s motion to quash may be filed within 30 days of the service of the complaint or, in the court’s discretion, at any later time upon terms it deems proper.

11 The defendant’s motion shall be scheduled for a hearing not more than 10 days after the service of the motion unless the conditions of the court require a later hearing.

12 All inquiries or investigative activity by the Commission in respect of the complaint shall be stayed upon filing a notice of motion made pursuant to this act. The stay shall remain in effect until notice of entry of the order ruling on the motion.

13 Notwithstanding section 11 above, the court, on noticed motion and for good cause shown, may order that specific investigation or disclosure be conducted.

14 Any party who files a motion to quash pursuant to this act, and any party who files in opposition to a motion to quash, shall, promptly upon so filing, transmit to the court, or by e-mail or facsimile, a copy of the endorsed, filed caption page of the motion or opposition, a copy of any related notice of appeal or petition, and a conformed copy of any order issued pursuant to this section, including any order granting or denying a motion to quash, disclosure, or fees.

15 A complaint to the commission shall disclose any and all relationships both directly or indirectly, which the complainant has with any vested interest group or organization, and any compensation which the complainant is receiving directly or indirectly in respect of the complaint.

16 When acting on a complaint, the commission shall immediately disclose to the defendant, any information respecting sec. 14 above.

17 An order granting or denying a motion to quash shall be appealable.

18 The court shall maintain a public record of proceedings under this Act.

_____________________

For more information on related legislation see:
California Anti-Slapp Project at http://www.casp.net/
Need for Anti-Slapp at http://www.wilderness.org.au/pdf/Gunning_for_Change_web.pdf

http://www.socon.ca/or_bust/?p=479
_________________
Social Conservatives United: www.socon.ca

The Warman Wars

Kangaroo Court Alert:

Canadian Human Rights Commission - Now Hiring!

THOUGHTS ON "STEYNOPHOBIA" AND LIBEL TOURISM: "I think ultimately we are going to need some legislation — a federal cause of action against those who intentionally use foreign courts to attempt to suppress American free expression rights. We also need diplomatic pressure to be brought to bear against the countries that are the practitioners of this anti-democratic extortion racket and the countries that allow their courts and other official institutions to serve the purpose."

Viewpoint on Canada's Free Speech [ 1, 2 ] --Calling a Censor a Censor--Censored!

Common Sense with Paul Jacob
Episode Number: 1952
Publication Date: Tuesday, December 4, 2007

Categories: General Liberty

Canada does not have our First Amendment. It does not have as strong a protection for free speech as we do here in the U. S. of A.

So what does that mean, practically?

Canadians are less free to call people they do not like nasty things. That’s a hate crime, and that’s against the law in Canada . . . at least if your enemies are in the right, protected group.

Canadians who do not like this policy are also not free to call censors nasty things. Let me rephrase. They are not free to call censors “enemies of free speech.” Even if, by American standards, that is most obviously what hate-speech censors are.

Take the case of a particularly nasty piece of work, Richard Warman. He’s a lawyer who was employed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to root out hate speech, particularly on the Web. Oh, I’m sure he’s a pillar of decency. He’s just unjust. His very job with the misnamed “human rights” commission was an ongoing series of injustices, so you’d expect his work to receive criticism.

And it did. An attorney defending Warman’s targets has repeatedly called Warman an “enemy of free speech.” And so what did Warman do?

He sued.

For libel.

And won.

And received $30,000. Yes, in Canada you may not speak truth about free speech to its official enemies. You cannot call a censor a censor.

But here in the United States, I can.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
View Full Version

http://www.samadamsalliance.org/common_sense/id.3037/sense_detail.asp

-more-

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eugene-volokh/calling-speech-restrictor_b_74330.html

http://christian-info.org/blogs/bible-online/2086/five-years-in-jail-for-quoting-the/

http://www.uncorrelated.com/2007/11/wrong_thinking_will_be_punishe.html

People who think the US should be "more like Canada" ought to check this out: http://volokh.com/posts/1196120116.shtml

http://mayycanady.blogspot.com/2007/08/one-way-street-called-hate.html

Posted: 08 Dec 2007 18:13 Post subject:

http://the-spackler.livejournal.com/36418.html

http://ironwillradio.blogspot.com/2007/07/canadian-man-hated-for-posting-free.html

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/3102

http://richardwarmanhatesfreedom.blogspot.com/2006/12/richard-warman-is-book-burner-glenn.html

http://www.freedominion.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1107529#1107529

Mark and Connie got a headliners' mention in a Western Standard article that explicitly calls the HRC enforcers "censors." If the author (Kevin Steel) gets away with it, it can be counted as another demonstration that using 'censor' is not actionable under the circumstances.

http://westernstandard.ca/website/article.php?id=2686&start=0 [Registration required; memories optional.]

The second half of the article centers around Alan Borovoy, who's acknowledging that he helped create a monster. I'm sure he would be happy to back up the 'censorship' characterization.

Free speech takes a hit (Canadian Human Rights tribunal)

Libel Tourism

Just another proud part of the New Trudeaupia;

While everyone is busy humming “Let’s Not Be Beastly to the Muslims,” it is worth noting the word “Islamophobia” is a misnomer. A phobia describes an irrational fear, and it is axiomatic that fearing the effects of radical Islam is not irrational, but on the contrary very well-founded indeed, so that if you want to speak of a legitimate phobia-it’s a phobia I experience frequently-we should speak instead of Islamophobia-phobia, the fear of and revulsion towards Islamophobia.

More reaction here;

Consider the implications: By the logic of the CIC's attack on Maclean's magazine, the owners and operators of Canadian libraries and bookstores could also be charged with violating the human rights of Muslims by making not just Steyn's article but also his entire book widely available to Canadians throughout the country.
In attacking Maclean's magazine, the CIC is not acting alone. It has the support of the Ontario Federation of Labour. In a statement backing the CIC, OFL executive vice-president Terry Downey said: "We want to make sure there's dignity and respect for all individuals in the province."
[...]
the restrictions on speech in the codes were intended to apply only to communications that fostered discrimination on such bases as employment or housing. Instead, human rights tribunals have adopted such expansive interpretations of these speech restrictions that a newspaper or magazine could get into trouble for publishing even a truthful article about conflict in the Middle East, Bosnia, Rwanda or elsewhere that is likely to expose at least one of the parties to contempt.
Canada's power-grabbing human rights commissioners evidently have scant regard for the freedoms they suppress or for the original understanding of the codes they are supposed to uphold. Otherwise, the British Columbia tribunal and the Canadian and Ontario human rights commissions would have promptly dismissed the CIC's complaints against Maclean's as entirely without merit.

That's from the London Free Press. Now that Macleans has been targeted, they get interested. Better late than never, I suppose. But here's the better CHRC story, if only one of those big budget investigative journalists could be bothered;

To date, Richard Warman has filed 26 complaints against named respondents with his former employer - the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Related - a "racist douchebag" imam gets mistaken for Mark Steyn.

Posted by Kate at 4:37 PM | Comments (29)

The Criminal Code and Hate: A Criminal Law Approach

Dear Mr. Warman [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ] --Hello All,

I've been looking around, trying to find a good example for the monumentally stupid precedents set by the Warman cases at the CHRT. Something that could bring the rank stupidity of such things to public attention by applying the same laws and principles to speech by someone more sympathetic than a national socialist. It seems that someone else already has. The Maclean's case.

When this matter first caught my attention, I assumed that Mr. Warman should be given the benefit of the doubt. That he was a well-meaning newbie. I no longer believe this is true. The libel suit was preceded by a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commision. The complaint was dropped. I expect it was dropped because a.) The Canadian Human Rights Act only applies to the Government of Canada and to companies regulated by the Government of Canada; and b) because Section 13 (3) of that act specifically excludes third-party speech, never mind anonymous third party speech.

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/canada/canada.H-6.part-1.html#13

I haven't read the provincial versions yet. Maybe I will when I find time.

It seems then that Mr. Warman has been looking for something, anything, which might be used to close one of the most popular political message boards in Canada. The sequence of events lends credibility to the suggestion that it was Mr. Warman himself who first posted the defamatory messages. The law he is (mis)using this time is probably older than the internet, and probably does not protect anonymous third-party speech. Let's hope for a smart judge.

When I first noticed this problem, I hoped that Free Dominion might win because of the importance of protecting the internet. Now I want you to win because I think Mr. Warman is a bully.

I don't like bullies.

Anonymous Coward

David Warren: Suing for Silence

Free speech takes a hit

Free Speech Takes a Hit

Free Dominion: Defense Fund [ 1 ... 13, 14, 15 ]

Freedom of the press attacked

Welcome Page

Andrew Coyne has an excellent column against the censorship activities of the Human Rights Commission. I urge everyone to read his column in full.

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/12/right-to-censor-others.php

Calling a censor a censor — censored!

Freedom of the press attacked --So, I take it Flanagan will be standing four square behind FD in our fight against Warman.

Tom Flanagan - Free Speech: Where Are You ?

If they so chose, The CPC COULD Act

Mark Fournier
Free Dominion
December 10, 2007

If they so chose
The CPC COULD Act

One thing needs to be made perfectly clear, the attacks on free speech we are suffering in Canada today are a CPC operation. The Canadian Human Rights Commission, and many of the laws that are now being abused by the Richard Warmans in our country, are a legacy of the Liberals, but it is all now being run by the Conservative Party of Canada.

The day Stephen Harper and his conservatives gained power in Ottawa they became responsible for everything the government does, they became responsible and answerable to everything that happens on their watch.

Is the suppression of political speech in Canada, which has now reached the point where it is gaining international attention, a part of the CPC platform? Would they have gotten elected if they had promised they would not only continue with the damage their predecessor wrought on our country, but that they would expand upon that damage?

Would they have gotten elected if they had told us they would take the Red Star chamber hearings of the CHRC beyond anywhere even the Liberals dared to go?

Another thing that needs to be made perfectly clear is it is very much in the power of the ruling conservatives to put a permanent stop to all of this.

If they do not act quickly, what should Canadians think of them? What possible excuse can the CPC come up with for not acting to protect our most fundamental of freedoms?

There is no excuse. Failure to act means approval.

What sayest thou, CPC?

Leaders to square off at hatred hearing (Warman)

We Support Mark Steyn Against the CHRC

If they so chose, The CPC COULD Act [ 1, 2 ]

EdS wrote:

If any of our skillful wordsmiths could concoct a short, brief, concise 250 word blurb on the Warman vs. FD situation, I'm sure I can get into the hands of some of CPC mucketymucks. I have an extensive conservative email list, with many big-time CPC players on it.

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller? Hello?

West Viking Wrote:
Our federal government is engaged in a despicable campaign of peacetime censorship unprecedented in a free, democratic society. Section 12 and 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a duplication of Sections 318 to 320.1 of the Criminal Code of Canada and thus a violation of Charter Section 15 as the ruses and processes under the two pieces of legislation are distinctly different.

Richard Warman has initiated several complaints to the CHRC alleging violations of CHRA Section 13. He is using the CHRA to silence people whose opinions he disagrees with, claims not to be a member of any group that he seeks to defend against hatred and has claimed credit for winning several cases heard by CHRTs.

The trend started by Mr. Warman is gathering steam. Individuals and groups are making complaints to HRCs claiming that opinions they disagree with constitute ‘hate speech’. This poses a danger to our Charter freedoms, most notably the freedoms of religion, belief, opinion, expression and freedom of the press. The recent complaint by the Canadian Islamic Congress against Macleans magazine is a clear example of where this trend is taking us.

The unfettered freedom of individual expression and the media is vital to a healthy democracy. Opinions that we find vile must be debated and destroyed in full public view. Censorship through show trials drives vile opinion underground to fester and grow. There is urgency in ensuring protection of the fundamental freedoms of all Canadians. CHRC censorship must be shut down.

MACLEANS MAGAZINE: A CASE STUDY OF MEDIA-PROPAGATED ISLAMOPHOBIA

Click to download the complaint(pdf) against Macleans. I haven't had time to read it, but the juicy part is said to be contained in the first 15 pages. Want to make your voice heard? Here's the best idea I've seen to date;

"Regarding ways that we can all support Mark Steyn, isn't the most obvious one buying his book (again)?"

Kathryn, better still. Order it online and deliver it to:
Canadian Human Rights Commission
344 Slater Street, 8th Floor, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E1, Canada
Telephone: (613) 995-1151
Toll Free: 1-888-214-1090
TTY: 1-888-643-3304
Fax: (613) 996-9661

Meanwhile, Richard Warman's reputation goes international; "You know you’ve lost your freedom when you cannot call a censor a censor."

Well the Americans are noticing. So where are our Canadian media?

(Update: Welcome Warren Kinsella readers! (All 12 of you.) While you're here, have a look around. I recommend this post, in which an individual using an assumed identity posts from a server registered to the Pollara polling company. )

Posted by Kate at 11:45 AM | Comments (70)

And in related news, Kinsella tosses Warman's salad: http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry071210-130258

Also, note that Andrew Coyne, who is now editor of Macleans, has an excellent column on the role of the HRC, ie, The State, in censorship.

http://andrewcoyne.com/columns/2007/12/right-to-censor-others.php

Free Speech: Small Dead Animals vs Kinsella --about Warnout Kinsellout? He has also pretty much trademarked the fear & smear lieberal method of campaigning so of course he is supporting Warman.

Does the Cdn Human Rights Statute have a loophole ?

Testimony of Mr. Stephen Douglas Boissoin

Confronting the Speech Police

Petition to Gut Human Rights Commissions Gathering Steam! [ 1, 2, 3, 4 ] -- The reason the petition has been humming along, I think, is because Mark Steyn himself, our Canadian hero extraordinaire, posted a link to my petition on his blog.