Anti-Racist Canada member joins FreeDominion - Breaking !!

[Mark Fournier]

Also strange was that although the tribunal found that, taken individually, the columns in question were not in breach of the misnamed Code, collectively they were. A real head-scratcher, that, but we are now living in a strange world.

Does anyone know where to find copies of these four columns?

[Gerry T. Neal]

Also strange was that although the tribunal found that, taken individually, the columns in question were not in breach of the misnamed Code, collectively they were. A real head-scratcher, that, but we are now living in a strange world.

Does anyone know where to find copies of these four columns?

At least one of them can be found in Here We Go Again, an anthology of Doug Collins' columns. I don't have my copy with me to check, but I think they are all in there. Arthur Topham posted them up on his website too, which is one of part of the basis for Abrams lawsuit against Topham.

[Mark Fournier]

Thanks, Gerry T. Neal. I'm thinking it might be time to revisit the Doug Collins affair in light of all that has happened in the past ten years.

[Maikeru]

Also strange was that although the tribunal found that, taken individually, the columns in question were not in breach of the misnamed Code, collectively they were. A real head-scratcher, that, but we are now living in a strange world.

Does anyone know where to find copies of these four columns?

Mark, they can be found in the Appendices* to theJudgment of the BCHRT Abrams v. Collins Hearing and are reprinted below.
*Caution - reading these columns is likely to expose former FreeDominion member Harry Abrams to hatred and contempt:

Appendix 1 January 12, 1994
News flash! Daily press discovering free speech
Doug Collins
"On the Other Hand"

AMAZING! THE Vancouver dailies have discovered political
correctness and freedom of speech. Sort of.

I know this because in December the Sun deplored the gag on
the Teale manslaughter trial in Ontario.

"What's next?" it asked. "Will Canada Post start censoring
Christmas mail?"

Don't those dopes know that Customs and Excise already
censors Christmas mail if it happens to be a gift in the
form of Professor Arthur Butz's Hoax of the Twentieth
Century or some other politically incorrect work?

The Province has waxed even bolder. It has denounced
political correctness in the universities and has defended
"controversial research."

Will the dailies now discover that people have been hounded
for having the wrong opinions ever since the hate laws were
passed in 1971, especially if those opinions annoy the
Canadian Jewish Congress?

The truth is that the Sun and Province were early
worshippers at the altar of political correctness. Didn't
they back the prosecutions against Keegstra and Zundel?

And didn't they grovel to the pressure groups when Zundel
was charged under the "spreading false news" law for saying
that something didn't happen, namely, the six million
matter?

Spreading false news? Santa Claus and the weatherman spread
false news. Anyone who reports what the politicians say is
probably spreading false news, too.

And our daily duo went into ecstacies when David Irving the
British author and historian was put in handcuffs and
clapped into jail pending his expulsion from this country
for having the wrong opinions.

The Province editorial headline was "Shutting out hatred."

And we got an amazing bit of false news from that newspaper
in the claim that "no country encourages free speech more
than Canada."

"In Canada," the fatuous piece continued, "you can climb on
your soapbox and say whatever you want."

So you can - if you are prepared to risk a spot in jail. Or
being fired from your job. Or fined under B.C.'s Bill 33.

"Good riddance," Mr. Irving, was the Province's punchline.

The Sun was even more keen.

"Who's on watch?" it asked editorially in saying that Irving
was a criminal. Hadn't he been fined under German hate laws
"for insulting the memory of the dead" in alleging that the
six million story was untrue?

The Sun much approved of the Ottawa Thought Police order
barring Irving from entering Canada.

But if his stuff is so ridiculous, why should he be barred?

Do we bar flat-earthers?

That "Who's on watch" headline deserves an answer. Which is:

Not the Vancouver Sun. Nor the Province. Nor any of our
daring mainstream media commentators.

If they were on watch on some of the more touchy questions
they wouldn't last long.

As in the west, so in the east. In New Brunswick Malcolm
Ross was bundled out of the classroom when the Atlantic
Jewish Council turned on the heat.

He had never aired his views in class. They just didn't like
his privately published books.

New Brunswick's lickspittle attorney general added his voice
to the chorus.

"There is no place in our society for dangerous thoughts,"
he said. Great stuff, eh?

But just before Christmas the New Brunswick Court of Appeal
took a different view. It said that a human rights
inquisition had denied Ross' human rights. (So what else is
new?)

Five minutes later, Irving Abella of the Canadian Jewish
Congress popped up to say he was "dumbfounded."

He wants Ross kept out of the classroom anyway and has asked
New Brunswick to take the case to the Supreme Court of
Canada.

Predictably, in a piece that read like a CJC handout, the
Vancouver Sun stepped up to say that the judges were wrong
and that Ross was indeed a purveyor of dangerous thoughts.

In Toronto, another teacher, Paul Fromm, was moved after an
agitation action was started by one Bernie Farber, another
CJC character.

Fromm's offence was to ask a facetious question about
Indians and scalping at some gathering of earnest left-wing
souls.

He is also against immigration, which makes him a "racist."

When Professor Phillipe Rushton of Ontario's Western
University did some politically incorrect racial research,
the usual censors demanded that he be fired, a wish echoed
by the then Premier Peterson. He wasn't, but Third World
thugs and white lunatics forced him to do his lectures on
closed circuit TV.

The Province now says we shouldn't be like some of those bad
Americans and call people Nazis when we want to shut them
up.

"Let's not have it happen here," it declares.

It should know, but apparently doesn't, that it's been
happening here for a long time.
--------------------

Appendix 2
March 9, 1994
Hollywood propaganda
Doug Collins
"On the Other Hand"

PROPHECY IS risky. But today I prophesy that the Steven
Spielberg movie Schindler's List will run away with the
Academy Awards.

I make that forecast without having seen it and without
having any intention of doing so, since it must be the 555th
movie or TV program on the "holocaust."

Fifty years after the war one tires of hate literature in
the form of films.

B.C. schoolchildren are being trooped in to see this effort.
In the name of piety, of course.

But wasn=t it Elie Wiesel, a major holocaust propagandist,
who said the world should never stop hating the Germans?

Such indoctrination goes on even though Germans born after
1925 or so are no more responsible for the Hitler period
than are the Eskimos.

Why we are [sic] getting such an overdose of a bad thing?

One reason is that it is profitable in more ways than one.

Billions of dollars are still being paid out in compensation
to Israel and "survivors," of whom there seem to be an
endless number -- paid out by those same Germans who were
not responsible for Hitler.

Anyway, Swindler's List will hit the Academy bell because
Hollywood is Hollywood and what happened to the Jews during
the Second World War is not only the longest lasting but
also the most effective propaganda exercise ever.

It is so effective that the mere mention of Auschwitz makes
even babes feel guilty.

Dr. Goebbels himself couldn't have done any better. And
didn't. From his seat in hell he must be envious.

Hardly a day goes by but that press, radio and television
don't mention something about the six million.

The figure is nonsense but media folk go on parroting what
everyone "knows." I used to do the same.

That's the safe way, too, for as a recent article in Vanity
Fair magazine put it, if you question the official version
you can expect trouble. But that=s an understatement. You
will be damned as "anti-Semitic," racist and even Nazi.

After half a century of this the moguls of the movie world
reckoned the time was right to cash in in a big way. And
Spielberg reckoned it was time for him to cash in, too.

"Movie of the year! Spielberg takes on the Holocaust!"
screamed the cover-page in Newsweek magazine. You would have
thought the war had just ended and that the film was the
biggest event since the Battle of Britain.

Critics have fawned on it, especially in the U.S., where
many of them work for Jewish-owned media and know how to
adjust their safety belts. Others simply reflect what they
have been programmed to reflect.

Only one critic has described Spielberg's effort as three
hours of propaganda. He was with the Jewish-owned New York
Times.

Good for him. And them. The exception that proves the rule.

In time of war, propaganda is justified. Fifty years on,
it's a bit much. But it comes about because the Jewish
influence is the most powerful in Hollywood.

One is not supposed to say that, of course. It's the
ultimate in political incorrectness.

But would it be out of order to say such a thing if the
Catholics ran Hollywood and we got a stream of Catholic
propaganda? I don't think so.

There have been many holocausts but most of them have hardly
warranted a paragraph, let alone movies.

Has anyone ever made a film about the two million Armenians
killed by the Turks? Or the slaughter of 500,000
Indonesians?

How about the uprooting of 10 million Germans from their
homes in East Prussia and Silesia, the murdering of tens of
thousands of them by the Red Army and the raping of their
women, young and old?

In August 1945, Winston Churchill warned that terrible
things were happening. I myself watched masses of desperate
refugees streaming into the British Zone of Occupation. (And
yes, I know what the Germans did to the Russians.)

The Japanese were also skilled in the killing game. Didn=t
they murder countless Chinese? And Brits and Aussies
remember how prisoners were worked and starved to death. And
beheaded.

But there has been only one movie on the miseries of life
and death in South East Asia -- Bridge on the River Kwai.
Certainly, there has been no constant propaganda barrage. So
now it's all licky-licky for the Japanese. But not for the
Germans.

Am I suggesting that Hitler wasn't Hitler or that hundreds
of thousands of Jews didn't die in the camps and elsewhere,
as did many non-Jews? No. But propaganda is selective and
Hollywood propaganda is the most selective of all.

So I won't be watching the Academy Awards. Let me know if my
little prediction is wrong.
--------------------

Appendix 3
March 23, 1994
Pondering far better than pandering, folks
Doug Collins
"On the Other Hand"

REGULAR READERS may remember that I did a column recently on
the movie Schindler's List, in which I hewed to the view
that I was tired of holocaust propaganda.

I called it Swindler's List, since even the wife of the dead
hero has said that he was a scoundrel. But right away, the
Canadian Jewish Congress was on its feet calling for blood.
My blood.

In Toronto, the CJC's Bernie Farber said I had "clearly
crossed the bounds of decency." Well, I'm damned!

Nearer home, Michael Elterman of the Pacific Region of the
CJC said the congress was "pondering legal action."

One mustn't criticize their favourite movie, you see. Least
of all must you question the six million story. Not that
mine was a movie criticism per se. As I pointed out, I had
no intention of seeing it. What I was criticizing was
Hollywood's ever-flowing stream, this being about the 555th
film on the same topic.

So I fear I am now listed as an anti-Semite, a description
designed to put the evil eye on critics and shut them up.

I am in distinguished company.

President George Bush was an anti-Semite when he failed to
deliver a $10 billion loan to Israel

quickly enough. (Israeli cabinet minister calls Bush liar,
anti-Semite - news story of Sept. 16, 1991).

Presidential candidate Pat Buchanan came in for it, too,
when he referred to the American capital as "Israeli-
occupied territory." And he is another "holocaust denier".

Columnist Joseph Sobran is also a villain. His stuff goes to
70 U.S. newspapers and he had dared to say that there is NO
particular "holocaust". This has been a century of
holocausts.

"We are kidding ourselves," he wrote, "if we talk as if
there was anything unique about what the Nazis did."

And Sobran has a definition of anti-Semitism that is
different from Elterman's:

He says an anti-Semite used to be someone who hated Jews.
Now it is anyone who is hated BY Jews.

Let me stress that there are plenty of Jews who might be
considered to be "anti-Semites" in that they don't wholly
hew to the party line:

How about Rabbi Eli Hecht, who reviewed the film for the Los
Angeles Times? His article was headed, "When will Jews let
it rest?".

Michael N. Dobkowski is a professor of religious studies and
has had this to say, long before the film was made:

"Too many books are written on the Holocaust. There are too
many films and television plays that exploit the subject_
There may, in fact, be `no business like Shoah (holocaust)
business'.

"The popularization and commercialization of the Holocaust
is not only unhistorical but anti-historical_."

Frank Rich, a movie critic for the New York Times, and a
Jew, accepts the six million story but wasn't too keen on
the Spielberg movie.

He mentioned the "pseudo-documentary camera work" and said
that Schindler's List "is the (Jewish) culture's new
Messiah; the antidote to the terrifying 1993 Roper
Organization poll in which 22% of the American public
expressed doubt that the Nazi extermination of the Jews
actually happened."

In this case "antidote" is another word for propaganda.

The propaganda is relentless, and includes the "Holocaust
Museum" in Washington. And what did another Jew have to say
bout that?

Writing in the Washington Post when the Museum opened, M.J.
Bukiet stated:

"It's not Jewish tragedy that's remembered this week; it's
Jewish power to which homage is paid."

Quite. For the Jews who died in the camps and were
persecuted in Europe were not Americans. They were
foreigners.

By that measure, there should be about ten "holocaust
museums" in the American capital. But you only get one guess
as to why there is only one.

In today's press, the power referred to by Bukiet is
reflected in the silence of the media lambs and the lambs of
academe.

You have to look to relatively small publications for much
of the countervailing material.

Consider this comment by associate professor Daniel Vining
in the highbrow US Magazine Chronicles on the situation in
the universities:

"Six million is a number like any other number; you would
expect to find an exhaustive analysis of it in the
statistical and demographical literatures, but you don't.
The reason is that it is a taboo subject_

"If you try to find out the number, your colleagues will
shun you. Worse, you might lose your job."

I wish the CJC good luck with its pondering. As you can see,
I do a lot of pondering too. But no pandering.

Incidentally, didn't I predict that Schindler's List would
sweep the Academy Awards? And didn't I tell you why?

Take a bow Doug.
----------------

Appendix 4
June 26, 1994
Some value freedom of the press, some don't
Doug Collins
"On the Other Hand"

Freedom is the greatest toy in the world_ But it don't work
so good in practice as is does in speeches. - Will Rogers.

WHAT WOULD happen if some right-wing or religious group
tried to put newspapers out of action, prevented people from
speaking at meetings, or was able to get national media to
suppress stories?

There would be shock headlines. Open-liners would flap their
lips to bits. Parsons would salt their soup with tears.

Jewish groups in Canada have done all of the above.

Is it "anti-Semitic" to say so? Only if facts are. Besides,
it's not hard to be an anti-Semite. When the Hebron massacre
ocurred a reader complained to the Times-Colonist in
Victoria that it was anti-Semitic to report that a Jew did
the deed.

Media folk are usually discreet where Jewish doings are
concerned. It's a byproduct of the inflated six million
story.

That's why there was no fuss when David Irving was jailed
and deported for being a "holocaust denier." Yes, Ottawa can
be tough with a dissident historian, but immigrant killers,
crooks and big-time welfare cheats roam our streets
unmolested.

Speakers whose views don't suit Jewish groups often find
that their hall and hotel bookings are cancelled.

That happened to Irving and the Canadian Jewish Congress and
B'Nai B'rith [sic] took credit for it in the Jewish press.

Paul Fromm of Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform and Ron
Gostick of the Canadian League of Rights have been given
similar treatment. In New Brunswick teacher Malcolm Ross was
removed from the classroom because Jews didn't like his
privately published books.

And now let's take a look a t the campaign to squelch The
Daily Victorian.

It is a novelty paper that runs stories from Victoria's
past. And contrary to its title it came out weekly, not
daily.

Until it made the mistake of picking my column, that is.

A Jewish city councillor who said he believed in freedom of
expression (but not in city hall, obviously) proposed that
the paper be banned from those precincts. And it was.

The occasion was all the spittle that was flying over my
"Swindler's List" piece on Steven Spielberg's propaganda
movie - and never mind that the film had been denounced by
some Jewish writers, too.

Leading the mob was a megamouth called Howie Siegel,
described in the Times-Colonist as "a prominent Jewish
spokesman."

Siegel was quoted as saying:

"I told him (the Victorian's editor) that if he did not stop
running Collins' stuff I was going to take it upon myself to
go to every one of his advertisers_ and I will do everything
in my power to see that this paper stops publishing, is
destroyed."

Didn't the Nazis also destroy newspapers?

Bundles of the offending sheet were whipped out of hotels
and restaurants and heaped, one supposes, on Heil Siegel's
fires.

Advertisers were subjected to round-the-clock harassment and
Siegel told one who refused to be bullied that he - the
advertiser - was "an out-and-out Nazi."

Last week, boasting about his exploits in Victoria's left-
wing Monday magazine, Siegel described himself as a "yappy
little Jew."

But he's more than that.

The Victorian now totters along with one edition a month.

Such intimidation is not confined to Canada. An American
professor, Daniel R. Vining, wrote recently in the highbrow
Chronicles magazine that to question the six million story
is a good way for academics to lose their jobs.

In Australia, radio commentator Terry Lane stated in the
Australian Jewish News, which presumably is not anti-
Semitic:

"I have said publicly that I will never write or speak on
the subject of Israel or Palestine ever again. Here is why:

"The Zionist lobby in this country is malicious, implacable,
mendacious and dangerous_

"What's more, once the expression `anti-Semite' hits the
air, or, heaven forfend, the sacred `six million' is
uttered_ not one manager or editor will defend an underling.
We are thrown to the jackals.

"I surrender. To the Zionist I say, `You win.' To the
Palestinians, forgive my cowardice."

Phillip Adams of The Australian also had his woes. He
thought he had a lot of friends in the Jewish community
until he reportedly said something out of line. Then:

"I suddenly became the Jews' worst enemy. _All in all, it
was such a bruising and unpleasant experience that I decided
not to write on Jewish matters again."

It's easy to squelch a struggling newspaper. But the
infrequent editions of The Daily Victorian still contain a
Collins column. Some people believe in freedom of the press
and some don't.

[Maikeru]

As is usual in the bizarre world of 'human rights' hate-speech persecutions, that which is determined to be most damaging to free society is contained in the Appendices to Judgment of the BCHRT Abrams v. Collins Hearing itself. (see above)

The site which contains that Judgment, The Nizkor Project, is an excellent resource devoted to ensuring that 'Holocaust denial' is countered by ready public access to information.

It's worth noting that before internet communication allowed such access to information from the comfort of one's home, that the average person would be hard pressed to unearth such documents absent access to a law library.
For this reason, it is essential that the internet remain as free from government control as is currently the case (given that Bill C-304 abolishes CHRA Sec 13, and in turn similar Provincial legislation)

In the case of Doug Collins, The Nizkor Project also serves to preserve the 'Nuremberg Laws' nature of 'human rights' hate-speech legislation, which stains the reputation of the Canadian Justice system:

IN THE MATTER OF THE HUMAN RIGHTS CODE
R.S.B.C. 1996, c.210 (as amended)

AND IN THE MATTER of a complaint before
the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal
B E T W E E N:

Harry Abrams
COMPLAINANT

A N D:
North Shore Free Press Ltd. doing business as "North Shore
News"
and Doug Collins
RESPONDENTS

A N D:
Deputy Chief Commissioner of the British Columbia Human
Rights Commission
A N D:
Attorney General of British Columbia
A N D:
League for Human Rights of B'Nai Brith Canada
INTERVENOR

REASONS FOR DECISION
Tribunal Member: Tom W. Patch
Counsel for the Complainant: Thomas W. Bulmer
Counsel for the Respondents: David F. Sutherland
Counsel for the Deputy Chief Commissioner: Angela Westmacott
and Deirdre A. Rice
Counsel for the Attorney General: Lisa J. Mrozinski
Counsel for B'Nai Brith Canada: Marvin Kurz

Place and date of hearing: Victoria, British Columbia, July
20, 21, 22, and 24, 1998
... ...
[99] In summary, I order the following:

1.That the Respondents Doug Collins and the North Shore News
cease publishing statements that are likely to expose Jewish
persons to hatred and contempt and refrain from committing
the same or a similar contravention;

2.That Doug Collins and the North Shore News pay $2,000 to the
Complainant Harry Abrams as compensation for the injury they
have caused to his dignity and self respect;

3.That the North Shore News publish in one of its next three editions
the Summary that accompanies these reasons.

The Respondents are jointly and severally liable for the damages.

[100] As I noted in the introduction to these reasons,
issues related to the constitutional validity of the Code
were severed from the issues that I have decided in these
reasons. I reserve the right to hear and decide those
constitutional issues.
___________________________

Tom W. Patch, Tribunal Member
Vancouver, British Columbia
February 2, 199[9]

Note that the column Collins penned in January 12.2001, A MATTER OF JUSTICE - Jan 12, 2001, which I posted earlier in this thread, noted that:
"The B.C. Appeal Court has just decided, in its wisdom, that I cannot have a judicial review of this province’s outrageous heresy laws without first going back to the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal that censored and fined me. It should then consider whether what it did was constitutional!"

As noted in paragraph 100 of the Judgment itself, Tribunal Member Tom W. Patch had reserved the right to hear and decide the Constitutional validity of the Code [BCHRA Sec. 7], and the BC Appeal Court went along with that charade.

That travesty of Justice occurred under the direct supervision of the then Attorney General of British Columbia, MLA Ujjal Dosanjh, who would later become the (NDP) Premier of BC, and still later a Liberal MP whose legal credentials were such that he sat on the Oct. 5, 2009 'Standing Committee on Section 13' attended by Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn.

The BCHRTribunal first ever 'hate-speech' Hearing, 'CJC v. Collins & North Shore News' was launched in May 1994, and heard in May 1997 (also heard by Tribunal member Tom W. Patch), and concerned a single column Collins had penned in March 1994 entitled 'Hollywood propaganda'.

The BCHRTribunal dismissed that Complaint, after a 5 day Hearing which cost the Respondents over $70,000 for Counsel fees. At the time that expense may have seemed almost worthwhile, as it defeated the attempt to censor print media through 'lawfare'.

However, immediately following the CJC v Collins Hearing, another Complaint was entertained by the BCHRT, this time Abrams v. Collins & NSN, for 4 columns spread over a 6 month period, and including the column heard in the earlier BCHRT CJC v Collins Complaint.

So, to summarize, the first two ''human right' hate-speech Complaints heard by the BCHRTribunal were both against the same Respondent(s), both contained the same Complaint material, both were heard by at least one of the same Tribunal members, and both required that the Respondent fund their own defense.

Upon receiving the second Complaint, Collins and the North Shore News realized that these Hearings could, and likely would, continue to be entertained by the BCHRT, at taxpayer expense for the Complainants. They issued a statement challenging the Constitutional validity of the Code, and declined to attend the Abrams v. Collins Hearing.

That second Hearing led to the Patch Judgment indicated above, upholding the Complaint, and reserving the right to Hear and Decide the Constitutional issues.

The two Hearings succeeded in their primary objective, which was to place constraints on 'free speech' in print media which did not fall under the auspices of the Criminal Code.

In doing so, a chill descended upon print media across Canada which held fast until efforts to punish Western Standard/Ezra Levant for publishing the 'Muslim cartoons', and later, Macleans/Mark Steyn for 'Islamophobic articles' brought the entire apparatus of 'human rights' hate-speech persecutions to broad public attention.

A decade later, FreeDominion - itself subject to a CHRC 'human right' hate-speech Complaint filed by Marie-Line Gentes - serves as an example of how an online forum, hosted by honourable Canadians Connie and Mark Fournier, can serve the cause of Canadian Justice long ignored by mainstream media, civil rights groups, and law societies in Canada.

Bravo Connie and Mark !

[Edward Kennedy]

So Harry got two grand for damage to his dignity and self respect...I was unaware he had any.

[Mark Fournier]

Thanks for posting this, Maikeru. I'm embarassed to say I only know of this case in broad terms as it all happened before Connie and I became targets of the same abusive process. This will get me up to speed.

[Peter O'Donnell]

The image that comes to mind is that of a bulldog being harassed by a gang of yapping miniature dogs.

[Connie Fournier]

The image that pops into my mind is Harry Abrams on a naked bike ride...and it BURNS! Please pass the brain bleach!

[Maikeru]

FreeDominion voted most popular target for Auntie Racists !

11/11/ 09 3:17 pm... ARC has helped generate an average 33.4 views per day for this thread alone !.
Today the thread counter hit 29,900 views

11/12/ 03 12:14 am...Today the thread counter hit 31666 views !
ARC has helped generate an average of 77 views per day, more than double the average up to November 9 this year !

The Supreme Court of Canada set to hear CHRC v Lemire, and Bill C-304 is on track to rescind the despicable Sec 13 portion of the CHRA.

Undaunted, Nosferatu200/Harry Abrams ramps up the rhetoric:

Perhaps we’re reading a bit much into this.


Fromm and Lemire at the “George Orwell”Awards the year Mark and ConnieFournier won.
Perhaps not.
Paul Fromm and Marc Lemire have a relationship that goes back to at least the mid 1990s when Lemire hosted Paulie’s websites on his own Freedom-Site (along with other websites, including the Heritage Front which he would go on to lead, but we’re going to touch on this issue again in later articles).

It appears that former FreeDominion member Harry Abrams is up to his old tricks, which include document tampering for the purpose of attempting to smear and defame fellow Canadians, as the photo above, posted on the 'Anti-Racist Canada' blogsite, then syndicated and distributed across the internet, is not from the “George Orwell”Awards the year Mark and Connie Fournier won".

Harry has a hard-on for Mark Lemire, and as FreeDominion members have witnessed first-hand, is only too ready to fabricate information to smear fellow Canadians. This sort of disinformation practise was common back in Germany between 1933-1945, but Harry is blind to his own Gollum-like behaviour.

For the 'guests' who frequent FreeDominion to keep up with news from the front lines, and drive this thread counter like a wind turbine in a gale, here's a special treat.

Connie and Mark proudly display their well deserved 'George Orwell' plaque, awarded them for standing up to the ugly fear mongers, such as Harry Abrams who, for 2 decades, have been perpetuating the 'Nuremberg laws' mentality permeating the Canadian Justice system, and Canadian society, via mis-named 'anti-racist' propaganda.
Keen-eyed anti-racist kapos will note that the photo of Connie and Mark is courtesy of another former FreeDominion member - Arthur Topham, grrrr.

Labels:
Anti-Racist Action
Anti-Racist Canada
RichardWarman.ca
Antifa.ca
Stopracism.ca
Onepeoplesproject.com
Progressivebloggers.ca
Searchlightmagazine.com
sixthestate.net
Sketchy Thoughts

[Connie Fournier]

Another ARA/ARC post with our name in it, smearing our witness.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... ge-64.html

Criminal Code of Canada, Part IV

Section 139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Idem
(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Idem
(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,

(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;

Tags: ARA, ARC, Anti-racist Action, Anti-racist Canada, CHRC, CHRT, CHRA, political violence, gangstalking, stalking of women, witness intimidation, malicious document tampering, forcible confinement, aggravated assault, firebombing, censors, anti-Christian bigots, Richard Warman, Harry Abrams, Jason Devine, Shane "Ruttle" Martinez, harassment, misinformation, domestic terrorism, Stormfront members, abuse of process, lawfare

[Edward Kennedy]

Another ARA/ARC post with our name in it, smearing our witness.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts ... ge-64.html

Criminal Code of Canada, Part IV

Section 139. (1) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice in a judicial proceeding,

(a) by indemnifying or agreeing to indemnify a surety, in any way and either in whole or in part, or

(b) where he is a surety, by accepting or agreeing to accept a fee or any form of indemnity whether in whole or in part from or in respect of a person who is released or is to be released from custody,

is guilty of

(c) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or

(d) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Idem
(2) Every one who wilfully attempts in any manner other than a manner described in subsection (1) to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years.
Idem
(3) Without restricting the generality of subsection (2), every one shall be deemed wilfully to attempt to obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice who in a judicial proceeding, existing or proposed,

(a) dissuades or attempts to dissuade a person by threats, bribes or other corrupt means from giving evidence;

Tags: ARA, ARC, Anti-racist Action, Anti-racist Canada, CHRC, CHRT, CHRA, political violence, gangstalking, stalking of women, witness intimidation, malicious document tampering, forcible confinement, aggravated assault, firebombing, censors, anti-Christian bigots, Richard Warman, Harry Abrams, Jason Devine, Shane "Ruttle" Martinez, harassment, misinformation, domestic terrorism, Stormfront members, abuse of process, lawfare

...liars are synonymous with cowards and fools.

[Ogopogo]

From ARC:

Fromm and Lemire at the "George Orwell"
Awards the year Mark and Connie Fournier won.

NOTE: One of our faithful readers on Free
Dominion is stating that this was not from
that year the Fourniers received their award
and has accused us of "document tampering."

As it was Paulie who labelled the picture as such
originally, your argument is with him, not us.

That, and Harry Abrams has nothing to do with
this blog. But please, keep guessing.

[Maikeru]

NOTE: One of our faithful readers on Free
Dominion is stating that this was not from
that year the Fourniers received their award
and has accused us of "document tampering."

As it was Paulie who labelled the picture as such
originally, your argument is with him, not us.

That, and Harry Abrams has nothing to do with
this blog. But please, keep guessing.

Sorry nosh, I stand corrected...

[Maikeru]

Correction notice:

Mr. Abrams authorized us to post this:
... ...
Harry Abrams has nothing to do with this blog.

labels:
Anti-Racist Action
Anti-Racist Canada
RichardWarman.ca
Antifa.ca
Onepeoplesproject.com
Progressivebloggers.ca
Searchlightmagazine.com