WestViking wrote:Here is a piece I wrote in April 2008 which will add some perspective for newer members:
As a longstanding member of FreeDominion, I read WestViking's opinion piece when it was first mounted on FreeDominion. It is an excellent cyber-accord of past events - and prescient of future.
At the time, a recent (March 25, 2008) CHRTribunal Hearing of the long running (launched Mar 25 2004) CHRC/Warman v. Citizen/Lemire Complaint had heard CHRC Complaint investigator Dean Steacy
testify that: "Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value"
Eight months earlier, in July 2007, FreeDominion had been notified of the CHRC/Gentes v FreeDominion Complaint, and were alternately astonished and appalled that a government agency under the aegis of CPC Attorney General Vic Toews
had the temerity, let alone the right, to 'investigate' a civil online discussion forum in Canada.
As WestViking has noted, the CHRC/Gentes Complaint led FreeDominion members into the labyrinth of the 'human rights' hate-speech agency, and many members devoted countless hours to investigate CHRC Section 13.1, and the people involved with that 'solution in search of problems
The first thread announcing the Complaint, titled Human Rights attack on Free Dominion
generated 1478 posts and 215,248 views
from July 18, 2007 to August 3, 2008, when FreeDominion was notified that the Complaint had been withdrawn.
As well, and to be expected in an online discussion
forum, several other threads sprang from the CHRC/Gentes Complaint, which were scrutinized by, and served as the basis for a 'cyber-defamation' suit by Richard Warman
against the Fourniers of FreeDominion, and 8 'John Does' in November of 2007.
Of note is Warman referenced posts by 35 different FreeDominion members in his scattergun legal writ, which drew 252 posts and 60,556 views
- in mute testimony to the chilling effect of 'cyber-lawarfare'.
Every stance taken by our hosts - Connie and Mark Fournier - has proven, over time, to be beneficial to the advancement of freedom of speech in Canada.
That Canada needed to have freedom of speech protected from abusive legislation, acted upon behalf of our own government, is astonishing.
Canada need not be a 'just' and 'progressive' society, as mandated by batchelor PM Trudeau all those happy Liberal conventions ago.
Canada doesn't need 'human rights' bureaucracies to hold hearings and hand out penalties in a vain attempt to concoct a society built upon legislation - when it's been obvious for quite some time that people can't follow ten commandments - let alone thirteen.point.one