Jewish Defence League to hold a fundraiser on Monday, July 9th at 7pm at the Toronto Zionist Center, 788 Marlee Avenue.
styky wrote:Jewish Defence League to hold a fundraiser on Monday, July 9th at 7pm at the Toronto Zionist Center, 788 Marlee Avenue.
I'm impatient to find out how this went
 In the case before the court, we are dealing with an anti-hate speech advocate and Defendants whose website is so controversial that it is blocked to employees of the Ontario Public Service.
WestViking wrote:Here is a piece I wrote in April 2008 which will add some perspective for newer members:
CONNIE AND MARK FOURNIER HAVE STOOD TALL IN DEFENDING OUR RIGHT
TO THE FREEDOMS OF EXPRESSION, BELIEF, THOUGHT AND CONSCIENCE BUT
THE COURT COSTS AND LEGAL FEES ARE A HEAVY BURDEN. WE HAVE TO
STEP UP TO THE PLATE WITH OUR $5, $10 OR $25. OUR FREEDOMS ARE
NOT FREE. WE HAVE TO FIGHT TO KEEP THEM. NO ONE NEEDS TO GO
BROKE OR DO WITHOUT IF WE EACH DO OUR SHARE.
OUR FIGHT FOR FREEDOMS BEGAN IN JULY 2007
Free Dominion has spent thousands of dollars fighting human rights investigators and in bringing the actions of human rights tribunals to public attention.
In late 2006 a casual browser on the Free Dominion web site decided that posts by a member could be considered discriminatory by the members of a minority group and filed a complaint with the CHRC. The complainant was not a member of the minority group and was not complaining on her own behalf.
In July 2007 the CHRC advised Free Dominion that it was under investigation. FD members were incensed and undertook hundreds of hours of research to establish what the Canadian Human Rights Commission was, how it operates, what similar cases had been investigated and what the result was.
What FD members unearthed appalled the Fourniers. They found out that the majority of similar cases had been filed by a single complainant, and that the Human Rights Commission and Tribunal had never failed to convict someone investigated for alleged ‘hate crimes’.
FD members felt that the complainant was engaged in a witch hunt using the CHRC to punish those he disagrees with and reacted vocally and angrily. They were appalled at the methods and practices of the complainant and the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
The CHRC suddenly announced that the complaint against Free Dominion had been withdrawn and that the investigation was ended. The Fourniers have been unable to establish any details respecting the complaint, or of the CHRC investigation.
The Fourniers waited for ’the other shoe’ to drop, convinced that the attack on Free Dominion was not over.
THEY WERE NOT DISAPPOINTED
In November, 2007 the CHRC serial complainant commenced an action against Free Dominion and the Fourniers alleging that the Free Dominion and eight members had libelled him with remarks on the web site.
The action sat dormant until last fall when the plaintiff demanded that the Fourniers provide him with the names and other personal details of the Free Dominion members referred to in the libel action.
The Fourniers opposed the motion as there was no proof of any libel or other wrong-doing, only the unproven contentions contained in the plaintiff’s statement of claim. The Fourniers went to court and the court ruled against them.
THE COURT DECISION AND OUR POLITICIZED COURTS
In a decision on the plaintiff's Motion before the Ontario Superior Court, Mr. Justice Stanley Kershman, in his reasons for decision, made the following statement: In the case before the court, we are dealing with an anti-hate speech advocate and Defendants whose website is so controversial that it is blocked to employees of the Ontario Public Service.
This statement is astonishing as the reputations of the parties were not at issue in the hearing. Neither side had made submissions on reputation.
Justice Kershman’s comments politicize the case at bar to the prejudice of the defendants. The comment in the motion decision has politicized and prejudiced the case at the bar and prevents an unbiased hearing of facts at trial. Our justice system cannot allow its courts to engage in character assassination during interim proceedings.
A statement of claim is a declaration by a plaintiff that he intends to present certain evidence to the court in support of his claim but does not empower the plaintiff in any way.
On 24 April 2009 the Fourniers went to court and obtained leave to appeal the Kershman motion decision. They are now preparing their appeal as well as preparing for defence of the original action.
WHY THIS BATTLE IS IMORTANT
Democracy is messy. That is why it works. Canadians are exposed to a wide variety of beliefs and views. Politicians express views that cause us to alternately cheer and jeer.
A healthy society must be exposed to opinion it may find repulsive. Citizens need to be able to counter views they find objectionable. Our politicians have stage managed elections to the point that from writ drop to voting day, no citizen voices are heard. The dialogue is restricted to exchanges between politicians and political party spokesmen. Ordinary citizens, electors, are left out and increasingly refuse to participate in a process that shuts out their opinions.
Internet forums, in particular political forums and blogs, are the last refuge of sane patriots, people who care about our nation and our society, people who want to examine issues and seek solutions, people who want to share their ideas and views and hone their knowledge of issues so they can write an informed letter to their paper or representative, and vote with confidence.
Politicians may have shut out the views of electors, in particular views they do not want to deal with, but electors have not shut out politicians. The Internet allows citizens to come together across vast distances and work together to influence our politics and governance. That makes politicians, political parties and vested interests nervous, which is as it should be.
Efforts to censor Internet dialogue amongst law-abiding citizens must end.
Connie & Mark Fournier
Connie and Mark Fournier founded the Free Dominion web site in January 2001. Although the site is dedicated to promoting principled conservatism, its 9,300 (and growing) membership represents diverse religious and political beliefs. Members visit to discuss and debate a wide range of local, national and international issues and news items from
across Canada and throughout the world.
OUR CHARTER RIGHTS ARE UNDER ATTACK
Free Dominion is under attack for allowing its members to express their opinions and views openly. The web site and some members are accused of libel for expressing their opinions of those who attempt to censor and stifle commentary that they disagree with. The tactic is known as a libel chill and the objective is to run up legal bills for the defendants.
Debate and dialogue on issues of concern cannot be restricted to campaigning politicians or stifled by individuals or groups with an agenda. A healthy democracy requires that we argue and debate with those who seek to make changes to our society, its standards and values.
Canada has tens of thousands of people who have fled nations where they cannot speak freely without the risk of prison, torture or worse. Our freedoms to believe and worship as we wish have been bought by the blood of generations.
If you believe in judicial impartiality, the principles of fundamental justice and in our equality before and under the law, please support the appeal of this decision by visiting http://www.indiegogo.com/freedominion?a=797875 and making a contribution.
Correct. We were not aware of the details in early 2008. It turned out that the complainant (Geddes) was allegedly upset by a tract linked on the site by Bill Whatcott, not printed on the site. Now it turns out that links are not publishing so there would be no case against FD. That was not the case until very recently.shiva wrote: Wait a tick! This account of events refers to a "casual browser" on FD deciding to launch a CHRC complaint but we now know this the complainant had no idea who or what FD was when she made her complaint. I see this was written in 2008 so perhaps the details of how the complainant came to include FD in her complaint about Bill Whatcott's pamphlet wasn't known at the time?
styky wrote:Great news Connie
Alec Bachlow wrote:Nice to see a pic of the defenders...sweet looking people...and to think some jerk would wish harm on those who seek but one thing- to be free...to enjoy life without oppression through threat...Who ever launched the suit- lacks principle ...why did he not attack evil and do some good in the containing of it...Good luck guys- You will do well.
There is no doubt in my mind that Free Dominion will come out stronger and smarter after this biting bug is brushed aside...
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.WestViking wrote:Here is a piece I wrote in April 2008 which will add some perspective for newer members:
"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value"
RedDog wrote:"Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value"
(CHRC Complaint investigator Dean Steacy)
Just wow. This individual is living on the wrong continent. They might be more comfortable elsewhere.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest