FOI in
You will remember the coward Lynch when she was speaking in Dublin referred to a death threat against her. From her speaking notes:
and here is a sample of just one threat directed at me: “Someone
needs to take this fruitcake … shoot her in the back of her head
so that her face can’t be recognized, dump her body in a mass
grave, and cover it with lime.” freedom site FOI request pdf these remarks are still not posted at the CHRC
Now, while I don’t think that’s a threat apparently others did. My FOI request asked for “files, correspondence, memoranda and emails dealing with the letter and its consequences”.
I got 88 pages, most of which are heavily redacted. However, there is this interesting fact. The Commission did not find out about the “Jessica Lynch” post at overthrow.com on its own. Nope, they had help.
I noted this post to [readcted] blog.
http://www.overthrow.som/blog/?p=151Jennifer Lynch is the Chief Commissioner to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. It needs to be taken seriously and I would add this to your file. I am CCing the CHRC FYI
Best
BMFBernie M. Farber,
Chief Executive Officer,
Canadian Jewish Congress
Now, we don’t know who Bernie wrote in the first instance but his email is dated 9/8/2008. The blog post in issue was 6/18/2008.
Much heavily redacted correspondence ensues with the Ottawa Police, the RCMP and the CHRC’s “Strategic Initiatives” group, “Corporate Services” and “Security”.
Amusingly, there are four pages of handwritten notes with the legend “FYI, These are my notes from my daybook” with the name or initials redacted on the grounds, apparently that that name or initial “could reasonably be expected to threaten the safety of individuals.” Yeah, right.
I will be going through the redaction in detail and will be filing complaints where appropriate. But nice to know Bernie is trolling the internet underworld looking for “threats”.
November 16th, 2009 at 3:53 pm
“..nice to know Bernie is trolling the internet underworld looking for “threats”.
Wonder if he isn’t posting some himself, you know, so as to incite some?
November 16th, 2009 at 3:55 pm
I think the word’s “kapo” isn’t it…?
November 16th, 2009 at 4:28 pm
No sense of Ha-ha, these people. I remember writing to Warren Kinsella saying that he should be hung from a lamp post, and his rotting corpse could be used for bayonet practice by laughing conservatives – and the old flit nearly had a nervous break down! He posted it on his blog, called the cops and sobbed for sympathy and wept at the inhumanity of it all.
Mark Steyn was most sympathetic when he did a write up about it entitled ‘Warren Mongering’.
All I gotta say is where do we find these a-holes…and how do I get a job like that?
November 16th, 2009 at 4:51 pm
It reads more like an expression of contempt rather than a directive for action. Admittedly it is in poor taste, but did they actually expect someone to carry out the plan?
We may be in more trouble than we realized.
November 16th, 2009 at 4:52 pm
It’s hard to believe that a fellow who has million dollar transactions in play on a daily basis has time to surf the net for snuff threads…
November 16th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Rusty Bucket;
All I gotta say is where do we find these a-holes…and how do I get a job like that?
There the kids in school that everybody hated. Usually because they where attention hogs, whiners, rats.
The suck ups in other words. Those willing to be everybody’s bitch.
As for getting a job like his,. Do you really think you could be that big a Rat 24/7?
Takes years to wear down a conscience to insensitivity to be a censor/thought cop.
JMO
November 16th, 2009 at 6:26 pm
I think uttering “serious” death threats should be illegal (though I pity the judge who has to determine “serious”). Nonetheless, it’s the very nature of any utterance that it is an act of deferred desire, however “serious” one’s promise to act in future; and so, unless you’re a pure coward, you can’t take it entirely seriously but have to weigh how much the threat represents a desire to make a sign and not just the promised act. An almost entirely serious threat is almost non-verbal; it’s the “body language” or context that suggests an inability any longer to mediate the situation with mere words. You just know she’s about to blow.
But I don’t expect people in favour of banning “bad” speech necessarily to appreciate the purpose of language’s deferral, its disruption of “real time”.
November 16th, 2009 at 6:43 pm
The essential point is that considerable anger has developed generally among conservatives who see a long repeating pattern of Liberals expecting entitlements, engaging in massive social engineering projects whenever they can, whether there is really national support for their efforts or not, and continuing their lavish personal perks while on the job, with no apologies or sense of shame apparently.
When you combine this with the widespread perception that the Liberals got away with murder in the Gomery process, and never apologized to the nation for their obvious corruption (but turned to planning the next round instead)—it is no wonder that so many people are frustrated and angry, ready to turn to more extremist viewpoints, or express themselves in words that might not occur to them normally.
And of course we are then told that it is all our fault, that we can’t adapt to the new ways of doing things. What’s new about a public agency that is modelled on the text of Orwell’s famous novel?
Certainly we are long overdue for some serious push-back against this whining mob of bureaucrats. Retire. Them. All. and then fumigate the offices a couple of times for good measure.
November 16th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
Jay, please appeal that decision of the CHRC to redact so much information. An appeal can be launched for free with the Information Commissioner of Canada. The redaction are inappropriate, and do not reflect any objections under the ATIP act.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:11 am
Yacob H…I have a happy weekend ahead. This and,of course, the FOI for the “investigation” the coward Lynch alluded to under questioning from Comartin, MP.
November 17th, 2009 at 4:09 am
What Peter said.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:00 am
As much as Lynch and the CHRC are despicable, anybody posting stupid shit like that is not helping our side. Please consider that the other side is eager to portray anybody who is opposed to human rights commission as a violent knuckled dragging redneck. Lets not give them any ammo.
That is not to say to be soft, or even polite, with Lynch and her ilk, but if you guys want to win this battle, show discipline, refrain from childish and pointless comments and focus on the substance.
We are right, we have the facts on our side. The abolition of s. 13 is ours to lose. So, please, let’s each maintain an internet presence which reflects that.
On the other hand, we must be vigilant against posters who might appear to be on our side who will post dumb shit like the above post only to plant evidence against us. Comments like that should be deleted, and the IPs from which they originate double-checked. Its not like the HRC staff needs a lesson in planting evidence on the Internet, they are experts at it.
November 17th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Jerome; Amen! All of your above and a reminder to leave the ping-pong name calling on the other side of the ‘Delete’ button, please… it doesn’t move discussion fwd., but it does lower the tone (Lord knows, you’re all a very classy lot here :) )
November 17th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
The fact that these things don’t help our side makes me wonder (in some cases) whether the more OTT comments on conservative forums and blogs are not perhaps the work of either agents provocateurs (my memories of the anti-communist days are still pretty fresh after 30-40 years), or just the rambling of essentially disturbed minds that are stumbling towards some eventual public breakdown. Stuff like this happens in all passionate political movements, occasionally, somebody is pushed too hard, or just loses it … and it’s not some great mystery either.
The most haunting image in Solzhenitsyn’s novel, the Gulag Archipelago (for me at least) is where one of the author’s colleagues in an arctic prison camp goes berserk and tries to climb the fence to get away. Of course, he is shot down for his troubles.
We all have tough choices to make in how we organize our campaigns of maximum resistance to maximum disruption. I can quite easily put myself in the place of anyone feeling a sense of desperation or extreme anger nowadays—the cause is almost self-evident yet our PM affects that he does not “get it” even though he “got it” in 1999 in his well-known speech against the developing culture of censorship.
This is always tough to take, when you vote for somebody believing that they will act in the national interest (not to mention the voter’s interest) and then they studiously avoid action in case they have to face difficult questions in a news conference or a parliamentary question period.
If we could link salary to courage in that regard, it might stimulate more courage—perhaps a tax credit, now there’s an idea.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:31 pm
Peter:
It is precisely because it is so frustrating that it is crucial that we refrain from making such comments.
Do you doubt that Lynch keeps tabs on her enemies? To her, comments like that are a gift from heaven, it allows her to say “look at the bunch of violent psychopaths im up against, are you seriously going to let people who fantasize about shooting me in the back of the head influence how we adjudicate on our human rights?” Clearly, she is using that tactic. Let’s not give her that option. This fight is way too important.
November 17th, 2009 at 12:50 pm
Jerome…the blog post in question appeared at a blog run by noted white supremacist and all round loser Robert White. He is now in jail so far as I know. These are not “our people”. However, for the coward Lynch to haul this out and pretend that it is associated in any manner with people supporting free speech is despicable. And that she was fed the comment by Bernie Farber shows just how intimate the connection between CJC and the CHRC is. Shining a light on that is important.
November 17th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
Interesting that the CJC investigates now for the CHRC but from an article over at BCF - and from a story from a banned author needing help:
“One of the things that bothered me most was that no civil rights organizations would honour my request to ask the police to reconsider their quick determination not to lay criminal charges for “causing a disturbance” (easier to prove than a charge of hate crime). When I was quoted in the Canadian Jewish News bemoaning that fact, the director of the Canadian Jewish Congress, who I had known for years and had unsuccessfully asked for assistance, got angry. He then in print said that he had no knowledge of what happened in the store, that the Congress was not an “investigative” organization (notwithstanding that I had offered him written and sworn affidavits from audience members, and most immorally of all, that he had “every confidence” in the Waterloo Police Force.”
November 17th, 2009 at 1:51 pm
Jerome, it’s ludicrous to suggest that the ravings of some madman, dredged up from the internet, have anything to do with human rights bureaucracy – yet that is precisely what Batwoman and her erstwhile butler Bernie the billion dollar bullshitter have done.
They are pocketbook characters come to life from the millions of dollars spent on words intended to serve as guidelines for correct behaviour, which otherwise can be found free in any Bible.
Furthermore, referring to ‘we’ to lend gravity to the weight of one’s words is what human rights bureaucracy is all about – seconding the individual, and their beliefs, to the ‘greater good’ as interpreted by those who fly around the world preaching gossip as gospel.
November 17th, 2009 at 2:23 pm
Lynch to haul this out and pretend that it is associated in any manner with people supporting free speech
Where and how did she do this, precisely?
November 17th, 2009 at 3:26 pm
Well, the reductio ad absurdum here is for Lynch or anyone else to say, “we’re not having due process because a neo-Nazi insulted me.”
Even if a hundred neo-Nazis insulted her, there is no justification for maintaining extra-legal processes and organized corruption on the scale of the CHRC in its past decade of “prior bad acts.”
The cynic would say that they went out looking for neo-Nazi types to get some justification for what they would later claim was their indispensable need to fight this puffed up scourge at all costs (and I mean all costs).
The damnable truth about it is that many are fooled by this straw-man paradigm and invariably they fail to notice that if nobody had done anything at all, both the neo-Nazi menace to society and the erosion of due process and constitutional liberty would all be less advanced than they are today.
In other words, this human rights campaign of maximum disruption has really disrupted only one thing, our inalienable rights. Just because you poke a stick in a hornet’s nest is no guarantee that hornets will leave you alone. I think I was six when I worked that one out. The CHRC staff look to be mostly in their late Middle Ages.
November 17th, 2009 at 7:44 pm
You clowns spend two years demonizing any individual associated with the CHRC, tossing around terms like “gestapo” and “stasi” and “corruption”, and lionizing thugs like Lemire and Fromm. And when someone like White comes along and takes your allegations to the next level, you all go into Kubler-Ross mode:
First, denial: “Hey, saying that someone should shoot Jennifer Lynch “in the back of her head so that her face can’t be recognized, dump her body in a mass
grave, and cover it with lime” isn’t really a threat. It’s just an opinion. And it’s not a letter, it’s a blog post…idiots.”
Now, anger: “How dare anyone suggest that Bill White has anything….anything to do with our carefully measured critique of the CHRC and Ilsa the She Wolf…um Jennifer Lynch. This is all Farber’s fault.”
Then some bargaining, or at least, rationalization: “Nonetheless, it’s the very nature of any utterance that it is an act of deferred desire, however “serious” one’s promise to act in future; and so, unless you’re a pure coward, you can’t take it entirely seriously but have to weigh how much the threat represents a desire to make a sign and not just the promised act.” (Thanks, professor!)
Given that most of you wouldn’t recognize due process if it jumped up and slapped a summons into your hand, and given that all of you have consistently favoured personal attack over principled discussion, this display of outrage rings hollow. There’s a little Bill White in each and every one of you, some more than others. It comes out in the conspiracy theories, the paranoia and, frankly, the rank racism that appears in comments and blogs.
November 17th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Dawg, here’s the coward Lynch’s drive by smear of people who support free speech (already cited above):
“In addition to this negative media frenzy:
• Blogs worked to destroy our investigators and litigators’
reputations and credibility with untrue accusations
• groundless complaints were lodged with the law societies
• and here is a sample of just one threat directed at me: “Someone
needs to take this fruitcake … shoot her in the back of her head
so that her face can’t be recognized, dump her body in a mass
grave, and cover it with lime.” Lynch remarks, Dublin”
tw, I would be astonished to find that White read many of the speecher blogs or, for that matter much Canadian media. He was an independent, American, nutter.
I was simply amused to learn of the the source of the coward Lynch’s pearl clutching in Dublin.
And, no, that was not a threat. It was an opinion.
“There’s a little Bill White in each and every one of you” is stupid even for you tw. I’d like to see the woman fired and her Commission thoroughly investigated because I believe that it breached the public trust, abused its authority, allowed itself to become the utensil for individuals’ agendas and that the people in charge were either witting or witless. That is certainly a threat; but it involves no violence and no violent ideas.
November 17th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Not a threat? Really, Jay? Replace Lynch’s name in White’s “opinion” with your own or that of someone you love – your children, say. I wonder how “amused” you might be then.
As for Bill White, I suppose the name “Jennifer Lynch” might have come to him in a dream, but there’s nothing particularly astonishing about an American nutter, independent or otherwise, visiting speecher blogs or Canadian media. That’s the beauty of the interwebs, isn’t it? You can, wittingly or witlessly, pass along your own paranoid visions – one in which all racist or hateful posts are the handiwork of government employees, who hijack the internet connections of fair young maidens, where a middle-aged QC from Alberta leads an organization as vicious and vile as the Gestapo or Stasi – to someone who is willing to take them just that extra mile.
November 18th, 2009 at 12:09 am
tw, if someone was obsessed with me but couldn’t manage to get my first name right – as whoever was posting at overthrow.com did with Lynch’s – I have to admit I would hardly panic.
And, tw, I defy you to point to a place where I suggest that “all racist or hateful posts are the handiwork of government employees”; but given the CHRC track record, whenever I see such things I wonder if they are real or posted by CHRC, BB, CJC, Lucy to entrap dimwits. We know that the CHRC has done it, we know that Harry has posted under pseudonyms (and even tried to get material taken down under a pseudonym), we know that the CJC has assorted trolls who post under pseudonyms and we know Lucy has several aliases. So I always wonder when I see nasty posts: bile or bait?
November 18th, 2009 at 12:40 am
You clowns spend two years demonizing any individual associated with the CHRC, tossing around terms like “gestapo” and “stasi” and “corruption”, and lionizing thugs like Lemire and Fromm. And when someone like White comes along and takes your allegations to the next level,
Oh look, the bearded woman whining about ‘two years demonizing’ bureaucrats involved in demonizing Marc ‘the thug’ Lemire for six years.
There’s more to fear from your sort of hypocritical legal evangelical than ever there was from legal layman Fromm, who at least had the balls to step in and protest the hearing room rape of Jessica Beaumont, grrrr, for writing love poems and wearing red shoe laces.
Get off the dancing horse you ponce, there’s a lot more bigot in you than racist in me.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:00 am
Actually – didn’t White refer to a ‘Jessica Lynch’? How can that even be called a death threat? He didn’t even get the right person ( no long legal explanations, please ).
So to follow up on your comment, TrueWest, using your example, it would be as if he had threatened someone called Jaylene Currie. The spirit is willing but the facts are weak.
November 18th, 2009 at 6:21 am
Jay:
You’ve made my point. No mention of free speech in any of that, just entirely truthful observations about vile personal attacks ranging from Ezra’s incessant character assassinations to White’s threat.
She said nothing by the way, but I will here, of a FreeDo regular who was informed by police that he would be arrested if he attended the Lemire hearings at the CHRT because of his threats to harm a CHRC staffer.
All part of one smelly package.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:53 am
Long before there were Human Rights Commissions and “hate speech” laws, and the like, there were sufficient laws on the books against uttering threats, vandalizing property, beating people up, et cetera. The adding of Human Rights Commissions and Acts, and “hate speech” laws, contributed absolutely nothing to securing the peace in Canada, subtracted heavily from the overall atmosphere of liberty in this country, and was a disgusting display of totalitarian thought control. People got sick and tired of it, complained, and began airing the dirty laundry of the Human Rights Commissions, of which there was plenty to air. Then some deranged lunatic posts some idiotic violent remark about Lynch, and all of a sudden this is the fault of people who rightly criticized and condemned the Commission for its wrong actions? So everybody else in the country is just supposed to put up with being told what we can and cannot think and what we can and cannot say, by some self-righteous group of “for your own good” government bureaucrats, and to put up with the atrocity of our tax dollars going to pay for gag orders, secret trials, and stuff that sounds like it is right out of Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, because if we speak out against it, it is our fault if someone goes overboard and starts making menacing remarks about members of the Commission?
November 18th, 2009 at 10:29 am
“And, tw, I defy you to point to a place where I suggest that “all racist or hateful posts are the handiwork of government employees”
I believe that was hyperbole, Jay.
“Not a threat? Really, Jay?”
No. It struck me as a distasteful expression of contempt. Hyperbole.
On the other hand, I believe Jay’s threat is real, and reasonable.
Due process. It is the process that we are complaining about. That and the statist belief that the people will still retain their fundamental right to freedom of thought and freedom of expression in the face of a government that has placed itself in the position of monitoring such. The government following a process does not make the government’s actions fair or just. But we’ve been through this before. The checks on speech defined in the criminal code are adequate. The expansion of the government’s power into the lives of the people through these tribunals and commissions is what is amiss. When the government has abridged the rights of the people, the people should petition the government to make such changes as are necessary to protect the freedom of the people. That is what has been going on here, as Jay has outlined for you.
Anyways, that’s the opinion of this clown.
November 18th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
She [Ms.QC] said nothing by the way, but I will here, of a FreeDo regular who was informed by police that he would be arrested if he attended the Lemire hearings at the CHRT because of his threats to harm a CHRC staffer.
You must be referring to the dreaded Sir Edward Kennedy, grrr, and specifically the Mar 25 ‘08 Lemire hearing, which the CHRT had announced was closed to the public.
Fortunately, Maclean’s intervened to force an open hearing – thus ending the CHRC/T ‘reign of error’.
Still, no photos of CHRC personnel were permitted, due fear for their personal safety – which said more about the fear tactics cast by ‘human rights’ bureaucracy than any actual threat to folks employed in that censorship body.
What the police visit advising Edward not to attend that hearing did confirm is that FreeDominion was being constantly monitored by CHRC personnel for ‘subversive’ views – and the close ties between the CHRC and police, which had previously been employed to roust information on folks under CHRC investigations springing from complaints by Lucy the Teutonic Tart.
As far as I’m aware, Edward’s invitation for CHRC personnel to attend his backwoods camp for a fun-filled weekend still stands, and as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow he’d be more than happy to host you, too, Dawg.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Just to be clear, the “deranged lunatic” in my above post, refers to the person who made the remark Jay quotes Lynch as having quoted, in his original blog entry, and not to anyone at FD. Dr. Dawg’s post had not been approved for general viewing yet when I wrote mine.
November 18th, 2009 at 2:55 pm
I’m sure that when the Red Army (or the German army for that matter) came sweeping over the border of any given (former) country in WW-II, the local scoundrels and thugs took up the same weapons as the rest of the citizens. Sometimes they had better aim too. Then when the war was over and their country was liberated (in some cases) they were occasionally the new rulers of that land.
I would agree that our free speech cause should not be overly sidetracked by vast rituals of praise and submission to people whose overall pedigree in terms of personal liberty is chequered. This gives the censors a reason to give concessions to people that they can later hold up to be poor examples of the virtues of free speech.
Any agent provocateur would recognize the tactic, it’s sort of like when the Liberals send people into a Conservative nomination meeting (anonymously) to vote for the candidate they would rather face in an election—and against the one they would rather not face. Saves them a lot of trouble later on.
I would just say this, word to the wise—lionizing Fromm and Lemire has no doubt gone far enough to satisfy the requirements of both logic and decency. When people then propose to lionize Ernst Zundel, this is about where the total disconnect sets in for many like myself who got into the free speech fight to make this a better country, not Germany a worse country.
November 18th, 2009 at 3:01 pm
Dawg, with the exception of the “White” post, and acknowledging that the coward Lynch did not deign to give concrete examples, many of the attacks on the abuse of process by staff and complainants go to the heart of the free speech argument. Bad enough to have this absurd regulation in place, but when the enforcers begin to fancy themselves either secret agents or above the law the rot is complete and free speech has been curtailed.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:04 pm
Well, Dr. Dawg,
“...She said nothing by the way, but I will here, of a ‘FreeDo regular’ who was informed by police that he would be arrested if he attended the Lemire hearings at the CHRT because of his threats to harm a CHRC staffer.
All part of one smelly package….”
the reason Mrs. Lynch said nothing about that particular FreeDo regular is simply that what this regular claimed and claims on that website just did not happen. That FreeDo regular has never proven that ANY of his claims of ‘police visitations and warnings’ with respect to Ms. Lynch or the CHRC, EVER occurred.
Since it appears it is to your/or any pro CHRC type’s advantage to repeat an unproven claim by a noted nutter on the FreeDo website then obviously (to me at least) you truly have little, if any, credible argument that Ms. Lynch (CHRC) has reason to complain about all of the supposed threats to her person by anyone opposed to the anti-free-speech regime of the CHRC elitists.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:16 pm
Peter, you wrote:
I would just say this, word to the wise—lionizing Fromm and Lemire has no doubt gone far enough to satisfy the requirements of both logic and decency. When people then propose to lionize Ernst Zundel, this is about where the total disconnect sets in for many like myself who got into the free speech fight to make this a better country,
Peter, Ernst Zundel was ‘lionized, (i.e.given celebrity status), by his opponents and his sychophants alike – the former to silence criticism of their dubious backroom legal initiatives, the latter due his championing their prejudice.
To criticize persecution of the man was and remains proof of being a ‘nazi’ sympathizer to folks such as Dawg or TW, rather than simply being concerned that the methods employed to dim his lights are unsound, and lead to disrespect of and for the Canadian Justice system.
Prior to the CHRC ‘investigation’ of FreeDominion, their ‘hate speech’ programme appeared, on the surface, to be a just pursuit.
It was when the inevitable expansion into broader pastures took place that folks woke up to ‘chria creep’, and when awakened couldn’t tell victor from victim, except that the one was being paid, and the other played.
November 18th, 2009 at 4:21 pm
the reason Mrs. Lynch said nothing about that particular FreeDo regular is simply that what this regular claimed and claims on that website just did not happen. That FreeDo regular has never proven that ANY of his claims of ‘police visitations and warnings’ with respect to Ms. Lynch or the CHRC, EVER occurred.
Wrong. I have had this confirmed personally by the individual threatened. I attended the hearings that day, and bodyguards were in place, one of whom I know quite well, as it happens—a former police officer.
November 19th, 2009 at 3:34 am
Why settle for naysayers or hearsayers when one can go straight to source , to determine for oneself whether the long arm of the law was warranted and employed to prevent Sir Edward from attending.
As an added bonus, one can read the actual ‘threats to harm a CHRC staffer’...
November 19th, 2009 at 5:16 am
An approach and individual me might be able to use. Seems he gets results and look at what he uncovered at the CRA.
http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2009/11/18/11784121-sun.html
November 19th, 2009 at 6:56 am
Yes dr. Dawg – we know that you and Richard shared a beer or two. You should be careful of your companionship for I understand that the credibility of said individual was questioned by CHRT Chairman Lustig.
November 19th, 2009 at 8:33 am
I agree with Peter that we should not be “lionizing” Ernst Zundel. Zundel has, however, been dehumanized and demonized by the various and sundry groups and individuals who think that ideas and words should be against the law, and not just acts of violence. Perhaps a little humanization is not out of order? One should not have to agree with or like Zundel’s ideas, to be offended by the way our government spent so much of our tax dollars persecuting the man for the non-violent expression of his bizarre views. Likewise, however, one should not have to join in the demonization and dehumanization of Zundel, in order to be allowed to voice one’s objection to that persecution, without fear of being accused of being sympathetic to the Third Reich.
November 21st, 2009 at 8:28 am
I continue to be amazed at the inordinate attention heaped on Bernie Farber as though he has some special powers or status. He is simply an advocate, some think a persuasive advocate, but that’s all he is. So this hyper attention you and others give him is bizarre.
Your friend Ezra attacks Farber for everything from farting to burping. Ezra’s fellow female disciples follow his every move, tongues hanging from their mouths, lascivious looks in their beady eyes, stalking him online relentlessly. It almost looks as though there is something fetishistic here.
Get a grip folks. Not many really care and your continuing childlike antics betray your real agenda.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:29 am
And just what exactly is our real agenda Eliezer? Please do elaborate.
November 21st, 2009 at 10:03 am
your son has been a naughty boy, Elli…
November 21st, 2009 at 1:14 pm
Jay, I am having a quiet chuckle at Elli’s post and the rather cryptic message from Maikeru about Elli’s son. Not sure what it means then again rumor, threat and innuendo are par for the course with some of your friends.
In the end I have to agree with Elli about the inordinate attention you pay to Farber. I support the CJC but I am critical when it deserves to be criticized. I, unlike you and many of your pals who use your bully platform, do so civilly.
BTW if I were you I’d focus my attention on the new CJC president. Yes I know your pal Ezra already has started his smear campaign (not untypically making it about Freiman’s personal looks…what a child Ezra is) but fact is Freiman is a force to be reckoned with. Together with Farber they will be formidable foes for you and your minions. Then again these two against all the rest of you…gotta like the odds.
November 21st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
Is it spring already? The CJC trolls are back! Mordy we have nothing to fear from the likes of the CJC and the Canadian Islamic Congress, their little proxy war to control debate on the mid east has been exposed.
November 21st, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Mordechai, please thank Mr. Freiman for me if you will.
His expression ‘moral anaesthetizing’ during the Parliamentary subcommittee hearing put words to the process I have been most critical of with regard to CJC and BB activities in the human rights hate-speech arena.
It illustrates quite well the expression:
‘One sees one’s own worst faults in others’
November 21st, 2009 at 6:10 pm
I wholeheartedly agree with Mr. Neal’s comment at (#40). Very well said.
November 21st, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Mordechai,
From time to time I am in correspondence with Mark. He is wrong on many points but intelligently wrong. I do not view either Mark or Bernie as “foes”. Simply being wrong on s. 13 does not make them my enemy, rather it means that they have not yet taken s. 2 of the Charter as seriously as it needs to be taken. I expect that will change.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:41 pm
You are pretty funny Jay. Mark Freiman is one of Canada’s most respected legalists. A former Deputy A-G, hired buy various levels of government as special Counsel, senior partner with one of Canada’s most prestigous law firms. I think I will go with him over you any day.
November 21st, 2009 at 9:50 pm
Shut up Mitka, and why are you calling yourself Winnifred?
November 21st, 2009 at 10:23 pm
W, aka Mitka, aka “voice of the CJC”; why won’t you take yes for an answer. I was very impressed with Freiman at the HoC Justice Committee hearing and wrote him to tel him so. That does not mean I think he’s right. He isn’t. But he is wrong in an interesting and intelligent way unlike the Bernies and Jackals of this world.
Freiman is capable of taking s. 2 seriously. When he does he will, being an able lawyer, recognize that s. 13 cannot be justified if we take our rights under s. 2 as meaning anything. At which point he will change his mind.
He is smart enough to change his mind. Not many are.
November 22nd, 2009 at 5:40 am
Once you get over your obsession with who I may or may not be perhaps you will also realize that Mr. Freiman’s experince and knowledge far outweighs yours.His experience with s.2 seems to be more than yours given your only experience appears to be here online.
November 22nd, 2009 at 10:25 am
But Winnie and Dawg,
I cannot understand the subversion/undermining of DND, especially by someone from there Dawg who had a Beer with and then this? Sources?
>>>Torturegate North: the “6,000-mile screwdriver”
The phrase above is used in military circles to describe far-flung command-and-control systems. And we now know who was turning that tool as far back as 2007: Stephen Harper.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s office used a “6,000-mile screwdriver” to oversee the denial of reports of Afghan detainee abuse when the scandal first erupted in 2007, according to a former senior NATO public affairs official who was then based in Kabul.
The former official, speaking on condition his name not be used, told the Toronto Star that Harper’s office in Ottawa “scripted and fed” the precise wording NATO officials in Kabul used to repudiate allegations of abuse “at a time when it was privately and generally acknowledged in our office that the chances of good treatment at the hands of Afghan security forces were almost zero.”
“It was highly unusual. I was told this was the titanic issue for Prime Minister Harper and that every single statement that went out needed to be cleared by him personally,” said the former official, who is not Canadian.
“The lines were, ‘We have no evidence’ of coercive treatment being used against detainees handed over to the Afghans. There were very clear instructions for a blanket denial. The pressure to hold to that line was channelled via Canadian military and diplomatic personnel in Kabul. But it was made clear to us that this was coming from the Prime Minister’s Office, which was running the public affairs aspect of Canadian engagement in Afghanistan with a 6,000-mile screwdriver.”
The Americans, of course, set their usual “Abu Ghraib” standard:
“The Americans in particular were not remotely squeamish on this. To them, everyone was an enemy combatant.”
And as for diplomat Richard Colvin, who, it has been suggested, might someday be remembered as the man who ended our war in Afghanistan:
“Richard Colvin behaved as a straight-up-and-down person, completely honest and doing his job to the best of his abilities,” the former official said.
“He had to be terribly careful. He couldn’t speak to us about this. But it was clear that the tone at the Canadian Embassy had changed. It became far more politicized – and it was clear that Richard Colvin was struggling enormously to do his work on the question of detainees.” [emphasis added]
Not hard to read between the lines there.
Far from showing any signs of moving to page two, this story may prove to be Harper’s Waterloo. It has more legs than a centipede, and if I might extend the metaphor, new shoes are dropping every day. Colvin’s credibility, never at issue, is being continually reinforced. Other well-placed individuals, appalled by the crass attacks on him by baying Conservative hacks, are now emerging, one by one, to have their say.
Canadians are not normally moved sufficiently by international issues to change their votes. But this isn’t really about Afghanistan any more. It’s about the brutal perfidy of the Conservative government, its gall, its utter lack of class, its willingness to cover up, to prevaricate, to temporize: hell, to lie its way out of a tight spot. It’s a character issue. The electorate seldom rewards such flagrant political turpitude.
Attacking Richard Colvin, the messenger? Is that the best that wretched lot can do at this point? Even Harper’s old mentor Tom Flanagan is showing signs of unease. It’s like lighting a fuse. Guy Fawkes isn’t in the parliamentary cellar these days: he’s sitting in plain sight on the government front benches.
But still no word from the ever-elusive former human rights advocate Michael Ignatieff. To borrow a phrase that I’ve used before in this connection, the present Liberal “leader” never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity. And that may be the only thing that ultimately rescues this government from the fate it so richly deserves.< <<
November 22nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
Jay you are pretty funny. I love it that you think Im Winnifred. Arnie Shaidle, keep on guessing, at least it will keep you off the streets.
Jay, here are a couple links giving Freiman’s Bonafides:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Freiman
http://www.mccarthy.ca/news_release_detail.aspx?id=3179
Now why don’t you post yours and we will best be all able to judge for ourselves who has more credibility.
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Mitka/winnifred…why don’t you guys take yes for an answer. I have a great deal of respect for Freiman. I think he is wrong on s. 13 and I think he is wrong with his idea that somehow s. 13 is about the message and not the messenger. I think he is also wrong with respect to Taylor because the Commission has been transformed from a shield to a sword and that was not at all within the contemplation of the Court in Taylor. But think the man mistaken in no way diminishes my respect for him.
Which is exactly what I wrote him a couple of hours after his appearance before the Justice Committee.
November 22nd, 2009 at 1:30 pm
Mitka I never really knew Mr. Freiman’s legal background. Thanks for this. Jay are you also a lawyer or maybe a PI?
November 22nd, 2009 at 4:17 pm
Nice try Mitka/Winni but you forget we cross reference your IP addresses.
November 22nd, 2009 at 6:50 pm
Winka, you wrote:
Mark Freiman is one of Canada’s most respected legalists. A former Deputy A-G, hired buy various levels of government as special Counsel, senior partner with one of Canada’s most prestigous law firms.
......
Mr. Freiman’s experince and knowledge far outweighs yours. His experience with s.2 seems to be more than yours given your only experience appears to be here online.
Mark Freiman’s legal credentials are impeccable, which is a relief considering his position is one mere mortals expect to be filled by the best and brightest that the Jewish community has to offer fellow Canadians.
However, the legal community is but one facet of society, and one which has evolved into something akin to those which, in previous ages, were the guardians of the hidden vowel which entitled only they to speak to Yehoweh.
While great at determining the worth of wearing seatbelts, or the distance one must keep from portals whilst smoking, the legal community has become a reactionary element of society, while positing views portrayed as progressive.
The internet, otoh, is an egalitarian medium where one’s inner thoughts, on even the most important of subjects, are transposed most effectively through 300 word bursts – unlike the extended format of tedious, yet necessary, legal directives expected of the judiciary.
It may well be that what is crafted in such short bursts is misunderstood by the reader, especially when viewed out of context – and worse, when given connotation not intended by the writer, eg. the ‘Edward Kennedy’ FreeDominion posts referred to earlier herein.
Jay’s online credentials are excellent. He has a broad array of writers responding to the topics he initiates, and has a knack for even-handed assessment of same before mounting, and/or himself commenting on same.
I do hope that Jay is right in his assessment that Mark Freiman will move towards views which dignify a positive spirit and intent of Justice – rather than those to which reflect this passage from the King James Bible:
Luke 11:46
And he said, Woe unto you also, ye lawyers! for ye lade men with burdens grievous to be borne, and ye yourselves touch not the burdens with one of your fingers.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:28 am
Jay can cruise the internet until the sky turns purple. Unfortunately it will not help advance his legal resume or legal experience.
Freiman is recognized internationally for his legal experience. Yes Jay can have an opinion but when it comes to “legal” opinions I will go with the real lawyer as opposed to a blogger any day.
November 23rd, 2009 at 12:40 pm
Mitka, I must admit that I have been impressed with Jay’s knowledge of s.2 and the laws around speech. If he were more mature in his postings I do believe he would be taken a bit more seriously.
As for Mr. Freiman, I also see that he was the special counsel on the Air india terrorist attack. He is undoubtedly no slacker. In fact his review of Ezra Levant’s book, in the CLR was brilliant. He eviscerated Ezra who continues to walk around with his intestines hanging out asking who did this to him.
Given Mr. Freiman’s long stated position I would find it hard to think that he will suddenly change. He is savy and I expect the government is listening very closely to him. By the way the best Ezra was able to do againt Freiman’s presentation before the Justice committee was to make some kind of childish remark about the way he combs his hair. Silly but not unexpected from Levant.
November 23rd, 2009 at 4:29 pm
Gus, there’s no need to eviscerate Ezra Levine to know that the man has the guts to ‘lift up the burdens grievous’.
Quite frankly, his observation of Mark’s hair style was as cute as it was correct.
As well, Ezra has had personal experience with the respondent end of ‘the process’ that Mark Freiman, with the full weight of his professional credentials, stands squarely behind.
Mark Freiman’s credentials include involvement in the long-running and expensive Air India saga – the outcome of which satisfied only the perps.
That honour may look good on paper, but it hasn’t done much to assure the public that society is best off leaving things of great importance to Canada’s legal community for however long they deem necessary.
This penchant for proferring credentials to establish some sort of online caste system (one blogger even gives his moniker a PhD) is actually quite amusing.
As an egalitarian estate, the internet has the capacity to lop heads off royalty where deserved, and provides a level playing field for the little people.
November 23rd, 2009 at 6:37 pm
Anon, you will forgive me but I have no idea what you have written above. Of the little I can decipher I see that you are under the impression that the Air India Inquiry, to which Mr. Freiman is special counsel has reported. Wrong! It has yet to report so perhaps yopu can save your critical comments till then.
The levant comment on Mr. Freiman’s hairstyle was ignorant. Anyone who believes otherwise is ignorant. My two cents.
November 23rd, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Freiman’s review of Levant’s book in the Literary Review of Canada is a must read. While deftly taking apart Levant’s glorified pamphlet (and to some degree Levant) Freiman addresses the weaknesses and flaw of the human rights process in ways that Levant, whose ignorance of procedural issues is manifest in his every post, is incapable of articulating, other than by juvenile name-calling and ill-informed hyperbole.
But then Freiman is a thoughtful and serious person and Levant is a political hack and a buffoon.
As are his many fans, like Maikeru, who wrote:
The internet, otoh, is an egalitarian medium where one’s inner thoughts, on even the most important of subjects, are transposed most effectively through 300 word bursts – unlike the extended format of tedious, yet necessary, legal directives expected of the judiciary.
Which translates into: “the idiotic bumper stickers and t-shirts slogans that pass for my deepest thoughts are every bit as valid and significant as the most elegant, closely-argued and rigorous argument that is offered in the highest courts of the land.”
Hubris doesn’t begin to cover it.
November 24th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Pete, you wrote:
Anon, you will forgive me but I have no idea what you have written above.Of course I’ll forgive you Pete. In return, I hope you’ll forgive me for neglecting to check that my post had proper attribution before hitting the ‘send’ button’.
Of the little I can decipher I see that you are under the impression that the Air India Inquiry, to which Mr. Freiman is special counsel has reported. Wrong! It has yet to report so perhaps yopu can save your critical comments till then.
You’re kidding, right? The Air India saga was initiated 24 years ago and they’ve yet to report, despite having such august legal minds as Mark Freiman on board ?
Well then, I’ll have to wait a bit longer to state that only the perps were satisfied, and perhaps revise my statement to include those who are still on the payroll some 2 1/2 decades after the fact.
Regardless, the kiddies of the of those blown to kingdom come, and perhaps their kiddies too, will be happy to hear that Mark is still on the case.
The levant comment on Mr. Freiman’s hairstyle was ignorant. Anyone who believes otherwise is ignorant. My two cents.
Actually, Mark’s hairdresser is the one who you should be chastizing for sheer ignorance. But then again, not a lot of young’uns know much about those days these days – yourself included.
November 24th, 2009 at 1:02 am
TW, my take on the ‘elegant, closely-argued and rigourous argument’ which served as the basis for expulsion of a Canadian citizen from this great land is that folks such as you who hold that tripe up to be ‘elegant, etc,’ are not to be trusted, as you are incapable of understanding the difference between law and justice.
I could be mistaken – you may simply be amoral, and so incapable of understanding the difference. But you are a keyboard comrade on Jay’s site, and by posting herein are entitled to the same respect as, well, me.
So why not read that decision yourself, and tell me why you consider it worthy of your high praise.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:10 am
And I don’t trust people like you, Maikeru, who hold Ernst Zundel out as a martyr. Or, as Stormfront would have it, a “German political prisoner”. Crawl back under your rock.
November 24th, 2009 at 7:33 am
Zundel was never a Canadian citizen.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:03 am
Very elegant, TW. You’re quite the wordsmith.
When keyboard comrade Harry Abrams first posted that Decision as ‘proof’ of Marc Lemire’s leadership of a CSIS-founded group which was ‘the most powerful racist gang to hit Canada since the real Nazis back in the Dirty Thirties’, I took the time to read it all the way through, including that ‘elegant, rigourous’ sentence penned by The Honourable Mr. Justice Blais – whose credentials rival, if not surpass, Mark Freiman’s.
Ernst Zundel is hardly a ‘martyr’ – he’s more a dupe used by folks such as yourself to claim some moral high ground, which otherwise eludes your abilities due lack of any real empathy for Truth and Justice.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Thank you Dawg.
I understand he was simply a non-permanent Permanent Resident who was unable to satisfy the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, and the Solicitor General of Canada, that his presence in Canada would not be detrimental to the national interest due facts for which there were reasonable grounds to believe may occur.
The facts, it was learned, were so dangerous to national security that they and their provenance couldn’t possibly be revealed to defendent counsel, who was ‘friendly’ with his client.
(Not as friendly as Carlos the Jackel’s Counsel, mind)
The national interest, as decided by movers and shakers at the time, was to establish a legal basis for building up a quasi-judicial bureaucracy engaged in persecuting Canadians for comments likely to offend fellow Canadians.
You, of course, are immune to such tawdry claims, which is why you felt entitled to call me a nazi in response to being called, in effect, an addled hound.
November 24th, 2009 at 11:53 am
TW & Dawg, the FOI ‘anonymous’ comments directed to you were mine, if there was any doubt.