Warman v Fromm decision released

[M.Dancer]

And for the record, I have noted your peculiar use of the word 'fabulous' which gives me reason to pause when I ponder your sexual proclivities..

And so you may because:

adj.

Barely credible; astonishing: the fabulous endurance of a marathon runner.

Extremely pleasing or successful: a fabulous vacation.

[White Doors]

fabulooouuuus!!!

[raz395]

Interesting discussion here. Very balanced and all views presented in a light and interesting way.

Perhaps to clarify some points, in the decision it was clear that "malice" was evident in Paul Fromm's actions and words, so the decision was pretty clear.

This issue is clouded perhaps by the identities of the people involved, but it is a simple case of defamation, imo.

Thanks for your comments!

[Pliny]

I don't think you get it. Saying you hate me is fine. In fact stand in line. Saying I'm crooked, dishonest or have peculiar sexual proclivities with small mammals and then publish that and distribute that in order to cause me grief with my family or business is not.

And that is what Fromm is guilty of.

Lying again with more half-truths. White doors correctly points out that if it is true it should not be actionable. May I publish the fact you are being dishonest?

I don't think you get it.

I for instance cannot say I hold any disdain for those whom I may personally consider have certain "peculiar sexual proclivities". I wouldn't, unless I was being hit upon to actively participate and would probably not make it public but if I did I may wish to express some disdain and publish that experience. The fact is, I can't without fear of legal retribution or minimally being assigned certain pejoratives, bad-mouthed and relegated to non-person status.

[M.Dancer]

Lying again with more half-truths. White doors correctly points out that if it is true it should not be actionable. May I publish the fact you are being dishonest?

If it is true and it goes to court, the verdict is not guilty. If it is true it is not defamation. Someone can still sue you, but if it is true, tey don't win. Consider Oscar Wilde. He launched a suit against Lord so and so because Lord So and So said Wilde was a professed player of the pink Oboe. Wilde claimed damages from Lord So and So.

Wilde Lost.

I don't think you quite understood what white doors is saying, nor do I have a clue what your last paragraph is about.

[Pliny]

If it is true and it goes to court, the verdict is not guilty. If it is true it is not defamation. Someone can still sue you, but if it is true, tey don't win. Consider Oscar Wilde. He launched a suit against Lord so and so because Lord So and So said Wilde was a professed player of the pink Oboe. Wilde claimed damages from Lord So and So.

Wilde Lost.

I don't think you quite understood what white doors is saying, nor do I have a clue what your last paragraph is about.

Yes. I am not arguing about libel, slander or defamation. You can sue for those reasons and win.

If someone spreads around the word, today in Canada, that a certain someone enjoys playing the pink oboe (not that there is anything wrong with that) the person can lose his job with the Boy Scouts either by being let go or having parents no longer enroll their children in the Boy Scouts resulting in the chapter, or the whole organization, collapsing.

Can he sue the organization for letting him go because the organization would like parents to continue to enroll their children in the organization? Can he sue the parents because out of lack of confidence they have removed their children from the Boy Scouts? Or could he sue the person who had exposed the fact for malice and intent to harm?

In reality, if society had no problem with blue-veined tuba players then no one would pay any attention to some imbecile making mention of the fact that there was one in the orchestra. However, society does seem to have a problem with it and so a law must be struck to cover up this problem. Canada can now self-righteously say it is problem free in this respect. Meanwhile, society has been asked to paint a veneer over itself and hide all thoughts of hatred - unless it is something we can all hate together, like intolerance - except for fascism, we can be openly intolerant of that, and Brussels Sprouts.

Luckily, I can still express my dislike of the NDP. I suppose because being NDP is still a choice and not in their genes but once it is discovered to be in their genes we will see a law passed outlawing the expression of NDPophobia.

In the final analysis, one must be careful with what he says, and that's the pity.

Edited November 29, 2007 by Pliny

[raz395]

Yes. I am not arguing about libel, slander or defamation. You can sue for those reasons and win.

If someone spreads around the word, today in Canada, that a certain someone enjoys playing the pink oboe (not that there is anything wrong with that) the person can lose his job with the Boy Scouts either by being let go or having parents no longer enroll their children in the Boy Scouts resulting in the chapter, or the whole organization, collapsing.

Can he sue the organization for letting him go because the organization would like parents to continue to enroll their children in the organization? Can he sue the parents because out of lack of confidence they have removed their children from the Boy Scouts? Or could he sue the person who had exposed the fact for malice and intent to harm?

In reality, if society had no problem with blue-veined tuba players then no one would pay any attention to some imbecile making mention of the fact that there was one in the orchestra. However, society does seem to have a problem with it and so a law must be struck to cover up this problem. Canada can now self-righteously say it is problem free in this respect. Meanwhile, society has been asked to paint a veneer over itself and hide all thoughts of hatred - unless it is something we can all hate together, like intolerance - except for fascism, we can be openly intolerant of that, and Brussels Sprouts.

Luckily, I can still express my dislike of the NDP. I suppose because being NDP is still a choice and not in their genes but once it is discovered to be in their genes we will see a law passed outlawing the expression of NDPophobia.

In the final analysis, one must be careful with what he says, and that's the pity.

One must always be careful with what one says, since all human beings are damaged by vitriol, prejudice and malice, and what you say can come back on you. It is simply a function of living in society together. You make me think ... perhaps the reason that people like Paul Fromm don't seems to have the ability or interest in censoring their own words is because they are not really committed to living in this society: They want their own 'white nation' so they have no respect for the civilities that allow us to live together in peace.

Food for thought.

[Brain Candy]

So he was sued for calling a person a threat to free speech, ironic.

It seems most people are siding with the other guy because they are offended by Fromm's politics, logic.

[Pliny]

The question to ask is whether Fromm is more dangerous to society than Warman.

One must always be careful with what one says, since all human beings are damaged by vitriol, prejudice and malice, and what you say can come back on you. It is simply a function of living in society together. You make me think ... perhaps the reason that people like Paul Fromm don't seems to have the ability or interest in censoring their own words is because they are not really committed to living in this society: They want their own 'white nation' so they have no respect for the civilities that allow us to live together in peace.

Food for thought.

Humans are not damaged as easily as you think.

Living in society together cooperatively requires common bonds, and a common understanding. This is the major reason multiculturalism is a failure.

One, if he wishes to operate in society must monitor what he says, I agree. The question is do we need a law to force him to monitor what he thinks and says? As you say, "what you say can come back on you." I agree. What we say will come back on us. If we haven't learned this by the time we are adults we will find ourselves in jail or ostracized from participating constructively within society. We should know not to tell harmful lies or hold malice toward others.

Edited November 30, 2007 by Pliny

[jbg]

I noticed this was RAZ395's first post. Perhaps he is fishing for a new legal case.

You know, I dislike socialists. I post my dislike for them around the net. Am I ok in doing that or am I not. American woman is a big time socialist, is she going to sue me?

I dislike bourgeoius class warriors against the proletariat. Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Income tax is slavery to the Queen. Canada's government, lacking a popularly ratified amending formula, is illegal.

[Pliny]

I dislike bourgeoius class warriors against the proletariat. Religion is the opiate of the masses.

Income tax is slavery to the Queen. Canada's government, lacking a popularly ratified amending formula, is illegal.

Definitely not the words of a liberal in the classical sense.

The Queen is not amused! Your antics are duly noted.

Religion, per Marx, is the opiate of the masses, so he invented the mother of all religions - Communism. It is adhered to with great fervor and conviction. Once in its grasp the individual's world revolves around it.

[raz395]

The question to ask is whether Fromm is more dangerous to society than Warman.

Humans are not damaged as easily as you think.

Living in society together cooperatively requires common bonds, and a common understanding. This is the major reason multiculturalism is a failure.

One, if he wishes to operate in society must monitor what he says, I agree. The question is do we need a law to force him to monitor what he thinks and says? As you say, "what you say can come back on you." I agree. What we say will come back on us. If we haven't learned this by the time we are adults we will find ourselves in jail or ostracized from participating constructively within society. We should know not to tell harmful lies or hold malice toward others.

Fromm is guilty of plain old fashioned defamation. Not a political issue at all.

I agree that in a civil society one needs to build bonds. However, I have a sneaking suspicion I would find it easier to forge a bond with anyone from any culture except you, given your white superiority complex and narrow-minded thinking. Multiculturalism is a success from my perspective, because we have learned that the things that allow people to forge those bonds have nothing to do with what culture they come from.

[Pliny]

Fromm is guilty of plain old fashioned defamation. Not a political issue at all.

I agree that in a civil society one needs to build bonds. However, I have a sneaking suspicion I would find it easier to forge a bond with anyone from any culture except you, given your white superiority complex and narrow-minded thinking. Multiculturalism is a success from my perspective, because we have learned that the things that allow people to forge those bonds have nothing to do with what culture they come from.

Your suspicions would indeed make it hard to build bonds. Did someone tell you I was white?

What about multiculturalism has been a success in your view?

Edited December 3, 2007 by Pliny

[Posit]

Your suspicions would indeed make it hard to build bonds. Did someone tell you I was white?

What about multiculturalism has been a success in your view?

The multicultural movement is nothing but a red herring invented by the right wing to ensure WASP control and power in society. By creating a multicultural label they can reduce ALL collective but individual minorities in to one big melting pot. When they provide one service or benefit for any individual, they can use the multicultural label to imply that they have dealt fairly with all minorities. It is a ruse and an obstacle to full equality, which cannot be equal unless and until there is full equity granted.

Are you ~white~? And what does it matter? Are you marking your ~white~ territory as if it makes you a member of an exclusive club? However, it matters not what colour your skin is but where your thoughts and ideas that you present come from. That makes you whomever you define yourself to be, and under what conditions you will accept and be accepted. Nothing else matters...unless of course you belong to one of those right wing white supremacists groups trying to advance the right to remain ignorant....like a few that like to troll here....

Edited December 3, 2007 by Posit

[kengs333]

The multicultural movement is nothing but a red herring invented by the right wing to ensure WASP control and power in society. By creating a multicultural label they can reduce ALL collective but individual minorities in to one big melting pot. When they provide one service or benefit for any individual, they can use the multicultural label to imply that they have dealt fairly with all minorities. It is a ruse and an obstacle to full equality, which cannot be equal unless and until there is full equity granted.

Figures.

There'll never be true equality until people like you learn when to shut up. Racism isn't only a white-on-nonwhite phenomena, no matter how mauch anti-whites/anti-Europeans will try to argue otherwise.

[Pliny]

The multicultural movement is nothing but a red herring invented by the right wing to ensure WASP control and power in society. By creating a multicultural label they can reduce ALL collective but individual minorities in to one big melting pot. When they provide one service or benefit for any individual, they can use the multicultural label to imply that they have dealt fairly with all minorities. It is a ruse and an obstacle to full equality, which cannot be equal unless and until there is full equity granted.

Are you ~white~? And what does it matter? Are you marking your ~white~ territory as if it makes you a member of an exclusive club? However, it matters not what colour your skin is but where your thoughts and ideas that you present come from. That makes you whomever you define yourself to be, and under what conditions you will accept and be accepted. Nothing else matters...unless of course you belong to one of those right wing white supremacists groups trying to advance the right to remain ignorant....like a few that like to troll here....

She is just suspicious I am white. She doesn't know.

People will generally feel more affinity for their own race but that does not mean they must then dislike any other race. Discordance between races and cultures is usually based more upon suspicions and generalities than reality.

I am glad you agree with me that multiculturalism is a failure.