scribblet Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 It appears that Freedominion.ca has is the subject of a human rights complaint, which should send a chill through the spine of every owner of a discussion group. Not to mention the lack of transparency in the process - kinda sends a shudder down your spine and makes one think about jack boots etc. http://www.canadafreepress.com/2007/judi071907.htm Perhaps it was bureaucratic oversight rather than political agenda that Human Rights officials did not send the complaint to the accused. Surely any Canadian body would not seek to make doubly sure the defendant couldn’t possibly meet their deadline! What is happening to Free Dominion takes me all the way back to 1992 when my monthly newspaper Toronto Free Press, then known as Our Toronto was called before the Mayor’s Committee on Race Relations. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexandra Posted July 19, 2007 Report Share Posted July 19, 2007 The question is, who would put themselves in the unenviable position of making a complaint to the HRC about a message board? How would one prove an anonymous poster had incited hatred against the complainant on the net. Why would a disaffected poster expose her/himself to what could be unfavorable publicity -- or worse. This group at FD seem to be an extreme hard core right wing anti-abortion, anti-gay and anti-Harper 40 and 50 year old somethings with a very few 20 somethings thrown in to the pot. Obviously their rather venomous attacks against red tories or moderate conservatives would offend anyone tory or liberal but to take it to an HRC for the purpose of shutting down the forum or whatever is infringing on the right to offend by 'speaking freely'. I keep reading how a guy on this board brags about shutting down the CBC forum. IMO that is something totally without merit of any kind. Matter of fact I think working to shut down a Canadian forum whether left, right or center, speaks to the character (or lack of) of anyone involved in what appears to be nothing more than an exercise in egotism. Which could be the case with this FD thing. Or, ideology. ` Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikedavid00 Posted July 20, 2007 Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 What is happening to Free Dominion takes me all the way back to 1992 when my monthly newspaper Toronto Free Press, then known as Our Toronto was called before the Mayor’s Committee on Race Relations. I like what the article said: "Liberals don’t like opposing opinions. If it doesn’t fit with their own thoughts, then it should be silenced. How typical,” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted July 20, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 20, 2007 Interesting, it appears that another site has also been hit, for anti semitism. Looks like there needs to be a definition of what is 'crossing the line' here. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...Technology/home "Anita Bromberg, director of the legal department of B'nai Brith Canada, which has joined Mr. Abrams in the complaint, said the articles "are virulently anti-Israel to the point that they meet the criteria of crossing the line of legitimate criticism of the state straight into anti-Semitism." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 There it goes. Free speech is out the window. Human rights complaints because someone got offended. And we all know the way those judgements go. Freedom is much more important than catering people's feelings. Paraphrasing ol' Kim, if you never get offended, your not living in a free society. Suck it up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posit Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 Freedom of speech is not under attack. Harbouring hate literature under the guise of free speech never has been allowed. However, until now the internet has always escaped that slight of hand. Now not only the authors of hate speech should be aware but the operators of web forums like this should be a little more diligent in editing and moderating their content. Ottawa Man Fined for Promoting Hatred {snippet} "The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal yesterday ordered Bobby James Wilkinson to stop engaging in hate speech and fined him $4,000 for postings on an Internet site he hosted on behalf of a fledgling neo-Nazi movement he hoped would usher in a society free from ethnic minorities, gays and Jews." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted July 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 "The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal yesterday ordered Bobby James Wilkinson to stop engaging in hate speech and fined him $4,000 for postings on an Internet site he hosted on behalf of a fledgling neo-Nazi movement he hoped would usher in a society free from ethnic minorities, gays and Jews." Define hatred - and therein lies the problem, although I don't doubt that the above fits the definition. If you read FD it seems that the problem is with one, Bill Whatcott, who is from Saskatchewan where the complainant is from and knows about him, she follows him around I guess. IMHO Bill W. is certifiable and the owners should have gotten rid of him, but they believe in freedom of speech for all. IMHO, FD is now representing, like it or not, every board in Canada. If the CHRC case is successful, owners and moderators across the country will have a new role - that of censor. Note I say moderators too, because they are also responsible for content. Depending on the ruling this could have a major impact on boards such as this. Connie W. is going to be interviewed by Michael Coren Sunday at 7:30pm on CFRB Radio in Toronto, 1010 a.m. or you can listen on cfrb.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 If you read FD it seems that the problem is with one, Bill Whatcott, who is from Saskatchewan where the complainant is from and knows about him, she follows him around I guess. IMHO Bill W. is certifiable and the owners should have gotten rid of him, but they believe in freedom of speech for all. What is the nature of the complaint. Is it from the homosexuals or the abortionists. Both have been after him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) Is this the guy who was formerly a gay prostitute? He handed out leaflets or something calling homosexuality filthy. No one has to agree with that sentiment. But why do they have to sue him over it. If he were to promote the idea of violence against homosexuals and the like then it would be a hate crime. Expressing your own moral belief about something---i.e. calling it filthy... is not a crime, or at least it should not be. If they dont like they view they dont have to subscribe to it. Simple as that. Whether you believe something is immoral or not (filthy or not) should be a free choice and you should be free to profess it, as long as you dont encourage crimes against those people. I read somewhere that one fellow brought a charge against him because he read one of his leaflets and started crying and was hurt. My goodness, I could be a billionaire in Human Rights Cases by now. It's time to make clear the distinction between tolerance and condoning. Tolerance means that you cannot commit violent acts against people to stop them from doing something which you consider is immoral if it is not affecting your life. You must tolerate it. But tolerance does not mean you must also say that what everyone else does it good and acceptable. That would be governing someone's right to an opinion. People ought to be allowed to believe and profess that something is wrong. Now I wonder what human right was violated in this case. A right implies something that you are allowed to do. If the complainant is gay, did the defendant actually do anything to prevent him from being gay. Did he go into the man's house and prevent him from engaging in homosexual actions? No. So therefore no right was violated. The only right being violated is a man's right to express his opinion. Whether he expresses that opinion or not, it wont affect the other person's right to engage in what this man views as filthy. Edited July 21, 2007 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 But why do they have to sue him over it. Free speech is not just about the right to speak, but to hear. The right to be informed and to hear the truth. This attack on FD rather than directly against Bill Whatcott is an attack on everyone's right to be informed. The so called human rights commissions have become in no small part the homosexual courts of justice, and their inquisitors the sentinel's human wrongs. http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=72214 Homosexual activists have set a well planned and well financed agenda that started in the 1960s and now includes not only tolerance of their lethal lifestyle but acceptance with privileges as a special class, as a minority group. The key target is our youth. This can be seen in the following written by “gay revolutionary” Mark Swift and printed in the February 15, 1987 issue of Gay Community News. These excerpts are reprinted from the Congressional Record: “We shall sodomize your sons, We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your youth groups, Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will come to crave and adore us. All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable.... We shall raise vast, private armies...to defeat you. The family unit....will be abolished. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory....All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geoffrey Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 I generally have enough faith in the average person to allow them to judge the merits of material. It seems that the left-wing in this country doesn't share that faith or that dedication to freedom. If someone posts something 'hateful', don't read it. It's all quite simple really. No one is shoving it down your throat, no one is forcing anyone to believe it, recite it or memorize it. No one is in a position of authority and coercing you to follow an ideology. Very interesting how quick some are to destroy the greatest of liberties because a few got offended. Oh boo hoo. Don't read it if you don't want to. Very simple. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted July 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 If you read FD it seems that the problem is with one, Bill Whatcott, who is from Saskatchewan where the complainant is from and knows about him, she follows him around I guess. IMHO Bill W. is certifiable and the owners should have gotten rid of him, but they believe in freedom of speech for all. What is the nature of the complaint. Is it from the homosexuals or the abortionists. Both have been after him. Neither, the woman is a university professor who says she was discriminated against because of Bill Whatcott's posts on FD - ? weird really - its Bill W. she should be going after. http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=84514 http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopi...84457&start=990 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 But why do they have to sue him over it. Free speech is not just about the right to speak, but to hear. The right to be informed and to hear the truth. This attack on FD rather than directly against Bill Whatcott is an attack on everyone's right to be informed. The so called human rights commissions have become in no small part the homosexual courts of justice, and their inquisitors the sentinel's human wrongs. http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=72214 Homosexual activists have set a well planned and well financed agenda that started in the 1960s and now includes not only tolerance of their lethal lifestyle but acceptance with privileges as a special class, as a minority group. The key target is our youth. This can be seen in the following written by “gay revolutionary” Mark Swift and printed in the February 15, 1987 issue of Gay Community News. These excerpts are reprinted from the Congressional Record: “We shall sodomize your sons, We shall seduce them in your schools, in your dormitories, in your gymnasiums, in your locker rooms, in your youth groups, Your sons shall become our minions and do our bidding. They will come to crave and adore us. All laws banning homosexual activity will be revoked. Instead, legislation shall be passed which engenders love between men. Our writers and artists will make love between men fashionable.... We shall raise vast, private armies...to defeat you. The family unit....will be abolished. Perfect boys will be conceived and grown in the genetic laboratory....All churches who condemn us will be closed. Our only gods are handsome young men. All males who insist on remaining stupidly heterosexual will be tried in homosexual courts of justice and will become invisible men. Tremble, hetero swine, when we appear before you without our masks.” I wonder B. Max if any human rights charges were ever brought against Mr. Swift for that article. Ok, I dont wonder, we all know there was nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 Neither, the woman is a university professor who says she was discriminated against because of Bill Whatcott's posts on FD - ? weird really - its Bill W. she should be going after.http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=84514 http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopi...84457&start=990 Unless I missed it, I didn't see anything that said she was a university professor. I did a search and her name didn't come up anywhere on the Internet. This really is weird. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B. Max Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 I wonder B. Max if any human rights charges were ever brought against Mr. Swift for that article. Ok, I dont wonder, we all know there was nothing. I don't think they have those kangaroo courts in the US. Which is where I think that came from. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribblet Posted July 21, 2007 Author Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) Neither, the woman is a university professor who says she was discriminated against because of Bill Whatcott's posts on FD - ? weird really - its Bill W. she should be going after. http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=84514 http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopi...84457&start=990 Unless I missed it, I didn't see anything that said she was a university professor. I did a search and her name didn't come up anywhere on the Internet. This really is weird. The name is Marie-Line Gentes google that; she studied at Saskatchewan U. so would know of Bill W. Quite a few blogs are carrying it now. Personally if I were the owners of FD I'd start deleting all Whatcott's material now, and a few other threads. I suppose it's all been copied and cached, but if it's deleted and dealt with it would be in their favour I would think. Mind you, I still don't think he's actually incited anyone to violence or hate, certainly what he has said isn't any more 'hateful' than what is said about Christianity these days. There seems to be double standards on this. Edited to ad: she teaches at Vanier College in Quebec, not sure if what her title is. Edited July 21, 2007 by scriblett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moxie Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 I generally have enough faith in the average person to allow them to judge the merits of material. It seems that the left-wing in this country doesn't share that faith or that dedication to freedom. If someone posts something 'hateful', don't read it. It's all quite simple really. No one is shoving it down your throat, no one is forcing anyone to believe it, recite it or memorize it. No one is in a position of authority and coercing you to follow an ideology. Very interesting how quick some are to destroy the greatest of liberties because a few got offended. Oh boo hoo. Don't read it if you don't want to. Very simple. I concur, and well stated. There has been a movement on the net by a few narrow minded cowards that call anyone who doesn't agree with their pro-abortion and pro-gay and pro-Islam idiology haters and racists. They are the problem, this concerns me because I'm a poster who lacks PCness. In fact I loathe it, first the left/left tried to force political correctness down our throats when they lost that battle they have moved on to playing internet hate finder seeker of those who don't agree with them. They are in fact the only true haters on the net, the rest of us are just opining our opinion. The Human Rights Tribunal has become a vessel of the gay community to enforce Absolute Tolerance or Else. This is a very clear attack aimed at Christians in Canada and they are using the net to spread their hatred of Chrisitanity. Yet we don't attack them by filing complaints, perhaps it's time we started to attack the true haters on the net? The Anti-Christ crowd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posit Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 I disagree. There isn't enough self-regulation in society. Therefore the state must regulate when they cannot regulate themselves. The use of the right of freedom of speech cannot be abused to perpetrate a crime. Inciting hate against an identifiable group is a crime in Canada and FD is accused of crossing the line. Let them deal with it in the way these things are settled - in a court of law. If they have done nothing wrong they will be vindicated. If they have, they will be punished accordingly. Trying to suggest that the complainant is trying to stifle free speech is absurd. Without challenges how would we ever assert it as a right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 I disagree. There isn't enough self-regulation in society. Therefore the state must regulate when they cannot regulate themselves. The use of the right of freedom of speech cannot be abused to perpetrate a crime. Inciting hate against an identifiable group is a crime in Canada and FD is accused of crossing the line. Let them deal with it in the way these things are settled - in a court of law. If they have done nothing wrong they will be vindicated. If they have, they will be punished accordingly. Trying to suggest that the complainant is trying to stifle free speech is absurd. Without challenges how would we ever assert it as a right? What crime did he incite? Did he encourage anyone to commit a crime? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moxie Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 Postit you and your breathern won't be happy unless anyone who thinks contrary to you is muzzled with duck tape. You are the one's who are intolerant, a person is intitled to their opinion and that isn't something anyone has a right to mute. There was no intention to incite violence, he is intitled to his opinion. If you don't like something get up and don't read it stop enforcing your brand of "Intolerance on Society" we won't tolerate your intolerance much longer. Canada hopefully will never sink to the level of depravation as Germany and Sweden where they jail you for an opinion contrary to the utopian government horse poo . In Germany's case a religious man called abortion murder, he's in jail now. I don't want your kind gaining any more ground in Canada, you true mission is to shut up those who oppose your idiology or lack there of. You have no Right to enforce your lack of tolerance on ME. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posit Posted July 21, 2007 Report Share Posted July 21, 2007 (edited) Don't be so stogey. The courts will determine if they commited the crime by inciting hatred. That's what they are "accused" of and that is how serious allegations are settled. Freedom of opinion is a guaranteed Charter right and one that I would help defend. However, that right is limited by law, where the opinion is used to incted someone to hate. While there is a fine line between that expression of an opinion and the crime, when accused of such crimes it is not up to us (anymore than we can determine guilt or innocence in any other crime without a full examination of all the evidence) to determine the outcome. All we can do is speculate...and if that is what you want, I can offer up some interesting FBI /CIA conspiracy theories for ya..... Ernst Zundel is in Germany now facing his crimes. Canada deported him after finding that he incited hate against the Jews by publishing propaganda that said the Jews fabricated the whole holocaust. So is he not guilty too? And would you replace the authority of the learned judge that deported him with your minimal opinion? BTW Conservatism is a lie and is intollerant to change. Edited July 21, 2007 by Posit Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 (edited) I disagree. There isn't enough self-regulation in society. Therefore the state must regulate when they cannot regulate themselves. The use of the right of freedom of speech cannot be abused to perpetrate a crime. Inciting hate against an identifiable group is a crime in Canada and FD is accused of crossing the line. Let them deal with it in the way these things are settled - in a court of law. If they have done nothing wrong they will be vindicated. If they have, they will be punished accordingly. Trying to suggest that the complainant is trying to stifle free speech is absurd. Without challenges how would we ever assert it as a right? Posit, I would think carefully before making a statement such as this. By self-regulation I assume you mean self-control. Do you mean the sort of self-control you were exercising when you wrote this post in another thread. Posit said and I quote: "I can understand why Kimmy would want blond children. After all she wouldn't want her kids to be smarter than her..... IN the end those arguing for protection of the caucas are just superficial egoists. They are more concerned about looks and marinating the pure line than they are about humanity, or genetics. I mean these people are intent on preserving small penis shrimps. I mean real men are descendants of mixed cultures and when the white boys are out trying to polish their whiteness, the rest of us are making babies with their wives. Of course few pure whites ever get dates unless you want to count pouring beer on their hands trying to get their dates drunk...... The fact is there is nothing special about caucas except the brown ones and the white ones all come from the same place..... I'm willing to bet these guys were all born with their mothers standing up." This is without a doubt the same sort of thing, if said about a person of another color or creed, that would earn him a date with the human rights council. Do you realize how many people overlooked this and did not bring action against you? Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. But because he couldn’t pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying, ‘Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all!’ The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. "But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, ‘Pay me what you owe!’ "So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, ‘Have patience with me, and I will repay you!’ He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. Shouldn’t you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?’ His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him. So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don’t each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds." Edited July 22, 2007 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posit Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 jefferiah...jefferiah..... I have exercised tons of self control given the racist ramblings ....None of my statements are even close to warranting anything under human rights geeeezzzz. You must be a teeny bopper since only someone lacking that much in worldly intelligence would make as many errors in judgement as you have demonstrated here. So you want to get into Bible quotations eh?.... 1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. Perhaps being as young and ignorant as you are there is some hope that you might eventually get it....I forgive you for your sleepfulness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jefferiah Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 (edited) jefferiah...jefferiah.....I have exercised tons of self control given the racist ramblings ....None of my statements are even close to warranting anything under human rights geeeezzzz. You must be a teeny bopper since only someone lacking that much in worldly intelligence would make as many errors in judgement as you have demonstrated here. So you want to get into Bible quotations eh?.... 1 Thessalonians 4:13 But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope. Perhaps being as young and ignorant as you are there is some hope that you might eventually get it....I forgive you for your sleepfulness. They make cases on a lot less than that, Sir. And I think you are quite aware of that. Given whose racist ramblings? Kimmy's? What did she say that belittled another race? Edited July 22, 2007 by jefferiah Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Posit Posted July 22, 2007 Report Share Posted July 22, 2007 Prove it. Otherwise you are talking out of the exit side of your fuel intake. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
(Phone).thumb.jpg.165c8315c6251d31b87efa29fe65361b.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.