NOTE: Thanks to our friend for sending us the link to the McHale video. Very much appreciated.
Back in October when Gary McHale (he of Caledonia infamy) threatened to sue him because he published accurate information about the man, Warren Kinsella decided to crowd-source his defence. Specifically, he was looking for the following information:
that McHale is anti-Native that McHale is anti-police that McHale has spent time in jail that Paul Fromm showed up to express support that the Northern Alliance showed up to show support
As we have some background knowledge about the latter two, we were eager to share some of what we had. For example here we have not only Dave Ruud of the Northern Alliance (and his lovely bride), but also Melissa Guille of the Canadian Heritage Alliance at the October 15, 2006 Caledonia protest:
Love the "Urban Terrorist" t-shirt, Davie.
And in January 2007, Paulie decided that he would show some love to Mr. McHale:
We're not sure if Mr. Kinsella ever received the files we sent to him. In fact, the lawsuit was eventually thrown out of court and there didn't seem to be as much of a need for the documentation. Still, one thing that bugged us is that we knew that Ruud had done an interview while he as at the 2006 protest and that there was video. Unfortunately, we didn't think to save the video and all we have as evidence of it's existence now it this link here.
Cut to this past weekend. Apparently the Caledonia outrage machine that McHale helped stoke isn't doing the job of keeping McHale's name in the public as well as it used to, so McHale has decided to hitch his wagon to this particular cause now:
McHale has taken it upon himself to speak for the oppressed Christian community. Not all Christians, mind you. Seemingly just the ones who have decided to discriminate against homosexuals which sort of puts McHale's "champion of the downtrodden" shtick into perspective. Anyways, on May 16, 2014, Gary McHale and his merry band protested outside the Law Society of Upper Canada. And at the 2:41 mark, look and see who shambles into focus while McHale speaks:
Earlier today, we were contacted by "Maclean's" and asked about our take on the demise of Sec. 13. We responded as follows:
We think
that the government was incredibly short sighted in their decision to eliminate
Sec. 13. It was a useful and cost-effective tool in the effort to eliminate
some very vile, hateful, and potentially dangerous rhetoric online and in the
public sphere. Now we have only the criminal code which, in a few cases, is
like using a machete when a scalpel would have been more prudently utilized.
Those
individuals and groups who were called before the Human Rights Tribunal and who
were found to have violated Sec. 13 were not innocent lambs who were victimized
by Big Brother. They were people and groups who were causing real harm in their
communities. Their words did result in harm, and I don't mean hurt feelings.
People's homes were vandalized. People have been assaulted. And these criminal
acts had, in many cases, began with the dehumanization of fellow Canadians for
no other reason than their ethnicity, religion, gender and sexual orientation.
The people
who are celebrating this are the extremists on Stormfront and VNN and a host of
other racist webforums, but as we wrote on our blog they should consider that
now there is only the criminal code and the penalties are more severe than
anything Sec. 13 dished out. It should also be noted that racists aren't
content with only Sec. 13. Paul Fromm, for instance, has said he and his
group will next focus their attention on the criminal code sections regarding
hate crimes.
We get the impression that the "Maclean's" in which Sec. 13 will be discussed is coming out this week. We don't expect that our entire response will be published, or if any of it will be for that matter, but if it is we thought we'd include the entirely of our response here.
And as for the responses from the boneheads, we present a small selection:
A friend forwarded us a number of interesting screen shots from some of the hacked emails, including those from Kermit the Frog impersonator Bill Noble.
Back in late 2004, former WCFU co-founder and leader Glenn Bahr decided that he was going to engage in a massive (from his standpoint) flyering campaign to get out the "White Nationalist" message which would take place on January 15, 2005:
On this Stormfront thread, Bahr and other "White Nationalists" discuss how they will proceed and, once the campaign was over, brag about the success:
The folks at Free Dominion present themselves as principled defenders of speech. This is, on the surface, a noble sentiment. Principled men and women from Voltaire to Gerry Spence have defended speech that they personally found abhorrent, but that they still believed was necessary to defend for the sake of everyone's freedoms.
The folks at Free Dominion are not Voltaire or Gerry Spence. They aren't even a poor man's Lenny Bruce or George Carlin (NSFW, FYI), though the members are often inadvertently funny.
We started this blog in large part due to the emergence of the Aryan Guard in Calgary, Alberta because at the time we really were concerned that this gang would be a real threat to public safety. While this has been the case far too many times, the reality is that the Aryan Guard soon became the laughing stock of the, "White Nationalist" movement in Canada. Sex scandals (including not only McKee's tryst, but allegations of underage sex from people close to the gang), drug use and rampant alcohol abuse, constant infighting with other groups, founding members leaving and other forming rival groups which are even more embarrassing, and numerous arrests, not to mention some younger groupies coming to their senses and leaving the lifestyle behind, all of which took their toll and ultimately lead to gang basically dissolving and leaving only a few to claim membership.
That the Aryan Guard had lasted from late 2006 to almost 2010 (and, if you're to believe the ghost town that is their website, still exists) is remarkable considering the incompetence of the leadership, the animosity they engendered from other WN groups, the transitory nature of the membership, and violent acts that some of the membership was involved with. Sadly, while the Aryan Guard is rightly regarded with a healthy combination of contempt and ridicule, some real damage was done to individuals victimized by the gang as well as the reputation of Calgary and the province.
It never had to be like this.
The Aryan Guard was not the first group of it's kind to come into existence in Canada. Only 2 years before the Aryan Guard was founded by McKee, Price, and Reitmeier, another group tried to make an impact in Alberta.
Western Canada For Us (WCFU) was founded in early 2004. Their leadership under Glenn Bahrwas an older and more stable than the drunken idiots and teenagers who made up the Aryan Guard. Like the Aryan Guard, WCFU held a rally in March (in the WCFU case the rally was in support of Ernst Zundel, pictured on the left, and was coordinated with a rally in Toronto organized by Melissa Guille). Bahr was courted by the media and was the guest of a nationally syndicated radio show. The WCFU even had serious plans to expand into other provinces with chapters already designated in British Columbia and Manitoba (though these efforts weren't particularly successful).
Bahr (left) with Melissa Guille
The WCFU had few of the Aryan Guard's problems, at least outwardly (co-founder Peter Kouba was ousted after a disagreement regarding the direction of the WCFU) and a lot of advantages.
The Aryan Guard lasted until December 2009 and the remnants remain active.
The WCFU lasted no more than 5 months and most of the original membership has remained silent since.
So, what happened? How did one group collapse so quickly while another filled with miscreant losers hold out for three years?
The answer to that might be a tale of two hate crimes divisions.
In Calgary the Aryan Guard were able to seemingly act with impunity, at least to some observers. Even when it's members were committing crimes (some of which were on film) the division that deals with hate crimes didn't seem to be all that focused on shutting the group down. We can speculate about the reasons; manpower, limited ability to collect intelligence, complacency, budget crunch, or any other reason or combination of reasons could have been factors. The fact remains that the Aryan Guard fell apart on it's own, but before it did, there were assaults, suspected firebombs and vandalism.
By comparison, the division that deals with hate crimes in Edmonton were very quick to recognize the potential threat the WCFU posed and moved quickly to gather the appropriate intelligence and evidence. Once done, they moved to shut down the WCFU.
Three years vs. five months.
The following link provides some details about the case against the WCFU. We would ask our readers to examine the document and ask themselves if there's a great deal of difference between the evidence used to shut down the WCFU and the same kind of evidence that the Aryan Guard left for investigators on their own website and other websites:
We've taken a stance regarding support for the police that isn't always shared by other anti-racist organizations. They know our position, we know theirs and we can respect our differences in opinion. The purpose of this article isn't to beat up on the police in Calgary or to praise the police in Edmonton. What we would like to see is that police departments throughout this country take these groups seriously. We don't need the membership of these gangs to hurt someone or damage someone's property before taking action. Legislation already exists to deal with groups like the Aryan Guard and Western Canada For Us.
The folks in London, Ontario celebrates their Pride Week a little later than most cities, but by all accounts it's a rocking affair. Of course it does attract it's fair share of protesters, but they've sort of become part of the show as they stand along the side of the street with their homemade signs that contain some well used rhetoric (i.e. wages sin yadda yadda yadda) calling on the parade participants to repent of their wicked ways.
In our experience, the parade participants are usually either quite pleasant to the protesters or mercilessly mock them because, well, they are sort of funny in their impotence.
One of the groups that has protested the parade in the past have been our good friends in the Northern Alliance and the Canadian Heritage Alliance, as well as some of their hanger-ons. Last year, they didn't show up. Couldn't get the numbers they wanted we guess, though they really have never been a large group at these events.
This year however, Stormfront user and Northern Alliance member, "For Honor" promises a return performance in the protester sideshow event:
Perhaps it would be useful to remind our readers who, "For Honor" is:
Yep, it's Dave Ruud. This picture was from a few years ago during another Pride Parade protest. He's also the go to guy in the Northern Alliance now that Jason Ouwendyk has dropped out of public.
Some of Ruud's fellow travelers aren't comfortable with his public announcement on Stormfront however:
Yep, Tom Winnicki, pictured at yet another Pride Protest in London, feels that Ruud has said too much:
But that hasn't stopped Ruud from providing other useful information:
The people involved in organizing the protest (i.e. getting people to show up and hold a sign while helplessly being the subject of pity and ridicule) are at great pains to stress that those who do participate are to leave their Nazi flags and symbols at home:
But we thought you were PROUD to be white? And by saying that this is a, "clean protest" is that a tacit admission that there is nothing, "clean" or particularly honest about, "White Nationalism."
Well we are shocked! Shocked we say!
But then considering the affinity of the Northern Alliance to Nazism, that might be more a self-reminder than anything:
That last picture includes Canadian Heritage Alliance leader Melissa Guille who has also attended the London protests in the past.
In fact, Ruud has a rather odd obsession with the London Pride week parade. We could post dozens of screen shots, but we'll limit it to a couple:
The protests also have attracted an odd group of people. Sort of like this guy:
So who's going to be coming out? We think that we could start with those who attended the last protest in 2008. Ruud will be there of course and maybe Winnicki. We think that Guille might make an appearance as well:
Perhaps Randall Linton will show up:
It wouldn't be a protest without Tyler Chilcott:
And finally, this Northern Alliance member who's name we still aren't sure of (but would love to know):
As for this year's events, if you bring a camera, be sure to keep this humble blog in mind when you consider sharing.
Oh, how we love freedom of information requests which result in information that was wholly unexpected.
A few months ago, we posted three articles concerning Marc Lemire in response to efforts by some of his supporters to turn Lemire into a free speech martyr with little or no involvement in organized racism. The first article we posted dealt with Lemire’s own documented history of making bigoted statements online and his seeming self-identification as a, “WN.” The second profiled his involvement in the Heritage Front, including his role as the last leader of the group. The final article examined the relationship that existed between Lemire and Ernst Zundel.
The preponderance of the evidence we published in those three articles would suggest to most rational people that Lemire isn’t the sainted hero he’s been made out to be by some of his supporters (except for the speechies, for whom no amount of evidence will be enough to convince them that Lemire isn’t the second coming of Giordano Bruno). If you oppose Sec. 13 and support Lemire’s efforts, then that’s fine, but don’t try to claim he’s something that he’s not.
Although we had been content with our efforts regarding Lemire, a recent re-examination of legal documents and evidence used in the Richardson and Kulbashian CHRT decision (found here) has provided us with cause to revisit Lemire’s involvement in organized racism.
For the past couple of weeks Kevin Goudreau has managed to cause boneheads and anti-racists to find common ground on one single issue:
That he is an ass clown and should be made fun of until he cries.
We would like to do our part in such a noble effort. Mainly because we have the collective maturity of a group of 13 year old boys telling fart jokes to each other. But in this case, the fart jokes have a noble purpose.
We start with something from the early 1990s, then we add our own little twist:
In that fight i was kicked in the face by Red when i wasnt looking and didnt mouth off to anyone or say anything, was kicked in the face while i turned to talk to my preggo girlfriend and fought 15 Hammerskins inside and outside the show and ask Red i was Seig Heiling and yelling White Power! As i was punching them all back and stood my ground, ... never ran and never went down then went it was over a Hammer named Adam said holy fuck you did good welcome to the Hammerkins and he paid for my cab for me and my gf who left together and Marc Fucked-a-jew Clairoux was hiding and was a fat HF guy that hid and never said or did shit and people who know Marc know how much he lies to create a fake image and nobody says anything now because he got tougher and their affraid of him now and his H.A. brother who he tried to send after me like a bitch and im not affraid of anyone and you will see why very soon... I never i said i won goof and i dont buy trendy wp clothes im no slave to fashion and im more upper class than you and your a gutterskin compared to me and i finally know who you are and hope Mike sent you my message. 150 lbs btw and dynomite comes in small packages, im way tougher now you old geezer.- Goudreau, February 22, 2010
Those who are making this crap up out of thin air will be dealt with like jews and the ones who spread the lies will stop when they know the truth and see what happens to people that make up these fictional and delusional lies out of their creative minds - Goudreau, February 22, 2010
Im also in the Maclean's magazine 1995 may issue and have met thousands of people from coast to coast in 20 years and nobody can confirm who or what jack is. - Goudreau, February 22, 2010
Donald Duffy went to jail because he was a heatbag dealing drugs and paranaroid getting high on his own supply and sucking the Devil's glass cock and because i wouldnt hang out with the poser dealer that wore a bomber his drug and braindamage induced paranoia blamed me for his arrest so get a grip Donny and stop lying, you got paperwork or witnesses? No you dont so shut up. - Goudreau, February 28, 2010
Women dont run from me and its a fact like to gossip and spin yarns thats all there Sharp boy... Any woman who has met me can vouch for my ladiesman rep and none here have met me... Yes they are arent they, the low level foot soldiers arent to bright and their sucking up to a fat ugly chick thats crazy lmwao if they met her theyd need a few pints to get aroused.
- Goudreau, February 23, 2010
Ummm recall when you told me you and [Nazi Mom]were planning to tie me to a lampost and taking turns raping me? Lmwao oh my how we forget in the park after you dropped your pants to pee in the park in front of me,classy btw and kissing then and after walked you home behind your apt in the dark ally with your bf Dave upstairs and you said hes a push over and wouldnt care and we could do anything in front of him? Remember or were you too drunk?- Goudreau, February 23, 2010
My organization is the White Nationalist Front.- Goudreau, February 24, 2010
Im in Hearts o Hate, GREEN BOMBER,WRITTING ON MY JEANS,RED BRACES,WHITE LACES AND THE "SKINS 69-89 STILL ALIVE AND KICKING T-SHIRT" WITH CROSSED BOOTS ON IT! ALOT OF CLOSE UPS OF ME! LE DROIT NEWSPAPER FRONT PAGE WITH POLICE DOG ON MY ARM! REMEMBER ME NOW!?... OTTAWA 1993 RIOT PART IM ALL OVER THAT PART AND LEADING THE MARCH FOR A BIT THEN STOPPED AT THE SIDEWALK CLOSE UP OF ME SEIG HEILING BESIDE A GUY I FOUGHT A FEW MONTHS LATER AT THAT SHOW! REMEMBER ME NOW!? WATCH THE VIDEO MORON! ...
I WAS AT THAT ZUNDEL PROTEST! ASK PAUL FROMM AND MARC LEMERE! WE HAD DINNER AND DRINKS AT JACK ASTORS AFTERWARDS! I HAD A LEATHER ARMANE JACKET ON WITH MY TEACHER FIANCE AND HER BROTHER CAME WITH ME AND ASK MELISSA GUILLE! - Goudreau, February 24, 2010
Ask any of the 1995 skins in Moncton and Riverview and Hillsboro. Your too young... And 1 leader out of 3 Me, Andy and Tom. Im not dropping lastnames with scum here and MASH was a name we flirted with having... Guess who i met in person today? :p i wont devuldge that in front of scum.- Goudreau, February 24, 2010
Im here to lay down the law once and for all to you feeble minded half-wits that you sheeple have to stop your jealous back bitting, bullshitting, outright lying about others in the movement and unite instead of these ridiculous fantasies you conjer up to make someone look bad because they are a threat to your power or illusions of power and trying... See More to be kewl and being envyous of me and others you kids gotta learn its not right and its degenerate to do so, i have shot down all your wild claims and fabrications and have put you all in your place and spanked you like children now be good kiddies daddy is tired nighty night and ill be back tomorrow to shut more yaps and prove more sheeple wrong and thinks its funny how many are now silent, be good and no infighting. L88r 14 wordSS - Goudreau, February 23, 2010
Isnt it like watching freaks in a circus or a car accident? You just cant look away and you see how she makes it all up as she goes its so bizzar to watch and been watching it all unfold for awhile to see who im going hunting for and whom will be forgiven for being involved in this travesty and not 1 truth has been told about my fight pic and btw Dara how did all my pics i never uploaded END UP ON ARC!? DONT SAY ALICIA I KNOW YOU SENT THEM ALL THE PICS IV NEVER UPLOADED!- Goudreau, February 22, 2010
Im a ladies man Jon i look mean in my pic but according to those that know me and met me im quite hot. - Goudreau, February 22, 2010Its just you jackoff because your stalking my woman and besides being in Hearts of Hate you can order from White Pines pictures and my Maclean's 1995 may issue pic inside cover, been to a Zundel protest at Metro-west Detention, organized PF meetings in the GTA and have have recruited for many orgs and fliered 10 cities in 5 provinces in 20 years ... See Moreand always been loyal to the cause and done my part and all this fb drama and bs doesnt change that and i know who i am and what iv done and dont have to prove myself to punks and net nazis that are retired and retarded and iv always been around and always will be so gnight kids have fun and keep it white. 14 wordSS *YAWNS* L88R- Goudreau, February 22, 2010
Lmwao jackoff is jealous ask Paul Fromm and Marc Lemire how long iv been around since Wolfgang is gone you cant ask him but we spoke from 1991 until 6 months before he died.- Goudreau, February 22, 2010
Marc is mad because i confronted him at Jack astors after a Zundel protest for stealing my idea for Frontline magazine which i invented on my HF KINGSTON WEBSITE as IRWIN BAUER my Alias for that site. - Goudreau, February 22, 2010
Ask Fromm, iv given 2 speeches out of 3 meetings and theres 100 more but they dont want to be part of the fb drama and dont want to feed into it and some tagged on these pics that have met me and just think this is as ridiculous as i do.- Goudreau, February 22, 2010
Oh, shucks. How did that last one get in there? Oh well.
It's been a while since we've posted anything in our, "Don't @#$% With Richard Warman" series, but we figured this one would drive his fans on Stormfront absolutely wild:
A federal jury has found William A. White guilty on four counts and not guilty on three counts.
The jury found White guilty of: threatening Jennifer Petsche, a Citibank employee in Kansas City, Mo.; intimidating several residents of a Virginia Beach apartment complex with the intent to prevent their testimony in a housing discrimination case; threatening Kathleen Kerr, an administrator at the University of Delaware; and threatening Richard Warman, a human rights lawyer from Canada.
The three counts that resulted in acquittals were: threatening Petsche, the bank employee, with the intent to extort; threatening Leonard Pitts, a nationally syndicated columnist in Bowie, Md.; and threatening Charles Tyson, the former mayor of South Harrison Township, N.J.
White faces a maximum of 40 years in prison on the four convictions. The lawyers involved are given 10 days to file post-verdict motions and to note appeals. After that, White will be sentenced.
So don't @#$% with Richard Warman.... and a bunch of other people for that matter.
And just to rub a little more salt in the wound, Melissa Guille's constitutional challenge has been rejected:
Well, perhaps she didn't actually verbalize it, but given that Melissa Guille and the Canadian Heritage Alliance have dropped their constitutional challenge to section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, we think this constitutes a concession.
On October 23, Ezra Levant went after professor Richard Moon who, while actually agreeing that he had significant concerns about section 13 of the Human Rights act and believes is should be removed, had the temerity to call out Levant and the other speechies on their rhetoric and personal attacks on members of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.
The title of Levant's screed, "Richard Moon: liar for hire" is exactly the over the top discourse we've come to expect from Levant when even people, who might agree with his position but not his conduct, find themselves on the receiving end of his temper tantrums.
One of the websites we read actually took time to responded to Levant's screed. We thought we would share it with you now:
On October 24, 2009 Ezra Levant posted on his blog "Richard Moon: liar for hire". I thought the posting so outrageous that it required a response.
Ezra Levant has been a vociferous critic of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and staff as well as former staff. Levant is a friend of the powerful and frequent contributor to Canwest publications, authoring opinion pieces about his problem with the the CHRC. He has even written a book detailing his complaints about human rights commissions. Levant first drew attention as a political advisor to the Reform Party, which subsequently became the Canadian Reform Alliance Party (CRAP). Levant then ran for a federal riding in Alberta and following that became a publisher who drew national attention for re-publishing the infamous Danish cartoons that caused riots throughout Western Europe. Levant was then brought before the Alberta Human Rights Commission which Levant video taped for broadcast on Youttube.
Richard Moon is a Professor of Law at the University of Windsor who authored a report commissioned by the federal government on section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the regulation of hate speech on the Internet. Moon has written of Levant that:
“I [Moon] have felt deeply disturbed by the way in which certain claims made on rightwing blogs like Levant’s have seeped into mainstream discourse, many of which are grotesque exaggerations — or, in some cases, outright fabrications of the circumstances....” (Moon quoted in the National Post)
Further, Moon devoted some of his October 23, 2009 Saskatchewan Law Review Annual Lecture, "The Attack on Human Rights Commissions", to the unfair and inaccurate criticisms leveled at the Canadian Human Rights Commission and staff by Levant and others. According to Moon:
"I am sure it comes as no surprise to anyone that there are Internet blogs that post things about the CHRC that are false and malicious. The problem is that these claims have seeped into mainstream discourse – they have been taken up by members of Parliament, they have been adopted in editorials in the National Post and columns in the Globe and Mail and Maclean’s magazine and in a host of other publications, and they have been repeated on radio and television current affairs programming. They have created in the larger public – or a significant element of the public -- a “feeling” that there is a serious problem with human rights commissions, and in particular the Canadian commission, that needs to be addressed. (Moon: Saskatchewan Law Review Annual Lecture)
And the Lecture does that. My purpose here is to examine the claims in Levant's subsequent "Richard Moon: liar for hire", avoiding specific comment on the many potentially libelous statements about Moon, a so-called "corrupt cop" at the CHRC, or the charge that Richard Warman, previously of the CHRC, of using CHRC computers when he was not authorized to do so, etc..
The Facts
1. According to Levant: "Moon claims the CHRC does not have a 100% conviction rate for censorship prosecutions. He weasels around this point a bit, but that's what he means."
Not true: The fact is that Moon does not deny that all the cases sent to Tribunal for hearing by the CHRC were decided against the respondents. Moon points out that the CHRC brought only the most egregious cases to Tribunal for decision and that is why all the twenty or so cases under s. 13 were successfully decided against the respondents. Just read the complaints and/or judgments against people like Guille, Ouwendyk, etc. to find out why the Tribunals ruled against them. No one in their right mind could have found that the respondents were not broadcasting the most virulent forms of hate. What does Levant not understand? If anything, the CHRC should be commended for acting on the side of caution, thereby saving taxpayer dollars.
I will not quarrel here with Levant's choice of words like "conviction rate" and "censorship prosecutions". Those terms more accurately describe criminal prosecution, not the human rights process, which relies on mediation before a Tribunal hearing. These criminal prosecutorial terms are used by Levant to suggest that the CHRC has strayed from a human rights process to a criminal one.
2. According to Levant: "Until the Warman v. Lemire case last month, no-one had beat a prosecution."
Not true: The fact is that the Tribunal struck only the penalty provision in the Lemire case. This is a serious matter that must be appealed. However, the Tribunal found in Warman v. Lemire that, based on the evidence, Lemire was responsible for online hate. Levant slips in the phrase that Lemire "beat a prosecution." Again, Levant wants to suggest that the CHRC behaves as a criminal court.
3. According to Levant: "The reason why section 13 was declared unconstitutional last month in the Warman v. Lemire case was precisely because section 13 had become like a criminal charge."
Not true: Section 13 of the Human Rights Act was not "declared unconstitutional." Nor has s. 13 become "like a criminal charge." No Tribunal member has the power to declare anything "unconstitutional." The Supreme Court must rule on the constitutionality of any law or Act of Parliament. And the CHRC can still help mediate complaints unlike criminal proceedings.
4. According to Levant: "Moon claims that there is no evidence whatsoever that CHRC staffer Dean Steacy made bigoted comments on neo-Nazi websites...."
Fact: Despite all the sound and fury, Levant doesn't once show that Steacy made "bigoted comments" on Nazi websites. Levant can only offer that Stacey made statements about "white supremacists" and "gave them encouragement". This is a far cry from making bigoted or racist comments. However, even if Stacey had made a racist or homophobic comment to gain access to a Nazi website, it would be entirely justified to gain evidence. Every person, including police and national security agencies, forced to gather information about a potentially violent, criminal, or domestic terrorist group by infiltration must use some of the groups language to gain entry. Without seeming to be part of the group, little background information like addresses, activities and contacts, on Nazis would be possible. Despite Levant's extravagant claims, he offers absolutely no evidence of racist statements, no evidence of advocating violence, and no evidence what so ever that Stacey broke any Canadian law.
5. According to Levant: "Moon claims that Richard Warman, the serial complainant-of-fortune in almost all section 13 cases, didn't work on censorship investigations."
Fact: Levant fails to show that Moon lied about Warman. Levant does not show that Warman influenced or worked on any of the complaints he made as a private person while employed by the CHRC. The only thing Levant can complain of is that Warman "trained" co-workers. But Levant fails to explain what "training" involved. Presumably, "training" was on how to do online research, how to find the address of owners of websites and where websites are located, etc. In addition, Levant's description of Warman as a "serial complainant-of-fortune" is gratuitous, inaccurate, unfair and malicious. It implies that Warman is someone less than respectable and sincere in what he tried to do; that is, to use the available tools to stop online racism.
6. Levant objects to some of Warman's online statements in neo-Nazi forums.
Fact: I do not know what, if anything, Warman wrote in Nazi forums. I do know from experience researching domestic terrorist groups that it is usually necessary to make controversial statements in order to infiltrate, expose and gather information about hate groups as many police agencies and CSIS has been forced to do. It obviously irritates and undermines Levant's complaint that the Canadian Jewish Congress gave Warman an award for his online human rights work, despite anything he might, or might not, have said.
7. According to Levant: "[Moon's Law lecture is] not a case of falsehoods vs. facts; it's just a measure of how skewed Moon's judgment is. He actually defends the crazy case of the McDonald's employee who won the human right not to have to wash her hands -- plus $50,000 tax-free for her troubles."
Fact: Datt vs McDonalds is simply a case of an employer not valuing a 23 year employee - an employee who suffered a disability as a result of employment with McDonalds. As the B.C. Tribunal ruled: "She [Ms Datt] was prepared to perform any duties that would accommodate her disability. Despite this commitment, she was terminated by someone she barely knew, had never worked with, and who did not investigate any job opportunities that might have been available. Ms. Datt expected better from her employer, an employer known for its charitable works." (Datt v. McDonald’s Restaurants (No. 3), 2007 BCHRT 324, August 3, 2007).
Ms Datt did not refuse to wash her hands, she could not wash her hands continuously because of a skin condition caused by work and she simply wanted a transfer to another position where hand-washing would not be so frequent. But Levant can't help but throw in a reference to Datt being a woman and a Muslim on his blog. However, Datt's status as both a woman and a Moslem has absolutely nothing to do with the case.
Summary and Conclusion
Levant fails miserably to deliver the facts to prove that Moon is a liar, that the CHRC and former employees are corrupt. Levant simply makes exaggerated claims, but does not prove any of his charges of corruption, malfeasance, et cetera.
To prove his case, Levant must not only show that Moon lied in some substantial way (which Levant does not show) but also that Moon lies for money; that Richard Moon is willing to compromise his integrity as a legal scholar and lie for money. That is what "liar for hire" means and this is a most serious charge. I can't read Levant's mind, but the extreme vitriol of his posting points to a personal reaction to Moon's Law Lecture, rather than just a professional interest in the CHRC and s. 13.
In addition, to prove wrong doing by Warman, Levant must show that he had a direct influence, and Levant does not even show any indirect influence, in the CHRC's handling of his complaints against Nazis and hate mongers. But that is not enough: The crucial stage for any complaint is at the level of the Tribunal and Levant does not present any evidence at all of any backroom influence by Warman on the Tribunal.
To prove wrong doing by any other former staff, or present staff, of the CHRC, Levant must provide direct evidence, but he fails to deliver.
In the end, Levant's blog is just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.
I have resisted commenting on what I think of the merit of potential liable suits for the spurious allegations contained in Levant's blog. Not being a lawyer, I can only speculate that Levant would be at risk of several libel suits and a complaint to the professional body over seeing lawyers.
We'll let Professor Moon get in the last word:
“I’m deeply disturbed by the…smear campaign against the people who support Section 13 and the people at the Commission who are, for the most part, simply carrying out their statutory duties,” Moon says. “You can have a problem with the statute and call for its repeal without attacking civil servants who are generally implementing the law as it stands.”
We've said it before, we're sure we'll say it again in the future, and we will say it again right now. Considering how often this blog is declared irrelevant with absolutely no readership by some of our self-styled opposition, they sure do pay an inordinate amount of attention to us.
We, on the other hand, don't usually go out of our way to read what they're writing about us, but we are occasionally sent links by our non-existent readership when we are mentioned. Sometime we read what they have to say about us. Sometimes we don't. But when we are, in part, the subject of an article by the mighty blogger Jay Currie, well, our hearts go all a twitter.
Our dear readers may remember when we published documents indicating the real life identities of the Free Dominion "John Does" who, along with Mr. and Mrs. Fournier, are subjects of a Richard Warman defamation suit. Our readers may also remember the folks at Free Dominion were not please that these documents, all of which are public domain and available to those who wish to access them once they were filed, were made public, even in their redacted form (unlike some of those published by those on the right, we removed home and work addresses, email addresses, some websites, names of spouses, and in one case information regarding a family matter). They called us all sort of nasty names, including but not limited to communists, a violent street gang, and criminals. That the folks at Free Dominion rather routinely post similar court documents on that web forum seems to be of little consequence; it would appear that these powerful voices for free speech get a little squeamish when they themselves don't approve of the speech.
After the initial hubbub died down we figured that cooler heads had ultimately prevailed. Perhaps it did, but it was brought to the surface again recently.
That brings us to Jay. On August 23, 2009, Jay Currie published an article detailing an apparent "investigation" by the Department of National Defense into Richard Warman to determine whether he had been pursuing his human rights work (though we're sure Jay would use a different term) on company time and using the department's resources. To his credit, Jay seems to think that not much, if anything, will be found to have been improper. His original article linked to a Free Dominion thread that appears to have now disappeared, perhaps owing to fears that it may be used against the subjects of Warman's litigation. In that thread was an email (written not long after the Free Dominion meltdown about ARC having published public domain documents and when emotions were pretty heated), ostensibly from one of the "John Does" to no less than the federal Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay. Jay republished it on his blog:
From: [Redacted] [mailto: [Redacted]@ [Redact-it].ca] Sent: June 8, 2009 3:51 PM To: MacKay, Peter – M.P. Subject: Richard Warman, DND employee?
June 8/09
Dear Mr. Mackay,
As Minister of Defence, perhaps you could look into the situation regarding one Richard Warman who I believe is a counsellor employed at DND in Ottawa.
Mr Warman has been running a legal and political campaign in which he targets people who do not agree with his political views (which are Liberal) with expensive lawsuits and other harassment. In my case, he reported my name and address to so-called anti-racist groups, who are in fact communist street gangs [we're quite sure that he's talking about us, but we'll get to this shortly].
My question is this—does Richard Warman spend working time on these projects, and has he been using the computer facilities at DND to gain information on his targets?
This situation should have been addressed by the Prime Minister and the Justice Minister at an earlier stage, but now it has reached the level of a sort of Stalinist political operation in plain sight, operating out of the DND and the offices of [Redacted]
Essentially, what we have here is a case of a powerful civil servant, quite possibly using the surveillance capabililty of the DND, harassing political opponents with the full support of the Government of Canada. I am not sure if you were aware of this situation, and I would hope that you would want to reverse it.
An extensive investigation is required to satisfy natural concerns that the power of the state is being used against the citizens of Canada, and in particular, of western Canada, because Warman seems to prefer residents of the western provinces (it is more expensive for us to fight his charges in court down in Ontario).
Thanks for your co-operation.
—[Redacted], —[Redacted]
"John Doe" even received a reply:
RE: Richard Warman, DND employee? Monday, August 17, 2009 3:55 PM From: “dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca” Add sender to Contacts To: [Redacted]@[Redact-it].ca
Dear [Redacted]:
Thank you for your e-mail concerning a potential conflict of interest involving Mr. Richard Warman, an employee of the Department of National Defence.
I am advised that Chief Review Services, the authority responsible for conflict of interest issues for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Forces, is currently investigating and that a report is forthcoming.
I trust this information is of assistance, and thank you again for writing.
Sincerely,
Peter G. MacKay Minister of National Defence
MCU2009-03804
One thing we noticed immediately is that our "John Doe" serves up all of the conservative red meat right away:
1. Just happens to mention the political party affiliation of Mr. Warman which, as it so happens, is the Official Opposition and the key opponent of the federal Conservative Party. Hoping for a little political retribution, are we? ("Mr Warman has been running a legal and political campaign in which he targets people who do not agree with his political views (which are Liberal)")
2. Complaints of, "Western Alienation" ("An extensive investigation is required to satisfy natural concerns that the power of the state is being used against the citizens of Canada, and in particular, of western Canada, because Warman seems to prefer residents of the western provinces") which is a bit of a battle cry for Alberta conservatives.
3. Repeated references to the dirty Red Menace as if we were living in the 1950s and he's about to chair the House Un-American Activities Committee ("In my case, he reported my name and address to so-called anti-racist groups, who are in fact communist street gangs" and "...but now it has reached the level of a sort of Stalinist political operation in plain sight, operating out of the DND and the offices of [Redacted]")
On this last charge, let us at the ARC Collective (yes, we're aware of the irony we're about to commit here) unequivocally answer our "John Doe":
We are not, and have never been, members of the Communist Party.
Actually Lucille Ball had the best response when asked if she was a commie which wents something like, "the only thing red about me is my hair and even that's fake."
We would also ask if our accuser has no shame or sense or decency, but we fear the reference might be lost on him so we'll direct him to this link.
More the point, we're accused of being a criminal street gang. We'd like to know where exactly he gets his information about us because we can assure him and our dear readers that not one of us has ever been charged with or been under investigation for a single crime. Collectively, our running afoul of the law has amounted to a total of four speeding tickets and one driving with undo care and attention ticket in the past 20 years. If our accuser is going to try and equate us with one of their current bogeymen, the ARA, sorry but that dog don't hunt either. We are not members now, nor have we ever been members, of the ARA, though when we actually look at their records, we don't see a lot of criminal activity outside some relatively minor infractions and whatever the BONEHEADS (not blockheads, "The LS from SK") have claimed. But we may very well have missed something so we'll move on.
One would think that someone currently facing defamation charges would be more careful about the accusations that they make.
And at this point do any of our dear readers think that denying Mr. Warman was the source of the documents will be believed? That's sort of a rhetorical question.
Still, we do have some support. One person, "truewest" makes the following comment about ARC:
As for ARC, it’s better researched, more accurate and more responsible tha[n] most of the blogs you link to from your site.
You’ve linked to a complaint filed by hate-monger Melissa Guille’s brother against an anti-racist website. It was dismissed under s. 41(1)(d) of the Act because it was “trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith”. (Shocking!) Is that what you’re calling the “hitherto unknown ‘intent’ test”?
Now, we here at the ARC Collective, an insignificant blog with no readers but which appears to be the subject of a great deal of speculation, wonder how long it will take for this most recent post to become the subject of heated conversation on conservative blogs and web forums. Will they be able to resist the siren song leading them astray or, like one of Pavlov's puppies, will they begin to salivate?
