Aryan Guard Attack Home Again

We reported that there is a planned anti-fascist rally on October 10 on the weekend. The spokesperson for the main organizing group, Jason Devine, sent out the following message regarding an incident that happened at his home during the early hours of yesterday morning:

Today October 3rd, 2009 at 5:38 AM we awoke to the sound of glass breaking. A cinder block had been thrown through the front window of our house as well as a smaller projectile through the bedroom window of our 3 sleeping children (one is 6 years old and twins whom are 4). The front door had been tagged with graffiti, specifically spray painted in red "C-18" and a swastika.

This is in response to ARA planning a rally in Bridgeland on October 10th. This rally is to alert the community on the high number of sightings and recent neo-Nazi activity in the community and how to deal with it.

This comes as no surprise to local ARA members Bonnie and Jason Devine as they have been targeted before, first in February of 2008 with a molotov cocktail thrown at their house, and once again this summer the morning before a local anti-racist rally. Not to mention numerous insults and threats over the internet.

This is a clearly not a random act of violence but a direct target to us and our family, other anti- racist activists, and all who are against racism, with a clear message: neo-Nazis are violent, have no regard for human life, especially children, and they are clearly a terrorist gang.

As for ARA it can be clearly defined by its statement of beliefs and principles which are reflected in the 4 points of unity which are listed below.

1. We go where they go: Whenever fascists are organizing or active in public, we're there. We don't believe in ignoring them or staying away from them. Never let the nazis have the street!
2. We don't rely on the cops or courts to do our work for us: This doesn't mean we never go to court. But we must rely on ourselves to protect ourselves and stop the fascists.
3. Non-Sectarian defense of other Anti-Fascists: In ARA, we have lots of different groups and individuals. We don't agree about everything and we have a right to differ openly. But in this movement an attack on one is an attack on us all. We stand behind each other.
4. We support abortion rights and reproductive freedom. ARA intends to do the hard work necessary to build a broad, strong movement against racism, sexism, anti-Semitism, homophobia, discrimination against the disabled, the oldest, the youngest and the most oppressed people. We want a classless free society.

• Family target of hate
• Calgary police probe alleged hate crime
  

Warman v. Lemire: We Told You It Likely Wasn't Over

Do we sound smug when we say we told you so?

Now let's all listen to the in unison crying and gnashing of teeth from the speechies:

Judicial Review Application in the Warman v. Lemire case

Judicial Review Application

Warman v. Lemire

On Thursday, October 1, 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Commission applied for Judicial Review of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal's decision in the Warman v. Lemire case before the Federal Court.

The Commission applied for Judicial Review so that technical but important legal issues raised by the decision can be clarified. These issues go beyond this particular case and could have an impact on other administrative tribunals. As a result, the uncertainty created by the decision is not in the public interest and merits a binding decision by a higher court.

The application is based on two grounds. It is the Commission’s view that:

The Tribunal erred in law when it found that the manner by which the applicant exercises its statutory mandate could render section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act unconstitutional; and

The Tribunal’s findings of unconstitutionality also resulted from the adoption of subsections 54(1)(c) and (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, subsequent to the Supreme Court of Canada’ s decision in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892. The Tribunal erred in law when it refused to apply section 13 of the Act because a refusal to apply subsections 54(1)(c) and (1.1) would have provided a sufficient remedy in respect of this ground.

The Commission endorses the Tribunal's narrow interpretation of section 13, which is consistent with the Supreme Court and Tribunal's jurisprudence as well as with the Commission's 2009 Special Report to Parliament. The Commission accepts the Tribunal's finding that the penalty clause is unconstitutional. In fact, the Commission itself has recommended that this provision be repealed in its Special Report to Parliament.

The Commission is a servant of Parliament and considers that Parliament's statutes must be applied unless they are found to be unconstitutional. In this case, it is the Commission’s view that the Tribunal went too far in refusing to apply section 13 in its entirety when the constitutional concern could be remedied by refusing to apply the penalty clause in 54(1)(c).

Given that the original decision was a bad decision based on a poor understanding and application of the law, we couldn't imagine that the decision wouldn't be appealed. On way or another, at least we'll be closer to some clarification.

Update: New links, now with kng-fu grip!

Topham Complaint Going Ahead

Dear Tribunal and Parties,

We write further to the correspondence that has been exchanged by the parties in regards to the impact of the Warman v Lemire decision recently rendered by the Tribunal.

It is the position of the Commission submits that the Tribunal should proceed on hearing the matter pending before it in the present case. Consequently, the matter should neither be adjourned sine die or simply dismissed.

In Warman v. Lemire, the Tribunal found that the penalty provision in s. 54(1)(c) was not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the Charter. In the instant case, the Commission will no longer be seeking a penalty under 54(1)(c) of the Act as was originally included in its Statement of Particulars. The Commission therefore respectfully submits that the Tribunal ought to proceed with a hearing of the Complaint to determine if section 13 has been infringed, and if so, to exercise its discretion under s. 54(1)(a).

Yours truly,

Daniel Poulin
Legal Counsel
Canadian Human Rights Commission

Public Split Between Aryan Guard and Former Aryan Guard (W.E.B.) Continues

Oh, "Ryan Adler," how we've come to love your wit and wisdom.

Actually, Ryan Adler isn't his real name, at least not his complete name. We've referred to him in the past as R.L. as he's one of the Aryan Guard groupies who is too young to shave (though he insists that he is old enough to shave and, in fact does)but old enough to puff out his chest and act like a tough guy online...... and who wears a mask in public.

Well lately R.L. has been posting his charming repartee on opposition Facebook groups, including the one promoting the anti-fascist rally on October 10. However our favourite exchanges are occurring on the wall of the, "F*** the Aryan Guard, Stop Racism" group. We'll cut to the chase and post the best of the bunch so far:


Not long ago Reitmeier called the members of the Aryan Guard, "posers." Now an Aryan Guard loyalist adds flames to the fire by not only calling into question W.E.B.'s fidelity to the cause, but also calls every W.E.B. member out as a drug user.

Didn't we say something about internal politics eventually breaking this gang apart?

Pull up a chair and have some popcorn. The show is sure to continue.

Banish the Cyber-Bigots

Banish the Cyber-Bigots

By Michael Gerson
Friday, September 25, 2009

The transformation of Germany in the 1920s and '30s from the nation of Goethe to the nation of Goebbels is a specter that haunts, or should haunt, every nation.

The triumph of Nazi propaganda in this period is the subject of a remarkable exhibit at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (where I serve on the governing board). Germany in the 1920s was a land of broad literacy and diverse politics, boasting 146 daily newspapers in Berlin alone. Yet in the course of a few years, a fringe party was able to define a national community by scapegoating internal enemies; elevate a single, messianic leader; and keep the public docile with hatred while the state committed unprecedented crimes.

The adaptive use of new technology was central to this achievement. The Nazis pioneered voice amplification at rallies, the distribution of recorded speeches and the sophisticated targeting of poster art toward groups and regions.

But it was radio that proved the most powerful tool. The Nazis worked with radio manufacturers to provide Germans with free or low-cost "people's receivers." This new technology was disorienting, taking the public sphere, for the first time, into private places -- homes, schools and factories. "If you tuned in," says Steve Luckert, curator of the exhibit, "you heard strangers' voices all the time. The style had a heavy emphasis on emotion, tapping into a mass psychology. You were bombarded by information that you were unable to verify or critically evaluate. It was the Internet of its time."

This comparison to the Internet is apt. The Nazis would have found much to admire in the adaptation of their message on neo-Nazi, white supremacist and Holocaust-denial Web sites.

But the challenge of this technology is not merely an isolated subculture of hatred. It is a disorienting atmosphere in which information is difficult to verify or critically evaluate, the rules of discourse are unclear, and emotion -- often expressed in CAPITAL LETTERS -- is primary. User-driven content on the Internet often consists of bullying, conspiracy theories and racial prejudice. The absolute freedom of the medium paradoxically encourages authoritarian impulses to intimidate and silence others. The least responsible contributors see their darkest tendencies legitimated and reinforced, while serious voices are driven away by the general ugliness.

Ethicist Clive Hamilton calls this a "belligerent brutopia." "The Internet should represent a great flourishing of democratic participation," he argues. "But it doesn't. . . . The brutality of public debate on the Internet is due to one fact above all -- the option of anonymity. The belligerence would not be tolerated if the perpetrators' identities were known because they would be rebuffed and criticized by those who know them. Free speech without accountability breeds dogmatism and confrontation."

This destructive disinhibition is disturbing in itself. It also allows hatred to invade respected institutional spaces on the Internet, gaining for these ideas a legitimacy denied to fringe Web sites. After the Bernard Madoff scandal broke, for example, major newspaper sites included user-generated content such as "Find a Jew who isn't Crooked" and "Just another jew money changer thief" -- sentiments that newspapers would not have printed as letters to the editor. Postings of this kind regularly attack immigrants and African Americans, recycle centuries of anti-Semitism and deny the events of the Holocaust as a massive Jewish lie.

Legally restricting such content -- apart from prosecuting direct harassment and threats against individuals or incitement to violence -- is impossible. In America, the First Amendment protects blanket statements of bigotry. But this does not mean that popular news sites, along with settings such as Facebook and YouTube, are constitutionally required to provide forums for bullies and bigots. As private institutions, they are perfectly free to set rules against racism and hatred. This is not censorship; it is the definition of standards.

Some online institutions, such as The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, screen user comments before posting them. Others, such as The Post and The Wall Street Journal, rely on readers to identify objectionable content -- a questionable strategy because numbness to abusiveness and hatred on the Internet is part of the challenge.

Whatever the method, no reputable institution should allow its publishing capacity, in print or online, to be used as the equivalent of the wall of a public bathroom stall.

The exploitation of technology by hatred will never be eliminated. But hatred must be confined to the fringes of our culture -- as the hatred of other times should have been.

Anti-Fascist Rally in Calgary: October 10

In case you're trying to think of something to do around the Thanksgiving long weekend other than stuffing yourself full of turkey and pie, consider the following invitation, our dear readers, to participate in the following rally:

On October 10th at 1pm, there will be an anti fascist/ anti racist rally in Bridgeland. We will be meeting at 1st ave and 8a st. There will be a march and afterward there will be free food. Everyone should come out to this event, and bring lots of friends.

Free food? Well, we suppose that given the season, a communal meal of some sort is inevitable.

September 2009 Bits and Bites Part II: The "Fairness Fairy" Saga.... Continues?

We published an article concerning the revelation (snicker) that the "Fairness Fairy" was claiming to be a CHRC mole.... er.... whistleblower (snort). Jay Currie, Mr. Kathy Shaidle and the lost souless voids of FreeDom promptly published the information. Today, Stormfront moderator OdinPatrick followed suit:

We surmised that the, "Fairness Fairy" may, in fact, be Marc Lemire himself given that he used the pseudonym "Veritas-Canada" on Wikipedia and "FairnessFairy2" was a known sockpuppet of his that he also used to edit his own Wiki entry.

Well, the Fairness Fairy promised more revelations to prove that he was, in fact, a CHRC mole (damn, we mean whistleblower) that would be published on Saturday:


Nothing was forthcoming on Saturday (surprise, surprise) and today, when one goes to what was once the "Fairness Fairy" blog which had been active since 2006:


You get the feeling that the people who were all giddy about the thought that the "Fairness Fairy" being legit might be a bit deflated now? You get their hopes up, then no promised money shot.

And they wonder why most people consider them to be rubes.

Fairness Fairy: Secret Agent Man (or Woman..... But Likely Man)

And who might this, "Fairness Fairy" be? We'll get to that soon, but please, read on.

We've been aware of the online presence of the "Fairness Fairy" and his (or her) blog for some time. The blog has claimed to be providing information on the Marc Lemire hearings but aside from sexually degrading women and antisemitic rhetoric, it really hasn't offered really anything new. However, recently there was a big reveal. The "Fairness Fairy" is, according to the author, a CHRC mole.

Oh, we mean whistleblower. Our bad.

Our avid reader Jay Currie promptly posted the article on his blog and then scampered to Free Dominion to spread the good news:


Not long after, Mr. Kathy Shaidle chimed in on the subject on his blog:

Uppierdate: Rumours afoot of a possible Op-Ed by the "Whistleblower" in a major paper

Upperdate: This just gets curiouser and curiouser, here's the promised post by our self-described "Whistleblower".

Now, while many of the FreeDom denizens are rejoicing at the prospect of someone with inside the operations willing and eager to bring the whole thing down, not all is happy in Whoville. Some who have decided to turn on the logic portion of their brains are justifiably suspicious by this new claim by "Fairness Fairy." Others are downright disgusted:


So where does "Narrow Back's" ire come from? We'll allow him to explain in his own words and using direct quotes from the "Fairness Fairy" blog:

Fromm and CAFE: Libel Payment Made In Full

So you know how Mr. Warman won his libel suit against Paul Fromm. And remember how Paulie lost his appeal and was assessed costs? And remember how Paulie said that he was going to continue to fight until his last, dying, breath?

Okay, we don't remember that last part either.

The point is that we've received word that Paulie has paid, in full, the judgment against him. That would be over $40,000.

Now, where does an unemployed teacher find that kind of scratch? Given how they're always screaming poverty, we can't imagine the racist speaking circuit can pay all that well. And as stupid as we think Paulie is, we can't imagine he's as stupid as his buddy David Duke was when he defrauded his own sheep (who, by the way, promptly forgave and forgot, just like true herd animals).

Interesting in any case.

Paul Fromm and His Neo-Nazi Body Guards

Earlier this week (September 21) in Kennsington, Maryland, a meeting of the Council of Conservative Citizens took place. For a brief background on this hate group in suits:

Roots in Jim Crow

 

The roots of the CCC rest in white opposition to integration during the civil rights movement of the 1950s and 1960s. The group is a successor to the Citizens' Councils of America (originally configured as the White Citizens' Councils), an overtly racist organization formed in the 1950s in reaction to the Supreme Court's Brown v. Board of Education decision outlawing school segregation. Trumpeting the "Southern way of life," the CCA used a traditionalist rhetoric that appealed to better-mannered, more discreet racists; while the Klan burned crosses, the CCA relied on political and economic pressure. 

You'll notice when you click on the link that one of the extremists associated with the CoCC is none other than Canada's own Paul Fromm. Guess who was one of the keynote speakers?

Paulie did have a welcoming committee. A number of anti-racists protested his presence and the CoCC meeting itself. Our friends with the One Peoples' Project and Lady Liberty's Lamp covered the story (there is also a video included with the article):