[58] In regard to the other remedies sought by Mr. Warman, I have decided not to grant any relief under these provisions for the following reasons.
[59] During his cross-examination, Mr. Warman admitted (after initially denying) that he had participated in communicating messages on Internet Websites similar to the Northern Alliance Website utilizing pseudonyms such as “Pogue Mahone” and “Axetogrind”.
So.. has anyone got Randy Richmond’s phone number?
More: Richard Warman’s arse
Intrigue! – a now you see it, now you don’t Richard Warman “rebuked” story at the Ottawa Citizen.
Letter to editor London free press
FREE SPEECH
Controversial right-wing blogger invited to speak at London event
Re: Controversial right-wing blogger invited to speak at London event, Randy Richmond, April 11, 2009 What a shame. Once again the London Free Press has squandered an opportunity to be the source of unbiased information for a very important discussion that Canadians need to have. Discussions surrounding the actions of our Canadian Human Rights Commissions and those who would stifle much needed debate in favour of adhering to politically correct strictures, couldn’t be more important.
I will take this opportunity to point out that the Forest City Institute held an event with both Kathy Shaidle and Salim Mansur on January 29, 2009. The Free Press was notified about this event, and the extra step of directly contacting at least one Free Press reporter to encourage coverage, was taken. All for naught. The Free Press did not think it was important or newsworthy. Now however, they are mysteriously interested in telling one side of the story at the behest of those like Bernie Faber and Warren Kinsella, who are in favour of stifling free speech for select Canadians.
I suppose on principle I should be pleased that the Free Press is finally paying attention to this issue but unfortunately, Randy Richmond’s article was not about passing on a news story of interest to Londoners, but rather, was an attempt to paint an unflattering picture of those who are concerned about hate speech laws. Instead of contacting others involved for their opinions, like Salim Mansur, and providing fuller context to Kathy Shaidle’s remarks, Mr. Richmond and the London Free Press dutifully reported a very biased version of events at the behest of the purveyors of self-interested, status quo thinking like Bernie Faber.
It is a shame that those that like to think of themselves as “progressives”, are in fact supporting a very dangerous status quo. Wake up folks. There is a new reality and it’s time that as Canadians we had the kind of discussion needed in order to respond to current events.
As for Mr. Faber’s position of using hate speech laws to defend the Jewish people, I would remind him that the Nazis had some of the strictest hate speech laws known. Those hate speech laws, which essentially turned into censorship, only served to ensure that the build-up to the slaughter of 6 million jews would be accomplished with very little resistance from an uninformed, unsuspecting public.
POSTED BY: Mary Lou Ambrogio, London
POSTED ON: March 12, 2009
*******************************
http://www.lfpress.com/cgi-bin/publish.cgi?p=27193&x=letters&l_publish_date=&s_publish_date=&s_keywords=&s_topic=&s_letter_type=Letter%20to%20Editor&s_topic=&s_letter_status=Active&s=letters
This letter to the editor of the London Free press , I doubt will be printed in the newspaper. It cements Richmonds bias, and the favour he did for his buddies.
Mary Lou Ambrogio, did run for the Conservatives in the last election, but sadly she lost out to the ndp banshee.
cold canadian
There seems to be a common misapprehension here (intentional?) that I am on the side which would like to see Shaidle censored. Nothing could be farther from the truth. And in fact I have said nothing to give that impression.
You, however, have told me to “shut the hell up”. The fact that you do so while ostensibly defending free speech is an irony you’re obviously unaware of.
Likewise, if Shaidle is allowed freedom of speech, so is Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress when he calls her “the purveyor of some of the most offensive racial stereotypes I have ever read.”
As well, if Shaidle is allowed to exercise her freedom in making her comments, so is the organizer of the event in London free to observe in reaction to those comments: “If they are true (They are!) I will have nothing to do with her.”
The Letter to the Editor above states that the writer of the Free Press article attempted to present an “unflattering picture” of Shaidle when it all it did was quote some of her remarks. If she is as unapologetic about the remarks as she claims then how could the quotes be anything but flattering to her?
My concern has not been with censoring the remarks but with the intention behind them. You say you don’t care about the intention. Fair enough. But no-one has explained to me the difference between the spirit and intention behind her remarks that Muslim children and Natives are “parasites” and the spirit and intention behind Nazi propaganda calling Jews “rats” and “vermin”.
Bleet, me telling you to shut the hell up not terribly ironic, especially in the world of free speech. Making you shut up would be. And I don’t have the power to do that.
Also, there need not be any difference between the spirit and the intention of her remarks. She can say them. She may or may not mean them. But make no mistake, she is a fighter for freedom of speech. And that is what you were questioning in your first posting.
The point she makes, and has made many times, is that she wishes to be offensive. She wants people to stop being so thin skinned and whiney. If you don’t like her goal or her methods (and often I don’t), then don’t read her.
But there are people who are trying to prevent her from saying it. Again, let them make the arguement that she lacks credibility and she is a racist, and let people decide from there.
But if you work for the government, or brag about your influential role with the leader of a political party, don’t use your position to silence people. THAT is censorship. And Kathy is fighting that.
You will never, never know someone else’s intention behind his or her writing. Even if they tell you their intention, there might be more to it. Or they might be flattering themselves. So read into it what you like, and accept it or reject it.
If you need someone’s intention before you can judge their work, then you are not judging their work.
Well,cold canadian
Pardon me for saying so, but there’s a basic contradiction in your argument. You state that one can “never ever know someone else’s intention behind their writing”. Yet you say that Shaidle is writing “to be offensive” because she wants people “stop being so thin-skinned and whiney”.
Leaving aside the imponderable secret intentions we can never (ever) know, if Shaidle is writing purely for the purpose of being “a fighter for the freedom of speech”, why then do not her offensive remarks also target Jews, Christians, and Buddhists? Why do they only target, by and large, people of, shall we say, darker hued skin colours?
This remarkable selectiveness gives the lie to your assertion that she writes simply to stop people from being so “thin-skinned and whiney”. By your logic the Aryan Brotherhood, etc., are also freedom fighters.
Based on the presented evidence we can make a judgement that these writings intend to dehumanize certain segments of the population, a goal shared by Shaidle’s peers in the blogosphere with, one presumes, the cognizance of all the ramifications such a dehumanization entails.
It isn’t thin-skinned and whiney to point that out. It’s simply an observation of fact.
It is thin-skinned and whiney, though, to bitch when one gets shut out of mainstream society when these views are made known in a newspaper.
She writes offensive things about everyone. Including jews (cheap), christians(hypocritical) and white people (pandering appologists). And women. And journalists. And I think there is even a snotty post about Germans up right now. While I have never seen comments about Buddhists, I am sure she would accomodate. She is truly an equal opportunity offender. She could get an inclusiveness award. Does that help?
Hmmmm, interesting cold canadian
Shaidle’s made demeaning comments about Jews, has she? Care to quote a few?
And you must admit the tepid criticisms of white people and Christian pale beside Shaidle’s assessment of Muslims and Native people as “parasites”.
For someone who professes not to care about the content of Shaidle’s remarks, you’re sure twisting yourself into pretzels trying to defend those remarks.
Wonder why?
“criticisms of white people and Christian pale beside Shaidle’s assessment of Muslims and Native people as “parasites”.”
Ha ha we now have official degrees of bigotry!
Wonder how the left wishes to change the criminal code of Canada to reflect this new rationality?
Scale number #1
1.White racist against white – Bad but not very – scale 1/10
2.White “racist” against Buddhist – Bad but getting worst – scale 2/10
3.White “racist” against Muslim – Holy crap lets nail them – scale 8/10
4.White racist against black – the mother of all racism – scale 10/10 (death by hanging)
5.Muslim “racist against white – doesn’t exist – scale 0/10
6.Black racist against white– impossible blacks aren’t racist – scale 0/10
*Note religious beliefs are not a race – but we don’t care, it’s the thought that counts!
Scale number #2 (degree of white racism against individual grievance group)
1.Words used – See comprehensive list from (Parasite to N*gger).
2.Thoughts used – See comprehensive list from (I’m getting a bum rap to Affirmative action is unfair for me and my family).