Damian Goddard's Case Dismissed

Nearly two years after sportscaster Damian Goddard was fired by Rogers Communications, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has dismissed his complaint in which he alleged that he was fired because he had publicly voiced support for the traditional definition of marriage.

On May 10, 2011, the former Connected star tweeted that he “completely and wholeheartedly” supports “the traditional and TRUE meaning of marriage.” Rogers immediately distanced themselves from the tweet, and then fired him within 24 hours.

When someone tells you that "the right" stays clear of the Canadian human rights apparatus, you can point to Goddard even if his case was thrown out (Rogers claims his dismissal had nothing to do with his opposition to SSM).  And, mind you, Pro-Life Hamilton fared much better with the OHRC; their ads ran in the end.

The Most Important Thing To Happen Today In Canada...

Canada eliminated mandatory retirement Friday after the government repealed sections of the labor code that had enabled employers to force workers to retire once they reached the age of 65.

 ...and the Harper gov. deserves some rare kudos for getting it done.  An event undeservedly ignored by the youth/twitter/facebook obsessed set that run the MSM.  But more important to us oldsters who will never really have enough money to retire on and will have to work until we drop.  For us, this means we can still tell the youth of today, with their green hair and nose rings and shitty rap metal music, to go fuck themselves.  I can still keep my job; you little screwups get to flip burgers until you're 70!  Or until you get the guts to rebel and melt us all down into soylent green!  Which will be never...PUNKS!!!   Booyah!!!

PS.  Even the CHRC approves.  So it must be good.

This Isn't Supposed To Happen

A Christian employing Canada's Human Rights Apparatus.  Its whole purpose is to oppress them, don't you know.  Mind you, the case was dismissed.  Here's another example, though I don't know how Damian Goddard fared in the end.  Though things went swimmingly for Pro-Life Hamilton.

African Canadian Legal Clinic Asks To Intervene In Warman V. Lemire

The African Canadian Legal Clinic (ACLC) has applied for intervenor status in the judicial review of Warman v. Lemire. The full text of their written representations are here. Not too many surprises: they want to keep S.13, as it is "an invaluable and necessary tool in the legal system's anti-Black hate toolkit", albeit with "substantive and procedural modifications". It sounds like they want to remove S.54.1,the penalty provision, but also add a few clauses here and there:
Paragraph 44 in particular is sure to make a Speechy scream.

It is interesting, too, to read the ACLC's account of their need to make a case apart from the CHRC:

Finally, the representation refers a number of times to an affidavit by ACLC head Margaret Parsons. That can be found here.

Update: White supremacist Mark Lemire calls the ACLC "grievance hustlers".

Whattcott Case To Supreme Court

REGINA, Saskatchewan, April 1, 2010 (LifeSiteNews.com) - The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission (SHRC) has announced their intention to take their case against Bill Whatcott, a Christian fighting the encroachment of homosexualism, to the Supreme Court of Canada.

Bill Whatcott is a Christian activist best know for mailing a feces bomb to the Governor General. He is also the guy whose postings first brought the CHRC down on Free Dominion. Suffice to say, if you see Bill Whatcott, your most likely reaction is to try to have the authorities remove him from your lawn.

Ezra Backdates

The amazing Buckets has now confirmed Ezra Levant's back-dating of a post that may well prove important to the defamation case being brought against him by CHRC lawyer Giacomo Vigna. Put crudely, Vigna has sued Levant for suggesting that he (Vigna) faked an illness to get out of a CHRT (Canadian Human Rights Tribunal) hearing; in his "Correction" , Levant admits that Vigna was indeed able to secure a doctor's note for whatever ailed him, AND that he turned said note over to the tribunal. All of which Levant had asserted previously was NOT THE CASE.

In the comments to a previous post, lawyer Ted Betts speculated as to why Levant's correction might have been issued in the first place:

By back-dating a post, it does not appear in the blog aggregator, exposing it to the eyes of so many more people. Try it with Liblogs or Progressive Bloggers.

A defamation claim is about harm to one's reputation because of the publication of falsehoods. In a defamation suit, therefore an apology is important for two reasons.

First, if you lose, you can claim the penalty should be less since the harm caused to the plaintiff's reputation was eliminated or at least lessened by a retraction or apology in the same publication. i.e. anyone who saw the first falsehood would have seen the retraction and therefore the reputation was unharmed.

Second - and this is fairly new law - it is an important defence to show that, even if the facts you relayed were false, you were not acting maliciously but based on what you thought was true and the moment you found out your information was incorrect, you apologized or retracted. In fact, the failure to apologize, clarify or retract a known falsehood when given the chance can be taken against you.

Which makes the back-dating even more interesting since, by back-dating it and minimizing the number of people who see it, it defeats the purpose of publishing it in the first place.

And this comes out a day before the case is due to start! Damn that's raw!

What The CHRC Will Argue

...in its challenge to the Hadjis decision in Warman Vs. Lemire:

...which seems to be the legal consensus on the issue. It will also argue that if Hadjis really wanted to wanted to brand section s54.1 (the penalty provision) unconstitutional, he should have put a little more work into the analysis of it than is evident in his decision.

Hossain Won't Be Charged

...but hate crime complaints will be expedited in Ontario.

Somehow I missed this one (from early in the month), but Ontario AG Chris Bentley has reconsidered and confirmed that he will not press charges against Salman Hossain, a Bangladeshi-Canadian who claimed to enjoy watching "blood flow from the western troops" and suggested that Jews be deported.

On the other hand, he has proposed several changes in protocol that would hasten the processing of hate crime complaints within Ontario. For one thing, any requests for charges under the hate propaganda sections of the Criminal Code will quickly be brought to the attention of the Attorney General [rather than being pre-screened by the local crown attorney], and that decisions on formal requests for charges will be made within 60 days. Indeed, Mr. Hossain's case languished for months before it reached the AG's desk, and this might have had something to do with its eventual dismissal.

For another thing, the Minister has appointed:

Leibovitch, Deputy Director of the Crown Law Office – Criminal, as a liaison for police, the public or other interested parties in hate crimes cases.

Interesting developments. Human Rights activists like Warman and (I believe) Abrams have long complained about the difficulty in getting charges laid under the criminal code, and argued that the HRC/HRT apparatus plays an important role of catching stuff that probably meets the cc requirement but which, for whatever reason, the police/AG combination have chosen not to pursue. These procedural changes may make the criminal code a more useful instrument under such circumstances.

Also, The Standing Committee On Justice and Human Rights will be meeting this afternoon, with University of Law Professor Richard Moon (author of the semi-famous Moon Report) being among the witnesses. Moon, though an opponent of Section 13, gave a stem winder of a lecture recently, reproduced here in the NP, in which he accused CHRC opponents (Ezra Levant primarily) of dishonesty. Hopefully he will tell the subcommittee the same thing.

And Away We Go

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.

I guess some folks will have to ream out Stephen Harper and Rob Nicholson even harder.

Canadian Human Rights Commision: Section 13 Still Constitutional, Will Still Pursue Hate Messaging Cases

An email from CHRC attorney Daniel Poulin, expanding on this earlier email:

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

..which tells us what the CHRC wants to do in Abrams V. Topham, and may do in future S 13 cases, at least until Warman V. Lemire issues are hashed out: simply drop all requests for penalties under section 54 and continue to ask for a determination as to whether S13 has been infringed.

S.13 being the hate messages provision in the CHRA.

So: the CHRC will still (for the time being) process complaints re hate messaging. It will treat section 13 as constitutionally okay, and drop appeals to section 54. Which is what most people, including me, expected. The core of the law is 13; 54 is a frill.

Warman V. Lemire: Appeal Decision Today?

An email from CHRC lawyer Daniel Poulin, addressed to Doug Christie, and reproduced at FreeDominion:

From: 'DANIEL POULIN'

Date: September 29, 2009 1:11:57 PM PDT (CA)

To: , ,
Cc: , 'DANIELLE DESROSIERS' , , , ,

Subject: Re: Abrams and BBC v. Topham and Radical Press

Mr Christie,

Thank you for your correspondence of today. I fully understand the situation you are in about keeping these dates open since I am exactly in the same position. It would be surprising that I could be 'inconsiderate' towards myself (if your comment was directed at myself or the Commission of course - which is very likely since you refer to a government salary).

It is my intention to provide the Commission's position by tomorrow.

Daniel Poulin
Legal Counsel
Canadian Human Rights Commission

'Doug Christie Law Office' 9/29/2009 :40:23 PM
Canadian Free Speech League
P.O. Box 101, 255 Menzies Street
Victoria, B.C. V8V 2G6
Fax: 250-479-3294 Tel: 250-888-3410

Mr. Poulin was asked to comment on the status of the Abrams and BBC v. Topham and Radical Press case, which is the last (I think) section 13 case in the CHRC pipeline, in light of Warman v. Lemire. The date on the email is yesterday, so I presume we will be hearing his response sometime today.

I suspect the CHRC will appeal, but we shall see.

Me On The CHRC

Some twerp at Western Standard has been talking trash about the stuff I have written re the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ezra Levant, Nazis...etc. etc.

He writes:

Academic and blogger Marc Bourrie had a good post recently on the Orwellian tactics of Commissar Lynch and the CHRC. Given that he has done doctoral research on the history of state censorship in Canada, his opinions on this matter carry some weight.

But there's another reason why his post is worth reading, for if you take a look at the comments section you will discover everything you need to know about the intellectual bankruptcy of the port side of the Canadian blogosphere. In response to Bourrie's reasoned criticisms of the HRCs, the luminaries of Canada's nutroots - Dawgie and BCL in particular - have nothing to say. They evince no concern about due process, the rule of law, free speech rights, Warman's internet shenanigans, etc. No, for them the real issue is Ezra Levant's honesty (Robert McClelland calls him a "lying douchebag" in the first comment.

Nothing to say?

Well, indeed I have written alot on Ezra's varous allegations. Because most of the ensuing debate hinges on their accuracy. Here's just a few wherein I believe I have managed to establish that one or another of his claims are false, either through original research or by citing the work of others:

On his false allegations re the creation of the Canadian Nazi Party by the CJC: here, here, and here.

On his false allegations (recycled from White Nationalist sources) re the "hacked wifi" controversy: here, here, here, here, here, and here. And that's probably not all of them.

On his false allegations re the Cools post (also recycled from White Nationalist sources): here, here, here, here, here, here. And these are just the more important ones.

On Ezra's tenuous grasp of the complexities of the various provincial and federal human rights codes/laws etc: here, here, here, and esp. here (wherein I realized Ezra didn't understand what section of the B.C. code was actually at issue).

On Ezra's doubts re the existence of Bill White (American Neo-Nazi, now bound for the BigHouse thanks in part to Richard Warmen).

On Ezra's claim that Section 13 has been suspended (due to the brave work of himself, Ezra Levant).

And that's not half the stuff I've written. Anything I have said about Mr. Levant's accuracy has been sourced up the wazoo from multiple places.

But wait! Its not just about Ezra here at BCLSB, not even when it comes to the issues surrounding Canadian HRCs/HRTs (including the "problems" with the way they operate! For example:

On Warman's "shenanigans": here.

And on the Moon reports recommendations: here, here, here, here, and here.

On the Topham case (which is an example of "Left" anti-semitism and therefore, come to think of it, a refutation of Ezra's charge that HRCs/HRTs only target Conservatives).

On B'nai Brith's recommendations re the CHRC/CHRT.

Anyway, that is a small selection. I would just add that whenever I have made an error in writing about any of these matters, I have corrected it as quickly and openly as possible. That is what you do when you are concerned with facts. On the other hand, I doubt Ezra has every acknowledged error in any of the cases above, and others involved in the debate (Mark Steyn) have refused to pull false and in fact defamatory material from their websites when asked.

I would put this up against anything Mr. Yirush has attempted on the issue. Or anything Mr. Bourrie as done, come to think of it, Mr. Bourrie being a generally intelligent person who gets all tribal when he sees real or imaginary threats to the journalistic profession. In fact I would suggest that both men read some of the material before suggesting that I have been conducting an empty smear campaign.

A Faint Hope

Should the book go into a second edition, I am hopeful that Levant will address the concerns raised by Citizen writer Andrew Potter in his generally positive review. Potter states that 'Of more concern is that clarity, fairness and perhaps even accuracy are often sacrificed in the greater service of the author's polemical objectives.'

Mr. Potter cites Levant's claim, based on an article printed in Maclean's magazine at that time, that in 1966 the Canadian Jewish Congress helped fund the fledgling Canadian Nazi Party. Potter correctly points out that the only 'bankrolling' expended by a private detective hired by the Congress to expose the Nazi group was money put out to purchase a bottle of rum. Between 'rum' and 'bankrolling' is more than a nuanced difference. It is the difference between accuracy and fiction.

Hopefully Mr. Levant will see fit to correct this for future editions.

From Rabbi Reuven Bulka, of the CJC.

Unfortunately, if Ezra excised all the unclear, unfair, and inaccurate bits from Shakedown there wouldn't be enough left for 1/2 dozen limericks. And were I to pick the single worst omission in the book, it would probably be the fact that Ezra doesn't bother to tell his readers how the RCMP and Privacy Commission investigation of the CHRC turned out.

Pankiw Case Appealed

Several years back, former Reform Party MP Jim Pankiw was charged under sections 5, 12, and 14 of the CHRA (referring to discrimination and harassment in the provision of services) for distributing a series of householder” pamphlets to his constituents that contained anti-aboriginal language and imagery. The case was originally dismissed because the "Canadian Human Rights Act does not apply to the “householder” pamphlets".

However, it is now being appealed:

Canadian Human Rights Commission lawyer Daniel Poulin said from Ottawa on Monday the commission appealed the ruling “late last week.”

“It is the position of the commission that the Human Rights Tribunal erred when it interpreted (the term) ‘services’ under Sections 5 and 14 of the Canadian Human Rights Act,” Poulin said.

The commission believes Pankiw’s householder mailouts should be considered a service, and that the act should apply, he said.

Rob Breakenridge asks:

So seven years after an MP sent out some pamphlets to his constituents and five years after that MP was sent packing by his constituents, we're still wasting taxpayer dollars investigating whether these pamphlets were "offensive".

Whether they were or not, it would seem as though a verdict was already rendered: i.e. the decision by Pankiw's constituents that they no longer wanted him as their representative in Ottawa. Why are we still wasting taxpayer dollars on this case?

Because if they were against the act they were against the act? And how about: if the matter were being pursued through the criminal code then it would cost a lot more?

Human Rights Bits And Bites

Re. yesterday's legislative hearing on the Ontario Human Rights Commission:

A friend who is a Legislative assistant sat in on the Hearings in the afternoon. Apparently Richard Moon testified via telephone and took huge chunks out of Ezra Levant and his fellow travellers. Called him (and you [BCF] by extension) a liar...

An assessment confirmed by today's National Post article by Joseph Brean:

Richard Moon, the University of Windsor law professor who last fall became a darling of right-wing free speech advocates when he recommended scrapping the federal human rights hate speech law, yesterday lashed out at his admirers.

[...]

Prof. Moon targeted Ezra Levant in particular, whose blog is a clearinghouse for skepticism of human rights law, and who claimed the day before Prof. Moon's report was released that it had been "redacted by Jennifer Lynch," the chief commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

"The claim was false," Prof. Moon told the all-party panel. "I was given complete independence, and when my report was released the following day and recommended the repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the falsity of Levant's claim was obvious. He had just made it up. He thought he knew what I would say and he sought to discredit the report in advance by attacking me and the commission rather than the arguments I might make."

He accused them of launching a "smear campaign" against human rights commissions and "baseless personal attacks" against their staff.

Meanwhile, at the same hearing Mark "The Steynosaur" wanked it both handed. Read the transcript if you need a fleet enema.

Meanwhile, I am a bit unclear as to what happened at the Justice and Human Rights Committee, where a "review" of section 13 was supposedly up for discussion. From Kady's description:

Real Menard puts forward his brilliant notion of combining the review of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act with his motion to look at including social condition as a protected form of discrimination, and Storseth … … Drum roll … … … says that he’s actually not ready to bring *his* motion forward at this point, so he’ll be happy to discuss this with Menard in future.

Brian Storseth is the Tory MP who wanted to ask the committee to review section 13, and he is "not ready" to make this request--to discuss the possibility of discussing section 13, as it were. Given this, we can probably assume that nothing relevant happened at the committee. As Kady notes: Wow, that was anticlimactic.

Update: Buckets has more, and WK has partial transcripts of Moon's testimony.

CHRC Under Scrutiny...Again?

OTTAWA — The controversial section of the Canadian Human Rights Act governing hate speech comes under scrutiny today when federal politicians decide whether to debate the limits it places on freedom of expression.

Brian Storseth, a Conservative MP, has asked the Commons justice committee to review Section 13 of the act, which contains provisions that deal with hate messages. Mr. Storseth also wants the committee to review the mandate of the commission itself.

Except that the Liberals seem to have taken a stand on the matter:

Liberal MP Brian Murphy said his party is not in favour of removing Section 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act. "It is a unique tool for people who are being discriminated against and it's an added protection," he said.

Good on Iggy. And the NDP don't sound too helpful either:

Joe Comartin, the NDP justice critic, said he opposes removing Section 13, but believes the act is a "blunt instrument" that requires significant amendments.

The mandate of the Canadian Human Rights Commission is not clear, Mr. Comartin said, and there must be better criteria for selecting commissioners to ensure that Section 13 is not used improperly. That would require an extensive review that could take some time, he said, and which would likely be postponed to allow the justice committee to deal with more pressing issues.

So, essentially, months more of flailing in the blogosphere, but no action likely. Shall we have one more dance, speechy warriors?

The Last Piece To The CHRC Puzzle

...can be found at the website of the Office of the Privacy Commisioner of Canada:

In this case, personal information was introduced, as a result of a subpoena issued to an Internet Service Provider, during the course of a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal public hearing. The subject of the subpoena was an IP address allegedly accessed by the CHRC during the course of its investigations. In response to the subpoena, the Internet Service Provider disclosed the name, address and telephone number of the Internet subscriber it associated with that IP address, namely the complainant. It is the view of this Office that the IP address, in this instance, does constitute personal information as defined in section 3 of the Act.

The second issue to consider is whether the CHRC collected the complainant’s personal information and then subsequently used it during the course of its investigations.

The investigation found no evidence that the CHRC ever collected any personal information about the complainant or in fact that the CHRC had any knowledge about the complainant prior to the allegations made in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal public hearing.

There is no evidence that the CHRC ever collected or improperly used, disclosed or retained the complainant’s personal information.

Technological experts have indicated that, most likely, but without certainty, the association of the complainant’s IP address to the CHRC was simply a mismatch on the part of a third party, which could have occurred in a variety of ways not involving the CHRC.

What is certain is that there is no evidence of the CHRC having ever collected or improperly used, disclosed or retained any personal information about the complainant.

Now, what does this bit mean?

Technological experts have indicated that, most likely, but without certainty, the association of the complainant’s IP address to the CHRC was simply a mismatch on the part of a third party, which could have occurred in a variety of ways not involving the CHRC.

It means that, as per usual, Buckets was right. The For Dummies version of his research is here.

It also means that you can't trust them Nazi Computer Experts.

PS. As Dawg helpfully points out, Mark Steyn of MaCleans basically accused CHRC investigator Dean Steacy of committing a criminal act, and his charge has now been shown to be baseless before the whole world. Mark seems big on apologies when others make mistakes in regards to his work. I have emailed him and suggested that he apologize to Mr. Steacy. Lets see what he does when the shoe is on the other foot. Lets see how much class our boy has.

BETRAYED! Final Notes On The Speechy Conflict

Lets wander the blogosphere, shall we? and sample the various flavours of disappointment from the Speechy Tribe re Harper's decision to do nothing about the CHRC and Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

First, to Rob Breakenridge:

I suppose there's some political calculation here on Harper's part, but I can't for the life of me figure out what it is.

Simple, Rob. The Speechy uprising was led by a combination of Neo-Nazis, Mark Steyn, journalists, Ezra Levant, and professional scribblers like Margaret Atwood. Harper took note and decided that, politically speaking, this was a coalition of luzers. If you took a poll that ranked the "respectability" of public figures and certain professions in Canadian society, none of the people on this list would have finished above grave-robbers and fungus.

Meanwhile, Jay Currie is working on plan B:

...20-30 hard right/libertarian candidates running in marginal CPC seats with the sole objective of denying those seats to the CPC.

Whoo hoo! Another political party to fight over votes with the Western Concepters, The Christian Heritage people, The Freedom Party, the Super Duper Freedom Party, the Libertarians, the Libertaranians, and Hellyer's Exo-Politics movement (who feel the government needs to come clean on aliens among us).

Jay's got an idea where this would all lead:

I can live with Iggy as PM.

Yeah, nice thought kid, but wake up, you're battling over a total of 23 votes Canada-wide. You won't be denying nobody nothing.

Chris Selley bemoans the incivility of it all:

Sooner than delight in having reached near-consensus on point one, propose changes, and pursue a rational dialogue on the next two points, certain high-profile members of the Canadian commentariat almost instantly started calling each other Nazis and fascists. It was, in far too many cases, the intellectual equivalent of a foodfight at a middle school cafeteria. Now the combatants are all covered in mustard and whipped cream, and nobody's any further ahead. I hope they had fun, at least.

Yeah but I for one never called anyone a Nazi who wasn't a literal, dyed-in-the-wool Nazi. The fact is, Speechy warriors found it impossible to make any kind of argument against Section 13 without regurgitating filth straight off Canada's premier white supremacist websites. In the case of the "hacked wifi" controversy, Selley's own newspaper was willing to report as truth "information" from an American Neo-Nazi who did time for attempting, with the help of a number of Canadian-based white supremacists, to launch an invasion of Dominica. Ask Jonathon Kay and the NP legal team where that kind of shit landed you guys, Chris.

On yeah, and your side lost the food fight. So Nyahh, nyahh, freaking nyahh!

Kathy Shaidle says she will hate as she pleases, no matter what the law says. Ah well, we all need a hobby.

Mark Steyn appears to still be formulating his response. But here's a tip, Mark. If I see you in a Canadian publication ever again, I've already got my HRC complaint form handy, and a couple QCC forms from Heritage Canada. Tell Kenneth Whyte, if you surface in Macleans one more time, I'm coming for his government stamps.

I'm also taking my campaign against you South, as I try to convince your American publishers that your English accent is totally fake.

Ezra Levant is spinning madly, quite madly, so madly that he has forgotten to ask for donations. That's how you can tell he's upset.

And here's a you-tube clip of me doing a victory dance. Warning! It contains semi-nudity and fatness! But that's what you come here for, isn't it?

Free Dominion And The CHRC: Another Section 13 Complaint Coming Down The Pipe

A few bits of "inside baseball" stuff re Free Dominion and their ongoing troubles with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

1) Heavily redacted documents supplied to Connie and Ed by the CHRC prove rather conclusively that investigator Dean Steacy was not randomly investigating the forum in advance of specific complaints raised against it. The timing of his actions have been a bugaboo for ages now, as it was felt that Mr. Steacy had it in for FreeD merely because of the board's politics. From January of this year:

According to the documents Connie and I were served from the Canadian Human Rights Commission last summer, Marie-Line Gentes did not bring Free Dominion to the commission's attention with her bogus complaint against us until September 29th, 2006, over five months after Dean Steacy began his 'investigation' by registering as jadewarr.

However, as Connie now notes:

I posted a thread the day we got them saying that it appeared that Dean Steacy lied under oath when he said that he signed up on FD as jadewarr because the Intake document of the first complaint was dates several weeks after he signed up. As I was scanning the pages today, however, I found an email buried amongst a bunch of 2007 pages that were stapled together, and it looks like a message to Dean Steacy about Free Dominion from three or four days before he decided to "jadewarr" us. You can see that (page 12), and the rest of the FD Files here.

2) There is in fact a 2nd complaint against Free Dominion in the works. No further details have been provided thus far.

Harry Abrams Strikes Back! More Notes On The Moon Report

In the late 1990s, Harry Abrams launched a human rights complaints against well-known B.C. journalist Doug Collins over columns written by Mr. Collins for Vancouver's North Shore News, in which Mr. Collins, among other things,

...questioned the Holocaust and denounced "Schindler's List" as propaganda.

Earlier this week I was able to contact Mr. Abrams, and he commented as follows on The Moon Report (I have made a few minor stylistic edits to the following):

...if Dr. Moon's recommendations were taken at face value, that would make it open season on the re-publishing of the Protocols of [the Elders of] Zion and more which doesn't specifically call for violence, but has nevertheless been widely recognized as a warrant for genocide.

Similarly, the Nazi era newspaper Der Sturmer, the most infamous newspaper in history did not specifically call for violence, but contained grotesquely hateful material, ALL OF WHICH would according to Dr. Moon be untouchable if his suggestions were to be accepted at face value, because were merely offensive ..

[...]

"..the paper had been filled with charges that Jews were about nefarious deeds everywhere in Germany, posing an immediate threat to each reader..."

Dr. Moon's suggestions also make it fair game for wide distribution of The Turner Diaries and The Hunter, Pierce's novels of violent race war that [influenced white supremacist] Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. I doubt these books specifically said, after you've read this book, go out and kill black people!" But that's what Pierce intended them for. And that's how they were used.

These books deserve to be studied, and understood, like Hitler's Mein Kampf and other classics of hate literature, but the distribution should be controlled in some way, or at least they should be labelled as classics of hate literature.

Harry