The class action lawsuit is a interesting idea. You don't debate guys like Whatcott. You figure out ways to take away their money.
If his name is unfamiliar, start here.
H/T@journo_dale.
Showing posts with label Bill Whatcott. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Whatcott. Show all posts
Thursday, August 11, 2016
Bill Whatcott's Back
The class action lawsuit is a interesting idea. You don't debate guys like Whatcott. You figure out ways to take away their money.
If his name is unfamiliar, start here.
H/T@journo_dale.
Thursday, March 07, 2013
Whatcott At It Again
Despite a recent Supreme Court of Canada ruling against him, social conservative activist Bill Whatcott took his controversial anti-gay and anti-abortion stand on Wednesday to the University of Regina.
Bill will soon find out that defying the Supreme Court is a bit different from defying the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. He will also discover, I think, that as his legal troubles increase post SCC-decision they will trigger smaller and smaller amounts of media coverage.
(Although, that said, I'm not sure the SCC decision mentioned his anti-abortion pamphlets. If he lays-off the gay bashing Bill may be OK.)
Bill will soon find out that defying the Supreme Court is a bit different from defying the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. He will also discover, I think, that as his legal troubles increase post SCC-decision they will trigger smaller and smaller amounts of media coverage.
(Although, that said, I'm not sure the SCC decision mentioned his anti-abortion pamphlets. If he lays-off the gay bashing Bill may be OK.)
Thursday, February 28, 2013
Warman On Whatcott
More through the links below. I've discussed the Warman/Lemire case, referenced in point six, here and here:
2. This unanimous 6-judge decision upholds the 20+ year old majority decision from the Supreme Court in Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Taylor that Canadian human rights laws on hate propaganda are constitutional. The unanimous Whatcott decision now includes Chief Justice McLachlin who had previously led the minority 4 judge dissent in Taylor arguing the parallel federal human rights restriction on hate propaganda was unconstitutional. This is a tectonic judicial shift.
3. The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that existing hate speech case law has been following the earlier guidance from then Chief Justice Dickson in the Taylor case to deal only with the most extreme examples of hate speech. The SCC’s decision cites 4 of my cases with a particular emphasis on the ‘Hallmarks of Hate’ from the crackerjack Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Member Karen Jensen in the Warman v. Kouba decision which brought together a cogent analysis of the indicia that will demarcate legal expression from illegal hate speech.
An interesting point, here. Now both the SCC and Richard Moon have exonerated the behavior of HRC employees. That is to say, they have not pursued frivolous cases, only the worst examples.
4. The Supreme Court has affirmed the social destruction caused by hate speech & emphasizes “the added impact of the Internet”.
5. The decision largely cements the legal test in the Taylor case as the governing law for the indefinite future and I believe confirms the current de facto state of the law.
6. Warman & CHRC v. Lemire – Justice Mosley of the Federal Court ruled in October of 2012 that he was obliged to follow the Supreme Court’s guidance in Taylor and uphold the constitutionality of s. 13 (the federal human rights act provision prohibiting Internet hate speech in Canada). Marc Lemire’s frivolous appeal of that decision is done.
Marc Lemire: obscurity is calling you. Time to return to it.
PS. Bernie Farber has weighed-in.
2. This unanimous 6-judge decision upholds the 20+ year old majority decision from the Supreme Court in Canadian Human Rights Commission v. Taylor that Canadian human rights laws on hate propaganda are constitutional. The unanimous Whatcott decision now includes Chief Justice McLachlin who had previously led the minority 4 judge dissent in Taylor arguing the parallel federal human rights restriction on hate propaganda was unconstitutional. This is a tectonic judicial shift.
3. The Supreme Court’s decision confirms that existing hate speech case law has been following the earlier guidance from then Chief Justice Dickson in the Taylor case to deal only with the most extreme examples of hate speech. The SCC’s decision cites 4 of my cases with a particular emphasis on the ‘Hallmarks of Hate’ from the crackerjack Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Member Karen Jensen in the Warman v. Kouba decision which brought together a cogent analysis of the indicia that will demarcate legal expression from illegal hate speech.
An interesting point, here. Now both the SCC and Richard Moon have exonerated the behavior of HRC employees. That is to say, they have not pursued frivolous cases, only the worst examples.
4. The Supreme Court has affirmed the social destruction caused by hate speech & emphasizes “the added impact of the Internet”.
5. The decision largely cements the legal test in the Taylor case as the governing law for the indefinite future and I believe confirms the current de facto state of the law.
6. Warman & CHRC v. Lemire – Justice Mosley of the Federal Court ruled in October of 2012 that he was obliged to follow the Supreme Court’s guidance in Taylor and uphold the constitutionality of s. 13 (the federal human rights act provision prohibiting Internet hate speech in Canada). Marc Lemire’s frivolous appeal of that decision is done.
Marc Lemire: obscurity is calling you. Time to return to it.
PS. Bernie Farber has weighed-in.
Wednesday, February 27, 2013
Whatcott Decision, Condensed
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Code is mostly constitutional:
For the same reasons set out in the s. 1 analysis in the case of freedom of expression, the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” are not rationally connected to the legislative purpose of addressing systemic discrimination of protected groups, nor tailored to minimally impair freedom of religion. The remaining prohibition of any representation “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred” any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground is a reasonable limit on freedom of religion and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Woth noting that in testimony, reps from the Sask. Tribunal said that, in looking at a case, the real weight fell on the clause judge to be constitutional. So no great loss.
And two of four of Whatcott's pamphlets constituted hate speech; two were merely offensive:
The tribunal’s conclusions with respect to the first two flyers were reasonable. Passages of these flyers combine many of the hallmarks of hatred identified in the case law. The expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that threatens the safety and well‑being of others, makes reference to respected sources in an effort to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred. The flyers also expressly call for discriminatory treatment of those of same‑sex orientation. It was not unreasonable for the tribunal to conclude that this expression was more likely than not to expose homosexuals to hatred.
The tribunal’s decision with respect to the other two flyers was unreasonable and cannot be upheld. The tribunal erred by failing to apply s. 14(1)(b) to the facts before it in accordance with the proper legal test. It cannot reasonably be found that those flyers contain expression that a reasonable person, aware of the relevant context and circumstances, would find as exposing or likely to expose persons of same‑sex orientation to detestation and vilification. The expression, while offensive, does not demonstrate the hatred required by the prohibition.
Suck on it Bill! Suck on it Speechys!
PS. Also, Bill is out $7,500 and a whole whack for costs.
PPS. Another good bit, re the issue of whether the speech in question reflects a sincerely held belief:
[143] Apart from that concern, the fact that a person circulates a hate publication in the furtherance of a sincere religious belief goes to the question of the subjective view of the publisher, which is irrelevant to the objective application of the definition of hatred. Allowing the dissemination of hate speech to be excused by a sincerely held belief would, in effect, provide an absolute defence and would gut the prohibition of effectiveness.
For the same reasons set out in the s. 1 analysis in the case of freedom of expression, the words “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” are not rationally connected to the legislative purpose of addressing systemic discrimination of protected groups, nor tailored to minimally impair freedom of religion. The remaining prohibition of any representation “that exposes or tends to expose to hatred” any person or class of persons on the basis of a prohibited ground is a reasonable limit on freedom of religion and is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Woth noting that in testimony, reps from the Sask. Tribunal said that, in looking at a case, the real weight fell on the clause judge to be constitutional. So no great loss.
And two of four of Whatcott's pamphlets constituted hate speech; two were merely offensive:
The tribunal’s conclusions with respect to the first two flyers were reasonable. Passages of these flyers combine many of the hallmarks of hatred identified in the case law. The expression portrays the targeted group as a menace that threatens the safety and well‑being of others, makes reference to respected sources in an effort to lend credibility to the negative generalizations, and uses vilifying and derogatory representations to create a tone of hatred. The flyers also expressly call for discriminatory treatment of those of same‑sex orientation. It was not unreasonable for the tribunal to conclude that this expression was more likely than not to expose homosexuals to hatred.
The tribunal’s decision with respect to the other two flyers was unreasonable and cannot be upheld. The tribunal erred by failing to apply s. 14(1)(b) to the facts before it in accordance with the proper legal test. It cannot reasonably be found that those flyers contain expression that a reasonable person, aware of the relevant context and circumstances, would find as exposing or likely to expose persons of same‑sex orientation to detestation and vilification. The expression, while offensive, does not demonstrate the hatred required by the prohibition.
Suck on it Bill! Suck on it Speechys!
PS. Also, Bill is out $7,500 and a whole whack for costs.
PPS. Another good bit, re the issue of whether the speech in question reflects a sincerely held belief:
[143] Apart from that concern, the fact that a person circulates a hate publication in the furtherance of a sincere religious belief goes to the question of the subjective view of the publisher, which is irrelevant to the objective application of the definition of hatred. Allowing the dissemination of hate speech to be excused by a sincerely held belief would, in effect, provide an absolute defence and would gut the prohibition of effectiveness.
Wednesday, October 12, 2011
Whatcott Does Ottawa
...distributes gay-bashing fliers in advance of court hearing. Full list of stories in today's papers about the case here.
Friday, November 05, 2010
Exactly What You Need HRCs For
SAINT JOHN, N.B. — The New Brunswick Human Rights Commission is holding an inquiry into the province's abortion policy.
Randy Dickinson, chairman of the commission, confirmed Tuesday that the human rights organization received a complaint relating to New Brunswick's Medical Services Payment Act, which sets out the conditions under which the province will pay for abortions.
As for what's going on in Saskatchewan, where the Tribunal may be dissolved and cases that can't be settled via mediation sent to court, I'm not sure what to think of it yet. For one thing, the hate speech provisions in the provincial legislation would remain as per the status quo: in fact, in other Sask. human rights news, Bill Whatcott's case is being taken to the Supreme Court. And in situations where mediation fails, the province will still take up complainant's costs. I suppose the issue here would be costs--its difficult to see this new process being cheaper than going before a tribunal. And while Chief Commissioner David Arnot is clearly sincere in his attempts to reform the human rights situation in that province, can Premier Brad Wall and his gang be trusted to produce legislation in accord with Mr. Arnot's intentions?
Randy Dickinson, chairman of the commission, confirmed Tuesday that the human rights organization received a complaint relating to New Brunswick's Medical Services Payment Act, which sets out the conditions under which the province will pay for abortions.
As for what's going on in Saskatchewan, where the Tribunal may be dissolved and cases that can't be settled via mediation sent to court, I'm not sure what to think of it yet. For one thing, the hate speech provisions in the provincial legislation would remain as per the status quo: in fact, in other Sask. human rights news, Bill Whatcott's case is being taken to the Supreme Court. And in situations where mediation fails, the province will still take up complainant's costs. I suppose the issue here would be costs--its difficult to see this new process being cheaper than going before a tribunal. And while Chief Commissioner David Arnot is clearly sincere in his attempts to reform the human rights situation in that province, can Premier Brad Wall and his gang be trusted to produce legislation in accord with Mr. Arnot's intentions?
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Blast From Past: The Dawn Of The Speechy Wars
It's ancient history now, but nevertheless an interesting addition to our knowledge of the early days of the Canadian Speechy Conflict...
Connie and Marc Fournier--owners of the oft sued FreeDominion BBS for "Principled Conservatives"-- have recently received a large if largely redacted set of files from the CHRC (Canadian Human Rights Commission). They have created a .pdf of this material, which pertains to the first hate-speech complaint raised against them by one Marie-Lynne Gentes in 2007.
And, reading through the documents, it looks as though Connie and Marc got screwed. Not by Richard Warman or the CHRC or Marie-Lynne Gentes, but by anti-gay activist Bill Whatcott, who they have defended fiercely as an ally over the years.
(As an aside: criticizing Bill was what got me booted from FreeD. I told Connie and Marc: This guy is bad news. You need more enemies like me around to keep you out of the trouble your friends get you into. But they didn't listen. Later, they tried to have me fired. Whatever).
Reading through the .pdf, it becomes clear that Whatcott's anti-gay pamphlets, which he was distributing door-to-door (in Edmonton, I believe), bore FreeD's URL; in other words, from Whatcott's pamphlet's you would reasonably conclude that Free-Dominion was his website, a fact the Fourniers had no knowledge of (and something Whatcott did not see fit to tell them). So when the CHRC decided to proceed against Whatcott's on-line activities, they naturally turned on FreeD.
Interestingly enough, the gang at Free Dominion are still blaming the usual suspects for their troubles. Given their ideological commitments, I'm not sure they will ever be able to correctly perceive Whatcott's treachery.
Connie and Marc Fournier--owners of the oft sued FreeDominion BBS for "Principled Conservatives"-- have recently received a large if largely redacted set of files from the CHRC (Canadian Human Rights Commission). They have created a .pdf of this material, which pertains to the first hate-speech complaint raised against them by one Marie-Lynne Gentes in 2007.
And, reading through the documents, it looks as though Connie and Marc got screwed. Not by Richard Warman or the CHRC or Marie-Lynne Gentes, but by anti-gay activist Bill Whatcott, who they have defended fiercely as an ally over the years.
(As an aside: criticizing Bill was what got me booted from FreeD. I told Connie and Marc: This guy is bad news. You need more enemies like me around to keep you out of the trouble your friends get you into. But they didn't listen. Later, they tried to have me fired. Whatever).
Reading through the .pdf, it becomes clear that Whatcott's anti-gay pamphlets, which he was distributing door-to-door (in Edmonton, I believe), bore FreeD's URL; in other words, from Whatcott's pamphlet's you would reasonably conclude that Free-Dominion was his website, a fact the Fourniers had no knowledge of (and something Whatcott did not see fit to tell them). So when the CHRC decided to proceed against Whatcott's on-line activities, they naturally turned on FreeD.
Interestingly enough, the gang at Free Dominion are still blaming the usual suspects for their troubles. Given their ideological commitments, I'm not sure they will ever be able to correctly perceive Whatcott's treachery.
Friday, April 02, 2010
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.
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.
Sunday, February 28, 2010
Whatcott Triumphant
One-time Free-D denizon "Wild" Bill Whatcott, who I've written about here, has won his appeal in the Whatcott vs. Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal case:
In a decision released February 25, the 3-member court ruled that William Whatcott did not violate section 14(1)(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code by distributing flyers to oppose the teaching of homosexuality in Saskatoon’s public schools.
The decision, which I haven't read, is here. From the Canadian Constitution Foundation's (CCF) response, it doesn't sound like it touches on the constitutionality of the law.
In a decision released February 25, the 3-member court ruled that William Whatcott did not violate section 14(1)(b) of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Code by distributing flyers to oppose the teaching of homosexuality in Saskatoon’s public schools.
The decision, which I haven't read, is here. From the Canadian Constitution Foundation's (CCF) response, it doesn't sound like it touches on the constitutionality of the law.
Monday, July 07, 2008
Are The Blogging Tories Promoting Illegal Feces Bombs?
Bounced from the halls of FreeDominion, (Wild) Bill Whatcott has taken his peculiar brand of Conservative Activism to where but The Blogging Tories? Here's how he's protesting Morgentaler's being awarded The Order Of Canada:
I got an image of the Order of Canada, crapped on it, wrapped it up and mailed it to the Governor General to communicate my utter contempt of her office, her arrogance, her anti-Christian/ anti-life bigotry and the now corrupted and irrelevant Order of Canada in general.
...which, I am pretty sure, is illegal.
Interesting that the BTs, who brag of their connection with the Harper Tories, would tolerate this kind of thing.
I got an image of the Order of Canada, crapped on it, wrapped it up and mailed it to the Governor General to communicate my utter contempt of her office, her arrogance, her anti-Christian/ anti-life bigotry and the now corrupted and irrelevant Order of Canada in general.
...which, I am pretty sure, is illegal.
Interesting that the BTs, who brag of their connection with the Harper Tories, would tolerate this kind of thing.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Whatcott Triumphant!
Despite what you might have heard, the folks at FreeD booted me off their forum last year for writing about "Wild" Bill Whatcott, whose anti-abortion activism has earned him several arrests over the years and a brief stint in an Ontario prison. In 2002, Bill protested outside of a Planned Parenthood clinic in Saskatchewan. As a result The Saskatchewan Association of Licensed Practical Nurses found him guilty of professional misconduct, suspended him as a nurse, and ordered him to pay $15,000 in legal costs.
Bill fought back, and his case has been wending its way through the court system ever since. Well, yesterday Bill tasted of sweet vindication. The Supreme Court of Canada chose not to hear an appeal of a lower court decision that found that Bill not guilty of these charges:
Mr. Whatcott argued that he had been demonstrating in his free time and that his protest was simply a case of free speech. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association had also weighed in on the debate, saying that while it favored abortion rights it was concerned over attempts to squelch debate.
Congratulations, Bill!
And a very important point: do this kind of stuff outside of office hours, and you are usually in the clear ;)
You know, FreeD turfed Bill from the forum around the same time they turfed me, blaming him for bringing the HRCs down on their head. Wonder if they'll let them start posting again.
PS. My darling CF, I have received your secret missive. Paris sounds lovely, but what will we do about him?
Bill fought back, and his case has been wending its way through the court system ever since. Well, yesterday Bill tasted of sweet vindication. The Supreme Court of Canada chose not to hear an appeal of a lower court decision that found that Bill not guilty of these charges:
Mr. Whatcott argued that he had been demonstrating in his free time and that his protest was simply a case of free speech. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association had also weighed in on the debate, saying that while it favored abortion rights it was concerned over attempts to squelch debate.
Congratulations, Bill!
And a very important point: do this kind of stuff outside of office hours, and you are usually in the clear ;)
You know, FreeD turfed Bill from the forum around the same time they turfed me, blaming him for bringing the HRCs down on their head. Wonder if they'll let them start posting again.
PS. My darling CF, I have received your secret missive. Paris sounds lovely, but what will we do about him?
Monday, July 30, 2007
FreeD Weekend Roundup: Whatcott Emerges
You would think that the FreeD owners would want to put as much distance between themselves and far right nutter Bill Whatcott as possible, but no, he's back and posting on the "Support Free Dominion" facebook site. Not only that, he's flogging the same anti-Muslim pamphlet that got them all in trouble in the first place:
Mind you the Christians at FD have the Father, Son and Holy Spirit on our side. I would suggest God is mightier then the effiminate, anti-Christian state called Canada."For though we live in the world, we do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, they have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments and every pretension that sets itself up against the knowledge of God, and we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Christ."2 Corinthians 10:3-5
To see the flyer at the center of this censorship scandal go here.... feel free to copy this flyer and distribute far and wide. I have been blessed to disseminate this worthwhile truth in 2 provinces, 2 university campuses and 3 cities.
I still don't feel like linking directly to the offending pamphlet, but Bill's own website is here if anyone wants a look.
Note: Reality Bites tells me that Whatcott has been banned from the FD main site, though I have been unable to locate the exact thread where this occurs. We'll see how long he lasts on Facebook.
And something I missed a few days ago. The following is the text of the CHRC instructions to Free Dominion Ms. Connie Wilkins:
June 08 2007
c/o Free Dominion
2033 Unity Rd.
Elginburg, Ontario K0H 1M0
Dear Ms. Wilkins:
The Canadian Human Rights Commission has received a complaint from Ms. Gentes alleging that your website Free Dominion, located at http://www.freedominion.ca,/ is discriminating against persons or groups of persons by communicating messages on the Internet that are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt on the basis of religion, race, national or ethnic origin and sexual orientation, contrary to section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act (“CHRA”).
Under Part III of the CHRA, the Commission is required to address any complaint that alleges a violation of the Act. An Investigator will be designated to gather evidence in relation to the complainant’s allegations and, once the investigation is complete, to report on the findings to the Members of the Commission.
The report to the Commission will include a recommendation for the disposition of the complaint. The Investigator can recommend that a conciliator or a Human Rights Tribunal be appointed, if the evidence supports the allegations in the complaint, or that the complaint be dismissed, if the allegations are not supported by the evidence. The Investigator can also recommend to the Commission that a settlement be approved if the parties reach an agreement during the course of the investigation.
At this time, I would appreciate receiving by July 18, 2007, your position regarding the allegations including, but not limited to, the following:
1. Do you own and/or control the Free Dominion website? If not, who owns and/or controls this website?
2. What is the purpose of the website?
3. What is the intent of the information /documentation posted on the website?
4. Who is responsible for editing and/or posting the content of the information/documentation on the website?
5. How are the documents being posted on the website?
6. Who is your present Internet Service Provider (ISP)? Where is it located? Please provide a copy of the ISP’s arrangement and/or copy of the agreement with the ISP.
If someone other than yourself will be representing your organisation in this matter, please let the Commission know at your earliest opportunity by calling 1-888-214-1090 and speaking to John Chamberlain, Manager, Investigations. Also, please be advised that you are required to preserve any material related to the complaint, including information in electronic formats, until final disposition of the matter.
Yours sincerely,
Richard Tardif
Deputy Secretary General
As "Buckets" pointed out at Saturday's ProgBlog get together, all very basic stuff that the CHRC would need to determine who bears responsibility for what at the site. Of course Free D regs are screaming "kangaroo court", "commie commisars", and the like.
Until something major happens with this case, I will probably be writing about Free D less frequently over the next couple of weeks. So here are a few last hits on the topic.
Flanders is planning an on-line petition, and though I don't sign such things, my good buddy Galactus, Eater of Worlds, will probably show up and put his name to it. When details become available, I will let everyone know. I'm sure "Heywood J. Blome" will want to show his support for Free Speech, Liberty, and etc.
The Winnipeg Sun's Joe Quesnel did a short column re FreeD on Friday. He is also a member of their Facebook group.
Friday, July 27, 2007
Your Free D Daily
A couple of quick notes:
1) Connie Wilkins and Mark Fourier, co-owners of Free Dominion, get married tomorrow. Good luck, and I hope the weather holds.
2) Bill Whatcott has taken a break from posting to Free D. He's got "a lot of work" on his hands and is, after all, running for mayor of Edmonton and so on and so forth.
Or somebody told him to shaddup. An informal ban, as it were. Free D doesn't sound half as loopy with him gone from the scene.
1) Connie Wilkins and Mark Fourier, co-owners of Free Dominion, get married tomorrow. Good luck, and I hope the weather holds.
2) Bill Whatcott has taken a break from posting to Free D. He's got "a lot of work" on his hands and is, after all, running for mayor of Edmonton and so on and so forth.
Or somebody told him to shaddup. An informal ban, as it were. Free D doesn't sound half as loopy with him gone from the scene.
Tuesday, July 24, 2007
Free Dominion On Coren: Gay Men Like To Walk Around Naked, And Free Dominion Is Family Friendly
After several tries, I was able to download the Sunday Night interview of Connie Wilkins from Free Dominion by CFRB's Michael Coren. It can be found here. My overall impression is that Coren, a hard right Conservative himself, tries desperately to make the content of Free Dominion, and especially the content of Bill Whatcott's pamphlets, seem much milder than they really are. A few things noted along the way:
1) You can tell how eager Coren is to soft-soap the whole FD situation by the fact that, if you pay attention, you can catch him in a fib. Specifically, during the first couple of minutes of the interview Coren claims that, while he knows who the subject of the complaint is (Bill Whatcott), he will not name the man. He doesn't really say why. And then, towards the very end of the interview (lets say the 35 minute mark) a caller phones in and asks if the subject of the complaint is "the same guy who ran for mayor of Edmonton". Connie replies that the man is indeed Bill Whatcott, and Coren FEIGNS SURPRISE. "Oh My God THAT guy?" etc. etc. What I take from this behavior is that Coren wanted to keep the interview on the level of abstraction--are you for Liberty and Free Speech or not?--rather than bring it down to particulars: do you support this freak Bill Whatcott and the contents of his pamphlets.
2) The big WTF? moment occurs at around the same time in the interview, when Coren is expressing a certain mild disapproval of Mr. Whatcott, and Connie says that Bill is "just expressing himself" the same way those homosexuals who walked around naked during Pride Week were expressing themselves. Coren clearly sees that things are sliding off the rails, and gets them back on track by noting that only very few homosexual men actually went naked during the event in question, a statement with which Connie finally agrees.
3) About midway through the interview, Connie made a claim which I found quite strange, asserting (roughly) that FD moderators make efforts to keep the site "family friendly". Wondering how they could justify this statement, while linking to material by Whatcott that is just short of snuff literature--which shows (for example) graphic images of decapitated bodies--I asked the people at FD yesterday. Mark Fourier, Connies' partner and FD administrator, responded as follows (writing as Entropy Squared):
Family friendly at Free Dominion means exactly what Mark Fournier and Connie Wilkins determines it to be, just as it means what you determine it means on your own site. Family friendly is a subjective term and we treat it as such. If we don't think it's family friendly, it goes. We have no obligation to justify or explain to anyone the decisions we make in this area.
1) You can tell how eager Coren is to soft-soap the whole FD situation by the fact that, if you pay attention, you can catch him in a fib. Specifically, during the first couple of minutes of the interview Coren claims that, while he knows who the subject of the complaint is (Bill Whatcott), he will not name the man. He doesn't really say why. And then, towards the very end of the interview (lets say the 35 minute mark) a caller phones in and asks if the subject of the complaint is "the same guy who ran for mayor of Edmonton". Connie replies that the man is indeed Bill Whatcott, and Coren FEIGNS SURPRISE. "Oh My God THAT guy?" etc. etc. What I take from this behavior is that Coren wanted to keep the interview on the level of abstraction--are you for Liberty and Free Speech or not?--rather than bring it down to particulars: do you support this freak Bill Whatcott and the contents of his pamphlets.
2) The big WTF? moment occurs at around the same time in the interview, when Coren is expressing a certain mild disapproval of Mr. Whatcott, and Connie says that Bill is "just expressing himself" the same way those homosexuals who walked around naked during Pride Week were expressing themselves. Coren clearly sees that things are sliding off the rails, and gets them back on track by noting that only very few homosexual men actually went naked during the event in question, a statement with which Connie finally agrees.
3) About midway through the interview, Connie made a claim which I found quite strange, asserting (roughly) that FD moderators make efforts to keep the site "family friendly". Wondering how they could justify this statement, while linking to material by Whatcott that is just short of snuff literature--which shows (for example) graphic images of decapitated bodies--I asked the people at FD yesterday. Mark Fourier, Connies' partner and FD administrator, responded as follows (writing as Entropy Squared):
Family friendly at Free Dominion means exactly what Mark Fournier and Connie Wilkins determines it to be, just as it means what you determine it means on your own site. Family friendly is a subjective term and we treat it as such. If we don't think it's family friendly, it goes. We have no obligation to justify or explain to anyone the decisions we make in this area.
Which is fascinating when you think of it. Connie goes on the Coren show and claims that Free Dominion is "family friendly" and you naturally think of phrases like "fun for the whole family", "kid friendly", and the like. But that's not what they mean at all. In fact, when used at FD the term is defined "on the fly"--it is whatever Connie and Mark say it is at the moment they utter the words. Link to pictures of severed heads and, if Connie and Mark approve, you're "family friendly". Bill Whatcott is, therefore, "family friendly", although you probably wouldn't want your kids reading his pamphlets, and you probably wouldn't want the family dog to get close enough to pee on him in. Protest the presence of Alberta separatists on the list (for example) and boom, your ass might just get fired out the door!
Family friendly, in other words, but not towards actual empirical families.
Saturday, July 21, 2007
The Sad Story Of Free Dominion Continues To Sadly Unfold
Okay, this won't be too well ref'd, as Big Blue Wave hasn't updated and I am stuck with what I can glean from the FD message boards. But there have been a few new bits come to light re the human rights complaint against Free Dominion:
1) Marie-Line Gentes, the woman bringing the complaint, is a wildlife biologist who studied at the University of Saskatchewan and now teaches at Vanier College in Quebec. While the post she complains about contains slurs directed at Muslims, she is not herself Muslim. Furthermore, her complaint concerns a thread launched over a year ago, though she makes nods towards other more recent material on the board that might also constitute "hate literature". I have some sympathy with the FD charge that being offended on the behalf of somebody else is a bit of a sham. On the other hand, its not about "right" or "wrong" so much it is about legal or illegal.
2) Bill Whatcott, the pamphleteer and gay-basher that is the target of the complaint, is trying to raise money on Free Dominion's behalf. Some doubts have been expressed on the Board as to whether having a known distributor of Hate Lit hustle funds for your defense in a case involving the hosting of Hate Literature (Bill's) on your website is such a great idea.
3) The owners of the Free Dominion website will be on Michael Coren on Sunday at 7:30 pm (CFRB). The story will then spread to the MSM, as will the name "Bill Whatcott" and the contents of his fliers. A bit of Fear and Loathing on FD about the prospect.
4) As to the question, should Conservatives harass Ms. Gentes (publish photos of her, her phone number, etc.), opinion on FD has probably tilted about three to one against. Yesterday it was about 50/50.
5) Fellow Libloggers/Progbloggers: some perspective, please. Doesn't this make the whole incident with MyBlahg look trivial?
Update: reading the Babble thread where Mr. Whatcott went to raise cash, it is no longer clear to me whether he meant to raise it on behalf of FD or to cover his own expenses. I will leave point 2) above as is, however, because its funnier that way, and the more general point--that many on FD would like Whatcott to STFU--still holds.
1) Marie-Line Gentes, the woman bringing the complaint, is a wildlife biologist who studied at the University of Saskatchewan and now teaches at Vanier College in Quebec. While the post she complains about contains slurs directed at Muslims, she is not herself Muslim. Furthermore, her complaint concerns a thread launched over a year ago, though she makes nods towards other more recent material on the board that might also constitute "hate literature". I have some sympathy with the FD charge that being offended on the behalf of somebody else is a bit of a sham. On the other hand, its not about "right" or "wrong" so much it is about legal or illegal.
2) Bill Whatcott, the pamphleteer and gay-basher that is the target of the complaint, is trying to raise money on Free Dominion's behalf. Some doubts have been expressed on the Board as to whether having a known distributor of Hate Lit hustle funds for your defense in a case involving the hosting of Hate Literature (Bill's) on your website is such a great idea.
3) The owners of the Free Dominion website will be on Michael Coren on Sunday at 7:30 pm (CFRB). The story will then spread to the MSM, as will the name "Bill Whatcott" and the contents of his fliers. A bit of Fear and Loathing on FD about the prospect.
4) As to the question, should Conservatives harass Ms. Gentes (publish photos of her, her phone number, etc.), opinion on FD has probably tilted about three to one against. Yesterday it was about 50/50.
5) Fellow Libloggers/Progbloggers: some perspective, please. Doesn't this make the whole incident with MyBlahg look trivial?
Update: reading the Babble thread where Mr. Whatcott went to raise cash, it is no longer clear to me whether he meant to raise it on behalf of FD or to cover his own expenses. I will leave point 2) above as is, however, because its funnier that way, and the more general point--that many on FD would like Whatcott to STFU--still holds.
Friday, July 20, 2007
More On Free Dominion Human Rights Complaint
Suzanne has the story at Big Blue Wave. The complainant is Mary Lynn Gentes (spelling?) , and the subject of the complaint some really nasty anti-Muslim stuff written by a "christian activist" named Bill Whatcott (which you can link to it from her site, not here). Mr. Whatcott has a history of this kind of thing He:
was fined $17 500 for by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal for distributing flyers denouncing homosexual behaviour.
Actually, looking at his material (this and earlier stuff), I am inclined to think that it does meet the criteria of a hate-crime. Apparently, Connie intends to fight this battle to the last dog, but I think she's talking crazy talk. I can't see how any of the culture warriors at Free Dominion would be able to stand up and say they're proud of Mr. Whatcott's contribution to their forum. But I guess they may have that chance.
was fined $17 500 for by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal for distributing flyers denouncing homosexual behaviour.
Actually, looking at his material (this and earlier stuff), I am inclined to think that it does meet the criteria of a hate-crime. Apparently, Connie intends to fight this battle to the last dog, but I think she's talking crazy talk. I can't see how any of the culture warriors at Free Dominion would be able to stand up and say they're proud of Mr. Whatcott's contribution to their forum. But I guess they may have that chance.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)