Dickler Under Siege!
Posted by alex in 'hate' haters, Canada at 1:30 am | 
Permanent Link
Chair Attacks Warman
TORONTO. January 31, 2007. Just after lunch Richard Warman retook the witness stand. He fidgeted and winced: “Mr Chair, my hand has been cut by the chair,†the ever painfully politically correct complainer said to the presiding Member (judge) Athanasios Hadjis. In current politically correct quack, he who presides over a meeting is called “the chair.â€
Apparently, it was the piece of furniture not Mr. Hadjis who was being accused of cutting Warman’s hand.
“May I leave and see to my injury?†Warman asked. One of his three taxpayer-supplied personal bodyguards rushed forward with the stricken look that must have crossed the face of one of JFK’s secret service guards on realizing the president he was protecting had been shot in Dallas. Holding his injured limb, a bloodied Warman hastened from the hall, shadowed by the scuttling bodyguard.
Warman had been continuing his testimony and identifying a three inch pile of documents, mostly downloads from the Freedomsite, at Marc Lemire’s Internet hearing. Mr. Lemire, webmaster of the dissident Freedomsite, is accused of violating Sec. 13.1 of Canada’s notorious human rights Act; that is, repeatedly communicating statements “likely†to expose privileged groups to “hatred or contempt.â€
The gutsy young computer professional and his intrepid lawyer Barbara Kulazska have also mounted a challenge to the constitutionality of what has become Canada’s Internet censorship law, where truth is no defence.
With the wounded warrior of Internet censorship off seeking a band aid for his hurts, the audience – Lemire supporters all – was left to speculate as to what might have happened. Had some down and out person fired through Warman’s efforts managed to elude the three security wiseguys and boobytrap the witness chair? Had some disgruntled social crediter, free speech supporter, immigration critic, holocaust skeptic, 21-year-old former skin chick or other among the more than 20 of Warman’s victims, somehow tunneled from the hotel parking lot and burst up through the floor to stab the censor’s paw?
Could this have been a black day for commission security? Enemies of free speech like author Warren Kinsella (Web of Hate: Inside Canada’s Far-Right Network) love to market themselves as victims of mysterious forces. Back in 2003, Kinsella put it about that he was being stalked by neo-Nazi and Libyan would-be assassins and had to check into hotels under an assumed name. Some 14 years later, the hopelessly incompetent squads of neo-Nazis and Libyan hitmen have still not caught up with the Chretien era scribbler.
Kinsella’s flights of fantasy, however, pale beside Richard Warman’s repeated cries that his life is in danger and his security is threatened. The politically correct tyrants in Ottawa have succumbed to mass paranoia and supplied bodyguards to Warman and Commission counsel Giacomo Vigna, three in all, status symbols that would make the average cabinet minister envious.
The tension was unbearable! Would the man hailed at an October, 2006 Internet censorship conference by B.C. B’nai Brith voice Harry Abrams as “the Wayne Gretzky of the human rights movementâ€, be able to recover from his wounds and make it back on to the field of legal battle? All eyes, except the majority who were asleep from boredom, remained glued to the door.
At last, all freshly medicated with a band aid, Richard Warman, returned, his trusty bodyguard by his side. The hearing resumed. The crisis had passed.
Apparently, it was the rough edge of the witness chair that has scraped the Ottawa lawyer’s hand. The security had not been breached. No lurking assassin or furtive assailant had threatened the life of the champion filer of Internet censorship complaints. He bravely droned one for another hour identifying documents lifted from Mr. Lemire’s website.
Warman was not too drained by the injuries inflicted by a chair – not THE Chair, presiding over the hearing. He repeatedly took shots at the defence team – Barbara Kulazska and intervenors Doug Christie and Paul Fromm and witness Bernard Klatt – suggesting sinister “links†and connections, including the fact that “they all know one another.â€
Mr. Klatt and Paul Fromm came in for special abuse. Apparently, in October, 2003, they had picketed a Victoria, B.C. synagogue where Mr. Warman was part of a panel speaking in favour of wholesale Internet censorship and suppression of dissent.
Interestingly , shortly after that protest Mr. Warman filed his complaint against Mr. Lemire and his libel suit against Mr. Fromm and CAFÉ.
Mr. Warman’s testimony was concluded. Miss Kulazska asked for and obtained Mr. Vigna’s consent for an early adjournment in order for her to organize her cross-examination.
The hearing adjourned at 2:45. Evidence continues tomorrow with Miss Kulazska’s cross-examination of Mr. Warman which promises to provide fireworks and startling new revelations.
Support Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge
Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law and protect Freedom of Speech in Canada !
· Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:
Canadian Association for Free Expression,
P.O. Box 332,
Rexdale, ON
M9W 5L3
Canada
3 February, 2007 at 1:35 am
Can inanimate objects be convicted of hate crimes? In Canada, I’m afraid the answer must be yes.
3 February, 2007 at 2:08 am
“Hate Laws,” protecting privileged groups from “hatred or contempt,†where truth is no defence.
What more be said? The white race is being treated like a defeated country, run roughshod over by occupying alian nations. The US amendment promising equal protection under the law has become a sick joke with law school preferences given to the baboons, Canada is entirely out its mind, and Europe is the most dominated region of all. Look at France–the baboons riot on a daily basis, and the only answer the government can give is to promise more “affermitive action” and wealth transfers from the native Aryans.
God help us all; Hitler Was Right.
3 February, 2007 at 2:12 am
B’nai B’rith – where Hatred Hangs Its Hat
COMMUNICATIONS Last Updated: Jan 29th, 2007 – 13:55:10
COMMUNICATIONS : Electronic Communications
A Million Reasons to Raise the Minimum Wage
MP Peggy Nash (middle) joins with MPP Cheri DiNovo (right) and Toronto Labour Council President John Cartwright (left) to kick off the campaign to increase the minimum wage to $10 an hour.
At the January 18, 2007 Teacher Bargaining Unit Council meeting, Councillors unanimously endorsed the Toronto and York Region Labour Council campaign, “A Million Reasons to Raise the Minimum Wage.â€
The STBU Executive urges all members to visit labourcouncil.ca to complete an online petition in support of this campaign.
Promotional materials, including buttons, posters and flyers are available from the District 12 office. Please contact Earl Burt, Vice President or Angie Romo, Executive Officer – [email protected] or [email protected].
labourcouncil.ca
Jan 29, 2007, 13:48
COMMUNICATIONS : Executive Action
“Executive Action” News & Features From The STBU Executive
Issue 4, January 2007 – Special PD Day Issue!
Jan 19, 2007, 11:01
COMMUNICATIONS : Electronic Communications
McGuinty Liberals force crisis in Toronto Schools
Look for the following advertisement in local papers on Saturday August 26, 2006.
Aug 25, 2006, 15:25
COMMUNICATIONS : Press Releases
Press Release – January 17th 2007
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Teachers’ Union Defends Right to Freedom of Speech
The Executive of District 12 Secondary Teachers Bargaining Unit unanimously condemns B’nai Brith and the Jewish Defense League for what it believes amounts to a bullying campaign launched against OSSTF and its members.
On January 12th, B’nai Brith launched an all-out assault on OSSTF by sending an e-mail “alert” to its members urging them to pressure OSSTF members to disengage from a debate scheduled to take place at this Thursday’s regular monthly Council Meeting. Today, the Jewish Defense League announced its intention to rally outside of the OSSTF office during the meeting.
“This can be seen as nothing short of an attempt to intimidate our membership” said Doug Jolliffe, President of OSSTF District 12 Toronto.
“What seems to be missing, as indicated by the actions of these two organizations, is an understanding, despite an explanation from me to B’nai Brith before this alert was released, that as a democratic organization, OSSTF must entertain debate on any motion duly moved and seconded, as long as it does not ask for support of an illegal action or an action which breaches our own Constitution, Policies or Bylaws” explained Jolliffe.
“The Executive can not quash debate, nor can the Executive control what items Members feel worthy of debate, nor as a democratic organization should we.”
Each month, OSSTF Toronto Teachers hold a Council Meeting the purpose of which is in part to consider motions. Unless passed by a majority vote, the motions belong only to the Mover and Seconder. Motions are brought forward for debate in order to ascertain whether the idea contained therein has broad enough acceptance and support among the Membership to become the Union’s official position by a majority vote. It is only through the support of a majority of its representative Council that a motion can be approved.
“The Executive understands the emotional response these kinds of ideas provokes. We have had to grapple with that ourselves as voting Members of this meeting, and certainly we know that our Membership is not a monolith when it comes to these motions, or in fact any other motion that might come before our Council for debate. However for an outside organization to encourage and engage in this kind of heavy-handed, intimidating action before a decision as to whether these motions are ones we can support, is absurd.”
“Make no mistake about it. Whether the motions are carried or defeated, it will be a reflection of the will of the majority of our Members, and that’s as it should be.”
For further information contact:
Doug Jolliffe President
OSSTF District 12
(416) 393-8900, Extension 240
Jan 17, 2007, 14:01
COMMUNICATIONS : Executive Memos
Response to B’nai Brith Alert
On Time Motions
Posted on our website are the On Time Motions to our Council Meeting. On time motions are those received, in accordance with our rules, by the deadline.
An On Time Motion is not owned by the Union, nor does it reflect the position of the Executive or the Union. An On Time Motion reflects the position of the people who brought it forward.
OSSTF is a democratic organization. Therefore, in accordance with acceptable meeting practice principles (see Robert’s Rules of Order), if two members of our some 6000 members feel an issue is something they want their organization to consider and discuss, they put that issue forward in the form of a motion. They own the motion and its ideas – not the Union.
As a democratic organization, unless the ideas in the motion are illegal (ultra vires) or form a breach of the established Policy or Bylaws of our Union, the subject of the motion is considered to be In Order and therefore debatable.
The Executive can not quash debate. Calling our office to tell us not to debate a particular subject is therefore a useless waste of your time, and ours. Neither as a group, nor as individuals do we have the right, or authority, to tell our Members what topic of discussion the organization will or will not entertain, regardless of our personal position or opinion about that topic.
The Motions coming to January Council, as they stand right now, are simply that – Motions; the ideas of two people who wish to see whether their opinion has broad enough acceptance and support among their colleagues and fellow Members that it might become the Union’s official position.
A motion only becomes official OSSTF action/policy IF it is passed by a majority vote. This has not occurred.
Why Do Teachers Engage in Debates about Controversial Issues?
Many people ask why teachers are even discussing such issues. The answer, in part, is that many teacher members of our union would share the very same concern underlying that very question. That is the thing about democracy. Not everyone agrees. So, some people feel we should be looking at this particular international human rights issue. Others feel we should not. The debate will occur, and the majority will rule.
B’nai Brith Interference in OSSTF Democratic Processes
With regard to B’nai Brith’s alert, it is our belief that B’nai Brith should refrain from interference in the democratic processes of other organizations. We further feel that it is irresponsible for B’nai Brith to council people to become involved in a bullying campaign to try to force Members of a duly constituted, legal organization into not discussing an issue of interest to its Members. Our organization provides equal opportunity for those Members both in favour of and opposed to any motions being debated to state their opinion and participate in the voting process. We feel that pre-judging the topics of another’s debates is repressive.
Of interest to some may be that the information B’nai Brith provided in its most recent alert is incorrect. They indicated in their e-mail that it was as a result of community response to their last alert that the motion for December’s meeting was withdrawn. In fact that motion was withdrawn prior to their alert. Had they called to check their facts, they would have been told that.
As a result of the last community alert by B’nai Brith, we had to turn off our phones because the staff who answer our phones were taking so much horrible abuse from callers, that one was actually in tears. Many of the callers motivated by B’nai Brith’s last alert were abusive.
Further, the e-mails we received as a result of B’nai Brith’s alert showed an astonishing lack of understanding of the meaning of tolerance, and some were outright hate-filled. OSSTF found it interesting to note that ignorance can breed this kind of behaviour, regardless of which community is doing the behaving.
Finally, the District 12 STBU Executive understands that discussions dealing with the middle east can provoke highly emotional responses. However we believe that no one has the right to interfere in the right of others to hold open discussion and debate, provided the topics being debated do not contravene the law and will not lead to illegal action.
Jan 15, 2007, 08:45
http://www.osstfd12.com/artman/publish/cat_index_20.shtml