OK, let's talk about Marc Lemire

[Edward Kennedy]

It is apparent to the casual observer that the real fascists and bigots reside in lieberaldom and operate hrcs and other bigotted prejudicial organizations. These are the real enemies of freedom. These are the dangerous people who should not only be removed from their jobs but also deported, they are more dangerous then Ernst Zundel ever was or could be.

[Maikeru]

Only some of the material that made for the Judge's decision was "in camera."
Obviously, the Judge was protecting a source or sources in the interest of national security.

In any case, this decision Mr. Lemire as well as Zundel and is an official public record which we've never heard of being challenged for any reason.

The ongoing saga of Marc Lemire is taking interesting twists and turns, and no small thanks to you, Harry.
This is the stuff of good debate.

[Harry Abrams]

Out of curiosity, when the SCC eventually rules Section 13 unconstitutional, what are you going to do for a living? Maybe go free-lance into the civil lawsuit racket like your "friend and colleague"?

That's a cheap shot. You already know that I own and run an advertising business. Advocacy and anti-defamation work are an interest and a community service thing for me, like being in a volunteer fire department.

[Edward Kennedy]

Nope. No part of that decision was ever ruled unconstitutional or inaccurate. It was never challenged at all. Zundel was deported to Germany.

He shouldn't have been. He didn't do anything to deserve it. He was a much better Canadian than his persecutors were and are.

...and a lot better person than any hrc inquisitor or lieberal politico with few exceptions.

[Mark Fournier]

... Is it mere coincidence that the only conviction Marc Lemire has ever received was in another unconstitutional process? ...

You mean the CHRT decision? It's under appeal. And until the constitutionality of S. 13 has been decided as such, and rescinded by parliament it's still fair ball and you're whistling in the dark. Indeed, the core of S. 13 might not even be challenged at the appeal. It's a request for a clarification of the decision.

It is not the facts of the Lemire case that are under appeal, Harry, it is the constitutionality of Section 13. Marc Lemire stands cleared of all charges except the one of reposting the words of another. The main role the Lemire case will play in the constitutional decision to come will be in demonstrating some of the horrors that Section 13 has spawned.

[pirapoi]

hmmm, - This group doesn't seem to list Marc lemire as a member of Heritage Front, but I don't know if I should trust them.

The Supporting Cast (in alphabetical order)
. . .
Charlene Elise Hategan
Gerry Lincoln
. . .
<a href="http://www.bnaibrith.ca/pdf/TheHeritageFront.pdf"target="_blank"> Source: B'nai Brith Canada </a>

[fourhorses]

Obviously, the Judge was protecting a source or sources in the interest of national security.

Some thugs doing washroom escort for the complainant

No one bought it, no one is going to buy it.
Even Hadjis had to tell them to drop the charade


Read the transcripts

Something else was going on - the "security" was a front to hide it.

[LAR]

hmmm, - This group doesn't seem to list Marc lemire as a member of Heritage Front, but I don't know if I should trust them.

The Supporting Cast (in alphabetical order)
. . .
Charlene Elise Hategan
Gerry Lincoln
. . .
<a href="http://www.bnaibrith.ca/pdf/TheHeritageFront.pdf"target="_blank"> Source: B'nai Brith Canada </a>

In 1994 B'nai Brith concluded the Heritage Front was guilty of having a secret agenda.

[Marshall]

Harry Abrams wrote:
Obviously, the Judge was protecting a source or sources in the interest of national security.


And the source in all probability was "Grant Briscow".

[Peter O'Donnell]

This business about CSIS setting up the Heritage Front is no minor quirk that we can just sweep under the rug. We need a full scale inquiry to find out why this was done, what legitimate national security issues were served by this activity.

When I hear about it, my cynical reflex tells me that it was done to create a pretext for expansion of the human rights machinery, and as a smokescreen by Liberal governments in the 1990s to firm up the vote in certain ridings, and to distract attention away from their overall leftward political drift.

It really smells bad, the concept of attracting a few disgruntled, otherwise isolated people who were never going to pose any sort of threat, and turning them into a group with still very little harmful potential, just to prove some thesis of an imaginary neo-Nazi threat.

It tends to make anti-communist conservatives quite angry, because it's like a playful adolescent game that distracts attention away from the really serious harm being done to our national culture by the far left embedded in our academic and judicial sectors. And while all of this was happening as a sort of over-publicized circus, the gay lobby was preparing a full-scale frontal assault on our civil liberties by hooking themselves up with the human rights establishment.

Coincidence? That's why we need an inquiry. Neo-nazis are always such a convenient distraction for the political left.

[BlawBlaw]

But Lemire did write some of the posts examined in the CHRT hearing, and one was found to have violated s.13.

You are correct in saying some of the posts written by Lemire were examined by the CHRC/T. Some posts Connie and I have made have also been examined by the CHRC. Does that make us bigots? But you are wrong in implying the one post Lemire made that was ruled to be a violation of the unconstitutional Section 13 was written by him. It was written by someone else and reposted by Lemire. Six years of investigation failed to turn up anything Lemire wrote that violated Section 13, even by the ridiculous standards of the CHRC in one of the worst witch hunts of our time.

Correct. But the facts, as found, were that he reviewed and approved of the AIDS posting. I don't think Marc disputes that either.

He was also the webmaster of freedomsite...

That makes him a bigot? If someone posts something deemed to be bigotry on Free Dominion do Connie and I suddenly become bigots, or associate bigots?

It's all a matter of the raison d'etre of the website. Free Dominion is about "Principled Conservatism", whatever that means. We have a wide range of views here but the centre of gravity of the posts is far from anything anyone reasonable could deem as hateful and such. We even have Harry Abrams posting here with - to the best of my knowledge - no death threats or such. Then there is the likes of DA, DAC, Adonick and others who can be most politely described as "centrist".

Freedomsite? I dunno. It seems well known that the bent of the site is anti-this and anti-that. I would suggest that the centre of mass of the postings as a whole could be described, colloquially, as hateful or bigotted or - at a minumum - narrow minded.

...and the last president of the Heritage Front from 2001 until it closed shop in 2005. It isn't mere guilt by association when you are the president of the association in question!

You are correct in saying being the president of an association is more than being smeared as guilty by association. But other that the words of Matt Lauder (which he is being sued over) and an accusation made in another unconstitutional proceeding, on what do you base your assertion that Lemire was ever the head of the Hertige Front? Other than Harry's claim that it is widely known that Lemire supposedly was the HF leader at one time, I have yet to see anything to support that accusation.

[/quote]

There is a saying that you can't prove a negative. That is so much hogwash. So, who was the president of the HF from 2001 to 2005?

Even the National Post's Johnathan Kay concluded that Lemire is a bigot.

Jonathan Kay repeated the smear of Lemire but presented no information to back up his claim that Lemire was actually the leader of the government run Heritage Front. Why is it that none of the people repeating this claim bothers to back it up with evidence other than "everyone knows"?

Goebbels was right, if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

Perhaps. But Kay is a professional, opposed to the CHRC and section 13, and not some doe-eyed leftist who has any reason to fudge his opinon. And as a professional, one would think that he made a reasonable investigation of the facts before forming an opinion.

Maybe I'm wrong - anything is possible - but Kay is not a part of the hate speech zealots, official jews, gay mafia or anyone else who would have an interest in misleading people.

Here is another thing to consider. If Lemire is really some kind of Heritage Front bigot, why hasn't he been using this opportunity to promote the politics that have been assigned to him by others? Or why hasn't he just come forward and said, "Yes, at one time I believed all that bigotry stuff by I've changed and regret what I used to believe"? Why is he so adamantly sticking to his guns that he was never the leader of the H.F. when he has an easy out? Could it be that he refuses to do so because to do so would be to admit to something he didn't do?

Perhaps silence is more useful that contrition. I don't see that line of argument getting anywhere.

If someone demonstrates to me that Marc Lemire was truly the head of the Heritage Front I will publicly admit that I was wrong.

As I mentioned above: who was the head of the HF during the periods in question?

I'm certainly willing to admit you are right if the evidence is there.

[Fabulous Fred]

That's a cheap shot. You already know that I own and run an advertising business. Advocacy and anti-defamation work are an interest and a community service thing for me, like being in a volunteer fire department.

...or in this case being in a volunteer fascist dept. Almost the same thing is it harry?

[Fabulous Fred]

hmmm, - This group doesn't seem to list Marc lemire as a member of Heritage Front, but I don't know if I should trust them.

The Supporting Cast (in alphabetical order)
. . .
Charlene Elise Hategan
Gerry Lincoln
. . .
<a href="http://www.bnaibrith.ca/pdf/TheHeritageFront.pdf"target="_blank"> Source: B'nai Brith Canada </a>

... that should be corrected shortly!!!

[Peter O'Donnell]

We should not presume anything, perhaps Marc Lemire joined the Heritage Front to express his concerns that our heritage was under attack, and that point of view is quite common among conservatives, the details of it may vary from person to person, but the thought process is fairly standard, otherwise, what are we trying to "conserve?"

This remains essentially a guilt-by-association question, and becomes increasingly irrelevant as the challenge to Section 13 rises up through the system. By now, the only important question is the legal integrity of Section 13. Many believe it has no integrity and represents bad law. The Marc Lemire connection is mostly a totally side issue of he says, she says, which should have no bearing on this important decision.

If there is wrongdoing associated with the Heritage Front, then that is mostly on the plate of the Canadian government which set it up for whatever reasons, seemingly not good ones.

[Fabulous Fred]

We should not presume anything, perhaps Marc Lemire joined the Heritage Front to express his concerns that our heritage was under attack, and that point of view is quite common among conservatives, the details of it may vary from person to person, but the thought process is fairly standard, otherwise, what are we trying to "conserve?"

..and not at all without any justification. Some people don't accomodate being put down and discriminated against by their own government and bureaucracies. The thing is, when it is a "minority" that fights back it is a matter of pride and human rights, when a white person does it then it becomes a supremacist/nazi-like action and a matter of bigotry and hate. ...ya, ... riiiiiiiight!:roll:

If there is wrongdoing associated with the Heritage Front, then that is mostly on the plate of the Canadian government which set it up for whatever reasons, seemingly not good ones.

All of the hatred and incitement to hatred was done by the government. They led the way, encouraged people to follow and then tried to make nazi's out of them if they did. It is the government itself that should be on trial and facing serious penalties for this. Lemire is a scapegoat for their fasism and their lawlessness.