OK, let's talk about Marc Lemire

[Narrow Back]

I think my opinion on the overall subject has been offered ad nauseum on this board. So I will get ahead of the holier than thou bunch that will no doubt attack me for feeling the way I do.

My overall point, which I stated more concisely in the past is that there is a difference between being a desirable individual, and the rights of freedoms of individuals.

I think we as ideologies, activists, and partisans often fall in the same trap as the media. There is good and evil, black and white...no other issue at play. I couldn't agree more with what you said about "villainy", but perhaps at the end of the day I might see the issue a bit differently in a broader sense.

"All great love exists beyond good and evil".

If Marc has strayed, that's what it is. What next? A burning? These people are us and we are them. I will cite Jesus Christ here.

[LAR]

I see this shoddy journalism everywhere, including the mainstream. They call people neo-nazis and claim they threatened Jews with violence and all they offer as an example is questioning the holocaust.
Nowadays just speaking up for the right of free expression can get you labelled as a neo-nazi and once you get the label your motives are in question.

[Connie Fournier]

I think my opinion on the overall subject has been offered ad nauseum on this board. So I will get ahead of the holier than thou bunch that will no doubt attack me for feeling the way I do.

My overall point, which I stated more concisely in the past is that there is a difference between being a desirable individual, and the rights of freedoms of individuals.

I think we as ideologies, activists, and partisans often fall in the same trap as the media. There is good and evil, black and white...no other issue at play. I couldn't agree more with what you said about "villainy", but perhaps at the end of the day I might see the issue a bit differently in a broader sense.

If you think Marc Lemire is an "undesirable individual", lay out your proof. That is what this thread is about.

Mark and I have sat and talked to Marc Lemire at length, the CHRC and Richard Warman investigated him for YEARS...and nobody has been able to provide one shred of evidence that Marc Lemire is a Nazi. Not one.

So, go ahead. If you have evidence that Lemire is a racist, bring it on. Otherwise, stop defaming him.

[Crash]

I didn't say that Marc Lemaire was a racist, I am sure you have seen that in what I said. I was wondering why he was a member of a message board that promotes "White Power". No defamation explicitly or implicitly applied.

[Peter O'Donnell]

Frankly, I don't think we can accept that there are any neo-Nazis in Canada unless candidates for that dubious distinction come out and say that's what they are, because one of the most obvious tell-tale signs of Nazism is a vast reluctance to hide that fact. Any cursory examination of history will reveal this to be the case. Nazis tend to make quite a show of their beliefs.

Hence, when someone who is more than likely to be merely a cultural or social conservative is so accused, I tend to assume it is overblown rhetoric as per the usual leftist tendency to find a nasty name that saves the bother of rational discussion and argument. Next on that list, after neo-Nazi, is usually creationist (as in we can't allow Sarah Palin to become president, she's a creationist).

Now, as to this nonsense about "he shares a lawyer with blah blah," does this possibly suggest that the newspaper in question believes in guilt by association, or the lack of some peoples' rights to have legal representation? If so, they should let us in on the secret of what legal code they propose we should be following in Canada.

Personally, I am not troubled by hints and allegations about Marc Lemire or anyone else caught up in this complex struggle between the politically correct elitists and the ordinary people of Canada. If you cast a large net into the sea, you are going to drag up all sorts of species, but the question being debated is not, what species should we keep on the boat and which should we throw back in, but why use the big net?

[RedDog]

I was wondering why he was a member of a message board that promotes "White Power".

I'm far more concerned when residents of the White House have associated with, and maintained strong, long term ties to people who openly promote BLACK power.

[Connie Fournier]

I didn't say that Marc Lemaire was a racist, I am sure you have seen that in what I said. I was wondering why he was a member of a message board that promotes "White Power". No defamation explicitly or implicitly applied.

Then, I'm afraid I didn't understand your comment. What I understood you to be saying is that you think Marc Lemire is not a "desirable individual".

If you don't believe the "racist" smears, then why would you say that? If it is simply because he has posted on Stormfront, I think fourhorses offered an excellent opinion on that subject and I agree with him fully.

[Crash]

Saying someone is "undesirable" is not defamation. People would call me "undesirable for being on a message board whose mission statement is "principled conservatism".

My primary point was a question, and that question is, why is Marc Lemaire a member of a community whose mission statement is "white power"? I think that is crystal clear. I don't know Marc Lemaire, you know him far better than I, I am willing to bet. I never pretended to.

I don't have to believe to "racist" smears one way or another to say what I said, my point about being a desirable individual is quite clear. Would I consider someone desirable who associated with the type of person who promoted "White Power" in an in-person forum? No. I think for any type of world belief you most certainly get a mixed bag, but "White Power" forums are most certainly associated with an undesirable message.

As far as what fourhorses said. Fair enough they have done their homework and have won a victory for freedom of speech. I don't have to like them or what their general message is. The great part is though, I don't care. I don't care about them, and I feel like the vast majority of their kind are scumbags. YMMV. Noam Chomsky, the bane of my existence could win the biggest human rights victory world wide in the history of world. It still would not change my opinion of him as a person.

That's my point.

[LAR]

Saying someone is "undesirable" is not defamation. People would call me "undesirable for being on a message board whose mission statement is "principled conservatism".

My primary point was a question, and that question is, why is Marc Lemaire a member of a community whose mission statement is "white power"? I think that is crystal clear. I don't know Marc Lemaire, you know him far better than I, I am willing to bet. I never pretended to.

I don't have to believe to "racist" smears one way or another to say what I said, my point about being a desirable individual is quite clear. Would I consider someone desirable who associated with the type of person who promoted "White Power" in an in-person forum? No. I think for any type of world belief you most certainly get a mixed bag, but "White Power" forums are most certainly associated with an undesirable message.

As far as what fourhorses said. Fair enough they have done their homework and have won a victory for freedom of speech. I don't have to like them or what their general message is. The great part is though, I don't care. I don't care about them, and I feel like the vast majority of their kind are scumbags. YMMV. Noam Chomsky, the bane of my existence could win the biggest human rights victory world wide in the history of world. It still would not change my opinion of him as a person.

That's my point.

I'm not sure but I think you might be saying that although you may disagree with what he says, you will defend his right to say it.

[Crash]

Saying someone is "undesirable" is not defamation. People would call me "undesirable for being on a message board whose mission statement is "principled conservatism".

My primary point was a question, and that question is, why is Marc Lemaire a member of a community whose mission statement is "white power"? I think that is crystal clear. I don't know Marc Lemaire, you know him far better than I, I am willing to bet. I never pretended to.

I don't have to believe to "racist" smears one way or another to say what I said, my point about being a desirable individual is quite clear. Would I consider someone desirable who associated with the type of person who promoted "White Power" in an in-person forum? No. I think for any type of world belief you most certainly get a mixed bag, but "White Power" forums are most certainly associated with an undesirable message.

As far as what fourhorses said. Fair enough they have done their homework and have won a victory for freedom of speech. I don't have to like them or what their general message is. The great part is though, I don't care. I don't care about them, and I feel like the vast majority of their kind are scumbags. YMMV. Noam Chomsky, the bane of my existence could win the biggest human rights victory world wide in the history of world. It still would not change my opinion of him as a person.

That's my point.

I'm not sure but I think you might be saying that although you may disagree with what he says, you will defend his right to say it.

Absolutely, I hope that is crystal clear for those who are arguing with me. Rights are absolutely not at issue, and I think I have a strong history of saying so. As I said it previous posts in this thread even, it just should not be about black and white, "our" side, their side, good and evil. You get all kinds.

[Connie Fournier]

For someone who "doesn't care", you have invested a lot of time into analyzing what kind of person Marc Lemire is.

I have actually met him. Mark and I have talked to him at length about his beliefs and convictions, and he is not a racist. If he was, I would still defend his right to free speech, but I wouldn't defend his honour.

Marc made some posts on Stormfront because they gave him a podium there. If he had made racist posts there, you would have a very good point. But, since even Richard Warman and the CHRC couldn't find any racist posts written by Marc Lemire, I refuse to play the guilt-by-association game.

If you want to continue to smear him, I'm sure that Warman and Kinsella and Lynch will be happy that you are helping them, but you aren't doing any favours to our cause by helping our opponents smear our allies.

[fourhorses]

Crash

The question will arise someday about that "White Power" issue. It will have to be addressed in the mainstream. Many will have a difficult time with it from different perspectives.

Some will call it racist, but others will point to "Black Empowerment" groups. Others willpoint to "Islamic Empowerment" or "Jewish Empowerment" or "Sikh Empowerment". Others willpoint to "Gay Agendas" or "Caribbean Day" or "Quebec Nationalism" or "Chinese Heritage Events"


The sauce for the goose - the sauce for the gander ?

[Crash]

I'll just keep my mouth shut then Connie. You're the boss here and I can see how you appreciate the work of Lemaire, especially since you know him far better than me and share the same battle.

I am willing to accept what you said, and even I, believe it or not am hesitant to play the guilt by association card. All I ever wondered from the beginning was why he would associate himself with such people. To be clear, I was talking about desirability, not guilt. Even if he was a racist, I believe that is his right.

Certainly one way or another a great battle has been won here. It will take a government with a backbone to reconcile the Lemaire win with constitutionality.

[Connie Fournier]

I'm not sure but I think you might be saying that although you may disagree with what he says, you will defend his right to say it.

With respect, LAR, I'm tired of seeing that phrase applied to Marc Lemire.

I'm going to repeat this ad nauseum until everyone gets it:

The CHRC and Richard Warman dissected everything Marc Lemire has ever written for SIX YEARS and all they could find that violated Section 13 of the CHRA was one article that was written by someone else.

Marc Lemire has never ASKED for the right to say vile, bigoted things. He is not that kind of person. The reason Marc Lemire found himself in the pickle he was in, is because he had the gall to challenge Warman and the CHRC for the way they treated others.

Marc has shown remarkable bravery and tenacity in fighting his case. Frankly, it disgusts me to see people dissing him online simply because they are too cowardly to risk being smeared with guilt-by-association.

It is like high school all over again! "Ohhhh, maybe the cool kids won't like me if I stand up for the guy that's being picked on! Maybe they will think I'm as uncool as he is if I say he's not a dork!".

I am seriously worried about our country when even the self-proclaimed freespeechers hide under the couch and take potshots at the people in the trenches.

This isn't directed at you, LAR. It's been brewing for about 24 hours and I just needed to vent.

[Connie Fournier]

I'll just keep my mouth shut then Connie. You're the boss here and I can see how you appreciate the work of Lemaire, especially since you know him far better than me and share the same battle.

I am willing to accept what you said, and even I, believe it or not am hesitant to play the guilt by association card. All I ever wondered from the beginning was why he would associate himself with such people. To be clear, I was talking about desirability, not guilt. Even if he was a racist, I believe that is his right.

Certainly one way or another a great battle has been won here. It will take a government with a backbone to reconcile the Lemaire win with constitutionality.

You don't have to "keep your mouth shut" just because I disagree with you, Crash. I feel very strongly about this (obviously), but the last thing I want to do is intimidate people into silence. I'd rather convince people that I'm right.