OK, let's talk about Marc Lemire

[ccurrie]

You are a credit to the Curries, ccurrie.

What are you doing here, you Liberal supporter? Your kind ought to be silenced!

Stop in Chemainus any time. I'm in Toronto now. Back in the 22nd.

[Harry Abrams]

A Few questions for Connie and Mark:

1. Do you contend that Lemire was never a leader of the Heritage Front?

2. Do you contend that Lemire was never a member of the Heritage Front?

3. Do you believe that Lemire had no relationship with Zundel?

[WestViking]

A Few questions for Connie and Mark:

1. Do you contend that Lemire was never a leader of the Heritage Front?

2. Do you contend that Lemire was never a member of the Heritage Front?

3. Do you believe that Lemire had no relationship with Zundel?

Back off Harry - NOW!!

You have no right to demand that others defend thenselves on the wife-beating questions you propose. We were not all born yesterday and many of us have some experience in civil discourse and debate. If you have a case to make, make it. If you cannot make a supported case, get lost.

[Maikeru]

Harry, any one of your posts can be successfully defended as not meeting the high threshold which would be cause for thinking you have a hate on for FreeDominion.

However, together they do...

[free_life2]

Why is he on a message board that promotes "White Power"?

Why are you on a message board (FD) that promotes radical right wing extremism?

[Peter O'Donnell]

Guilt by association is not a valid test of the legal arguments under consideration in Canada today.

Frankly, I don't care what Lemire's personal opinions are, his challenge of Section 13 is valid on its own merits, and is now too far advanced to rest on any of these narrow concerns in any event.

We are all part of a broad coalition of "free speech defenders" opposed to the philosophy represented in Section 13. That is the only relevant issue here.

It would make no difference to our commitment to this cause if one person in the coalition turned out to be a white supremacist or a neo-Nazi, and if this is the best argument that Section 13 defenders have at this point, it seems like desperation to me.

Section 13 is bad (poorly framed) law that invites abuses of our fundamental freedoms in Canada. Those abuses have already occurred and are well documented. Section 13 is probably dead in the water now, it is just a matter of time until the final details of its demise are worked out.

Marc Lemire has played an important role but this legal situation is not some sort of choice between the values of Marc Lemire and the wording of Section 13, it is much broader than that, and the judges who are about to embark on a review of the law will not be much concerned with the details of Marc Lemire's values, or his past associations, whatever they might turn out to be (and I have no particular knowledge of these matters).

I would also say that this argument can be turned on its head -- if one side wants to say that it weakens the challenge for Lemire to have associations with the Heritage Front, then our side could equally point out that it weakens the case for Section 13 that it comes from the same poisoned tree as the state-sponsored deception involved in setting up the Heritage Front. In other words, the whole tree of the phoney human rights paradigm is rotten, chop it down and remove all the poisoned fruit, including Section 13.

This country will not be whole, or healed, until we deal with all of these matters without the filter of political correctness groupthink. Canadians need to understand the whole story of what has gone down in order to protect their fundamental liberties.

Let's get all the facts on the table, including the associations between the Liberal Party of Canada and the campaign of maximum disruption.

Let's answer this important question -- is Section 13 there to protect human rights, or is it there as a pretext for advancing socialist political causes at the expense of individual freedom and liberty?

The track record makes the answer to that question fairly obvious. No conservative should be under any illusions about the pedigree of this stray dog.

[Connie Fournier]

A Few questions for Connie and Mark:

1. Do you contend that Lemire was never a leader of the Heritage Front?

2. Do you contend that Lemire was never a member of the Heritage Front?

3. Do you believe that Lemire had no relationship with Zundel?

Back off Harry - NOW!!

You have no right to demand that others defend thenselves on the wife-beating questions you propose. We were not all born yesterday and many of us have some experience in civil discourse and debate. If you have a case to make, make it. If you cannot make a supported case, get lost.

They are ramping up the smear of Marc Lemire because the other side is seeing that our side is finally starting line up behind him and support him in this effort, and he is going to win.

The Heritage Front was a government operation. Marc Lemire was in his late teens and early twenties when it was going.

I don't believe that a twenty year old kid was able to wrest control of this operation from CSIS, It is ridiculous to even make that allegation.

Did he associate with members of Heritage Front when he was young? Probably. But that says more about the government thugs who would try to suck our young people into something that would totally destroy their lives just so they could create a boogeyman than it does about the kids they dragged into it.

In the past six years the CHRC and Richard Warman have parsed every single word written online by Marc Lemire and they came up TOTALLY EMPTY. They couldn't even find one thing he wrote that crossed the Section 13 line.

That is the evidence that I use to come to my conclusions about Marc Lemire. If he did stupid stuff when he was a kid, so what? Who hasn't?

The MAN, Marc Lemire has shown himself to be principled and tenacious, and he is a role model.

The government-employed thugs who still skulk around the internet and try to entrap our kids into writing hate speech, however, are utter scum and should be in jail.

[Mark Fournier]

But that says more about the government thugs who would try to suck our young people into something that would totally destroy their lives just so they could create a boogeyman than it does about the kids they dragged into it.

This enticing of our kids, by Canadian government agents, to do things that would destroy their lives didn't end a decade ago with the exposure of the Heritage Front as a government operation. Richard Warman, in his capacity as a CHRC "investigator", tried to entice kids and young adults to start hate groups. Had these kids followed Richard Warman's urgings they would have destroyed their futures. Is this what we pay our taxes for, to have government agents entice our kids into committing criminal acts?

Trying to use the Heritage Front as part of a smear is no longer a winning strategy because it inevitably raises the point that the Heritage Front was an illegitimate government operation designed to get people to break the law.

[WestViking]

1. Do you contend that Lemire was never a leader of the Heritage Front?

2. Do you contend that Lemire was never a member of the Heritage Front?

3. Do you believe that Lemire had no relationship with Zundel?

Please note that I wasn't making pronouncements or passing judgements.

Just asked 3 questions.

Connie wrote:

The Heritage Front was a government operation. [i] Marc Lemire was in his late teens and early twenties when it was going.
I don't believe that a twenty year old kid was able to wrest control of this operation from CSIS, It is ridiculous to even make that allegation.

Did he associate with members of Heritage Front when he was young? Probably.

OK, I guess that's a no to question #1 and and yes to question #2.

How about #3?

Ernst Zundel ran one of if not the world's largest Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi publishing & distribution enterprises out of heavily fortified "bunker" on Carleton St. in Toronto from the mid 1980's - 90's. This article, posted on Mr. Lemire's own website:

http://www.freedomsite.org/cpn/cpn_list/006.html

describes Mr. Lemire thusly:

"...In another development, Interlog, a Toronto-based ISP, last week
announced it will terminate the account of Marc Lemire, an employee of
Holocaust-Denier Ernst Zundel, on May 20 (1998)... "


So Connie, once again, do you believe that Lemire had no relationship with Zundel?

Harry, there is nothing at all innocent about your 'questions'. I waned you to back off and you have not. If you have a clear case to make against Marc Lemire, make it., but you will have to do so on another thread. If the best you have is innuendo, (mis)interpretations and twenty year old opinion quotes from an ISP, you are dead in the water. This is not the CHRC where that sort of smarmy smear has any worth.

[Mark Fournier]

http://www.freedomsite.org/cpn/cpn_list/006.html

describes Mr. Lemire thusly:

"...In another development, Interlog, a Toronto-based ISP, last week
announced it will terminate the account of Marc Lemire, an employee of
Holocaust-Denier Ernst Zundel, on May 20 (1998)... "

How do you think Interlog determined that Marc Lemire was "an employee of Holocaust-Denier Ernst Zundel"? Who made this allegation to Interlog and what evidence did they present to support the allegation? Did the people who made the allegation to Interlog have a political agenda that might have influenced their accusations? Does the fact that someone complained to Interlog about Marc Lemire mean the contents of the complaint ever had any legitimacy?

We had a malicious stalker harrassing us, as operators of Free Dominion, literally for years. Any time we changed ISPs he would immeditately contact our new ISP and tell them to ban us because he alleged Free Dominion was a hate site. Invariably, the new ISPs told our stalker to take a hike, but does the fact that this stalker told ISPs that Free Dominion was a hate site make FD a hate site? Even if he had succeeded in convincing one of those ISPs to ban Free Dominion, would that banning make FD a hate site?

The CHRC and Richard Warman and various scummy interneters researched Marc Lemire for over half a decade and couldn't find a thing he had done to merit a CHRC investigation, much less the six year ordeal that they imposed on him. In the end he was convicted of one offense, that of reposting the words of another. An argument could also be made that the only reason he was convicted on that single charge was because a conviction on something was required by the ruling CHRT member so he could declare Section 13 unconstitutional, thereby keeping Lemire's constitutional challenge alive.

In light of the fact that there is no evidence that Marc Lemire has really done anything wrong, why do you continue to maliciously defame him with false allegations and accusations? Are your malicious attacks on Marc Lemire based on a personal animosity or are you doing it just to further a political agenda?

[Fabulous Fred]

does the fact that this stalker told ISPs that Free Dominion was a hate site make FD a hate site?

The answer to that question depends upon who is making the accusation. This is the reality that has been allowed to become accepted in Canada these days.

When professional crybabies or professional victim organizations make that accusation it becomes irrefutable fact in "official" circles. What the rest of the <strike>rabble</strike> people think is irrelevant.

[Mark Fournier]

Good point, Fabulous Fred. They also use the Goebbels adage that if you repeat a lie often enough it becomes the truth.

Getting back to the Heritage Front allegation, it began with a line in an article written by Matt Lauder. Marc Lemire has sued Matt Lauder over this defamation and Lemire is going to win his lawsuit.

The only other piece of "evidence" that Lemire had anything to do with the government operated Heritage Front was a story presented as "evidence" in another tribunal where he was not permitted to participate or defend himself from the false allegations against him. That process was later ruled to be unconstitutional and was discontinued and the only time Lemire has been convicted of anything at all was in the unconstitutional process of the CHRC under the CHRA.

Why is it that the only "evidence" that Marc Lemire has done anything wrong has been created by unconstitutional processes? If he is such a villain, why can't he be stopped using legitimate means? It should be pretty easy to do if he is up to something nefarious.

[Harry Abrams]

1. Do you contend that Lemire was never a leader of the Heritage Front?

2. Do you contend that Lemire was never a member of the Heritage Front?

3. Do you believe that Lemire had no relationship with Zundel?

Please note that I wasn't making pronouncements or passing judgements.

Just asked 3 questions.

Connie wrote:

The Heritage Front was a government operation. [i] Marc Lemire was in his late teens and early twenties when it was going.
I don't believe that a twenty year old kid was able to wrest control of this operation from CSIS, It is ridiculous to even make that allegation.

Did he associate with members of Heritage Front when he was young? Probably.

OK, I guess that's a no to question #1 and and yes to question #2.

How about #3?

Ernst Zundel ran one of if not the world's largest Holocaust denial and neo-Nazi publishing & distribution enterprises out of heavily fortified "bunker" on Carleton St. in Toronto from the mid 1980's - 90's. This article, posted on Mr. Lemire's own website:

http://www.freedomsite.org/cpn/cpn_list/006.html

describes Mr. Lemire thusly:

"...In another development, Interlog, a Toronto-based ISP, last week
announced it will terminate the account of Marc Lemire, an employee of
Holocaust-Denier Ernst Zundel, on May 20 (1998)... "


So Connie, once again, do you believe that Lemire had no relationship with Zundel?

Harry, there is nothing at all innocent about your 'questions'. I waned you to back off and you have not. If you have a clear case to make against Marc Lemire, make it., but you will have to do so on another thread. If the best you have is innuendo, (mis)interpretations and twenty year old opinion quotes from an ISP, you are dead in the water. This is not the CHRC where that sort of smarmy smear has any worth.

Wow this is so interesting. Free Dominion is a site dedicated to free speech and until now, entertained other points of view for the purpose of debate.

I just had a posting more or less nuked because I asked three questions probing some beliefs of The Fourniers concerning Mr. Lemire.

It's rather well-known that Mr. Lemire was a "player" in Canada's far-right for a number of years. Its' rather well known that he was a member of and even one time leader of the now defunct HF.

Apparently Connie doesn't believe that he could have been a leader of HF because it was "run by CSIS."

Believe it or not, I accept her comments as true beliefs. Without criticism, even though I personally disagree.

What about Marc Lemire's supposed relationship with Mr. Zundel? The link I quoted led to an article on Mr. Lemire's URL. Nowehere have I ever seen or heard of Mr. Lemire disputing the assumption that he worked for Mr. Zundel.
I believe further confirmation of that fact can be found in the transcripts of the Zundel hearings.

My question remains unanswered. Do Connie and Mark Fournier believe that Lemire worked for Ernst Zundel?

[Mark Fournier]

Harry, we were both around, as a teenagers/young-adults, back in "the day"-- the Chicago 7, Woodstock, Kent State, Rochdale. Did you ever smoke a bit of pot back then? If so, you got it from someone who was trafficking in narcotics. Do you think it would be right for you to be primarily described today as "Harry Abrams, a man known to have done business with drug dealers..."? Should B'nai Brith be tarred as an organization that employs people who have consorted and done business with drug dealers because you bought a nickel bag back in 1969? Of course you may have not smoked a joint back then, but do you know anyone today who did? Should they be primarily described as people who deal with traffickers in narcotics?

BTW...is there a law against having known Ernst Zundel? Back in "the day" when I was a hippie I met Jim Jones in California when some of his followers in the People's Temple tried to recruit me. Should I now be primarily described as an associate of Jim Jones and have it implied that I may have had a hand in what happened a few years later in Jonestown?

Why are you so eager to continue the smear of Marc Lemire, Harry? What is your motivation for attacking him. He has been found to have done nothing worse than post the words of another, yet he is still being hounded by a small circle of people like you. Why is that, Harry?

You have continued to complain that we have not answered your questions, yet you are doing the exact same thing. These are legitimate questions, Harry. Why are you so afraid to address them?

[free_life2]

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.

That makes Marc Lemire the least racist person in Canada. Who else could come away so unscathed after the liars at the CHRC and the liars associated with the CHRC went after him as Marc Lemire has? We have seen them twist and turn the truth turning innocent people into villains yet they could not hang that on Lemire.