timeimmortal

All kudos to the Cat for getting a mention in the National Post. And such praising words, too!

[Wahida Valiante] compared Mark Steyn, the author of the Maclean’s article in question, titled The Future Belongs to Islam, to James Keegstra, an Alberta high school teacher who taught and tested his students on how Jews “created the Holocaust to gain sympathy.”

“They basically talk about the same theories,” she said. “This is not a civil dialogue.”

This isn’t BCF’s honourable mention, but it’s worth pausing here to reflect on what Wahida Valiante has to say: Mark Steyn’s quotations of Islamic community leaders saying — openly! — that Islam will dominate Europe are entirely the same thing as skepticism about the Nazi extermination of the Jews.

I can totally see the similarity.

She said that, in Germany, long before the Holocaust, “it was the words that set the stage for what happened later on…. We may end up with the same fate, and that is at the heart of why [the complainants] wanted to take this on.”

Yes, words were what really caused things to happen in Nazi Germany. Not the fact that Jews were legally denied property rights. Not the fact that Jews were denied the legal right to self-defence. Not the fact that the Jews were denied the right to move about freely, and ultimately to live and thrive as persons in the Reich. None of those things really caused problems — it was words.

Would the Reader be surprised to learn that, just prior to the Nazis taking power, the Weimar Republic had a very comprehensive body of anti-hate legislation? Is it perhaps possible that the Nazi reality became possible in part because the Weimar Republic muzzled freedom of expression?

Anyhow, on to BCF’s mention.

Both she and Ms. [Pearl Eliadis] had harsh words for the growing contingent of bloggers who lambaste the commissions, and have been invigorated by the prominence of the Maclean’s complaints.

Ms. Eliadis singled out one in particular, blazingcatfur.blogspot.com, as “poisonous” for referring to her panel at the conference as a “Texas cage match.”

She said it was evidence of the “appalling tone” that is “illustrative of how badly this debate has gone.”

Yeah, that’s poisonous talk, all right. A “Texas cage match” indeed…of course, perhaps for a lefty, any mention of Texas can be considered “poisonous”?

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

In yet another response to the CHRC’s proposed self-review, the National Post editorial board delivers a simmering indictment of the whole idea.

…In an interview with the Post on Tuesday, [CHRC Chief Commissioner Jennifer Lynch] exclaimed, “I’m a free speecher. I’m also a human rightser,” as though the two were separate. No human right is more basic than freedom of expression, not even the “right” to live one’s life free from offence by remarks about one’s ethnicity, gender, culture or orientation. Ms. Lynch seems mistakenly to believe there is a delicate balance between free expression and other, newer human “rights.”

She also tipped her hand about the probable outcome of the review she had initiated: “We have a responsibility to lead the debate on how we can keep our policy up to date to effectively regulate hate on the internet.” Her interest appears to be in not whether to regulate speech, but merely how to do it “effectively.” There seems to be little doubt in her mind that a government agency must have the ultimate say.

Frankly, we doubt the sincerity of Ms. Lynch’s call for review, especially given the timing. The CHRC has recently landed itself in hot water for the overly aggressive methods it appears to have used to investigate white supremacists on the Internet and for investigating Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine over material they published that offended some Muslim law students. It’s a little too precious that the CHRC has chosen now for its self-examination, when a private member’s bill in Parliament would strip it of the right to investigate hate speech allegations altogether.

The only splinter of hope we hold out for the review is that the chief reviewer, University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon, appears to be a fairly impartial expert on the constitutionality of free expression. He has upbraided judges in obscenity trials for trying to impose their personal value judgments simply by “dressing them up in the objective garb of community standards.” Yet at other times, he has appeared favourable to more collectivist notions, writing that speech has a “social character,” with great “potential for harm.” And that expression, if left unchecked, “can cause fear, it can harass and it can undermine self-esteem.”

Sadly, it seems Professor Moon is not all that and a bag of chips, at least as far as his supposed impartiality is concerned. Reading some of his material, it’s hard to tell him apart from an HRC apparatchik.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Apparently, they think that the male puppet isn’t getting a fair shake from Muslim Canadian Congress head Tarek Fatah.

And after some obligatory digs at the MCC, Muneeza Sheikh and Naseem Mithoowani launch into a lengthy defence of themselves, fellow sock-puppet Khurrum Awan, and what they claim is their human rights complaint against Maclean’s magazine.

But here’s the most incredible part, for me: they manage to utterly avoid any and all mention of Jew-hater Mohamed Elmasry, the actual plaintiff in the proceedings against Maclean’s, despite discussing in detail the reasons the complaint was brought. What is more, they have yet again wasted another opportunity to appear in a major national publication with yet another re-iteration of the same tired claims they always articulate.

They could have, you know, published an excerpt from the response they are ostensibly demanding the right to publish…which they claim is all they want in the first place. It is strange, O Reader, that they failed to do this.

They also say a few other things worthy of mention:

And that is our point; anti-Muslim prejudice is growing because of pieces like the one that Maclean’s published, and that led to our human rights complaints, in a context where there is an absence of Muslim (or other) voices to challenge the material in question.

Actually, no: what stokes anti-Muslim prejudice is not an absence of Islamic voices in any particular media forum, either to affirm or to challenge other printed material. What stokes anti-Muslim prejudice, more than anything else, is when Muslim themselves attempt to trample on the rights of Canadians by, in essence, demanding that the government (or, in this case, an unaccountable government agency) wrest control of the publication of a private magazine from the hands of those who are, by law, its actual owners and editors.

The limitless free speech model — that the solution to harmful and hateful speech is more and better speech — does not work for minority communities, and our complaints illustrate that: Maclean’s still refuses to publish a response to just one of over twenty articles that even the condemned as Islamophobic.

As is their right, given that they are (again) a private company.

The limitless free speech model is beautiful precisely because it does work for both the majority and the various minorities; indeed, the fact that Awan, Sheikh, and Mithoowani have managed to publish quite a large number of articles in various newspapers (notably the National Post) demonstrates that they, despite being members of a minority, are not being denied anything.

What doesn’t work, if anything, is the way that in this particular instance, the minority community in question is doing one of two self-ruinous things:

1. When given the opportunity to publish an article, the sock puppets can only think to re-iterate previously-made statements for the umpteenth time, when they could be using the space they are given to…say…publish the latest installment in their witty, scathing, and comprehensive response to the Steyn article.
2. The rest of the time, said community (or, at least, those who claim to speak for it) spend all their time demanding that the Canadian government hand over control of a private newsmagazine’s content to them.

Dear sock puppets: you’ve been given plenty of opportunities to publish your side, and have wasted them all. Also, if you claim to represent every Muslim in Canada and if, in fact, you are correct in that claim, you should have no problem raising sufficient private funds to begin your own newsmagazine in which you could do nothing but publish anti-Mark Steyn articles to your collective hearts’ desire! That you have done nothing but repeat the same claims, which most of the rest of us now have involuntarily committed to memory, suggests that your motives are other, and then more sinister and repressive.

So please shut up about debates and responses, because you’ve squandered every opportunity to engage in or deliver both.

And yes, I’d be this mad at you even if you weren’t Muslims.

And that is why free speech is not limitless in our democracy.

And that is why it should be.

Section 1 of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that all rights in our democracy are subject to reasonable limits.

And those reasonable limits are: incitement. The Steyn article was not that.

The Supreme Court of Canada (not a bunch of Islamists*) properly recognized that free speech is not limitless in upholding our criminal and human rights laws regulating hate speech.

Because judges, like Allah, are infallible and never make mistakes!

In imposing these limits, the Supreme Court noted that hate speech undermines the equality rights and multicultural heritage guaranteed in our Charter.

So when Mohamed Elmasry made that remark about Jews over the age of 18…?

* Islamists? Maybe not. Dhimmis? Well…

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

A short piece, but worth the read:

No one who works for the [National Post] is unaware that many Muslims feel antipathy toward a newspaper that is officially pro-Israel and, in practice, generally skeptical of Canadian multiculturalism. It seems to occur to none of them to muck in and start up their own Daily Jihad that reflects the opposing views. Perhaps the Muslim world just doesn’t have enough oil wealth sitting around idle to underwrite such a thing. Maybe they’re content with the way the good old [Toronto Star] handles the task. Whatever the case, you’ll notice [Khurrum Awan] uses the “national” scale attained and defended by some media as an argument that they must, in essence, share the wealth. Because they’re successful, and have shown themselves capable of reaching out to readers who hold many different political and personal philosophies, they are required to cede the editorial judgment that led to that success, and abandon their own operating philosophies in favour of becoming mere venues for identitarian argument.

To say nothing of the fact that Awan et. al. have been claiming, from the start, that they just want a change to publish their side of the story, that they just want a debate. Well, they’ve had opportunities for both, in many other media outlets and even on live television.

And they have either attempted to flee from each such opportunity, or have used the opportunity only to repeat claims already made.

To the Osgoode Hall students in particular, Mohamed Elmasry in passing, and anyone who currently thinks that Islam and its adherents are getting an unfair shake in all of this: we’re calling your bluff. You are lying through your teeth and squandering every opportunity which is being generously presented to you that would enable you to obtain exactly that which you claim to want. Your repeated failure to take advantage of these opportunities speaks volumes about your true agenda of censorship of legitimate criticism of Islam, which is both a violation of a basic human right of all Canadians and something which, frankly, doesn’t belong in Canada in the first place.

So shut up already, or else actually do what you claim you came to do.

muslimperson — who I am beginning to suspect might just be Mitra Kermani herself — writes in again to follow-up on my last response to him/her.

As before, O Reader, it is a lengthy post, rambling and incoherent in many parts, and chock full of poor grammar and spelling errors. But hey — this arrived in my mailbox this morning, and was really too good not to share.

As before, I’ll throw in little responses where I feel are appropriate. This will break up the text somewhat, and I do apologize. Also, please note that because Ms. Kermani defames, at various points, certain individuals and/or companies, I have removed some bits of the text where appropriate. I have tried to minimize the disruptive effect of such redaction, but obviously I couldn’t keep everything.

Thirdly, for reference and further enjoyment, I observe that Blazing Cat Fur is getting comments on an article that look and “sound” eerily similar to the text of the correspondence below.

http://www.timeimmortal.net/tag/mitra-kermani/ :

Writer and owner of time immortal wrote his opinion as below:

“I’m actually going to stop here for a minute and remark that the stories of Mitra Kermani harassing people — at least by phone — can be verified by the fact that she harassed other bloggers who reported on her story, and did so multiple times.

Also, I observe that Mitra Kermani herself admitted to “aggressively talking to [Loblaw's]” (which is a polite way of saying she lost her cool, methinks). She also admitted to threatening one executive of the company by saying she would “cut his tail off and shoot him in the head.” She later attempted to excuse this behavior by dismissing the phrase as “an old Iranian expression, not an actual threat,” but at the end of the day she told a man she was going to shoot him in the head.

…As to whether it is true, there is no certainty, and Ms. Kermani denies the act. But is it possible she is the liar? Of course.

…The second is that if one should not believe what the National Post has had to say about this story, whom should one believe? What reason does the National Post have to risk a lawsuit from Loblaw’s by inventing — or even misrepresenting — such a scenario? “

Just type Mitra Kermani…since April 11, 2008 in Yahoo and Google and see how many bloggs wrote copy of National Post and how many email of harassment may Mitra Kermani received at least 89 pages this is proof bloggs and national post involve with no clue of story of 3 years court that can not find final solution of us to interfere and harass Mitra Kermani and judge her as this blogss by lable her include “liar” as we can see writer and owner of Time Immortal wrote his opinion that Mitra Kermani harass and she is liar — which she is not that proof one national post can brain wash all of you to blind the facts so simple and that is power of pen Muslim fight it by using power of human right commission to stop blogger to do so this will endanger security of Muslim without public know the real story

The fact that the original National Post — actually, the story was in the Financial Post, a subsidiary of the National Post — article was cited on multiple blogs is true. Equally, however, it is true that this fact of multiple citations does not tell us the first thing about whether the article in the Post is actually true or not.

muslimperson obviously believes that the article is a pack of lies, but has not yet provided convincing evidence or reasoning in support of this claim. Personally, I don’t think it makes sense for the National Post to invent, out of whole cloth, the story it ran about Mitra Kermani, because in so doing they would be exposing themselves not only to a libel lawsuit from Ms. Kermani, but also a lawsuit from Loblaw’s.

For the second time now, muslimperson has alluded to a court history (presumably one backed up by transcripts of proceedings), and for the second time no actual examples of evidence have been provided — not even a link to a scan of a transcript page.

What facts are before us, then, are what has been gleaned from the newspapers. Those facts include allegations that Mitra Kermani has engaged in threatening and harassing behaviour, and that she herself admitted to “aggressive” behaviour and to uttering the threat to shoot a Loblaws executive in the head. If that is us being “blinded” by the media, then so be it — at least we are blinded, in part, by Mitra Kermani’s own admissions.

One interesting note is how muslimperson hints at some kind of Islamic…organized effort to fight against such things using the human rights commissions in Canada.

As has been said, in regard to the current brouhaha happening before the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal, this is exactly the wrong tactic with which to fight perceived bias or bigotry against Muslims: the fact that Muslims are visibly attempting to censor Canadian publications will do more to stoke anti-Islamic sentiment amongst the Canadian populace than any number of articles, true or false, about people like Mitra Kermani.

If Ms. Kermani really wants to command respect, she needs to stop her “aggressive” discussions with Loblaws and move on to other business opportunities — it’s that simple.

As matter of fact [someone] went to police copy of police report is in civil court you must go to civil court in person and ask the copy and read the material and you will that as police report copied attached in Mitra Kermani defence in civil court in University ave Toronto civil court filing proof is that: [someone] said to police Mitra Kermani is “international terrorist” on July 16, 2005 and police finger print Mitra Kermani later Mitra kermani used after criminal harassment was dropped and no evidence proof that allegation to bring tort of defamation against Lobalw to let lied to police to won their civil claim on year 2005.

Those claims are all well and good, but as I don’t live in Toronto, I highly doubt I’ll be making any personal appearance at the civil court building in T.O.

Now, if muslimperson wants to go to the courts building, obtain the documents, scan them in, and post them online for us to see, I will be the first one to link to this evidence exonerating Mitra Kermani — that’s only fair.

Strangely, though, I doubt both that muslimperson would be so accommodating or reasonable, and that Ms. Kermani would be exonerated by the documents in question.

[someone] was scored by [someone] Jewish lawyer…who said that and also [someone] copy from police report said: the sound was “sharp the knife” probably cell phone of [someone] has camera show other side knife as well that still Army not create that camera yet see other party cell phone has knife or not!! to beat to some thing hard to it!!

Ah, there we go: JOOOOOOOOOS!

I do agree that, technically, nobody saw what Mitra Kermani was banging against whatever else. At least muslimperson is now more or less admitting that Ms. Kermani was hammering something against something else.

Having said that, I’ve worked in few kitchens in my day, and I will observe that the sound of a blade contacting a hard surface is fairly unique, and not difficult for one who is familiar with it to identify.

These two allegation with escort of biggest..name lawyer…was enough to Mitra Kermani get jailed for so long since Mitra Kermani is Muslim and named to next police station to [somewhere] you just imagine You are police office and you know your big neighbour…and one big executive come to station with…lawyer and saying the Muslim woman said these three things: Mitra Kermani said that she plan to attack [somewhere] and she is international terrorist and she is sharp the knife what you do if you are police office who arrest Mitra Kermani ? Then [someone] sending more than 10 affidavits to court to get any label of criminal to Mitra Kermani what you do if you are police officer?

The question is: what do I do if I am the police officer?

The answer is: my job.

Notice that a bait-and-switch has happened here: before, we were told by muslimperson that Mitra Kermani had not been convicted. This is likely still true (an arrest is not the same as a criminal conviction), but now the admission has come out that she was at least arrested and detained in a cell for some length of time.

The fact of the matter is, the police have a responsibility to investigate every allegation of a threat — especially a violent threat — that is reported to them. It would be negligent to do otherwise. And so when anyone brings forth just such an allegation, there is only one proper response for the police: investigate the allegation and, if necessary, make an arrest.

In other words: they do their job.

The police was act may not smart arrest Mitra he was smart later never signed the final papers to crown when the time came that police officer wsant to see other parties evidence and witness nobody ready to see the police give more information and police sent material with no signature means what ? no witness or victim except [someone] and [someone] available and both said after we do not want to lay charge for Mitr Kermani if you smart police officer you know something wrong!!

I might point out to the Reader that there are many reasons why one might choose not to press charges against another. Perhaps doing so in this case would have hurt a civil court action against Ms. Kermani, either at the time or at a later date, and perhaps this was the more important consideration. The point is that there’s plenty of reasons to drop charges, if in fact any were even filed.

Later police couldn’t find any label or tape proof all shoot the head to any head

In conclusion above it was [others] is guilty to lied to police and police did charged and drop criminal harassment nobody no evidence support that But evidence [someone] went to police used in civil for tort of defamation to [someone] need punitive damage to Mitra Kermani play with her repetition she live her for more than 25 years with no even one parking ticket violation to has criminal record!!

If police can not proof guilt for mitra this is better blog stop harass Mitra Kermani since this is Mitra Kermani told [someone] she plan to asked this is against security and safety of Mitra Krmani that [someone let someone] talk about Mitra kermani to national post is proof they plan to put her in more danger!!

It’s all well and good that Ms. Kermani lived for 25 years without any kind of criminal or bylaw violation to her name, O Reader. Equally, it only takes one episode to change that record forever.

At any rate, Mitra Kermani herself admitted to uttering the threat to shoot a Loblaw’s executive in the head, dismissing it as an old Iranian saying. Maybe it is an old saying, but she did say it, and then in anger. It was taken as a threat, and on the surface it sounds like a threat. How, when one is dealing with an angry person over the phone, is one supposed to know a violent saying from a violent threat?

Next: the cut the heat and shoot the head was example for snake used for this two groups:

On June 24, 2005 [someone] went to police said Mitra Kermani plan to shoot my head when the police said why you scare of her he said [some people] plan to cut only source of income of Mitra and when she get bankrupt she will come and kill me!! Police said [someone] scared of what he heard from [others] forced him to do or may he is involved just come and say that is not me is others!! We could not tell since he did not like to come to testify what or who or which boss told or order him to cut Misom halal food we know it was [a bunch of people] they are the most criminal hate crime…

I again point out to the Reader that Ms. Kermani has herself admitted to using the “Iranian saying” concerning shooting someone/thing in the head. That much is, at least, true.

The more interesting question is: is Mitra Kermani so ignorant as to be unable to recognize that most people, if you tell them that you will shoot them in the head, will take such words as a threat?

Who was [someone] was the most dangerous chicken buyer and the most crookest mentally ill person in planet you can not find one word correct from him!! he used to worked In sale manger of [a company] before late he hired for chicken buyer…he is control frick and all illegal halal in [a company] was created by him when he worked in [a company] and he never scared if products is not Zabhieh means hand slaugher sell in illegal food label act to Muslim he hates Muslim and [someone] hate Muslim foods as proof that Mitra Kermani was hired in 1998 not as employee but also to direct halal food in [a company] they asked [a company] to remove halal from their brand since it was fraud halal they did Mitra refer to snake neck was [a company] brand of halal was cut by Mitra Kermani order on 1999 out of shelf and later Mitra Kermani order [a company] can back with heir regular bran not with sticker of halal and [a company] never complaint his in claim since they know they did fraud next was on June 23, 2005 Mitra Kermani cut new chicken called cericola halal chicken used as head of snake by hand of [someone] back to [a company] with no certification and all fraud over argue [someone] hired two years ago…said we do run halal while he could not he has not qualification to do so we buy surefresh cericola chicken but must go with correct certification since two time the company did illegal sent fraud food to [a company] in mix food and while Mitra Kermani supervise this halal food too many people hated her but the Muslim customer loved the products therefore snake was refer Mitra Kermani said to [someone] we cut your tail [a company] halal you bring cericola and we shoot head of snake yesterday of cericola chicken brand now still you plan to bit us since you are not want to obey and respect halal food and endanger halal food with mix Irish Italian and Jewish law mixed and that was Mitra Kermani to run and [someone] only to sell but [someone] hired and want to take power of Mitra Kermani while [someone] was Italian he could not [a company] must in year 2005 hired Mulsim proof Mitra Kermani doing illegal against [a company] or Muslim food to replace her that was not up to nonMuslim how to operated Muslim food and why Mitra Kermani order this is halal or this is not halal because [a company] said if products go to any law sue it was Mitra Keramni should answer Muslim not [a company] therefer interfere of [someone] for sickness of power and support of new comer [someone to someone] long term of fraud halal food and destroy and steal so many kilo of chicken from other supplier is was under question

Did the reader note how, in this entire paragraph, the only punctuation is the ‘!’ ending the first sentence? The rest appears to be one long run-on sentence rehashing the basic allegation that muslimperson made last time: that this whole Mitra Kermani affair is part of a JOOOOOOish conspiracy to cross-contaminate halal food sold to Muslims with kosher and Italian food.

You can’t buy that kind of paranoia.

When police listen to tape and listen to [someone] police told Mitra Kermani I saw hate in eyes of [someone] I want you do not go close to him and Mitra since that night never saw [someone] for 3 years.

Never issue was treat to death at all it was argue who is boss of halal…That is all that was [someone] that made serious to made money over this issues and Finally if 3 years two person has argue and Mitra never get arrested to death treat and even [someone] said he did not want Mitra get arrested too then why National post and bloggs should seat and put Mitra Kermani in treat .

Imagine two argue since…national post go to media that Mitra Kermani plan to shoot head of [someone]…believe writer and owner of time immortal believe story and same as in first police believe later after 3 years of investigation not found any single attempt of this treat then why you still keep saying and judging people just because Mitra Kermani is form Iran originally or Muslim or not have big lawyer…to sue blogger to stop them…their lawyer called bloger in case of Mitra Kermani she should cal herself to tell them if you like I can send you proof the document but Kathy Shaidle in first call start F and B words to Muslim since Mitra Kermani has not idea Kathy Sheidle is under sue of Human right commission since Mitra Kermani are not talk to Canadian or know the relationship and has understand why Kathy Sheidel hate Muslim so much and why?

From what I know of Ms. Shaidle, O Reader, she just plain hates harassing phone calls…and isn’t afraid to cuss out just such a caller. And she has every right to do so.

Note that another bait-and-switch has happened here. Whereas before, muslimperson had asserted that there was no evidence that Mitra Kermani was harassing people, now s/he admits that Ms. Kermani did, in fact, harass a Canadian blogger who also reported on the story. Why would Ms. Kermani even do this? Why would she call a Canadian blogger at home, uninvited and in a hostile manner?

(Note: if, in fact, muslimperson and Mitra Kermani are one and the same, then Ms. Kermani is again engaging in harassment at this very moment, and by this very correspondence).

As mater of fact first post of small dead animal and Kathy Sheidel caused Mitra received so many treat from nonMulsim who not know her this is unfair people who not know the case involve in criminal or civil case which is private or not need to explain by party to public unless this is need to do so . for security purpose Mitra Kermani did not told Muslim on the time what happened…since she knew this will hurt the plan Mitra liked to join Muslim and Non Muslim in Canada to easy making and selling halal food and all tear apart…

Here’s the plain facts of the matter (yet again): Since they severed their contract with Ms. Kermani’s company in 2005, Loblaw’s doesn’t do business with Mitra Kermani anymore, O Reader. Too bad, so sad, but that’s how the market works.

The real injustice here is the actions Ms. Kermani chose to engage in after the cessation of Misom’s contract with Loblaw’s. Instead of doing what any serious business owner would do (e.g. go out and find another distributor to supply), she elected to harass and threaten first the executives, and then the employees, of Loblaw’s. And then she elected to further harass anyone else who reported on the whole sordid affair.

the sound strange is that [someone] said to Mitra Kermani I am so sorry what I did to you that was not my fault I was new and that was [someone] who give me wrong information about you in year 2006 and later a month after he left…and he live in Europe now he left Canada too.

Mitra’s father worked for 35 years with Jewish Iranian and she grow up with Jewish and she is not anti Jewish but since she came to Canada she noticed so much unfairness from Jewish Canadian in food and pharmaceutical industry when money come plus today Misom Halal Food Products worked with two supplier are Jewish and lawyer of her once was Jewish but Jewish when hate Muslim only can able to destruct Muslim by label of Muslim only Jewish can go to police say this woman is terrorises and support…just lable Muslim to terrorist is act of antiMuslim from Jewish not care to mix halal food is act of antimuslim from Jewish seen in Canada at least.

Nature of job of Mitra Kermani in halal food made Jewish hate her like [someone]…said we have half of shelf…as broker and now Muslim used halal food to take our space in supermarkets this was more politic of supermarkets .

Got that straight, O Reader? Mitra Kermani loves the JOOOOOS. It’s just that the JOOOOOS are conspiring against her to contaminate the supply of halal food in Canada with that disgusting kosher crap that they eat. It’s all a damn setup! Muslims just want to work with Jews, but the hateful JOOOOS only ever desire to destroy Muslims and their hard work and efforts!

I just print the stuff I get in my inbox, O Reader. I take no responsibility for any of it, even the comedic aspects. And in a way, this travesty of writing is highly comedic, for how much of a self-parody it has become.

What I want from bloger do not talk about courts unless they have court reports able to go to courts and get information correctly you can chat others not court matter this is endanger parties if you do not know the details.

A fair point, but as I am not a Torontonian, I can’t just walk to the courts building and get the documents. I have, however, offered to link to them if someone else (*cough*hint*cough*) were to obtain them and scan them. Heck, I’d even provide space to host the scanned images!

If they exist, that is.

Until such time, I have to rely on what’s out there, which includes more than a few admissions by Mitra Kermani herself. She’s not the innocent that muslimperson is portraying her to be, O Reader. At the very least, she did make some of those death threats, and she has harassed other Canadian bloggers.

Do not judge people just because they are Muslim Iranian aren’t respected by Iranian or Muslim bad and good are every where Mitra asked her damages…finished but civil still in ON. Mitra Kermani asked …bring copy of any tape Mitra said she plan to shoot head of [someone] I and judge both like to hear that after 3 years by proof documents you can go and see those document is filed in public…there was not tape or any document s and wording proof Mitra said that I plan to shoot your head and cut your tail to [someone] it was example we used we cut first chicken was fraud we shoot second one on June 23 2004 and he went June 24 said she p lan to shoot me again I agree that I should not used the some idiom in Iranian can translate in wrong way as Police told me and I did respect that view because I am middle eastern see or say a word gun is we hear that daily but in Canadian life style they may think we plan to used that word for them and misrepresent the wording if you translate from your mother tongue to English it is not sound correct way but still the fact is 3 years nobody dies or hurt…all Misom halal food get dies cold blooded murder and I am disagree that big company has right to cut big volume when products made …and used for specially meals if not reason to cut just their anger and no better option to go mix and endanger Muslim meals I would say No…

Note, O Reader, the sudden shift from third-person references to Mitra Kermani to the use of the first-person “I”? Is this perhaps Mitra Kermani to whom I am speaking?

Note also the final claim in the above, that a big company does not have the right to cut ties with Misom Halal Foods. Someone obviously doesn’t understand the way business law works in Canada.

This is Canada, and not Iran, O Reader. If you tell someone you’re going to shoot them in the head, and if they believe you are serious, you can be charged for uttering a death threat. That’s just how the law works here. If Ms. Kermani — or muslimperson — would rather be judged by Iranian standards, or under Iranian law, well…how much does a plane ticket back to Iran cost?

Note also that muslimperson is still on about this apparent conspiracy to cross-contaminate halal food with Jewish kosher food — oh, those crafty JOOOOOS. Note, also, that no evidence has been brought forth to substantiate the claim.

Plus the products sell to customers…is only one factors not the final factors if products build between three groups Muslim directors Misom haalal and manufacture who products and…to sell that is…to cut that speciality meals at all that is not [good] and that is not million to change to billion to [someone] over night to steal too many small business to cash that to [someone] bank this is barbarian thefts from small companies using misconduct of lawyer if you see mafia god father movie the lawyer called [someone] who was Irish Jewish helped them in the film as you can see all those lawyer are main stream line of made stealing legal way…limited and all brokers to give 22 million cash to [someone] and nothing to Mitra Kermani except criminal court order no damage means ring human right discrimination and do not come and say you know better than people in business if Mitra was completely wrong then court will say that but find among 10 judges one bad judge…is easy to find…not like Muslim woman for sure!! But so far most judges was helpful in this matter!!

So again, it’s the fault of the JOOOOOOOOOOOS, O Reader. And again, just to be clear: in Ms. Kermani’s opinion, nobody but nobody actually possesses the right to terminate a business contract with Mitra Kermani. But those other folks, they are the ones who are like the Mafia.

At least, that’s what muslimperson would have us believe.

It’s hard to keep up with the contortions in this “logic,” O Reader, but for you…I try.

I would simply ask the Reader to consider the possibility that muslimperson — and/or Mitra Kermani — hasn’t got the first clue what business law in Canada actually says.

Muslim are fight for their right this is not up to [someone] to steal Mitra Kermani and let [someone] to cash her cheque and pay damage 22 million to [someone] who wrote all good contract in favour of employees are [someone] and [someone]…why we say this to public to fight all wrong doing and all the way and tools Loblaw used to fight Mitra Kermani on May 5, 2005 it was Mitra Kermani said good bye…after 6 month of abuse of [someone]…

Note that another shift in tactics has occurred here, O Reader. Now, the claim is that Mitra Kermani was the one who broke off contact, and presumably the contract that is at issue here? Yes, I do believe that is what I just read.

Of course, if this new claim by muslimperson is the actual truth of the matter, then Mitra Kermani has no leg to stand on anymore — if she’s the one who broke off her contract, she has no right whatsoever to dictate to anyone who they should and should not do business with, nor does she have the right to demand anything from them, whether financially or otherwise.

I you like Canada and law in Canada we like halal food law as well not like or not like to eat it but at least respect it or simply step back of Muslim meals and sell pork and win!! Nobody forced…to sell halal in wrong production lines when every body know then they forced to fix it again when every back calm again they mix it then step back of Muslim food let Muslim run their food like Jewish run their kosher foods!! Why Jewish and Irish and Italian and German to fee d Muslim here and spoon feed us with mix pork and kosher foods why!!

Those JOOOOOOS are at it again. Or is muslimperson unaware that kosher food also must be pork-free, since Jewish dietary law prohibits the consumption of pork as well?

Notice another contradiction, O Reader: “nobody forced…to sell halal”…but equally, nobody has the right to cut ties with Misom Halal Foods. Dizzying, I know.

… asked to made the halal food when it built and came in high volume tries to control it by boss and interfere in halal food law and when Muslim and Misom halal not agreed they abuse then breach contract not pay damage and then they sue Mitra Kermani then change civil claim…to criminal and not let any negation to pay damage simple way and scare other supermarket and then change all mix halal food sell today…and all illegally…and then after three years lost the criminal court on nov 2007 they went to national post and waste people brain to accept new slander why?

I’m not actually sure what gives muslimperson the ability to claim that because she was replaced as a halal foods supplier, her rights were somehow being infringed — I’m pretty sure she didn’t invent halal food, after all.

no more respond from Muslimperson to this subject you do not need to say your opionion paragraph by pragraph you just simply can or need to post parts and let people made decision about that.

As the Reader can see, I choose to do both. The blockquoting format on the site here does make it easy to just read only the text from muslimperson.

but we can not for security…also say all the truth here. Misom halal food was the first Muslim company put flag of Canada in thier logos. we are all Canadian. then just respect

This would be a nice thing to believe, were only a little evidence available in support of such a statement.

good luck with your blog god bless Canada and all Candadian citizen include Muslim citizen

We Love Canadaian halal food
Trust Misom halal food products for true halal abd taste
go by “Canada Islamic Halal food committee “for halal certificate as the best recognize halal certificate in Canada

I agree that Canada includes Muslim citizens. I disagree that many Muslim values — and many Koranic teachings — are compatible with Canada, however.

At any rate, this may well be the last we hear from muslimperson, and if so let me just say that I do wish him/her well. I might suggest some involved study of, among other things, Canadian business law and a book of basic English grammar and spelling.

But God bless, O Writer, and take care.

The ambiguously-named muslimperson writes in again with a rather lengthy…uhm…outpouring in response to this article, a prior response of mine to him(?).

Let me just preface this lengthy entry with a bit of a note: it’s long, and the grammar and spelling are questionable at best. It starts well, but gets predicitably anti-Jewish by the end. Obviously, muslimperson feels that Mitra Kermani has been wronged. Because of the defamatory nature of some of what muslimperson says, I have redacted parts of the letter — a first for me. I’ve tried to minimize the impact of what has been excised, however.

Full Story of Mitra Kermani: June 3, 2008 :

This information about court of criminal and civil court order is public information you can go to criminal court and asked if this detail we say is wrong or right

This is true statements:

Mitra Kermani never arrested or charged for any death treat against any person in Canada

How do you verify your information before you copy and past from National Post

I’m actually going to stop here for a minute and remark that the stories of Mitra Kermani harassing people — at least by phone — can be verified by the fact that she harassed other bloggers who reported on her story, and did so multiple times.

Also, I observe that Mitra Kermani herself admitted to “aggressively talking to [Loblaw's]” (which is a polite way of saying she lost her cool, methinks). She also admitted to threatening one executive of the company by saying she would “cut his tail off and shoot him in the head.” She later attempted to excuse this behaviour by dismissing the phrase as “an old Iranian expression, not an actual threat,” but at the end of the day she told a man she was going to shoot him in the head.

That’s a death threat, and it’s a crime, even if she wasn’t charged for it. And muslimperson is quick to point out that she was not, in fact, criminally charged…or rather, not convicted (not that this matters).

Mitra Kermani did not convicted of criminal harassment or criminal telephone harassment after two days trial got finished on Nov 21, 2007

…

All wrong accusation…against Mitra Kermani they did not proof that

• Mitra Kermani is international terrorist
• Mitra Kermani sharped the knife and cut something while she was talking in cell phone to [someone]
• Mitra Kermani said that she plan to attack [somewhere]
• Mitra Kermani said that
• Mitra Kermani said she is going to shoot head of [someone]…

There is no verification available to justify the claim that Ms. Kermani has been labeled a “terrorist” by…anyone in a position of authority (private opinion doesn’t count here). It is odd, then, that muslimperson would demand to know how I support/justify my citation of the National Post article, when he(?) himself(?) cites, without support or justification, a claim that Ms. Kermani may have herself invented.

As to the knife, the exact claim was that it sounded like a cleaver was being beaten against a cutting board during the phone conversation. Given that Ms. Kermani’s company supplied chicken as a main product, this allegation certainly has an air of possibility about it. As to whether it is true, there is no certainty, and Ms. Kermani denies the act. But is it possible she is the liar? Of course.

As to the threat of an attack on some location, there is no verification that Ms. Kermani made the threat in the first place — this is true. Unless, of course, someone has a recording of the threat. And at any rate, even if she didn’t threaten the building, she did admit to threatening an executive of the company. I don’t actually know the details of the matter well enough to know whether any actual threat was made, or whether this is just a fanciful invention of muslimperson’s mind.

Instead Mitra brought 60 facts against [some people]…who went with [someone] to made above wrong statement to police that [someone] is liar not lawyer said…to civil court and said in…in criminal court because [someone] sent too many wrong under oath affidavit to court…

Mitra Kermani brought 14 proof documents…against [some people]..who worked for [a company] finally [some people] disappeared for first time after 3 years bring Mitra Kermani to too many courts and send new lawyer. Mitra Kermani noticed all those lawyer are Jewish…with document proof they did lied to courts and none of those label was true. [someone] now recently planed to change constitution law in Canada.

In last letter caused [someone]…to escaped was [someone] lied to civil court that Mira Kermani is convicted to criminal harassment and Mitra warn [someone] this time if she come to court she will asked court to disqualify her from work in Canada in civil cases any more. Finally [someone] did not show up.

One question: hunh?

Also, I will observe one thing: It’s those damn JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS again. Seriously…why are Muslims always apt to blame Jews for, like, everything? The rampant anti-Semitism in the above is striking for how bald-faced it is, although I can’t say I’m surprised that muslimperson took the discourse in that direction.

Here again, a strange thing has emerged from the atrocious grammar. Whereas before, muslimperson chastised me for blindly citing a National Post article, now he(?) is making wild assertions and providing no justification (in the form of, say, a link to an article?) for them. All the above is speculation, and nothing more.

Open Jan 11, 2008 Mitra Kermani also not found any civil contempt order then why again on next civil again [someone] made new motion…

Criminal court under appeal was wonder in court of appeal now since criminal court told…the order then…could not changed it in civil court order now. This is like OJ Simpson trial that bring innocent in 8 times to win criminal in civil and unless…proof in that periods some thing happened that they asked for…while we went to two days trial and nobody come to testify civil court without trial can not made judgment only because…Misom is small. Plus [someone] said she is not agree with expansion…how come [someone] give all favour to [someone] even later [someone] send letter to [someone] said in your letter you said are not you made mistake please change it to are please.

Civil court has not jurisdiction to change criminal court order especially when that criminal court is under appeal…no ground to ban Mitra while they know there is not business with Mitra since 2005 therefore this is now civil court also went to court of appeal in Toronto but this time Mitra Kermani did asked judge in court of appeal to disqualify [some people] for misconduct and abuse and abuse of process and using Mitra not have CAPACITY to fighting with them by sending every two month more than 60 big files filed in civil court against Mitra Kermani it is unbelievable

Point of order: Loblaw’s has every right to cease business with (or “ban,” as muslimperson would have it), since they are the retailer and she is just a supplier. They have every right not to spend their money on the products she makes available, as do we all.

Moreover, since Ms. Kermani has admitted to some of the actions that Loblaw’s is accusing her of engaging in, including the utterance of a statement that she would shoot someone in the head, they have every right to seek restraining orders against her.

This is like one small companies verses big company fifth for her right took her 3 years and took her pain and she still fight for her right and freedom of talk and freedom to talk with who ever she likes to talk and in the same respect if some one like Mitra Kermani and ban…to not let that person talk to Mitra is also painful for Mitra and this corruption, fraud, conspiracy, misconduct, abuse discrimination and abuse of process against small person only like to do or made and had lots of customers

It’s pretty simple, really: if you don’t want to be told that you can’t speak to people, don’t threaten to shoot said people in the head. Why is this so difficult to understand?

This is up to customer who like to eat their food…to control saying I like to feed Muslim Jewish halal food called Alsafa halal food because they are German friend of us that is nonsense

It’s the Jews! The JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!

[Anyone] has freedom to deal with anybody they want but in the same respect customer has right to choose who they like to eat for specially meals not non Muslim control Muslim food and not let Muslim come up under conspiracy and illegal competition act and under human right act all is hate crime against Mitra Kermani

This is true, to be sure, but the customer doesn’t really get a say as to which products a store puts on the shelves or not. If, say, Safeway suddenly decided not to deal with Dole anymore, I’d have to suck it up and buy some other company’s pineapples (not that I buy that many pineapples, but it was an easy example). That’s really all there is to it. Too bad, so sad, pass the SunRipe.

Loblaw companies used Misom halal for 8years exclusivity like marriage can not get them hungry out and terminate them and not let them talk and negation any business called that on Aug 2005 “cool-off” period Misom stay 6 month out and not talk and we are not pay damages and they did breach contract on June 13, 2005 and say stay for 6 month cool not talk if we like you we will return your business back if you talk you go to jail.

Did the Reader catch that? Loblaw’s was partnered with Misom for 8 years exclusively…clearly, it’s like a marriage!

Only…it’s not. Business agreements are not permanent commitments of total fidelity — they are temporary agreements that periodically get renewed. Or they don’t get renewed, and one business elects to not do business with the other anymore, in favour of a different company.

Mitra Kermani is…she fight for her right

She was innovate of halal food…and she is hungry outside and others cash her business and she is faced all criminal court which wrong and civil court should force loblaw to pay defamation to Mitra as punitive damage as well.

Therefore media welcome to come and like to listen to claim of Mitra Kermani in civil court and you can go and see all files in civil court is open to media

But you can not simply copy and past wrong information from National post.

I’ve spent as much time as I can for today, O Reader, looking for information from the Ontario Superior Court — transcripts, case files, anything. As yet, I’ve found nothing.

If someone — muslimperson, perhaps? — can provide links to the relevant files, I’ll gladly entertain them. Until such time, I can do no more than observe that muslimperson’s own claims are as baseless as he(?) says the National Post’s are. And in defence of the National Post: why would the Post risk a lawsuit from a large, national grocery company with that sort of lie, and why did Mitra Kermani admit to doing some of the things that the Post article claimed she had done?

We agree nobody has right to harass anybody for breach contract but big company also should not smash small companies and get envy over them if small but smart…

Plus Woman are not right in any where not in Middle East not n Canada as long as small yes as soon as become famous men get them out with one label and slander in food male industry in Canada no respect for woman in highest end manager unless take time

I note that Canadian society has more respect for women that any Islamic society I can think of off the top of my head. That’s not to say that Canada is perfect in this regard — far from it. But compared to Mitra Kermani’s own home country of Iran, well…Canadian women do very well.

Mitra Kermani went in gifted school in Iran when she was 13 got number one in Mathematics among two million children of her age Mitra Kermani has Canadian chemical engineering degree and Mitra Kermani has so many pharmaceutical and petro gas and oil industry background and Mitra Kermani took 5 courses with A- in master degree in University of Toronto and Mitra Kermani has diploma in Muslim laws and Mitra Kermani has one year computer programmer and work for more than 18 years in industry still we must wait for get acceptance among Muslim Canadian went to so many ambassador house and lunch with their family in middle east…Mira still fight for her claim for freedom of talk and freedom of choice for Muslim customer…

Yes, yes, yes, O Reader…Ms. Kermani is all that and a bag of (halal) chips.

Equally…so what? All her various achievements entitle her to precisely nothing in terms of the business she now operates.

finally:

…

Canada said in their constituation law that Canada believe God and Muslim belive God and Muslim also belive Jesis while Jewish are not then for god sake why for Morality of this let company wake up and interfer in fate of Muslim for hate crime!!! this must get stop that is why Mitra keramni fight…for 3 years. God is the greatest and know it all. if some is bad god will punish them. stop hate for no reason. support human right and direct them to right path.

It’s the JOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOS!

Okay, that’s actually starting to get a little old. But then, so are the allegationsof a conspiracy to mix Jewish kosher food with halal food from an alternative supplier. Is this poop for real?

At any rate, I did warn the Reader that the letter from muslimperson went all squirrely at the end, and that the grammar and spelling were poor. And now, at the end of it, I see that I may have understated the case. Still, perhaps we should all count ourselves enlightened, now that we know that the senseless persecution and harassment of Mitra Kermani is just the visible element in a Jewish plot to contaminate halal food with kosher products.

And if you will buy that, O Reader, you’re a fool…hold out for the offer on the bridge!

Update: Welcome, Sleepy Old Bear readers and Steynians!

The Color of Update: It’s been an interesting day on the freespeecher email list. Someone postulated that the rambling incoherence of muslimperson might, in fact, be the rambling incoherence of Mitra Kermani herself. It’s a theory with some merit, if not exactly testable.

knowmuslimwell writes in with a comment about Mirta Kermani, who was discussed in this post — Ms. Kermani is the owner of Misom Halal Food Products, a supplier of halal foods that Loblaws Companies Inc. cut ties with a couple years ago.

Since that time, Ms. Kermani has been harassing and threatening workers and executives of Loblaws’ — the company that owns the Real Canadian Superstore, Extra Foods, and No Frills (if memory serves).

Please do not judge or belive what you see in National post about Mitra Kermani is true:
Frequencly asking question in islam:
http://al-islam.org/static.php?content=faq
—-
learn about isalm in simple way for beginners:
http://al-islam.org/index.php?sid=489855789&t=80&cat=80
————————
Learn about: how the holy book of QURAN wrote and Tafseer means explanation of bit by bit of Quran like allah means what? Etc.: almizan is one the best book explain quaran and Mr. Tabatabi wrote this book: this is advance books
http://www.almizan.org/
http://www.almizan.org/new/Tafseer/volume1.asp
http://www.almizan.org/Tafseer/Volume1/fateha1.asp
————————
what is shia wrote: learn more about islam
http://www.shia.org/islamicwww.html
http://www.al-shia.com/html/eng/books/ahlulbayt/index.htm
what Iranian are saying find it in shia web page
—-
if you look for specific information use search engine go to this web page:
http://al-islam.org/dilpprojects.php
type your wording in search engine
=====

if you have more question to ask scholare in Isalm: use this web page:
http://al-islam.org/static.php?content=contact

I have two remarks to make here, O Reader.

The first is one of puzzlement: what do any of the provided links have to do with Mitra Kermani, Loblaws, or the National Post?

The second is that if one should not believe what the National Post has had to say about this story, whom should one believe? What reason does the National Post have to risk a lawsuit from Loblaws’ by inventing — or even misrepresenting — such a scenario?

Mark Frieman, writing in the National Post, seems to think so. Jay Currie has the details.

I’m short of time, so here’s the meaty bit out of Jay’s review of/response to the article:

It is a very intelligent and compelling argument and, I suspect, represents the political fallback position of the CHRC and its dwindling band of supporters. Freiman refers to “procedural lapses or errors” and suggest that these should not vitiate the powerful idea that the Canadian telecommunications system should not “be used as a vehicle for hate propaganda“.

Unfortunately, as the CHRC’s investigative methods and total lack of process, discretion and restraint are revealed in the Lemire case and in the Steyn matter, it becomes increasingly apparent the CHRC has long since abandoned any pretense of addressing the concerns the Supreme Court of Canada raised in Taylor. The highhanded conduct of the Member in Lemire, the fraudulent invocation of s. 37 of Canada Evidence Act by the Commission, the attempt on the part of Commission counsel to deny public access in that matter, the lying under oath of CHRC management employees, the arbitrary truncation of proceedings and cross examination based on no law whatsoever and a whole host of other gross violations of natural justice all suggest that the CHRC is not capable of properly and fairly administering s.13(1). In fact, the antics of the CHRC suggest is has become a greater ongoing evil than the de minimus evil it is seeking to suppress.

It’s that last bit that’s really relevant: the damage that the human rights commissions are causing to and in Canada is exponentially greater than the amount of hypothetical damage they might prevent. Hate crimes are a terrible thing, but stripping away — or imposing limits on — a fundamental freedom like the right to expression is actually even worse. Because while hate crimes lash out against groups or individuals, destroying or impairing freedom of speech attacks the nation as a whole.

It turns out that the promised offer of settlement was not any different than the previous offer made to Mark Steyn and Maclean’s magazine by the Canadian Islamic Congress through its sock puppets, the four Muslim Osgoode Hall law students.

That’s right — after all the hype of a big settlement offer, they wound up offering to drop their human rights complaints against Steyn and Maclean’s if, and only if, Maclean’s agreed to publish, with no editorial oversight as to content or formatting, an Islamic rebuttal to Mark Steyn’s article The Future Belongs to Islam.

I have never been prouder to be a Canadian than the day I heard Ken Whyte say he would rather Maclean’s magazine go bankrupt than allow it to be hijacked by a handful of Muslim beligerents.

At this morning’s press conference, held by the Sharia Creeps, we were promised a big “settlement” announcement in the absurd case of Steyn & Maclean’s v. A Bunch of Sock Puppets and Their Anti-Semite Master Behind the Curtain.

In a dazzling demonstration of both taqiyya AND hudna, we received no such thing.

The three law students — or rather, their obnoxious lawyer, who did all the talking — simply reiterated their original demands: that Maclean’s magazine honor the students’ imaginary “right to rebuttal” (a right that exists nowhere in English common law or centuries of journalistic and publishing practice) by letting them publish 5,000 unsolicited and unedited words in someone else’s magazine.

Despite the repeated (I lost track at 6) attempts by the National Post’s Joseph Brean to get them to explain what exactly was different about this new and improved “settlement” offer, no clear answer was forthcoming.

And for an additional “heh”:

My outburst caught the attention of one of the female law students on the dais, and we engaged in a evil eye staring match for the next 15 minutes. Heh. Made ‘er blink.

And of course, we had to hear about four different times about Ken Whyte’s “disgraceful” bankruptcy comment, which they are totally and utterly obsessed with.

See, this is why there hasn’t been a Muslim Reformation:

there must not be an Arabic equivalent of “Here I stand, I can do no other.”

Their wee Borg-like brains cannot fathom such independence of spirit, such defiance in the face of the great and mighty Islam. Especially defiance by a mere infidel, and his “pig” (or is it “dog”?) stooge, the suspiciously surnamed “Mark Steyn” — whom this case has nothing to do with and don’t you forget it while I read more excerpts from the previously unheard-of essay which we are basing our whole case on even though NO ONE ELSE HAD READ it in Canada’s biggest and only newsweekly and between the covers of a bestselling book — until I read it to you, just this minute.

And we’re supposed to believe these people invented chess.

Pitiful. But I suppose that in a sense it’s all we should have expected; this case has been an exercise in absurdity since its inception, and it’s not really surprising that the losing side has opted to maintain the status quo.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Today only!

That’s right — any Mark Steyn merchandise or books purchased today will mean money donated to the legal defence funds of Canadian bloggers Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle, Kate MacMillan, Mark and Connie of Free Dominion, and National Post columnist Johnathan Kay against the lawsuit filed by Richard Warman. These men and women have been vocal, vital advocates in the cause of freedom of expression rights in Canada, and both need and deserve our support, O Reader.

Read the rest of this entry »

Mark Steyn:

We now have the counter-argument* from the Canadian Human Rights Commission. There is no appeal to precedent or legal principle. There is no legal argument at all. Instead, there is an emotional whine that “a great deal of anger has been expressed on various websites” against the CHRC’s employees. A “great deal of anger”? This is the usual “human rights” arithmetic, as Orwellian in its way as Orwell’s 1984 line about 2+2=5. At the CHRC, 1+0=”a great deal”. The only evidence of “a great deal of anger” is one poster at one website. So the CHRC’s proposition that there is “a great deal of anger” out there is true in the same sense that there are a great deal of neo-Nazis out there, and a great deal of human rights victims bringing legitimate Section 13 complaints, as opposed to just one — Richard Warman — using this provision of the law as his personal payback machine.

So, on the one hand, we have legal arguments consistent with Canadian law. On the other, we have an emotive whine unsupported by any evidence. In a sense, this is the logical reductio of Section 13: now it’s not just the “human rights victims” but the Commission itself complaining that all that matters is that their feelings have been hurt. Reading this “legal response”, you’d think the CHRC had seceded entirely from the Canadian justice system. Which they have, more or less. That’s why they’re so determined to resist attempts to get them to conform to the norms of Canadian law. If the CHRC gets away with this, they will have established an important benchmark in confirming that the Star Chamber is now a law unto itself, in which the principles and precedents of Canada’s legal inheritance are entirely irrelevant.

On the other hand, notice the offers to compromise in the final paragraphs. Those would not have been made had Maclean’s not filed its motion, and other parties, from to The National Post, from Free Dominion and other bloggers to (as I still quaintly think of us) free-born Canadian citizens, not weighed in on the issue. That’s why it’s important to keep the pressure up.

March 25th, everyone. After the Easter Triduum, it’s the most important day of the month.

Update: the March 25th hearing will now be open to the public. Athanasios D. Hadjis has withdrawn the prior ruling that the hearings would be closed, noting that “it appears that a few weeks before the January 15, 2008, Federal Court hearing into these objections, the Commission disclosed to Mr. Lemire the information that was the subject of the s. 37 application. The Court therefore determined that since the information had been disclosed, it could no longer “properly” consider the s. 37 application, which the disclosure had effectively rendered moot. In effect, the Commission disclosed the very information that it had previously claimed could not be disclosed pursuant to s. 37. I note that the Commission also withdrew, before the Federal Court, its s. 37 objection to the issuance of a subpoena of Bell Canada (see the Federal Court’s ruling, January 15, 2008, Docket no. T-860-07).

The outcome of the s. 37 matter gives me pause to question the soundness of the Commission’s invocation of public security concerns with respect to the testimony of these witnesses.”

In essence, the information that the CHRC wanted to keep secret had been previously revealed by the CHRC. Oops.

Score one for the good guys. This ruling is so important: it means that there will be transparency in an HRC tribunal, and confirms that the commissions are subject to public scrutiny, not the other way around.

Update: Welcome, Steynians!

Blazing Cat Fur sends in the following link:

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry080207- 155248

The above is a link to an entry rather amusingly entitled “Bring It”. It’s primarily a pre-emptive response to an editorial by Jon Kay in today’s National Post.

Mr. Kinsella posits an interesting question:

This post is what has moved Jon to write about me and my views. The Wicked Witches of the West and East - plus their Muslim-loathing Winged Monkeys, and the Freespeech Martyrs Brigade, [Ezra Levant] and [Mark Steyn] - have also devoted lots and lots of space to it, in some cases sneering that I am a pedophile, that I made it all up, that I am a Nazi, and so on. Immodestly, all of this suggests to me that the things I have been writing on this web site about racism, anti-Semitism and human rights have perhaps had an impact. If I wasn’t having an impact, a friend said to me this morning, why would they bother?

While I’m not sure that I’d go so far as to suggest that Warren is “one toke over the line” — I don’t know whether Mr. Kinsella is currently a user of marijuana — I think there’s some validity to the statement that Neo ends his post with: “Or maybe Warren… you just need to take a couple weeks in Cancun… snag some rays… loll around on the beach? ‘Cos you’re sounding a little stressed out here, bro.“

Personally, my own reason for “bothering” to write about the post Mr. Kinsella links to in the excerpt above is that when I first read it, I was rather dumbfounded. Was I honestly reading an argument in favour of Censorship, an argument in favour of Dr. Keith Martin being told to shut up, to get in line, and to withdraw Bill M-446, that used as its key argument a blurry cell-phone picture of bathroom graffiti? Was that what I was seeing? Were the people opposed to the removal of Section 13 from the Canadian Human Rights Act so bereft of convincing and persuasive arguments that they were reduced to to taking pictures of pre-adolescent scrawlings in public bathroom stalls in order to find “proof” of widespread Naziism that must be stamped out through a rigorous censorship office?

Who wouldn’t comment after seeing something like that? I took Mr. Kinsella’s post as a sign that us freespeechers were scoring some major rhetorical victories. Who’d have thought that really, I was just in despair over how we were losing this fight?

All of this is a lengthy preamble to something I’ve been thinking about these past weeks: a legal defence fund for people who are vulnerable to being blown over by Kinsellan huffing and puffing. The National Post and Maclean’s don’t need help, but most bloggers do. My observation is that bloggers make defamation law errors very frequently — not that they engage in real defamation often, but that they overreact to the first whiff of gunpowder, and cower before any schmuck with a lawyer’s letter, because they do not know their defences under defamation law, and even if they did, they feel they can’t afford to exercise them.

The point here is not to oppose all defamation suits against bloggers; on occasion, bloggers will be in the wrong, and the right response is to clarify or apologize. Unlike human rights inquisitions — which are always immoral — some complaints against bloggers will have merit. The point, rather, will be to protect bloggers against political attacks masquerading as defamation threats. And that’s what should make this task less enormous than it might sound: if my experience at the Western Standard is any guide, almost all of the work will be merely fending off folks who were angry enough to spend $500 to get a lawyer to draft a demand letter, but have neither the legal case nor the financial resources to file a proper statement of claim, let alone run a trial.

It is my anecdotal observation that the preponderance of such threats come from the domestic left or Islamic fascists, and I imagine that most of the bloggers who will need to be protected will come from the conservative side of the spectrum. But not all; at the magazine, we received demand letters from provincial Tories upset with our coverage of a scandal. And I can think of at least one Liberal blogger whose case — not defamation, but media law nonetheless — I’d love to take.

I would imagine that such a defence fund would be financed partly through the pro bono contributions of defamation lawyers like myself, and partly through dues paid by bloggers into a fund — say, a dollar a month. I imagine it would be a non-profit corporation, overseen by a board scrutinizing revenues and expenses. There would have to be clear rules of when to take an engagement — a written “insurance policy”, including rules to avoid the moral hazard that insurance creates.

Of course, the larger threat is not nuisance defamation suits, for which the legal system has built-in suppresants ranging from the plaintiff’s own legal fees and disbursements to the commendable Canadian rule that the loser pays a portion of the winner’s costs. The larger threat is human rights commissions of the sort that have gone after Mark Steyn, Free Dominion, and others. These are rarer than defamation threats, so far, but they are far more worrisome. I think we need to wait a few more months to see how the current media blowback against commission bullying plays out.

There’s not much more to say that Mr. Levant doesn’t already say here. It’s a good idea, methinks, especially in these uncertain times when the typical response of progressives to reasonable criticism of their ideas is to accuse one of being a bigot.

…here’s a long-winded and meandering example. Or perhaps multiple examples. I really can’t tell.

My aunt and uncle, and their three children, recently stopped attending services at their Catholic Church, in quiet protest over the Catholic Church of Canada’s response to Bill C-38, the recently-passed legislation that allows for same-sex couples to obtain a marriage license in Canada, and the Church’s ‘bias towards homosexuals’ in general. Well and good, and as free people in a free society, given the freedom to choose their own actions by God Himself, they are completely within their rights and power to do so. But as G.K. Chesterton once remarked, to possess a right is by no means the same thing as to be right in exercising it. This is as true for abortion as it is for ceasing to attend Church services in protest over the Church drawing a line in the sand over another morally contentious issue. Were I a little more strict in mind, I’d even go so far to say that it might qualify one for excommunication. But as conservative as I seem to be getting these days, I’m not that harsh.

In an increasingly secular society, it’s more and more common for people to leave the Church, or to leave any Religion really, because they disagree with some aspect of the Church’s moral teaching. This is not a new phenomenon, though — many have left the Church over moral, or other, disagreements. The various early heresies, and the Protestant Reformation, came about for these reasons. What is different in this day and age is the acceptance that goes along with such a separation, acceptance and even praise that is, in most respects, completely undeserved.

I am reminded of a passage written in the National Post — by an atheist — that basically began as a letter to Pope Benedict XVI. It’s no longer in their 7-day archive, but for the interested it was written by , and appeared in the June(??) 13th issue of the Post.

In it, he mentioned Benedict’s desire to see the ‘lapsed’ of the Church (some 20 million people) return to the fold, and the columnist’s response to that was ‘do you really want them back?’. It’s a valid question.

In reading some of posts on Angry’s blog that have been left in reply to one of his articles, it seems clear to me that the vast majority of people who have a beef with the Catholic Church disagree with the Church’s stance on birth control, abortion, sexuality prior to marriage, or homosexuality. In short…sex, sex, sex, and sex. Personally believing these things — all or just some of them — to be valid and not in any way immoral choices to make, the lapsed have taken to calling the Church to task for its incorrect stance on these issues (their stance obviously being the correct one!). It’s really quite a delicious arrogance, is it not?

So it goes in the age of moral relativism, really the ultimate in selfish ideologies: “I don