Elisabeth Another Victim Of Free Speech!

 Gates of Vienna reported on October 20th that our Austrian correspondent Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff has been given a court date (November 23) for her trial on "hate speech" charges. She has been charged for speaking the simple truth about Islam.

Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff learned through the media that she — like Netherlander Geert Wilders and Canadian Ezra Levant — had been charged with "hate speech" and "denigration of religious teachings". Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff's "offense" is to defend freedom of speech and much more against a tsunami of barbarism and against the politically correct silence and hushing-up. The subject of the complaint is the mere fact that she even gives Islam-critical seminars. For example, the indictment charges her with "hate speech" for the following statement: "Sharia is a definite no-no. We want no gender apartheid, no ghetto's, no social and cultural discrimination, no polygamy, no theocracy, no hate..."

Also watch Mark Steyn's response to her coming up trial:




For more details just type "Elisabeth Sabaditsch-Wolff trial in Austria" into google.

Fake trials by fake prosecutors to calm politicians and lefties own fears of offending immigrants who refuse to adjust to their new countries. Multiculturalism gone horribly wrong. Lawfare in the extreme.

A Win For Freedom Of Speech On The Internet!

A long, hard fight has been won by Connie and Mark from Free Dominion. All bloggers from all parties should be celebrating a historic win for free speech.

New Law Protects Internet Privacy Rights - Warman vs Fourniers and John Does

On April 8, 2010, a precedent-setting case regarding internet law was heard in the Ontario Divisional Court.

The case was an Appeal of a lower court motion decision in the case of Warman vs Fourniers and John Does. The ruling being appealed stated that the defendants were to turn over personal information such as IP addresses and email addresses for anonymous posters who were alleged to have defamed the plaintiff. The defendants' position was that online anonymity should be protected until it is clear that there is a strong case that a "John Doe" has broken the law.

The Divisional Court decision that was released this afternoon changed the rules of disclosure in civil litigation so that plaintiffs must now prove a prima facie case against John Does before site administrators are required to turn over personal information about them. The ruling states, in part:

In addition, because this proceeding engages a freedom of expression interest, as well as a privacy interest, a more robust standard is required to address the chilling effect on freedom of expression that will result from disclosure....

...In the circumstances of a website promoting political discussion, the possibility of a defence of fair comment reinforces the need to establish the elements of defamation on a prima facie basis in order to have due consideration to the interest in freedom of expression.

The text of the decision can be read here: http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/appeal_ruling.pdf

This case is a huge step forward toward changing the law to accommodate new technology.
FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT

Connie Fournier
(613) 888-1169
connie@freedominion.ca
http://www.freedominion.com.pa

So, a serial litigator like Warman must now prove his case before any details can be released by a third party. Warman must also now pay $10,000 for his frivolous lawsuit. It's funny because he is attempting to hurt Connie and Mark in their pocketbook, but he has ended up paying. I wonder how much money his supporters have given him.

This is only one win in a long process towards freedom for Connie and Mark, but it is important to all people who want to freely discuss issues on the internet. Anyone who has a blog can breath a sigh of relief because even trolls who post are now protected, and I will not have to reveal their IP addresses if someone takes issue with what they post, as long as it isn't "hate". I wonder why no-one has sued sites like Rabble.ca yet? Could it be that Conservatives are the true supporters of freedom of speech, and don't need to sue anyone because they are secure in their beliefs?

Conservative bloggers still need to be careful, because when lefties are losing an argument, their first impulse is to sue. They are masters at name calling, swearing and denigrating anyone who doesn't agree with their position. Let a Conservative tweet about supporting the Canucks instead of the Canadiens and it becomes an issue during question period. This is your opposition in action. My 16 year old is more mature.

This is a good day for freedom of speech on the internet.

Get A Life Lefties! You Sick Little Trolls!

Because of the filthy language used by Liberal progressives, I have had to put my blog on comment moderation, again.


CAUTION! Profane language for one time only, to prove a point about lefties and their oh so progressive ideas about female Conservative bloggers. Question is, should I be calling the police on this? I sort of understand how Sarah Palin feels. Slimy people who are more interested in money and smear, than their own country, sad really.

I often get swarmed by trolls sent over here by a particularly obnoxious Liberal blogger. Sometimes the trolls behave, but I have had to put my blog on moderation numerous times because of disgusting language and attacks on mainly my female posters.

When I put comment moderation on, the trolls yell about "freedom of speech" and how I am denying them their rights. So, I thought my readers might like to see a small sample of why I have to put comment moderation on. It's a great glimpse into the lefties progressiveness or lack there of. Name calling and swearing is the order of the day. (Click on them to expand)




And here is a blast from the past:



These were all comments left on my blog that did not make it through the comment filter, until tonight. I only show them now because the trolls hate being put on comment moderation. Notice how liberal supporter mocks me for not being able to publish his comment? Well, hello, you wrote it on my blog, so, hey I can publish it, that's what you wanted wasn't it? Why else would you comment here?

So in answer to CC's comment, that I did publish:



First off, the only CC to post on my blog in that thread was you. So are you talking to yourself, or did you come here from some lefty blog that thinks swearing is normal and the owners initials are CC?

Secondly, if you trolls ever had anything interesting or constructive to say, maybe your comments would get posted.

I try to stay away from even acknowledging the trolls, but their whining about their comments being deleted from my blog, when they clearly abuse the rules, is just too much to ignore.

So comment moderation stays on for now. Just thought some of you might like to see a little behind the scenes action. Oh... and trolls, never ASSUME that just because your comment doesn't get posted that it has been deleted. It might be lurking somewhere, just waiting to see the light of day. Nice language lefties, it really makes you look oh so intelligent, progressive, and mature.

Tribunals......

Creepy. Did the HRC's pick that name to intimidate people who come before them? Are we back into the witch hunting days? The guys in the judge suits appear to have power, and they drowned and burnt enough supposed witches to make people scared of them. Is that what is happening again? In this day and age?



Mr. Fine wants us to believe that the HRC's are for our own good. HA!! If you like oppression and the stomping of freedom of speech, this guy is for you! I do not need to be told what I can or can not say.

Mr. Fine believes that:

There can't be enough laws to deal with these issues...bet he wants to ban guns too. Typical lefty, no plan, no morals, just blind faith that Liberals know best!