An Ontario Superior Court judge has ordered a pair of website owners to turn over identifying information about eight people being accused of defamation after posting anonymous comments. Kershman cited a 2004 case that said privacy cannot be used to protect a person from the application of civil or criminal liability, and that privacy rights must be balanced against the rights of other interests and the public interest. He also cited a 2008 child pornography case, in which a judge ruled that a person’s name, address and the name of their spouse are not information that one would expect to keep private from the state under such circumstances.University of Ottawa law professor Michael Geist, said the court must ensure that a proper balance is struck between the rights of a plaintiff and the privacy and free speech rights of an anonymous poster. In order to do that, it must set a high bar for plaintiffs to meet in order to justify overriding the poster’s rights. Warman is in the process of suing the Fourniers, alleging they “falsely and maliciously published and circulated” information on the site that claimed Warman had posted hateful, racist words. The allegations have not been proven in court. “In my view, the defendants are under an obligation to disclose all documents in their power and control,” Justice Stanley Kershman said in a ruling delivered Monday to defendants Connie Wilkins-Fournier and Mark Fournier of Kingston, Ont., who run the website Free Dominion.Kershman also ordered the couple to pay $5,000 in costs to the plaintiff in the case, Ottawa human rights lawyer Richard Warman, described by Kershman as an “anti-hate speech advocate.” Warman had requested, for use in a court action, access to documents that would assist in identifying the anonymous posters and their locations, such as: Email addresses and all personal information. The IP addresses of their computers. Documents concerning the establishment and operation of the website, such as hosting agreements, billing information, and website registrant names. The Fourniers had argued that people using the message boards do so with the expectation of anonymity and may make statements or provide information that they wouldn’t normally with family, friends or co-workers.
It is still up to the courts or the Human Rights commissions firstly to confirm, to define what is actually libelous, slanderous, a hate email message.. and someone’s else’s statement and opinions on the subject does not count. But to be on the safe side if you want to avoid court costs, ligation, if you are unsure if what you write is libel, slanderous, prosecutable better not post it on the net. Wrongfully accusing someone of posting a hate message or being a racists clearly can be challenged in courts as a hate message itself and prosecutable.
Exemplary Public exposure and prosecution of the unrepentant guilty persons serves everyone’s best interest
We ALSO do still need to understand, define what abuse and what hate is, and an abuse is to deny a person’s legal, human rights, and hate is the clear opposite of love, meaning an unloving act.. Hate and Verbal abuse unrestrained often next do lead to physical abuse in reality too. And both hate and verbal, physical abuses are all unacceptable at all times too no matter who you are or who you think you are too. .
but honestly critiquing NOW certain individuals for their own unacceptable bad act is not always HATE. .
It is a false statement that if one makes any negative statement about Jews, Muslims, Arabs, white people, natives , etc., that one is a racist or promoting hatred.. one can be merely exercising one’s appropriate right of free speech, thought..
Now I had witnessed a Person committing immoral, illegal acts many times and when I rightfully reported it next to to the proper authorities, the clearly guilty person next had distorted the truths and lying had said I was promoting hatred towards him and his family, which clearly now was not so. I was a witness of the immoral acts still, unacceptable wrong doings.
Also I do not believe that everyone sets out to be a deliberate racist, it seems to be often merely a poorly thought out stupid mistake for 70 percent of the persons who do it, and many people once they realize what they have done next do even admit their errors and stop it, unfortunately there are the remaining few hate mongers who still do get carried away with their hatred, sins, who need to be incarcerated for their crimes so they can stop and learn not to do it..
(Rev 2:4 KJV) Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love.
(Rev 3:19 KJV) As many as I love, I rebuke and chasten: be zealous therefore, and repent.
Cops too seem to have it too easy in Canada, they do what they want, they abuse citizens and tend to get away with it too. Too many COPS, persons distort the LAW. it’s meaning still too.
“about the liars, thieves, ABUSERS, bullies, thugs, proud oppressors, war mongers “
THERE IS A VERY BASIC COMMON MISCONCEPTION ON HOW TO DEAL WITH ANY PERCEIVED EVEN INJUSTICES, ABUSES, ANYWHERE, IN THE CHURCH AS WELL, BESIDES IMMEDIATELY CALLING THE LOCAL POLICE..
THE NEW TESTAMENT IS CLEAR HOW TO DEAL WITH IT.. COMMUNICATION – AND YOU DON’T FIRST POST IT ALL ON THE NET.
First you merely ask the guilty, bad persons personally to repent twice, the first time without a witness, the second time with witnesses THAT you have asked them to repent.. and detail proof, substantiation is NOT required.. after you have done that you can next post it openly on the net, tell all the others.
Next God also is now fully free to deal with the unrepentant guilty offenders and believe me he will.. I have now been doing for decades too..
I SIMPLY SEND AN EMAIL, I PUT IT INTO CLEARLY WRITING, SO THE GUILTY PARTY CANNOT SAY I DID NOT ASK HIM OR HER TO REPENT.
WHETHER THEY ACKNOWLEDGE IT OR NOT TO GOD DOES NOT MATTER.
APPROPRIATE PUBLIC EXPOSURE AND THE APPROPRIATE PROSECUTION OF THE GUILTY SERVES EVERYONE’S BEST INTEREST
FOR A GOOD NAME IS WORTH MUCH MORE THAN ANY AMOUNT OF SILVER OR GOLD AND A TARNISHED ONE IS WORTHLESS.
This too is not a hate message - ”I would like to recommend an excellent book by Stephen Sizer, entitled ’Christian Zionism, Road Map To Armageddon?, which I believe, will shed a great deal of light on the topic of Christian Zionism. Many millions have been bamboozled and deceived by this cultish movement, and few will ever utter a word against the State of Israel as a result. In the book ’Christian Zionism: Road Map To Armageddon’ Stephen Sizer goes into great detail in exposing the historical roots of Christian Zionism. Mr Sizer talks about things such as the Balfour declaration, CI Scofield and the Scofield Bible, and the influence that it has had in the world. The names of the people who have been associated with this cultish teaching are very well known, people such as John Darby, D.L Moody, Hal Lindsey, and Pat Robertson, just to name a few. ” JERUSALEM – Israel’s military on Thursday ordered a criminal inquiry into its own soldiers’ reports that some troops killed Palestinian civilians, including children, during the Gaza war by hastily opening fire, confident that relaxed rules of engagement would protect them.Their accounts, published in a military institute’s newsletter, echo Palestinian allegations and feed into human-rights groups’ contention that Israel violated the laws of war. Soldiers also reported the wanton destruction of civilian property. READ THE FULL MSNBC ARTICLE HERE
Clearly just because something someone writes offends someone else does not mean firstly that it is even “hate”, immediately prosecutable by law, the courts or the Human Rights Commission. There is still a separation between appropriate speech and inappropriate speech, a separation between freedom of speech, expressing one’s views, opinions and the delivered, deliberate conscious propagation of hatred towards a specific group or person.
OTTAWA — A ruling from a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member says a controversial law banning Internet hate messages is unconstitutional because it violates free speech protections. Athanasios Hadjis ruled Wednesday that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act violates Charter protections. While this decision doesn’t throw out the law – that’s something for the courts – it did let accused hatemonger Marc Lemire off the hook, because Hadjis refused to penalize him or order him to stop posting his messages on the net. on his site. Lemire was accused of posting anti-Semitic and anti-gay material on web sites in a complaint brought by Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman. Warman has become an Internet watchdog for such material and the main section 13 complainant before the tribunal. He had asked for a cease-and-desist order against Lemire and a $7,500 fine. Canadian Jewish Congress was quick to call for an appeal of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member Hadjis ruling. “We strongly disagree with his decision not to impose a cease-and-desist order,” said Joel Richler, an honorary legal counsel to the congress. The congress said other tribunal members have found the section to be constitutional and the courts should be asked to clarify the matter.
The Ruling from a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member says a controversial law banning Internet hate messages is unconstitutional because it violates free speech protections. Refrence the human rights act section 13.1, which says it is a violation to disseminate material on the Internet that is “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” If the example is followed by other tribunal members, it could mean an end to section 13 cases. In a special report issued in June, the commission asked Parliament to change the law to eliminate the fines and provide a clear, legal definition of what constitutes prohibited hatred. The section has been controversial, with some claiming it spreads too wide a net. The Supreme Court of Canada has said legal action should be reserved only for the most extreme forms of hate. None of this in any way affects the hate-speech provisions of the Canadian Criminal Code which is completely different legislation, with higher standards of proof and evidence . Hate accusations can be also filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission. If it finds them valid, they are then taken before the tribunal, which can order people to stop posting material on the web or impose fines of up to $10,000.