Recent Blogs

By Tara Lohan February 7, 2011

Montanta Legislator Introduces Bill to Create Armed Paramilitary Groups

Montana state Rep. Wendy Warburton (R) has introduced legislation that would create an "armed paramilitary group of volunteers" in her home state called "home guards." So, this would be state-sanctioned, anti-government militias, that the state would have to pay for. Oh the irony! The Billings Gazette reports:

The "home guard" would not be subject to federal oversight and a company would only be recognized if certified by the governor. Creating the paramilitary groups would cost the state about $45,000 per year for the first few years, and the state would be required to pay for damaged equipment used by the groups during active duty.

Makes perfect sense, right? As Tonya Somanader details:

There's no questioning what Warburton hopes to create. As the Huffington Post's Nick Wing notes, Warburton originally called these groups "organized militias," only later amending it to less fraught term "home guards." And, as the state's Human Right Network notes, there's no question who will gravitate to these unregulated groups -- "anti-government extremists."

According to a Southern Poverty Law Center report, previously dwindling "Patriot" groups -- "militias that see the federal government as part of a plot to impose 'one-world government' on liberty-loving Americans" -- have come "roaring back" under Obama's presidency. Since he took office, there has been a 250 percent rise in 'patriot' groups. Extremists have attended Obama speeches bearing arms and even murdered six law enforcement officers. And if the state taps anyone like Arizona militiaman and radical anti-immigrant activist Bill Davis to pick the militia's ranks, these home guards will pass over gun-toting "wannabes" and "Rambos" in favor of actual combat veterans with "kill records."

Let's hope this bill makes it absolutely nowhere and fast.

Someone commented on the present Euro crisis as follows:

"Methinks the problems [the Euro crisis] are being somewhat overstated
for effect. The fundamental reason for any country leaving the Euro
would be to create a currency they could create and devalue at will.
That they would simultaneously default on all Euro denominated debt
would be very likely.

However I don't consider it a terrible thing that they would be denied
credit and immediately have to balance their budget. If Argentina is
an example the government would simultaneously steal everyone's
savings. But they are working to do that anyway. And the denial of
credit would be short term. People actually lend to Argentina even
though it regularly defaults.

******The real reason the bankers won't let anyone default is they
want everyone working for them. They create Euro's, that have no
intrinsic value, in huge quantities at no cost to themselves. They
lend these Euro's to corrupt politicians and the people have to pay it
back with the sweat of their labor. Essentially the bankers are
getting slaves for nothing. That is the real reason they will keep
creating all this fake money rather than letting a captive country
leave. This is a system that has to go.****"

We received the following note sometime ago. On February 4, 2010 the CBC ran an interview on Canadian Jewish sympathies for the Conservative Party. We thought that a poll on knowledge of the Conservative Government's attempt to sway voters would be important. We will also feature a blog on the ties between the Christian right, their views on Israel and Jews and the Harper Government.

Dear Friends,

In response to the outrageous and deliberately misleading pamphlets that have been circulating in ridings where there are significant numbers of Jewish residents, here are the facts:

The Conservatives have sent a false and disgraceful flyer to Canadians that knowingly misrepresents the Liberal position on Israel.

This is a disgraceful piece of Conservative propaganda, regrettably afforded by your taxpayer dollars.

The Conservatives are misrepresenting the facts and misleading Canadians in a shameful effort to divide us for their own partisan gain.

It smears the Office of the Prime Minister to be associated with this pamphlet and we implore Mr. Harper to disavow it immediately, instruct that it be revoked, and apologize to Canadians on behalf of the Conservative Party.

Let there be no mistake:

*As Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff stated in 2006, "Canada is a friend to Israel. We stand shoulder to shoulder when the going gets tough. Between a terrorist militia and a democratic state, Canada must always side with Israel". (October 13, 2006)

* The Liberal Party has a history of support for Israel, working cooperatively and effectively with the Canadian-Jewish community and of speaking and acting against terrorism. It was a Liberal government that designated Hezbollah and Hamas as terrorist organizations in 2002.

* The Canadian delegation unequivocally condemned antisemitism at the 2001 UN World Conference Against Racism in Durban. Canada continued its presence at the express request of the Israeli and other governments. As a member of the Canadian delegation and chair of the International Jewish Caucus I was proud that it was because of the skillful Canadian negotiators that the Israeli government said they could live with the final language, and the Canadian negotiators did not rest until that was the case!

* "It is beyond reckless for political leaders to try to score points by branding one another as anti-Israel to try to win votes by claiming a monopoly on supporting Israel. My party will never claim to be the only genuine defenders of Israel in Canadian politics because I don't want my party to be alone in the defense of Israel. I want all parties to be genuine defenders of Israel"(Michael Ignatieff, Speech to the Canadian Jewish Congress Plenary, May 31, 2009)

Michael Ignatieff, is a strong supporter of Israel and one of our many real friends in the Liberal party. I invite you to visit my website to listen to Michael's address to the CJC 90th plenary this year at http://www.facebook.com/l/3d952;www.karenmock.ca. Canada needs leadership that will unite us on important issues, not divide us with inflammatory rhetoric for political gains.

Karen Mock
Thornhill Federal Liberal Candidate

Karen was the National Director of the League for Human Rights of Bnai Brith Canada and former head of the Canadian Race Relations Foundation. Dr. Mock is a certified teacher and educational psychologist, specializing in human rights, hate crime and diversity issues, widely acknowledged as one of the foremost Canadian authorities on multicultural/anti-racist education. She led the Holocaust and Hope Educators' Study program in Germany, Poland and Israel for 12 years, and is currently president of Canadian Friends of Haifa University.

See also: More on the "Maclean's controversy," Ezra Levant, and Marc Steyn

On October 24, 2009 Ezra Levant posted on his blog "Richard Moon: liar for hire". I thought the posting so outrageous that it required a response.

Ezra Levant has been a vociferous critic of the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) and staff as well as former staff. Levant is a friend of the powerful and frequent contributor to Canwest publications, authoring opinion pieces about his problem with the the CHRC. He has even written a book detailing his complaints about human rights commissions. Levant first drew attention as a political advisor to the Reform Party, which subsequently became the Canadian Reform Alliance Party (CRAP). Levant then ran for a federal riding in Alberta and following that became a publisher who drew national attention for re-publishing the infamous Danish cartoons that caused riots throughout Western Europe. Levant was then brought before the Alberta Human Rights Commission which Levant video taped for broadcast on Youttube.

Richard Moon is a Professor of Law at the University of Windsor who authored a report commissioned by the federal government on section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the regulation of hate speech on the Internet. Moon has written of Levant that:

“I [Moon] have felt deeply disturbed by the way in which certain claims made on rightwing blogs like Levant’s have seeped into mainstream discourse, many of which are grotesque exaggerations — or, in some cases, outright fabrications of the circumstances....” (Moon quoted in the National Post)

Further, Moon devoted some of his October 23, 2009 Saskatchewan Law Review Annual Lecture, "The Attack on Human Rights Commissions", to the unfair and inaccurate criticisms leveled at the Canadian Human Rights Commission and staff by Levant and others. According to Moon:

"I am sure it comes as no surprise to anyone that there are Internet blogs that post things about the CHRC that are false and malicious. The problem is that these claims have seeped into mainstream discourse – they have been taken up by members of Parliament, they have been adopted in editorials in the National Post and columns in the Globe and Mail and Maclean’s magazine and in a host of other publications, and they have been repeated on radio and television current affairs programming. They have created in the larger public – or a significant element of the public -- a “feeling” that there is a serious problem with human rights commissions, and in particular the Canadian commission, that needs to be addressed. (Moon: Saskatchewan Law Review Annual Lecture)

And the Lecture does that. My purpose here is to examine the claims in Levant's subsequent "Richard Moon: liar for hire", avoiding specific comment on the many potentially libelous statements about Moon, a so-called "corrupt cop" at the CHRC, or the charge that Richard Warman, previously of the CHRC, of using CHRC computers when he was not authorized to do so, etc..

The Facts

1. According to Levant: "Moon claims the CHRC does not have a 100% conviction rate for censorship prosecutions. He weasels around this point a bit, but that's what he means."

Not true: The fact is that Moon does not deny that all the cases sent to Tribunal for hearing by the CHRC were decided against the respondents. Moon points out that the CHRC brought only the most egregious cases to Tribunal for decision and that is why all the twenty or so cases under s. 13 were successfully decided against the respondents. Just read the complaints and/or judgments against people like Guille, Ouwendyk, etc. to find out why the Tribunals ruled against them. No one in their right mind could have found that the respondents were not broadcasting the most virulent forms of hate. What does Levant not understand? If anything, the CHRC should be commended for acting on the side of caution, thereby saving taxpayer dollars.

I will not quarrel here with Levant's choice of words like "conviction rate" and "censorship prosecutions". Those terms more accurately describe criminal prosecution, not the human rights process, which relies on mediation before a Tribunal hearing. These criminal prosecutorial terms are used by Levant to suggest that the CHRC has strayed from a human rights process to a criminal one.

2. According to Levant: "Until the Warman v. Lemire case last month, no-one had beat a prosecution."

Not true: The fact is that the Tribunal struck only the penalty provision in the Lemire case. This is a serious matter that must be appealed. However, the Tribunal found in Warman v. Lemire that, based on the evidence, Lemire was responsible for online hate. Levant slips in the phrase that Lemire "beat a prosecution." Again, Levant wants to suggest that the CHRC behaves as a criminal court.

3. According to Levant: "The reason why section 13 was declared unconstitutional last month in the Warman v. Lemire case was precisely because section 13 had become like a criminal charge."

Not true: Section 13 of the Human Rights Act was not "declared unconstitutional." Nor has s. 13 become "like a criminal charge." No Tribunal member has the power to declare anything "unconstitutional." The Supreme Court must rule on the constitutionality of any law or Act of Parliament. And the CHRC can still help mediate complaints unlike criminal proceedings.

4. According to Levant: "Moon claims that there is no evidence whatsoever that CHRC staffer Dean Steacy made bigoted comments on neo-Nazi websites...."

Fact: Despite all the sound and fury, Levant doesn't once show that Steacy made "bigoted comments" on Nazi websites. Levant can only offer that Stacey made statements about "white supremacists" and "gave them encouragement". This is a far cry from making bigoted or racist comments. However, even if Stacey had made a racist or homophobic comment to gain access to a Nazi website, it would be entirely justified to gain evidence. Every person, including police and national security agencies, forced to gather information about a potentially violent, criminal, or domestic terrorist group by infiltration must use some of the groups language to gain entry. Without seeming to be part of the group, little background information like addresses, activities and contacts, on Nazis would be possible. Despite Levant's extravagant claims, he offers absolutely no evidence of racist statements, no evidence of advocating violence, and no evidence what so ever that Stacey broke any Canadian law.

5. According to Levant: "Moon claims that Richard Warman, the serial complainant-of-fortune in almost all section 13 cases, didn't work on censorship investigations."

Fact: Levant fails to show that Moon lied about Warman. Levant does not show that Warman influenced or worked on any of the complaints he made as a private person while employed by the CHRC. The only thing Levant can complain of is that Warman "trained" co-workers. But Levant fails to explain what "training" involved. Presumably, "training" was on how to do online research, how to find the address of owners of websites and where websites are located, etc. In addition, Levant's description of Warman as a "serial complainant-of-fortune" is gratuitous, inaccurate, unfair and malicious. It implies that Warman is someone less than respectable and sincere in what he tried to do; that is, to use the available tools to stop online racism.

6. Levant objects to some of Warman's online statements in neo-Nazi forums.

Fact: I do not know what, if anything, Warman wrote in Nazi forums. I do know from experience researching domestic terrorist groups that it is usually necessary to make controversial statements in order to infiltrate, expose and gather information about hate groups as many police agencies and CSIS has been forced to do. It obviously irritates and undermines Levant's complaint that the Canadian Jewish Congress gave Warman an award for his online human rights work, despite anything he might, or might not, have said.

7. According to Levant: "[Moon's Law lecture is] not a case of falsehoods vs. facts; it's just a measure of how skewed Moon's judgment is. He actually defends the crazy case of the McDonald's employee who won the human right not to have to wash her hands -- plus $50,000 tax-free for her troubles."

Fact: Datt vs McDonalds is simply a case of an employer not valuing a 23 year employee - an employee who suffered a disability as a result of employment with McDonalds. As the B.C. Tribunal ruled: "She [Ms Datt] was prepared to perform any duties that would accommodate her disability. Despite this commitment, she was terminated by someone she barely knew, had never worked with, and who did not investigate any job opportunities that might have been available. Ms. Datt expected better from her employer, an employer known for its charitable works." (Datt v. McDonald’s Restaurants (No. 3), 2007 BCHRT 324, August 3, 2007).

Ms Datt did not refuse to wash her hands, she could not wash her hands continuously because of a skin condition caused by work and she simply wanted a transfer to another position where hand-washing would not be so frequent. But Levant can't help but throw in a reference to Datt being a woman and a Muslim on his blog. However, Datt's status as both a woman and a Moslem has absolutely nothing to do with the case.

Summary and Conclusion

Levant fails miserably to deliver the facts to prove that Moon is a liar, that the CHRC and former employees are corrupt. Levant simply makes exaggerated claims, but does not prove any of his charges of corruption, malfeasance, et cetera.

To prove his case, Levant must not only show that Moon lied in some substantial way (which Levant does not show) but also that Moon lies for money; that Richard Moon is willing to compromise his integrity as a legal scholar and lie for money. That is what "liar for hire" means and this is a most serious charge. I can't read Levant's mind, but the extreme vitriol of his posting points to a personal reaction to Moon's Law Lecture, rather than just a professional interest in the CHRC and s. 13.

In addition, to prove wrong doing by Warman, Levant must show that he had a direct influence, and Levant does not even show any indirect influence, in the CHRC's handling of his complaints against Nazis and hate mongers. But that is not enough: The crucial stage for any complaint is at the level of the Tribunal and Levant does not present any evidence at all of any backroom influence by Warman on the Tribunal.

To prove wrong doing by any other former staff, or present staff, of the CHRC, Levant must provide direct evidence, but he fails to deliver.

In the end, Levant's blog is just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing.

I have resisted commenting on what I think of the merit of potential liable suits for the spurious allegations contained in Levant's blog. Not being a lawyer, I can only speculate that Levant would be at risk of several libel suits and a complaint to the professional body over seeing lawyers.

“I have felt deeply disturbed by the way in which certain claims made on rightwing blogs like [Ezra] Levant’s have seeped into mainstream discourse, many of which are grotesque exaggerations — or, in some cases, outright fabrications of the circumstances,” Moon says. (National Post)

See Levant v. Moon: What are the facts? and More on the "Maclean's controversy," Ezra Levant, and Marc Steyn.

We will be adding links to important reports and articles about Canadian Human Rights Commissions and process, particularly ones that examine flaws in legislation and process as well as articles that expose unfair attacks on Human Rights Commissions and, in particular, section 13 of the CHR Code.

We will be adding information about the people Ezra Levant champions, and the claims Levant makes, in his personal quest. I will also have to examine Ezra Levant's postings on the subject. It is hardly worth the time, but his false claims and ad hominem attacks concerning the recent presentation by Richard Moon warrants a response. See below for the link to Moon's presentation.

See The Attack on Human Rights Commissions by Richard Moon - a Saskatchewan Law Review Annual Lecture.

See: Levant v. Moon: What are the facts?

See: More on the "Maclean's controversy," Ezra Levant, and Marc Steyn

See: National Post

Check out Levant's "heroes" and "sources" in the "persons of interest category in the left menu of this page. Individuals cited or referenced by Levant (e.g., Lemire, Fromm, etc) will be highlighted shortly.

We should note that the BC Liberal Party (in essence elements of the old Social Credit Party and members of the federal Conservative Party), without hearings or public consultation disbanded the BC Human Rights Commission as one of its first tasks, replacing it with a non-profit organization it could more easily control.

Please help us by forwarding links to articles and reports to info@stopracism.ca .

Add your comments below.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/19/bnp-nick-griffin-que...

Twenty questions for the BNP

I've suggested a few issues Nick Griffin could be asked about when he appears on Question Time - have I missed anything?

Sunny Hundal

Monday 19 October 2009

It goes without saying that Nick Griffin is a hateful, slippery character. Unfortunately he and other BNP members are getting good at running rings around journalists and others who want to ask them questions.

To help anyone wondering what to ask the BNP leader when he appears on the BBC's Question Time on Thursday, I've prepared, with the help of my co-bloggers, a list of 20 questions that should be asked of the BNP and its leadership. So without further ado...

1. Which parts of Hitler's book Mein Kampf does Nick Griffin agree with, considering that he is on record as stating that he has "learned a lot" from it ?

2. Specifically which policies and ideology of the historical German Nazi party does the BNP as a whole renounce or support, considering the confirmed admiration for Hitler and his organisation among several senior members of the BNP?

3. What is the BNP's official position on the Holocaust, given Griffin's claim that "I am well aware that the orthodox opinion is that 6 million Jews were gassed and cremated and turned into lampshades." Does he not believe the 6 million figure?

4. Griffin has been pictured with and rubbed shoulders several times with high-ranking members of the American Ku Klux Klan. Does he agree with their vision of Aryan supremacy? Would he renounce their policies and ideology?

5. Would Griffin, Andrew Brons and all other members of the BNP be willing to submit to multiple independent DNA tests to confirm that none of them have any non-European ancestry?

6. How will a BNP government ensure the safety of Britain's female population, considering that a senior member of the BNP (Nick Eriksen) has been on record as stating that he believes "rape is simply sex. Women enjoy sex, so rape cannot be such a terrible physical ordeal."

7. Does Griffin agree with the senior member of the BNP who is on record as stating that he supports forced euthanasia of people with disabilities and others deemed to be "a waste of time, money and resources", including the very old and (especially) newborn babies?

8. Griffin said previously that he believed white and black people could not live together. Is he still against mixed-race relationships? How will he stop people from having them?

9. What would be the status of British citizens (both minors and legal adults) who are the children of one white/Caucasian parent and one non-white parent?

10. The BNP's constitution says that it wishes to restore "the overwhelmingly white makeup of the British population that existed in Britain prior to 1948". Does that still remain his aim?

11. Does he still believe in voluntary repatriation of ethnic minorities in the UK? What if they don't want to move to another country?

12. Should ethnic minority Britons have any lesser rights or legal status than white Britons? Given the choice between a white Briton and a non-white Briton for a job - would you choose the white Briton because of their race?

13. Non-white Britons represent Britain internationally in sporting events and academia and in other fields all the time. Yet you say these people are not "British". Would you deny them the chance to represent the UK?

14. Would you be OK with a mixed-race or non-white Briton being prime minister of Britain?

15. Do you think white people are genetically more intelligent than black people?

16. During an interview in May 2009, Griffin clearly stated that he would use the current Saudi Arabian policy on non-Islamic places of worship as a guideline for official policies towards non-Christian places of worship under a BNP government, thereby effectively turning Britain into a Christian version of Saudi Arabia. Is that still the case?

17. Does he have any problems with Christians converting to any other religion?

18. Will the BNP's proposed policies in relation to non-white British citizens also be applicable to Jewish British citizens? If the answer is "Yes", then all further queries in relation to non-white British citizens should be interpreted to also include Jewish British citizens.

19. During its various references to Britain's historical participation in the first and second world wars, why does the BNP never mention the fact that millions of non-white soldiers from the former British Empire fought alongside white/Caucasian soldiers on the side of the Allied powers in both world wars, including 2.5 million volunteer soldiers from the Indian subcontinent during the second world war?

20. How will a BNP government ensure the safety and welfare of Britain's disabled, considering that a senior member of the BNP (Jeffrey Marshall) has been on record as stating that "We live in a country today which is unhealthily dominated by an excess of sentimentality towards the weak and unproductive. No good will come of it", in response to the death of David Cameron's baby in spring 2009?

Think I've missed something out or you can do better? Let me know below.

A federal human rights complaint for Internet hate (s. 13) was initiated by Richard Warman some time ago against Terry Tremaine who boasts that he is the head of the "National Socialist Party of Canada". The complaint was successful, resulting in a fine of $4,000 and a permanent order barring Tremaine from posting further hate propaganda to the Internet. Tremaine has ignored that order and is now facing a contempt of court proceeding before the Federal Court of Canada.

In addition to the human rights complaint, a criminal complaint was laid. Tremaine has been out on bail awaiting trial on that criminal charge with conditions that he not post on the Internet. The same day he went for an appearance before the Federal Court on the contempt hearing a few weeks ago, he posted his "defense" on the racist website, Stormfront. The police were not impressed and arrested him for breaching his bail conditions on the criminal charge.

There are several news articles posted on www.stopracism.ca on this matter.

We can only wonder when Noble will be arrested and charged for violating the conditions of his parole. See those news articles and press releases on this website.

Micheal Smyth boasts, "I can tell you why Campbell is in hiding" (Vancouver Province, June 5, 2009 p A15). Well, wake up Michaell! Campbell has been hiding for years. He won the last election by avoiding the media and relying, instead, on attack ads of the NDP. The NDP, for their part, failed because the leadership would not address economic leadership issues and failed to point out the responsibility of the Campbell regime in making it worse. The media was also largely to blame for not taking the Liberals to task for the BC Rail scandal, the unemployment scandal and the scandal that the Liberals do not have an economic strategy to help ameliorate the economic depression the towns reliant on resource extraction.

Now Micheal bears a lot of blame for this mess because he is a major "political commentator". His job is based on getting access to the people in power - the Liberals - and so he can not be forthright about the mess the media has allowed to worsen.

Now, for Campbell, why should he asa Premier of the province, say anything or be "visible" when he can win without exposing himself to blame. Michael points out that the BC business council approves of a much larger Liberal deficit than predicted - maybe 5 times as large while they decried even a small deficit run up by the former NDP government. Well that makes sense because an DDP deficit would benefit the working class while a Liberal deficit would benefit big business. The hypocrisy is blatant, but who in the media would dear point it out?

But what does all this mean? Well even more cuts to social programs, like anti-racism, women's and children's programs, health care, education, etc.

Of course, anti-racism programs are a thing of the past anyway. The province under the "Liberals" undertook "community consultations" in 2004 under the name of "Blueprint for Change." Many groups took part and boasted of their role as consultants on badly needed changes to anti-racism, immigrant settlement and multiculturalism programs. CJC, AMSSA and CAERS also participated. When it became clear that the consultations was a sham and that the government under Campbell wanted to further gut anti-racism, the CAERS representative walked out.

The agenda and mandate of the government consultations was to inform groups that there was ONE way and that was to cut funding to small groups and consolidate any funding available in several large groups. The tactic of divide and conquer worked when the government had the smaller groups in the outer regions would also benefit. Now the huge multiculturalism bureaucracy manages a one million dollar budget on projects that must be "new" and come under $20,000 - the government knowing of course that this would decimate non-profits and in the process wipe out dissent over growing racism in the province.

The icing on the cake was the shortly thereafter announced "Safe Harbour Project". This program is examined under ratings and more will be added as the failure of this show program unfolds.

The Vancouver Sun on May 27, 2009 quoted former Attorney General, Wally Oppal, as saying that there is an "intense amount of dislike for [the Liberal] government in explaining why he lost a seat in the Legislative Assembly.

However, despite the dislike for the Liberal government, the "Liberal" free market ideologues still won the majority of seats in the Legislature, despite scandals like the BC Rail fiasco and the mismanagement of the economy.
An article in the socialist project outlines the results of the election and some of the reasons why the Liberals won.
The socialist project reports that while there was a dramatic decrease in voter participation from 53% in 2009 from 63% in the last election in 2005, the Liberals won 49 seats as opposed to the NDP with 36 seats. Younger voter turn-out was even worse, though exact figures have yet to be released.
According to the socialist project:
"The election result is very close to that of 2005. The Liberal and NDP share of the popular vote did not change, at 46% and 42% respectively. The Liberals won 49 seats in the Legislature, compared to 36 for the NDP. The Green Party won eight percent of the vote."

Why did the Liberals win a third term? A good deal of the blame for the loss lies with the NDP leadership which refused to tackle the Liberals head-on with respect to the economy. Instead, the NDP skirted the issues and failed to provide a sound alternative to the Liberal free marketers.
The mainstream media, owned and controlled by a few wealthy families, made no bones about supporting Liberal privatization, tax breaks for the rich and poverty for the working class.
What does it all mean? The country is only feeling the first wave of the recession and the Liberals in BC and Conservatives in Ottawa have failed to anticipate the effects. Further dramatic cuts to all social programs are not far away. Wages will plummet as workers bear the burden of the recession as the concentration of capital surges forward like never before. The big corporations are merging world-wide into unheard of size and wealth, ready to take advantage of workers world-wide.
On the local level the BC government is out of step with Obama in Washington, but lock-step with the conservatives in Ottawa. The Liberals and Conservatives have both grossly misstated the seriousness of the recession, the dramatic growth of the deficit and the impact on Canada's resource extraction economy in the West and small manufacturing base in central Canada with potentially disastrous consequences.
The effect on immigration can be expected to dramatic as labour supply exceeds demand and as the country turns more and more to foreign workers without citizenship This will mean a further weakening of unions and the working class and probably scapegoating of minorities as in the United Kingdom and Europe as a whole.

Join the campaign to rid the Internet of racism

For example, theplanet.com hosts a number of racist web sites such as ForbiddenIdiots. We have repeatedly requested planet.com to shut down racist and homophobic sites, with no success.

The planet.com also has a list of 'success stories'; that is, big companies whose sites are hosted by planet.com (http://www.theplanet.com/why-the-planet/Customer-Success-Stories/). Some of these companies are listed below along with their CEOs, etc..

We ask you write an e-mail to all the companies on the planet.com "customer success stories" list (see below) to point out that they are sharing a host with racist and homophobic sites and that is not good for their public image and business. The e-mail should recommend that theplanet.com shut down the Forbidden Idiots site along with all other racist web sites or lose their business. An example of a letter is posted below.

Please join our campaign and write an e-mail of your own to the companies on the list (please see below). It is more effective to write your own e-mail, but a template e-mail is posted below. Address the e-mail to a senior official in these companies and notify them that being hosted on a server that also hosts racist material is bad for their corporate image and, in turn, business.

If they answer that they don't care or don't want to get involved, then you might want to point out that we will bring the issue to public awareness, and their company will be associated with an irresponsible internet service provider.

Please be sure to copy the e-mail to info@stopracism and theplanet.com.

Thank you for your help making the web a better place.

------------------------------------------------

Template E-mail:

Dear xxxxx

I am writing to inform you that your website is currently hosted by an Internet Service Provider (theplanet.com) that also hosts racist and anti-semitic websites. This includes the websites "theforbiddentruth.net", "niggercrimes.com" and "stormisbrewing.com". These websites promote violence against Jews, blacks, homosexuals and other groups.

You can verify this information by entering the IP address of the server hosting these websites (174.133.63.2) into http://domainbyip.com which will show you all the websites listed on that server and their IP address.  You can then click on the WHOIS button next to each website listed to view the registration information.   All the domains (websites) are registered to a Denise and a company called mallee.biz and hosted on theplanet.com.

We have taken great pains to notify your Internet Service Provider, theplanet.com that they are presently hosting racist websites and have received no satisfactory response. The next step will be to make the information about theplanet.com public and to list those comapnies and businesses that share the same host.

I am sure you will realize the great embarrassment and potential cost of your assocation with racist websites by virtue of a common host and it is for this reason we are notifying you directly. I suggest that you contact your Internet Provider (theplanet.com) for an explanation of the assocation between theplanet.com and these hateful websites. If you are not satisfied with the explanation, I would hope that you take immediate steps to change your service provider.

Please note that this is not a freedom-of-speech issue; as a private company, theplanet.com is free to set their own terms and conditions of service content. Responsible companies and businesses must decide if the planet.com's Terms and Conditions of Service meets their ethical and business standards.

You may contact the under-signed for further information.

Yours,

------------------------

Important Campaign E-mail addresses:

talk@quotationsbook.com

info@santcorp.com

abuse@mugglenet.com

support@cyberferia.com

info@atitude.com.br

contact@usablenet.com

info@esolutions.net

sales@serversurgeon.com

support@serversurgeon.com

info@liveauctioneers.com

support@ecarlist.com

Sales@phirefast.com

les@phirefast.com

support@nutshellmail.com

support@istyles.com

support@corsair.com

helpdesk_sbt@stonebond.com

info@panacore.com

contact@pyzam.com

infodesk@netconcepts.com

info@netconcepts.com

ThePlanet 

abuse@theplanet.com 

legal@theplanet.com