Justice for the Zone 9 Bloggers ‪#‎FreeZone9bloggers‬

Source: https://vimeo.com/126145975 

Bloggers are citizen journalists.

The following bloggers are not Zone 9 bloggers but the issue of protecting the free speech rights of bloggers on the web as citizen journalists is a general one. Many bloggers around the world have been imprisoned, murdered, executed, or persecuted for the opinions they are expressing. Everyone irrespective of their beliefs and whether anyone thinks their beliefs are offensive or not has a natural right to Free Speech, free expression of those beliefs. If that natural right is removed from some, it can potentially be removed on all on the same grounds. Dangerous beliefs are better expressed in the open than in underground because they can be challenged, refuted, and exposed as dangerous when they are out in the open. Hate speech laws are not a protection of citizen rights they are assault on all citizen rights even if we disagree with the opinions they are intended to 'protect' us from.

The Final Posts of a Murdered Blogger

“No one with a free mind can limit themselves within the walls of narrow-mindedness,” Ananta Bijoy Das wrote hours before his death.

CyberHarassment: Exploring Solutions

Online abuse is, unfortunately, a common problem. It seems that there are some people in this world who simply get a lot of pleasure out of abusing others and the online world is a fertile ground for finding vulnerable victims. By vulnerable I’m not really referring to people who have any particular physical, emotional , or psychological vulnerabilities but rather the fact that we are all vulnerable in the online world to having our personal and professional reputations injured or destroyed. All knowledge and information about us which is out there is available to be twisted, misrepresented, distorted, exaggerated, lies invented based on it, and otherwise abused to present us in a negative light, in public, amongst those who either don’t know us or only know us casually.

We are also vulnerable to this abuse in real life but it’s harder to do and requires more structure and organization. It’s also harder to prove that it’s going on in real life. In the online world where nothing ever really gets deleted (despite the harassers attempts to remove the evidence) it can almost always be located and therefore the allegations proven.

Someone, somewhere has almost always archived it for posterity.

So, while the lies never get erased, your refutations to the lies also never get erased. If you’ve done your job properly the truth can and will overwhelm the lie and the liars even if they outnumber you.

However, going through that process is time consuming and often quite painful because those who engage in cyberharassment and stalking often have nothing else to do. They can (and do) spend hours doing this because they are dysfunctional people living dysfunctional lives whereas those of us being targeted with this abuse are trying to lead active, normal lives and this nonsense takes us away from that.

While these stalkers and harassers are usually incredibly stupid people, they do excel at lying so you will be dealing with their false allegations with the police, social media sites, friends, family, etc. sometimes for years. In the case of psychopaths, it’s pretty much guaranteed that they’ll be on your case for years or until they get themselves incarcerated in prison or a psych ward.

This is one reason why this type of harassment can’t be ignored or swept under the carpet. The lies, if left to fester can and do take on a life of their own and become ‘truth’ by virtue of the fact that there is nothing out there refuting them.

When it comes to one’s personal and professional reputation these lies can have a deep and often immeasurable impact, especially vicious ones like the current ‘call everyone you hate a pedo’ rage.

The more seriously mentally ill the cyberharasser/stalker is, the further they will go with their abuse and lies.

If you:

1. Challenge their story by challenging the fact that they have no evidence? Voila, evidence gets fabricated in the form of fake photoshopped screenshots, fake pedo web sites set up under the targets personal name as the domain, quoting known liars or people who have an obvious bias, etc.
2. Expose their lies and their cowardice? Voila numerous false allegations/complaints filed with police, social media sites you’re a member of, government agencies, employers (past and present), schools, social service agencies (if you receive assistance), etc.
3. Confront their lies? Voila they recruit other stalkers to spew them for them so that they can claim ‘they aren’t the only ones that hate you’. Suddenly you’re surrounded by a goon squad wallowing in its own filth of lies, the intent being to overwhelm the truth with the lies.

So, what are the solutions?

What can we do to deal more effectively with such lunacy online. Aside from having those who engage in this abuse carted off to their local Psych Ward in strait jackets or to prison. While that will certainly help resolve the problem, it isn’t the easiest thing to do and in the mean time we all have to survive the crazies.

While we can’t change the fact that there are seriously disturbed people out there in the world, many of whom have access to the Internet and are going to be problems… there are often small things that can be done that end up having a big impact.

This recent article from Wired provided some interesting examples and insight into this issue:

Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible. Here’s Where We Start BY LAURA HUDSON

According to the article, a simple process like providing a specific and detailed explanation for why someone was banned reduced the recidivism of the bad behavior dramatically whereas not providing an explanation resulted in a ‘disturbingly high’ recidivism rate.

The team also found that it’s important to enforce the rules in ways that people understand. When Riot’s team started its research, it noticed that the recidivism rate was disturbingly high; in fact, based on number of reports per day, some banned players were actually getting worse after their bans than they were before. At the time, players were informed of their suspension via emails that didn’t explain why the punishment had been meted out. So Riot decided to try a new system that specifically cited the offense. This led to a very different result: Now when banned players returned to the game, their bad behavior dropped measurably. 

–Extract from Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible

A solution like this actually accomplishes three things which are excellent for the consumer of the service.

1. The user has a clear understanding of what the behavior that was considered negative is, and knows that if they want to stay on the site they can’t engage in that specific behavior again.  This creates a solid deterrent for that negative behavior.
2. The support staff are required to properly examine the issue and provide a specific reason, presumably with the evidence that the person did indeed violate the rules. This has the benefit of ensuring that Support staff do their jobs properly and can actually justify the suspension (or lack of suspension based on a complaint). That is they can justify it based on actual written policy rather than just an arbitrary spur of the minute, get this off my desk fast, decision or I feel sorry for person A, I’m on their side and will help them even though the person isn’t doing what person A says they’re doing, etc.
3. Most importantly, any sense of injustice or unfairness at the decisions is also removed because everything has been properly explained and justified. This, in and of itself, can lead to self-correcting behavior. Justice has been done.

Of course, the person might find the standard itself objectionable which is a different issue but one that should be addressed by any social media site which actually wants to be a comfortable place for their users. They could have a special forum where these types of discussions can occur directly with Support staff or Development staff. Explanations will resolve 90% of the issues and the other 10% probably need to be fixed. If they can’t be fixed, people are kept informed and things are unlikely to get out of hand. Or, at least less often, than they would without these measures in place.

The reality is that the current recidivism rate for ‘bad’ behavior is disturbingly high on sites like Twitter and Facebook, and the decisions to remove or leave items being objected to are arbitrary, inconsistent, and frequently not based on the written site rules/policy.

Frequently items which obviously violate the social media site’s policy are left while items which don’t are removed and the posters suspended, banned or otherwise punished despite the fact that they didn’t violate any policy or rule.

I’m currently in a battle with Twitter and have been for a nearly a month to get my business Twitter account unsuspended. Twitter refuses to interact with me to provide any explanation, rationalization, or justification for their arbitrary (and unjustified) actions.

I have provided a detailed refutation to Twitter (in several emails now) including the tweets that I was tweeting at the time my account was suspended based on a false complaint, and screenshots of Twitters own interface showing that at least one allegation is completely bogus and without any merit. This has, so far, been completely ignored.

Not only is this frustrating to the user who is the target of cyberbullying / harassment and being further victimized by false accusations of allegedly doing what is actually being done to them, but it enables and encourages the cyberbullies and harassers to take things further and further. After all, their scam worked.

And you can rest assured they will be smugly gloating about the fact that it worked while coming up with ways to escalate things even further. Of course, they’ll blame you for the escalations. How dare you stand up to their abuse and do so publicly. That’s cyberbullying them according to their sick and twisted thinking. Lol.

To Facebook’s credit, they have banned Michael Babcock from Facebook because of his ongoing bullying and harassing behavior, defamations, lies, etc. They closed down over 20 Facebook sites set up by him for no other purpose than to personally attack, defame and spread lies about social activists on Facebook. Particularly anti-pedophilia social activists. Babcock is just one of a group of people that are part of this current harassment campaign and instigating numerous Tard Krews into senselessly targeting innocent people who are anti-pedophilia social activists.

All this accomplishes, of course, is to protect the real pedophiles since those who are going after them, the anti-pedophilia social activists,  are being discredited and defamed by this group of people: Antonio F. Lopez /Kree Love Dallas, TX (impersonating UK teen Kree Love) et al, Thomas Schroeder aka Thomas Cook aka Juliet Biehl et al, Julie Ann Larson aka Rusalka Sireen aka Javeria Laila et al, Christopher Joseph Erwin aka Jason Steele, Michael Babcock aka N2KMaster aka CoderHyguru aka Coder Hyguru.

The article proposes the following and I agree because it’s focusing entirely on the behavior that’s exhibited rather than the content of what is said. What is said only matters when it leads to negative behaviors and on those grounds free speech has always had some limitations.

You can’t shout ‘fire’ in a theatre because of the impact that will have on behavior.

CyberBullying and harassment are the same. When you falsely call someone a Pedo or Pedo enabler and post it all over the web in numerous blogs, web sites, torrents, pastes, on DarkNet with personal information in Doxbin, etc. etc. there is an impact not only to the person targeted but to others who might decide to interact in negative ways with the target because of those false allegations.

So, this isn’t about free speech. It’s about bullying and harassing behaviors.

Extracted from the article:

What would our social networks look like if their guidelines and enforcement reflected real-life community norms? If Riot’s experiments are any guide, it’s unlikely that most or even many users would deem a lot of the casual abuse, the kind that’s driving so many people out of online spaces, to be acceptable. Think about how social networks might improve if—as on the gaming sites and in real life—users had more power to reject abusive behavior. Of course, different online spaces will require different solutions, but the outlines are roughly the same:

• involve users in the moderation process,
• set defaults that create hurdles to abuse,
• give clearer feedback for people who misbehave,
• and—above all—create a norm in which harassment simply isn’t tolerated.

–Extract from Curbing Online Abuse Isn’t Impossible

Update May 27, 2014: Babcock has returned to Facebook. Whether this is with or without Facebook's knowledge is unknown at this time. His usual game is to sneak around using socks. However, his pages and sock accounts are being closely monitored by quite a few people. Any defamatory libel, abuse or pathological lies about anyone will be immediately reported. Babcock created numerous pages whose sole purpose was to harass and defame innocent people with the lies he likes to fabricate. Facebook did the right thing to remove these harassment pages. There are no constitutional protections for people to lie and defame others. If he wants to call innocent people pedophiles or peophile enablers he should provide the evidence or shut the fuck up. While he claims to have Gigabytes of evidence, it's all nothing but misinterpreted nonsense which has for the most part been taken out of context and doesn't mean what he alleges it means. He's either a pathological liar, has extremely poor reading skills (elementary school level at best), or so mentally ill that he can't even interpret the written word correctly. His technical skills are so shoddy that he can't even interpret the simplest forensics software results correctly either.

Just A Thought ...

‎"If we confuse dissent with disloyalty — if we deny the right of the individual to be wrong, unpopular, eccentric or unorthodox — if we deny the essence of racial equality then hundreds of millions in Asia and Africa who are shopping about for a new allegiance will conclude that we are concerned to defend a myth and our present privileged status. Every act that denies or limits the freedom of the individual in this country costs us the ... confidence of men and women who aspire to that freedom and independence of which we speak and for which our ancestors fought." 

--Edward R. Murrow, a great American journalist whose writings exhibited honesty and integrity.

HRC: Section 13. Hate Speech

"Take away the right to say fuck and you take away the right to say Fuck the Government" 

--Lenny Bruce

I'm not a white supremacist. I'm not even white.

I object to Section 13 because it amounts to convicting people of thought crimes.

I would rather deal with racist name calling than having my civil right to free speech curtailed on specious and possibly baseless grounds.

Section 13 put us on the slippery slope of where and how to define "hate" speech. A definition which could mean anything to anyone depending on their social and political perspective.

It's time it was removed and I'm glad the Canadian Harper Conservatives made it go away.

It's a good day for Civil Rights and Liberties in Canada. We won something for a change.

Now, if they would stop being such hypocrites and repeal the fascist laws they're trying to have implemented today ....

STOP SOPA in Canada!

The following is the content of an online Petition located at the Petition Site:

Don't let the U.S. Send SOPA to Canada.

With SOPA and PIPA dead in the U.S., lobbyists may be working behind the scenes to pass similar legislation in Canada.

Because of the music industry's proposed changes to copyright reform bill C-11, Canada could be "a prime target for SOPA style rules," warns Ottawa law professor Michael Geist.

The main point of contention is the industry's push to expand and add statutory damages to an "enabler provision" that would target a wider range of websites and run liability into the millions of dollars for a target website. Other groups are pushing for language that some fear could be used to shut down sites like YouTube.

The massive public protest over the SOPA and PIPA provisions was due to their threat to the Internet and freedom of speech. The same protest is needed to stop SOPA-like changes to Canada's C-11 bill.

Don't let the U.S. Send SOPA to Canada.

STOP ACTA!

STOP SOPA and PIPA

Educate yourself on SOPA and PIPA and find out why it matters to oppose these laws!

Facebook Page

Electronic Frontier Foundation

Occupy Toronto: Message From Anonymous

Occupy Toronto: To The CEOs

I caught a small part of a CBC Interview yesterday with a representative of an association that represents Canadian CEOs.

The CEO representative, when asked what he thought about the Occupy movement responded, a little defensively, that the democratic/capitalist model is the best one human beings have come up with because it’s the one that has been demonstrated to work.

He appeared to be implying that the Occupy Toronto movement was about eliminating capitalism.

In the interests of clarification, let me point out that the Occupy movement is about giving everyone a voice.

Not everyone is a communist, or even a leftist. A few are. Most are not.

Red-baiting is a strategy intended to discredit by using the logical fallacy of Guilt By Association. It’s a well-established form of Disinformation Propaganda.

I’m not saying that this CEO representative was engaging in the sleazy tactic of Red-baiting but his comments amounted to that, intentional or not.

Speaking for myself, I agree with the CEO representative that the democratic/capitalist model is the best one humanity has come up with and the most workable one.

That doesn’t mean that it can’t be undermined and corrupted and doesn’t need to be fixed.

This is the problem, in my opinion. It needs fixing and each and every one of us is going to have either the same or different opinions on what the fixes need to be.

In my opinion, when a few members of the wealthy elite hold an inordinate amount of power and influence over democratic policy making which is supposed to benefit all Canadians not just the wealthy elite then our democratic processes and our financial system are being undermined by that wealthy elite.

This opens the door for wide-scale corruption and abuse of power.

This is something we’ve been seeing in Canada for years now and which has never been seriously addressed other than having the occasional scandal where someone gets ousted from a political position.

This was the kind of stuff the old Reform Party used to talk about until they became the Conservative Party and appear to have changed their priorities.

I’m not saying that I agreed with the old Reform Party but I will say that they made some good points when criticizing the traditional political parties.

This is also the stuff that Michael Ignatieff has recently started talking about as well.

It’s probably a good thing for Ignatieff that he’s not leading the Liberal Party given the fact that the vast majority of corruption and abuse of power scandals that I am aware of, many of which were financial in nature, occurred when the Liberals were in power both Federally and Provincially.

Ignatieff is probably too ethical for the Liberals. They seem to prefer two-faced lying sleazeballs like Bob Rae (has anyone forgotten the hell he put Ontario through?)

Anyway, the Occupy movement has and is accomplishing one very important thing, amongst others:

The discussion of what is wrong and how it can be fixed is happening.

And that's what most of us want.

It’s a start.

We Are The Majority and We Have A Voice!

Watch live streaming video from occupytoronto at livestream.com

Bring Back Michael Ignatief and Dump Bob Rae! 

Occupy Toronto: Protest Government Corruption and Abuse of Power

Occupy Toronto: Declaration of the Occupy New York General Assembly

Note to the traditional media which is claiming that the Occupy Movement is only about "financial" corruption. As you can see below it isn't. It's about ALL corruption including the corruption the traditional media itself is infested with when they try to misrepresent and misdirect with misinformation, what is actually going on here.

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

Posted on September 30, 2011 by NYCGA

This document was accepted by the NYC General Assembly on september 29, 2011

Translations: French, Slovak, Spanish, German, Italian

---

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments.

We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

Occupy Toronto: A Pumps and Brogues Movement

“Our society is run by insane people for insane objectives. I think we're being run by maniacs for maniacal ends and I think I'm liable to be put away as insane for expressing that. That's what's insane about it.” – John Lennon, before his murder by Mark David Chapman 

Why do some people find these occupations so incomprehensible?

One person was asked in a media interview, “what are you protesting? what do you want?” His response was, “if you have to ask you’ve got to much money.”

This is partially true but doesn’t quite nail it. It’s also about the complete disconnect that some have about the world we live in.

Call it naivete or gullibility or sheer stupidity or willful and self-serving ignorance. It exists. It’s a fact. And anyone who doesn’t get the Occupy movement suffers from this disease.

I got it right away. No-one had to tell me that the Occupy movement is about having a true Democracy. That was the point of the Arab Spring. It was a Democracy movement. That is also the point of the North American Autumn.

And no, many of us aren’t buying the deceptive delusion, the snake oil, that we’re being sold by the big media, big government which represents big corporate interests, the wealthy, etc. that we have a democracy, that we have rights, that those rights are protected.

We don’t have any of things. We have them on paper. We don’t have them in reality. If we did, there would be no need for an Occupy movement to push the envelope for a true Democracy. One that doesn’t just exist on paper. One that exists for each and every ordinary Citizen in reality.

The Occupy movement includes but is not limited to:

1. the rights of the ordinary Citizen to have an effective say in our society.
2. the economic protection of the wealthy and the economic abuse of the rest of us through the misuse and abuse of the tax dollars of those ordinary Citizens whose voices have been silenced.
3. the rank moral bankruptcy and corruption that infests our governments, corporations, institutions, professional associations, etc. today.
4. impunity of big corporations and the wealthy from being held accountable for criminal acts when they commit them.
5. impunity of police, intelligence and other security agencies from being held accountable for enabling the rogue agents in their midst and their abuses of power, misappropriations of government funds, etc. by turning a blind eye to their abuses and criminal acts.
6. the rights of ordinary Citizens that are violated with impunity regularly and those who are paid by ordinary Citizens through our tax dollars refusal to protect us from those violations or provide us with what we need to protect ourselves or criminally collude in those violations of the rights of ordinary Citizens.
7. the silencing, marginalizing, smearing, harassing, malicious persecution, and other extreme and systematic abuses of ordinary Citizens who speak out against these criminal acts, this moral bankruptcy, abuse of power, etc. as well as innocent ordinary Citizens who are subjected to these abuses for no other reason than they can be.

Amongst other things ….

Just ask anyone who is there.

Most importantly, it's about giving the voiceless a voice which has an impact on our world.

I'm a Web and Software Developer and I'm unemployed. 

I'll be there in my Business Casual suit, office pumps and briefcase.

If I'm going to get arrested for peacefully protesting, that's the image I want the world to see.

Round Table # 1 with Julian Assange

We will not be censored.

Round Table # 1 with Julian Assange

WikiLeaks : The Truth Shall Set You Free

Wikileaks has done it again and this time amidst threats from various governments as well as massive DDOS attacks. 

Why is the truth so controversial?

We live in a world where our governments insist on secrecy under various rationales and justifications.

So, when we are faced with the truths of our governments actions, we are hungry for it. This is actually quite sad in democratic societies which bill themselves on their transparency and a media which claims to support the traditions of great journalists like Edward R. Murrows.

This illusion of democracy and an ethical media that we live under gets exposed when organizations like Wikileaks present us with the unvarnished truth.

And yet, how are we, the citizens supposed to shoulder our responsibility of ensuring that the state remain ethical and works in our best interests when we don't have the truth at our disposal?

This is the service that Wikileaks is providing to each and every one us and frankly, I don't see a downside to it.

Not for the citizen anyway.

I'm sure that those governments which may have engaged in unethical or illegal activities may have a problem with it. One usually does when one has something to hide.

Perhaps it's time that governments learned to trust the citizenry instead of treating us like a potential enemy?

We, are the people, after all. 

The ones that government is supposed to be acting in the service of. Not the other way around.

In my opinion, Wikileaks has adopted the best traditions of American journalism. Traditions that the modern media pay lip service to but in reality, abandoned a long time ago.

In this era of corruption at high levels, it's just what the Doctor ordered.

WikiLeaks : Cablegate

In Defense Of Richard Silverstein And Free Speech

The following was posted on a blog called Medawar's Cornflakes. I am reproducing it here for the same reasons that Medawar indicated that he posted it.

While I may or may not agree with everything Mr Silverstein says, he has the right to say it without being harassed and being the victim of malicious DOS attacks attempting to bring down his site and by doing so, suppress his Right To Free Speech.

Medawar's Cornflakes

The following is reproduced from Richard Silverstein's blog, "Tikun Olam" simply because it would appear to be the trigger for a sustained denial of service attack against his site. Reproduction shouldn't be taken as an endorsement of all of Mr Silverstein's views and actions (Lord knows: he might have done all sorts of bad stuff that Medawar doesn't know about.) But DOS attacks, particularly when it seems as if Israeli police computers may have been hacked or infected in order to launch it, are as threatening to modern society as piracy on the High Seas and Cash in Transit Robberies. Medawar hasn't reproduced any of the comments that were on the blog, because it is impossible to assume the commentator's permission and some of them were obscene.

The article was headed by a picture of an alleged Israeli torturer, which was obtained by Mr Silverstein in the pixellated condition you see below. A lot of the embedded links below seem to work now: presumably the URL information got copied across with them? Medawar is a bit surprised, but not complaining!

Identity of Former IDF Torturer Exposed, ‘Captain George’ is Doron Zahavi

Alleged Arab torturer Doron Zahavi aka 'Captain George' (Haaretz)

Yesterday, I reported here on a Haaretz story about the notorious “Captain George,” an IDF military intelligence interrogator accused in 2004 of sodomizing a Lebanese kidnap victim in order to secure information about the location of IDF officer, Ron Arad. Among the things I wrote was my complaint that Haaretz was protecting the real identity of George even though he no longer served in military intelligence.

With the help of a diligent Israeli researcher, I can now expose George’s real identity. He is Doron Zahavi, currently the Arab affairs liaison for the Jerusalem police. His job, as I noted yesterday, is to direct community relations and liaison efforts between the police and Jerusalem’s Arab residents.

In discussing the parameters of Zahavi’s job, a police spokesperson told Haaretz:

“The adviser must be an accepted and welcome figure in the Arab community, with excellent interpersonal skills – someone they feel they can trust, otherwise he cannot succeed in the job,” a senior police officer said.

ACRI complaint identifies Doron Zahavi by name

Apparently, Zahavi has performed his job so well he’s garnering rave reviews right and left from his Arab interlocutors. One, Jouad Siam, complained that in a February, 2010 interrogation, Zahavi threatened to destroy his home (Hebrew source) unless he disbanded a Silwan information center Siam had founded to counter the building efforts of settlers in his neigborhood. Here is how the ex-torturer now conducts himself. I’ll let you be the judge whether the leopard has changed his spots:

He [Zahavi] told us we were making problems and we had to close the center. I told him: “I thought we are in a democracy.” This raised the ire of ‘George,’ who said: “We Jews are fools. We treat you too well. I thought you would behave yourself.” ’George’ threatened that he would draw up a demolition order for his home if he refused to close the center.
According to Siam, “The entire conversation was conducted in shouts. He didn’t let me speak. He would ask and answer his own questions [without allowing Siam to respond]. At the end of the discussion, he told me to go home and behave myself.

Last February, the Association for Civil Right in Israel registered a formal complaint against Zahavi for his outburst. Among the claims listed was that Zahavi called Siam a “criminal” and said that the latter would be held responsible for everything that happened in Silwan. The interrogator asked about the source of Siam’s income and told him he would intervene with his boss. At the end of the meeting, Zahavi attempted to enlist Siam as an informant.

The police replied formally to the complaint claiming laughably that Zahavi had merely invited Siam to a “get to know you” meeting in which the police advisor sought to discover what issues particularly troubled the local Arab population. In the course of the meeting, Zahavi felt it necessary to inform his Arab interlocutor about activities in which he was engaged that violated the law. No mention in the police reply how founding an information center was a violation of law.

The publicly available ACRI complaint lists Zahavi’s real name. In that case, why would Haaretz not be able to use it? The whole situation baffles me. At any rate, thank God we’re not bound by any such nonsense and we offer the real Doron Zahavi to the world in all his glory. If a reader has a picture of Zahavi, please let me know.

Kathy Griffin and Freedom Of Speech

Click here if you wish to sign the petition to stop the censoring of Kathy Griffin's remarks for the 2007 Emmy Awards. It's pretty clear her intent was simply to inject a little humor into the proceedings.

Protect Free Speech On The Internet

A Blogger Needs Your Help !

www.blogsuit.org

Wayne Crookes Sues The Net:III

Crying Wolf ... the new definition of Anti-Semitism??

The term, Anti Semitism, carries with it a powerful negative connotation, and so it should.

It originated during the time of Nazi Germany and described the hatred generated by the fascists against the Jewish community, a hard working community which integrated into and made many positive contributions to the countries in which they lived, including Germany.

I think most people would agree with me when I say that the Holocaust and the crimes committed against the European Jews were horrific, and constituted crimes against all humanity as per the Nuremberg trials. This hatred was also extended to the Roma people, the homosexual community, and the disabled. Anyone who resisted this attitude and opposed this hatred was also condemned to the concentration camps.

When I was a young child, growing up in Vancouver, my father was incensed by the attitude of some people not to do business with Jewish people or to go to Jewish professionals and use their services. He made a point of doing the opposite and had a great deal of respect for the Jewish community.

Ever since I was old enough to understand the significance of World War II and the importance of the Nazi defeat at the time, I have worn a Poppy on November 11, Canada's Remembrance Day. I wore my first Poppy with great pride when I was 11 years old.

As a teenager, and in my early 20's, a time when right wing extremists were organizing in Canada, I was vocal against these extremists and their anti-semitism. Through out my life I've found fascism, fascists, and anti-semitism unacceptable and have stepped up to show my opposition and to defend the dignity and integrity of the Jewish community, as have many others in Canada, Jews and non-Jews alike.

So, I find it offensive in the extreme, when I hear the term misused by people (Jewish or not) with agendas, whose purpose is to manipulate the media, public opinion and/or smear the reputations of people they don't like, or don't agree with, whether those individuals are Jewish or not.

It is insulting to the memory of the millions of Jews whose lives were brutally taken during the Holocaust, and to the survivors of the Holocaust.

It is insulting to the memory of those who fought against fascism and in defense of the Jews around the world (including members of my family), during World War II, and to the surviving veterans of that war.

To those people, I would like to say the following:

1. Disagreeing with a position taken by Israel, or pro-Israeli special interest groups does not, in and of itself, constitute Anti-Semitism and it doesn't make someone a Terrorist. To say it does, is inflammatory, and, an obvious attempt to both muzzle free expression of opinion on the Middle East conflict and to intimidate those who would take a different position.
2. To use that difference of opinion to engage in abuse of power, violation of civil rights, and/or to launch smear campaigns to discredit and destroy the reputations of those people who do not support every single position Israel or the pro-Israeli special interest groups take is an offense to our democratic system and way of life.
3. Misusing the term in this way takes away from the real meaning of the term and it's serious connotations. It results in a Cry Wolf scenario and after a while will not be taken seriously by anyone.

The generally accepted definition of Anti-Semitism provided by Wikipedia is:
"Anti-Semitism (alternatively spelled antisemitism) is hostility towards or prejudice against Jews (not, in common usage, Semites in general ... . This happens on an individual level and goes on to the institutionalized prejudice and persecution once prevalent in European societies, of which the highly explicit ideology of Adolf Hitler's National Socialism was the most extreme form."

Their in depth explanation can be found here: Wikipedia on Anti-Semitism

Redefining terms to further your own agenda doesn't change history or reality.

So, for example, supporting the 2006 G-8 Resolution as most of the leadership candidates did in the last Liberal leadership convention does not constitute Anti-Semitism despite the charges of Anti-Semitism and in my opinion, general smear campaign that went on during that convention. Michael Ignatieff's point, in his speech to the convention, was, the job of the Leader of the Liberal Party and possible future Prime Minister, was to represent the interests of all Canadians, not just those of special interest groups.

Taking the position that it's wrong for Israel to bomb the Palestinian infrastructure, killing innocent civilians is no more Anti-Semitic or Terrorist than taking the position that it's wrong for Hamas to send Suicide Bombers to Israel to kill innocent civilians.

Suspending students like Daniel Freeman-Maloy who are critical of Israel by charging him with some other offense, and putting Professors like David Noble in a position where they feel they have to sue for libel because they criticized the Administration for their Pro-Israeli positions, as was done at York University, is, in my opinion, a violation of the most basic Academic freedoms that we expect our Universities to uphold in the Democratic world.

Personally, I don't consider myself pro-Palestinian or pro-Israeli.

I consider myself Anti-Terrorist and always have.

The generally accepted definition of Terrorist is:
" One who utilizes the systematic use of violence and intimidation to achieve political objectives, while disguised as a civilian non-combatant. The use of a civilian disguise while on operations exempts the perpetrator from protection under the Geneva Conventions, and consequently if captured they are liable for prosecution as common criminals." www.aeroflight.co.uk/definitions.htm

And frankly, I don't care what their religious, political or other affiliation is, since Terrorists exist as extremist elements in all affiliations.

Wikipedia's Detailed Definition of Terrorism

Exploring ideologies and philosophies are a key component of campus life as is freedom of speech and the right to protest. In fact, they are key components of life.

Redefining the term Anti-Semitic to mean anyone who disagrees with any Israeli policy or the policies of pro-Israeli special interest groups, and, redefining the term Terrorist to mean anyone who disagrees with the status quo sets very dangerous precedents and is fundamentally anti-democratic because there is no recognition of legitimate dissent, and other fundamental democratic concepts.

In my opinion, it's an attempt to bully the media, public opinion, and individuals into taking a certain position and intimidating any opposition to that position.

Here's a concept ... how about just agreeing to disagree?

After all, that's what Democracy is all about!

Freedom Of Speech And The Internet

When will people stop trying to place ridiculous restrictions on the Internet!

I've heard all the "justifications" and not a single one comes close to justifying the type of draconian restrictions that some would like to see.

The latest attempt is coming out of Canada.

Lawsuits have been filed by a student and professor at York University against the outgoing York University President, Lorna Marsden and others, claiming libel, defamation of character, etc. Now I'm not going to go into the very interesting details of these lawsuits right now, I'll do that in another post.

The point here is the legal issues raised in relation to the Internet.

In response to these lawsuits, a motion was filed by those being sued, to strike down one of the claims (claim of libel) because the press release in question was issued on the Internet and therefore, according to the lawyers, should fall under Broadcast libel law and not Personal libel law. In terms of this particular case it means that the claim of libel would have to be thrown out because it was filed after the 6 week time limit allowed to file under the Broadcast libel law instead of the 2 years allowed under Personal libel law.

I'm not a lawyer, but apparently, the legal significance of this in Canada, is also that, if the Internet is considered a Broadcast medium then it comes under Canada's very restrictive Broadcast regulations which regulate everything from access to content!

So, if a judge were to allow this motion, the implications to all Canadians would be huge and would fundamentally change the way that we are legally able to interact with and on the Internet.

According to the experts, legal precedents have been set in the past to dispute this interpretation of the law, and WIPO, a treaty which Canada is a signatory to, very specifically disputes this interpretation.

So ... I'm not sure what the basis is for filing this motion, and why the lawyers think they might have a hope of succeeding???

What could they possibly have to gain?

Hmmm ... I guess we'll have to keep an eye on this one ...