Activists confront controversial educator

"expect susan to remove this too" If there's no rhyme nor reason for deletions, then perhaps there's no point in taking the effort to post. But hey, the sound of crickets chirping is rather pleasing don't you think? Dio, all I can say is that we're fortunate that the Internet cannot yet be fully silenced, and if they ever find a way to kill it off, I'll still be able to tell plenty of stories into my old age. They cannot erase our minds, and word of mouth remains as our fall back.

Fear is a big motovator to those with political Aspirations

<img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/frown.gif' alt='Frown'> Well since I posted to the original submission, I might chirp in here as well. I'm left to wonder If I'm now dubbed a racist for commenting on the highhanded approach of the thought police. On the Subject of critical thinking, why bother thinking for yourself when the truth might be sanctioned or defined by the CJC or the MSM, or the the Tory chairperson at the SPP hearing in Ottawa. Why bother, just wait to be told by whichever truth mafia owns the block you wish to think in. I read the Globe and Mail article and it was all about Fromm's character and little about the incident which is what is paramount to the story. It does not make clear that the police were in the elevator, or explain why the incident led to the demonstrators being arrested and while Fromm was not. The obvious conclusion, is that in THIS case he could hardly be at fault for being assaulted. And yet he is the perpetrator and the assaulters are victims. I suppose his skirt was too short, and he did ask for it. Apparently if a person is "repugnant" enough then assault is justified and doesn't even require an accounting for. Torture to Afghani prisoners, well who cares really, I have it on good MSM authority that they are all Murderous Scumbags. I can sleep easily. That the CJC response and the article both dwell strictly on Fromms character and not the assault at hand, is sad. I don't care who Fromm is, repugnant or not, it's the politics and the subversion of the truth that stands out as the issue for me. Good luck in stemming the tide of the NAU. The forces keeping the truth under wraps and presenting a misleading or conveniently incomplete version of the truth on the SPP use the same tactics. I particularly liked (not) the bit in the Globe and Mail article about the demonstrators not being intimidated by the incident. One of the things that attracted me to Vive was the pursuit of truth and people not too afraid to sift the sand in the box and examine the bumps. To be allowed to name the lump for yourself, is a little bit different than being told you can't even dig in the box and you must accept it on faith that the lumps are undesirable. Respectfully, I don't own this sandbox, I dig in, but nevertheless, this is a disappointment.

How about slowing down and taking a breath. First, go reread the criticisms from the CJC. They are all perfectly valid. The original story, although I only read it once, did contain all those innuendoes. Saying the media ignored a story is easily countered by "by the way, here's a Globe and Mail story". The original story contained all kinds of information, and most weren't substanciated. There is nothing wrong with posting and linking the Globe and Mail article, and I can't see why it would be deleted, so making the extra conspiratorial claim that the Globe and Mail WOULD be 'censured' is a bit much. If the above poster had wanted to make a point, then simply stating what the Globe and Mail did would be enough. The angle of that story, I believe, is that the 'activists' were with the Jewish Defense League? I think that was the case but I'm not sure. Or perhaps they were simply acting alone, I'm not sure. This is not one of those websites that just goes along with the 'pro Israel' lobby. However, there does have to be a measure of credibility. For many, the 'truth' is simply bizarre, and when people don't buy into the bizarre they are being small minded toadies. There is plenty to criticize Israel about, and there are even many ideas from the Canadian Jewish Congress that are easily criticized. But do it competently, and there is no problem. As stated, if you simply want to make up stuff, get a blog.

“How about slowing down and taking a breath. as we are being politically correct and being scrutinized by the thought police I suggest , and as strongly as is civil that my breath was taken away with the removal of the thread. The CJC could have entered into debate. They did not. Rather, they dictated editorial policy! The significant fact that that escapes the insulting innuendo that my , and the other poste3rs minds are unable to follow from the threat laid out by Action-Jackson was acted upon and now the CJC uses pressure to stifle thought is far more repugnant to me that you have the capacity to imagine! The court of public opinion was sealed shut to any discourse. PERIOD Now My Friend, until you realize this point and slow down and take *several deep breaths* yourself before you go off half cocked again. I will assume for the moment you are capable of that, ok?. Good! Now return to the critical thinking sites and study them until you can spot flaws in logic in a way you now lack. I am far more familiar with trial law than you have given me credit for, and as such I easily identify the linguistic twists and turns tricksters use, and that is why I offered for acceptance http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/ ... 4#comments What is repugnant and rightly so, is the halting of discourse. London has I believe in Hyde Park, Speakers Corner A tradition that the pc police have trampled The old me, knowing this still would have turned the air blue with anything other than reason,. The CJC, Jewish Defense League, Israel are not of one mind, They all may be Jews, but I assure you they are not of one mind, see the following examples as illustration. http://www.white-nationalist.info/primer/index.php?option=com_wrapper&Itemid=27 http://liberty.hypermart.net/cgi-bin/blogs/voices.php/2006/08/04/talmudic_council_in_war_time_even_enemy “Canadian Jewish Congress that are easily criticized. But do it competently, and there is no problem. As stated, if you simply want to make up stuff, get a blog” Sanctimonious asshole, comes to mind , however that would be rude of me to put on you so I will drop the latter word and restate my position Having posted the lead to the thread I will tell you this That what eve the action of the teacher chap were or were not those who were charged by the police perpetrated a chargeable offence: they took the law into their own hands. Period. <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/razz.gif' alt='Razz'>

"How about slowing down and taking a breath." Ahhhh ... yes ... now that felt better! Thanks for that suggestion. "First, go reread the criticisms from the CJC. They are all perfectly valid." Don't you find it despicable that I can reread the comments made by that CJC hack, but unless I dig up the Google cache I cannot reread the perfectly valid comments concerning the article that was deleted? "The original story, although I only read it once, did contain all those innuendoes." So why was the article removed? We see stories posted in here full of inaccuracies and deception all the time, and posted *for* the purpose of ripping it to shreds! If the "mum" article is to be deleted because it contained inaccuracies, then at least half of everything posted in here should also be deleted! Are you blind to what is going on with this deletion? "Saying the media ignored a story is easily countered by 'by the way, here's a Globe and Mail story'." Now can you show me another? I know one posting that you can't show is the Vive thread that was deleted. The lies and hypocrisy is staggering. The original thread now only exists in a Google cache, which one day will also be mindlessly deleted. "The original story contained all kinds of information, and most weren't substanciated." Again, so what? The entire point of debate is to make a good case or rip a bad one apart. There was *no* justification for a deletion, and the CJC could have posted their rebuttal just like anyone else. I still cannot see *any* justification for the deletion. "There is nothing wrong with posting and linking the Globe and Mail article, and I can't see why it would be deleted, so making the extra conspiratorial claim that the Globe and Mail WOULD be 'censured' is a bit much." Well if I were the CJC I'm 100% certain that I could come up with at least 101 reasons why the G&M article should also be deleted, or left in place, or modified, or whatever claim I wanted to make. For example, the article allows Mr. Fromm to make his case heard, and that is just unacceptable. "But do it competently, and there is no problem." So incompetent people must shut up or face what exactly? Think long and hard about what you are suggesting with that.

I can go reread the CJC comments, but it changes little about the censorship employed in this instance. Action-Jackson ordered Vive to remove the article on the grounds it was favorable to Fromm, then refused to dabate and then said OK let's see what the CJC has to say about this. He obviously contacted the CJC who did who knows what, and the article along with the comments made were censored off this site. It would have been more honest to debate and shred the article, than to just censor them out of existence. Action-Jackson had no need to counter anything in that thread, all he had to do was call in the thought police. Might determined truth by default, in this case, I don't see how that can be missed. If Vive's readers can't be trusted to safely think their way around an article that isn't preaching that the Holocaust didn't happen or violence againt Jewish people than we might as well not bother with any of the subject material in these threads. The MSM sources that count as factual sources up for discussion on this site are far from being pristine in the truth category, and the damage resulting from acceptance of their truth is measurable. These no-fly zones of thought and expression are a bootheel on a free and democratic society IMHO if I might be allowed to say so. Maybe we should all get blogs and leave the big brokers to define a factual reality that will surely be superior to our own intellect.

That is exactly what 'hate speech' is all about. Can I come on this board and say call blacks ******* and state that they are part of a secret organization to take over the world? As for 'censurship', that argument is moot. Here the conversation is continuing and we know more about the initial post than when it was posted and nobody paid any attention to it. The Globe and Mail article has been discussed at length and I don't see the CJC here making any claims at all. The original article was unsubstantiated, thats the point. You can't go around making up stuff about people and groups and state it as fact. That's it, that's all. Here we are talking about it at length...where's the censorship? In fact, if you want, go over to the CJC website and get some of their numerous articles and start posting here why they are crap. Go ahead, they won't be censured, UNLESS you go around making up stuff. Call me names if you want, that explains more about your dedication to free speech than any other comments, but the fact is that if any group represents a minority that gets maligned by made up innuendo then they are right to be concerned. If censorship is the issue, then post specifically about whatever this guys name is, just don't make up crap. We had VERY extensive debates on Ernst Zundel as well, and we never heard a peep from the CJC or any other jewish organization and nothing was censored, so again, take a breath and look at what you are saying. If the idea is so hateful that a jewish organization tells a site owner why some posts are unfounded, and they shouldn't malign a minority with unsubstanciated claims, then too bad. That's a case where people really have to be in a minority position to understand it. Should Susan let the comments section become a vehicle for neo-nazi claims all the way down in the forum and then say "well, jews are free to prove they AREN"T taking over the world". That is absurd. And its easy to say that when its not your ass that would end up getting sued and tarred as a website for the heritage front. Again, the issue is being debated here freely, and none have been deleted. The author perhaps may not want to admit they stepped over the line, that's their business, again, they can get a blog to do that. The absurdity of the claim is clear when the Globe and Mail article is pointed out and then the rebuttal is "yeah, but name another". Again, the article could have been posted even about the MSM covering this up or minimizing it and it would have been posted, this site LOVES pot shotting at the main stream media. In fact, go look at the Asper publications and count how many of the CJC articles get printed there. Of course don't be surprised, I can still remember a media roundtable discussion from several years ago where a world renowned native filmmaker was discussing how hard it was to get native stories in the press and a crowd member said something to the effect of "I don't see what the problem was, whenever our minority has a problem we simply go see the editorial board to address our issues". The man was jewish and the native speaker just couldn't get it across to him that they have quite a bit more clout than native minority lobby groups. Even THAT statement may raise eyebrows and I respect that, it is an un-annotated footnote that can't be proven without going back several years and finding the show on TVO, and I accept that. It is fairly moderate, claiming only that jewish lobbies have more clout with editors than native groups, which isn't surprising considering one of the largest media is owned by a jewish family. So I suspect they would let that slide, but if not, then I can understand it. So start your own website if you want to promote your own version of free speech. There are rightfully limits on free speech. I can't come on here and start posting and looking for others and making plans to violently overthrow the state either. And I can't go around slandering minority groups or individuals. None of this stuff has been deleted, so the conspiratorial tones are unnecessary. The site owners COULD have simply pulled it without a word.

Thus far Marcarc your argument is hollow and results in the stock in trade bleat “As stated, if you simply want to make up stuff, get a blog.” Is as silly as the hands on hips chin thrusts out twaddle that comes from minds not capable of original thought, you know the kind I mean, the “Well if you don’t like it, Bugger off!” variety. A Google on the topic will return the following http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&rls= ... ck&spell=1 Results 1 – 10 of about 94,700 for Mainstream Mum on Jewish Terror Attack. (0.15 seconds) The first of which will carefully explain and using its own bias, ”noted free-speech activist” was physically assaulted by members of the Jewish Defence League. The assault is fact, Bro, it ain’t made up. It is ignored, however, in your scattered-thought rebuttal. Paul Fromm, a noted free-speech activist in Canada, was physically assaulted by members of the Jewish Defense League By Mark Glenn Paul Fromm, a noted free-speech activist in Canada, was physically assaulted by members of the Jewish Defense League, a group classified by the U.S. government as one of the most dangerous terrorist organizations operating on U.S. soil. Fromm spoke with AFP from his home in Toronto about the event. http://www.tkb.org/Group.jsp?groupID=183 The Jewish Defense League began as a vigilante group in New York City, committed to protecting the orthodox Jewish population throughout the city and particularly in Brooklyn. Within a year of the JDL’s founding, the group moved beyond mere “protection” and initiated aggressive terrorist actions. That you would give credence to any organisation backing a known criminal gang of thugs speaks volumes of your character.

FYI Current Goals: The Jewish Defense League was dealt a significant blow in 1987 upon the conviction of several group members. Today, JDL is not actively engaged in terrorist actions. Two JDL members, however, were arrested in 2001 for their plot to bomb the office of a Lebanese-American Congressman from Orange County California and a mosque in Culver City California. Former JDL leader Irving Rubin committed suicide in prison while awaiting trial and West Coast Coordinator Earl Krugel pleaded guilty to the plot in 2003. In September 2005, Krugel was sentenced to 20 years in jail for his role in the plot. Two months later he was killed in prison by unknown assailants.

The argument was not 'get your own blog', that was simply a recommendation. LIke I said, there are many too lazy to do their own blog and go around at other sites wanting to say whatever they want while site owners pay the consequences. I notice NONE of my actual 'arguments' are even discussed above. It's of course your right to use your free speech, within reason, to gripe about this website's editorial policies, likewise its my right to tell you to stop complaining about a badly written, slanderous story being pulled. Nobody ever said all jewish organizations are 'clean' and like I said, feel free to post the actual story. This site often comes down hard on jewish lobbies, and like I said, you can even go to the CJC and comment on many of their letters. The POINTS of the story are perfectly valid, it is the other points that are at question. We have proof of that, because now we have seen lots of comments about the Jewish Defense League and this issue. That PROVES that the censorship was based on the slander, and not on the content. So just stick to the facts. There is no such thing as 'free speech', and there is a reason there isn't. The mark of an open society-and an open website, is that you can continually comment and post on this issue all the while bemoaning that there is no free speech.

"I notice NONE of my actual 'arguments' are even discussed above." Mosy austute of you, you see My Dear friend they were and are of no consequence, Moot is the word you are familiar with, is it not? has the fact that the thread been deleted tottally escaped you? that is the censorship yopu demand facts then skirt them SWEET this discussion is continuing BECAUSE the orginal article was spiked! that, in case you missed it is a fact If you are unable to separate (pun intended)in a chain of events what HAS occurred then you powers of observation are as weak as that which you call arguement <img align=absmiddle src='images/smilies/lol.gif' alt='Laughing Out Loud'>

Just in case anyone in here missed it, have a look at this posting, it is somewhat related because it points out the hypocrisy surrounding censorship and so-called "hate laws" in this country, as well as in others. <a href="http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070518010116361">Were Muslim radicals right?</a> Ultimately the article that was deleted was far less inaccurate than many articles that have survived deletion here at Vive, and I suspect that the real reason it was deleted had to do with the subject alone and the resulting implied threat of legal action (however baseless) against the owner(s) of Vive by the CJC. Some of us (notably Diogenes) predicted what was likely to happen after Action-Jackson made threats that he was going to complain to the CJC. The surviving Google cache posting serves as a record of the events. <a href="http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:huGp99XuLQwJ:www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20070502100719561+vive+Mainstream+Mum+on+Jewish+Terror+Attack&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=ca">Here's the link</a> and ban me if you will for posting it, I don't care because if I cannot talk about a perfectly valid subject then I won't be posting in here again anyway. As the Google cache shows, *NO ONE* promoted or even agreed with the views of Paul Fromm (outside of the fact that he was assaulted). In fact, almost the entire discussion was about Action-Jackson's disruptive and off topic threats. The hypocrisy of the final word on the matter made by Susan is what I'm so upset about. At the very least, and if my suspicions are correct, she should have stated the real reason for imposing the deletion rather than making up excuses that did nothing but play into the hands of the CJC. I would have respected her decision for honesty sake alone, and then we could have continued on with what we're talking about right now, which is the systemic repression of perfectly valid speech in this country. Of course I could be wrong about the reason why Susan did the deletion, however unless she starts applying "the rules" with equality in here, then what am I to think?

"Of course I could be wrong about the reason why Susan did the deletion, however unless she starts applying "the rules" with equality in here, then what am I to think?" Applying the rule equally is bth indeed and in deed the crux. When one invokes "law" to support their position because it is coveient to do so and from the on act out whim and shuts off discussion they loose credability. My best guess is that an un-broken pattern is now established. 'It's my site and i will run it as i choose' only stiffles discourse. See if y'all can detect the emotionaly charged language Dio offered an article for disscusion. Dio showed his obvious racist and anti Semetic view right on schedule,