Talk:Freedom Party of Ontario/Archive 1

Archive 1

Some of this read as though it came from a Freedom Party newsletter, so I have edited out soem of the political content, in line with Wikipedia's policy of being objective and dispassionate. - Kevintoronto

Reason for split?

This doesn't necessarily belong in the article (although feel free to add it if you think it does), but can anyone tell me why the Unparty/Freedom Party split from the Libertarian Party? Mostly just curious... --Daniel11 21:42, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I seem to recall the split occurred because one group wanted the party to issue tax receipts so that donors could claim tax credits for donations to the party, while the other group was philosophically opposed to accepting any governemnt assistance, even indirectly. but I am not sure enough about this to put it in the article, nor do I remember which group was on which side of the issue. Kevintoronto 00:19, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Hm, interesting..thanks. I suppose it's somewhat curious how the reason for the split's not made clear in any obvious place. Also, FWIW, I had kind of expected it to be over some difference of opinion on policy, like the degree to which they wanted small government or how they felt about the coalition invasion of Iraq, etc., rather than over some organizational issue (although I guess you could call the tax credits thing a policy question)... --Daniel11 01:24, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

P.S. BTW, wouldn't they be accepting private money, and in fact taking it away from the government, rather than accepting government (i.e. taxpayer) assistance?

False Insinuations on Wikipedia entry for Freedom Party of Ontario

It has come to my attention that Wikipedia has permitted a defamatory statement to be made in the last line of the Wikipedia entry for Freedom Party of Ontario. The entry having been removed, it was re-inserted by someone at Wikipedia going by the handle CJCurrie. According to [speculation on editor's name removed], the information is gleaned from a post that some person made to a racist web site. The post makes reference to "Freedom Party" and, on that basis apparently, [speculation on editor's name removed] (or CJCurrie) has seen fit to imply that Freedom Party of Ontario supports anti-semitism, or the racism of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel. In his comments concerning the allegation, AndyL says "Don't know if these were just individual Freedom Party members or if the party officially endorsed the demonstration." AndyL has never bothered to call Freedom Party of Ontario (1-800-830-3301) to find out. Had he done so, he would have been told, truthfully, that FpO did not and would not endorse any such demonstration, and that the party has no knowledge that any of its members attended the alleged demonstration.

The allegation is wholly defamatory and, to my knowledge, false. It would appear clearly to have been inserted as an intentional defamation concerning a political party and its members.

Even were the comment true - which is denied - what a member of an organization might do with his or her own time has no place in an Encyclopedia entry about the organization (as an example: that a member of, say, the Green Party has cheated on his or her taxes has absolutely nothing to do with whether the Green Party advocates cheating on taxes). It does not speak well of Wikipedia to allow such a statement to remain on its entry for the Freedom Party of Ontario. It speaks even less well of those who re-insert the defamatory statement after it is removed.

The Freedom Party of Ontario, has never supported or directed any of its members or officials to support or attend a rally concerning Ernst Zundel. The anti-semitic race hatred preached by Zundel and his supporters is entirely antithetical to the objectivist philosophy from which Freedom Party of Ontario takes its political queue. Moreover, Freedom Party, the organization, has no knowledge that any of its members has ever attended a rally in support of Ernst Zundel.

I have written to the only e-mail address that Wikipedia seems to make available for feedback (jwales@wikia.com) and asked that Wikipedia take immediate steps to prevent the re-introduction of such libelous remarks concerning Freedom Party of Ontario, Freedom Party of Canada, or Freedom Party International, which are associated organizations sharing a philosophy of individual freedom and personal responsibility, all of which find racism repugnant.

[speculation on editor's name removed], and any individual who has read the defamatory remark, is encouraged to call my office, any time, to discuss my views on racism and anti-semitism and to do what [speculation on editor's name removed] clearly did not do before posting a disgusting insinuation concerning Freedom Party: determine whether the allegation made on the racist web site is false. If [speculation on editor's name removed] does not call, and if the remark remains in the Freedom Party of Ontario entry, I will have to assume that the defamatory remark is made maliciously, rather than out of ignorance.

Paul McKeever Leader, Freedom Party of Ontario Tel: 905-721-9772

Paul, I have added a citation to the passage in question. It now reads:

"According to a media release by Paul Fromm, in June 2003 members of the Freedom Party participated in a demonstration in support of Holocaust denier Ernst Zündel." and a link is provided to Fromm's press release as posted on the Zundelsite[1]

Fromm's press release reads, in part: "The demonstration, organized by the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Canada's leading free speech advocacy group, drew supporters from other groups around Southern Ontario. Representatives were present from the Canadian Heritage Alliance, the Northern Alliance, the Nationalist Party, HF Niagara and the Freedom Party."

I'm sorry Paul but the sentence you object to in the wikipedia article is factual so you have no grounds for a complaint against wikipedia let alone one of "defamation". If you have a problem, I suggest you take it up with Mr. Fromm who saw fit to mention the participation at his rally of Freedom Party "representatives". Indeed, since our article refers only to "members" and not to the word used by Fromm, "representatives" (which implies official sanction by your party), I think you should thank us for giving you a break. AndyL 19:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

From Paul McKeever: Andy: please do give me a call, collect: 905-721-9772. I don't know much about Paul Fromm, but if he is making statements that suggest Fp Ontario is anti-semitic or otherwise racist, he is, indeed, defaming the party.

It is quite true that Fp Ontario is a steadfast defender of freedom of speech. It is equally true that Fp's philosophy is one that eschews discrimination on the basis of genetic make-up or peaceful lifestyle choices. Freedom Party opposes, as examples, discrimination on the basis of race, sex, religion, sexual-orientation, etc.. Most who understand Fp Ontario would probably categorize the party as "socially progressive", "socially tolerant", or "socially liberal".

To Mr. McKeever:

I have expanded the section of this article which concerns allegations of Freedom Party involvement with the activities of far-right groups. I have attempted to present a balanced view of the subject in so doing, noting that the FPO leadership has repeatedly denied accusations of ideological sympathy with racist and fascistic organizations. If I have unwittingly allowed erroneous information to creep into this article, I trust that you will so inform me. CJCurrie 21:10, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

From Paul McKeever: Note to CJCurrie: Thank-you. That said, I think it is a bit of an overstatement to say that we have "consistently denied" such allegations because, in truth, few people have ever made allegations of racism about FpO. Consider that, among those who serve as the most influential political inspirations to FpO's executive, membership, and policies are such brilliant intellects as "Atlas Shrugged" author Ayn Rand (a woman of Jewish descent), "God of the Machine" author Isabel Patterson (native Canadian woman hailing from Manitoulin Island), econonimist Ludwig von Mises (an Austrian man of Jewish descent), economist Milton Friedman (an American of Jewish descent), and economist Walter Williams (an American of African descent). As with [speculation on editor's name removed], I would encourage you to call me, collect, at 905-721-9772 to ask whatever questions you may feel must be asked to get a clear picture about FpO's nature.

My impression, based upon what you and [speculation on editor's name removed] have written, is that racist elements in Canada have attempted to gain some sort of political legitimacy at Fp Ontario's expense. This is hardly surprising: racists and other extremists have been known to attempt to hijack political parties while they are still small and growing, in the hope that their infiltrations will gain them a political foothold. Knowing about such tactics, Freedom Party of Ontario purposely adopted a constitution in 2002 that makes it virtually impossible for such hate mongers and crack-pots ever to influence party policy.

Finally: Wikipedia pages on other parties (e.g., Ontario's PCs, the federal Conservative Party of Canada) are not subjected to extended "Controversy" sections about nutbars and hate-mongers who seek political legitimacy by claiming to have some sort of assocation with a political party. At a time when some "mainstream" Canadian political parties, having MPPs or MPs in their legislatures, are quite open about their intolerance, I would hope that Freedom Party (which is openly tolerant...see my comments in the Fp Canada 2008 election platform) be shown the courtesy of not being slagged on Wikipedia by a "controversy" section. Mr. Currie: again, please give me a call, collect: 905-721-9772.

• Mr. McKeever,

• First, thank you for the polite tone of your response. That said, I cannot agree with your assessment of my recent edits, nor with your decision to remove information from the main page.

• The situations I've described under the "Controversy" sub-heading are not instances of "infiltration". The term "infiltration" implies that members of far-right groups have attempted to join and/or co-opt the Freedom Party for their own ends. This is not what I've described. Instead, I've covered situations where prominent FPO figures have been accused of defending or condoning the activities of far-right groups. This information is entirely relevant to a discussion of the party, and should remain within the article.

• Concerning specifics:

• (i) The "Northern Alliance" controversy involves Lloyd Walker and Robert Metz, both former party leaders. I know there was a "shakeup" in the party when you took over as leader, and I don't know if Walker is still involved now. I think that Metz is still party president. One way or the other, though, these men are/were extremely prominent figures in the party, not marginal voices or entrists.

• (ii) The "straight pride" situation involves Paul Blair, who was a party candidate in 2003 and (to my knowledge) is still on the executive. His quote comes from a published and verifiable source. Again: a prominent figure in the party.

• (iii) The "Voice of Canadians" situation involves Vaughan Byrnes, who was also a party candidate in 2003. I've seen one web-source claiming that "Voice of Canadians" folded into the Freedom Party a few years ago, though I have no independent confirmation of this. I'm not certain Byrnes is "prominent", but he's certainly a party regular, not an opportunistic joiner.

• Concerning relevance and fairness:

• A number of web-based sources have accused the Freedom Party and its leadership of condoning intolerant behaviour. I'm sure you've read many of these comments (in fact, I think I saw you respond to one such accusation on a discussion board a few years ago). There are likely many web users in Ontario who are dimly aware of the Freedom Party, and who might have a vague idea about these accusations.

• As this controversy is already in the public domain, it makes sense to describe both sides on this page -- and give readers the information they need to draw their own conclusions.

• Other political parties have also been accused of complicity with extremist groups. I'm not certain if anyone has mentioned the early far-right entrists on the Reform Party of Canada page, however, but it would be relevant to the discussion if so (provided, of course, that the response of party officials is mentioned). The same goes for Social Credit and anti-Semitism. I don't see the Freedom Party being "singled out" on this front.

• Note that you can always modify the "Controversy" section, if you think it's unfair to the party as it stands.

• Concerning your invitation:

• Thank you for the offer of a call, but I don't think it would be necessary. I'm already quite familiar with the Freedom Party's policies and history. Anyway, I prefer e-mail for discussion. CJCurrie 18:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr. McKeever, I don't see how FP candidates in general elections, former FP leaders and members of the FP executive can be honestly or accurately described as "infiltrators". AndyL 17:13, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Saying it's OK to repeat a defamation because someone else already made the same defamation is no defence at all. If it was, I could go around denying the Holocaust because david Irving says it didn't happen. This is typical of the sleazy "scholarship" of Wikipedia. It's also why someday Wikipedia is going to get its ass sued off. 209.217.66.206 14:12, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

It isnt defamatory if its true. Homey 16:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I have to agree with Homey on this. If it's verified and cited, then leave it be. Ardenn 00:52, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a sopabox or propaganda machine. We report accurate information, not just what you want others to see. Ardenn 00:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

For my part, I'm not entirely certain what the anon is complaining about. CJCurrie 01:49, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

NPOV Dispute

Flagged for NPOV! --John Galt 14:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

This isn't a game of tag. You have to actually specify the specific passages that are factually incorrect and the specific ones that are NPOV. HOTR 14:48, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Flagged by section now. Better?--John Galt 14:54, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

No. You actually have to *discuss* your objections here on the talk page, explain why you think something is factually incorrect or POV. HOTR 14:56, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Read over what was posted by Mr. McKeever. That, is my entire objection to the NPOV. From what I know as well as what McKeever knows, the "facts" within the Controversies and Free Speech Controversies section are false. Allegations at best against the FPO using Wikipedia.--John Galt 15:00, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

You don't have any of your own opinions? You're just parroting what someone else says, someone who wasn't able to answer the questions asked of him and wasn't able to disprove any of the factual claims made.

Try thinking for yourself. Be a leader, not a follower. Ok?

What are *your* specific objections? What, specifically, do you find factually incorrect? Which claim is wrong?HOTR 15:05, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

What changes to wording are you suggesting? What, specifically, is the information you say is not factual and should be removed and what is your evidence that it is not factual?HOTR 15:45, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• I should inform "Who is John Galt2?" that Paul McKeever has already "vetted" some of the information in the disputed section, insofar as he's contextualized a few sentences (most notably, why the FPO opposed Zundel's conviction). He also has a standing invitation from me to modify the "controversy" section, if he thinks that it's unfair in its current form.

• I won't object if the FPO want to change something they find unfair, but I'm not going to allow section blanking or an NPOV notice without good grounds.

• Btw, I'm guessing "Who is John Galt2" is former FPO leader Jack Plant. CJCurrie 20:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

• Hate to disappoint you, but here's the thing... I'm not. Now doesn't that just suck for you conspiracy theory. Secondly, read the NPOV page. It needs to be, hmm, neutral? However, since I can't put an NPOV flag up and have it stand for longer than 5 minutes, maybe I'll just put up a content dispute warning. Since there obviously is one, I don't believe THAT can be taken down. --John Galt 00:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• • Just to clarify: your first posts in this thread reminded me of Jack Plant's writing style. Knowing that you aren't him doesn't change anything else. CJCurrie 19:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Furthermore, I believe it is only fair to those who use Wikipedia know that those two sections are in dispute, which they quite obviously are. I think the flags should remain until we reach an agreement. --John Galt 01:06, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

To be fair you have to actually cite an example of a wrong fact or biased sentence and suggest an alternative. You've yet to do that. HOTR 01:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Why really, do these controversies, which have nothing to do with the party but possibly one or two members, need to be posted? If a member of the NDP went off and shot someone you'd not post. "And members of the NDP are known to go and shoot people" in a section. It has NOTHING to do with the party itself, just the alleged actions of members. If a member of the KKK joined the NDP would you say they harbour racists? The point is, I'm reflagging and suggestiong the section is left out entirely.--John Galt 17:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• • This already has been covered, but to summarize: (i) the controversies in question involve *leaders* of the Freedom Party and official Freedom Party documents, not just ordinary members or sympathizers, (ii) said controversies have already been discussed in various forums (online and offline), and are thus in the public domain and should be included in this article, (iii) all of the points raised in the "controversies" sections are verifiable, and can be verified without difficulty, (iv) anyone who objects to the specific content of the article has the right to change it.
  • I'm willing to allow the NPOV notice to remain up for a week, but will take it down after this time unless more substantive criticisms are raised. CJCurrie 19:44, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Also, give your head a shake. Read the NPOV guidelines. This is obviously biased against the party and meant to deter members. If you can't see that, you MUST be blind.--John Galt 17:54, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• To repeat myself again: I have no problem with FPO members changing the wording of this section, if they find it objectionable (or if they have other information which would present these controversies in a different light). I've already said that I'd be interested to hear Paul Blair's side of the story vis-a-vis the "Straight Pride" event (though, as it stands, the current edit is an accurate description of the matter). Similarly, if anyone can provide an example of a prominent Freedom Party member handing out party cards at a gay pride parade, or a pro-multiculturalism event, I would not object to said information being included here as "balance". And so forth, etc.
• I *do* object to attempts by certain posters to delete the section entirely. These controversies are *already in the public domain*, and deserve to be referenced in this article. CJCurrie 22:27, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

If leaders of the NDP went off and shot people, I would say that it would be fair comemnt to mention this in the NDP article. If a member of the KKK joined the NDP and took a leadership position or was a nominated candidate of the party, I would say that it harbours racists. I think that CJCurrie is being very generous in leaving the POV tag up for a week. There's not much tempest in this teapot. Ground Zero 19:51, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Since this has come up before, it probably makes sense to cast the waters for other objections before moving on. (I should clarify that I'll shut down the discussion in a heartbeat if it becomes a sockpuppet circus, or if this page gets bombarded with obvious call-ins.)

• I should also note that I've decided to take down the "McGregor Society" quote. On reflection, a secondhand report of an unverifiable allegation doesn't quite make the cut. CJCurrie 20:07, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

• Obvious call-ins? Doesn't Ground Zero/KevinToronto argue on their side as well? Does that constitute a call in? Seeing as he just appears to have popped up now. [anonymous poster]

Nice try. I was referring to the practice of dragging in non-Wikipedians through online appeals to skew or unduly influence a vote or discussion. (See the current VfD on Progressive Bloggers for an example). Such a practice is contrary to Wikipedia policy, and would result in the immediate end of this debate. CJCurrie 20:26, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

*Since we're mentioning leaders only, then I think these clauses, are fit to be tossed.

Other connections have been alleged between the Freedom Party and far-right groups in Canada.

Paul Fromm, a well-known figure on Canada's far-right, has alleged that members of the Freedom Party attended a 2003 rally in support of Ernst Zündel, which was also attended by members of the Northern Alliance, the Heritage Front and other far-right groups.[4] In the 1999 provincial election, Fromm donated the sum of $360.00 to the campaign of Freedom Party executive member Paul Blair.

On June 25, 2000, Raphael Bergmann held a "straight pride" parade in Toronto as a hostile response to the province's gay pride parades. Paul Blair attended this event to hand out party brochures. According to Paul Gallant, features editor for Xtra! magazine, Blair claimed that a "little stroking, a little touching" at a young age could result in men becoming homosexual.[5]

Vaughan Byrnes, a Voice of Canadians member who ran for the Freedom Party in the 2003 election, described Canada's immigration, multiculturalism and employment equity policies of the 1990s as "genocidal for Canadians" in an article entitled "Discrimination: The Positive Perspective".[2] Former Voice of Canadians chair Dick Field has also campaigned as a Freedom Party candidate.

Etc, you get the point... I hope. [anonymous poster]

• Yes: Paul Blair is on the party executive, and hence is a party leader. The Byrnes article was published in an official FPO source. Ergo, the condition of "leaders of the Freedom Party and official Freedom Party documents" is fulfilled. CJCurrie 20:28, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

"Obvious call-ins? Doesn't Ground Zero/KevinToronto argue on their side as well? Does that constitute a call in? Seeing as he just appears to have popped up now. [anonymous poster]"

• Yes, I just popped up in April 14, 2004 when I made my first edit to the article registered as User:Kevintoronto. I changed my userid to User:Ground Zero several months ago, and no longer use my former name. If you look through the history of the article and of the talk page, you will see that I have contributed frequently to these pages, so I don't think I qualify as a "call in". And I sign my name when I contribute. Ground Zero 20:39, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Response to Paul McKeever's comments on Free Dominion

Background: Shortly before the recent NPOV controversy, there was a discussion on the Free Dominion site (operated by McKeever)(*) concerning Wikipedia's article on the Freedom Party of Ontario.

(*)I was mistaken on this point. See below.

In this discussion, Mr. McKeever described the article's controversial sections as "defamatory statements", and engaged in ad hominem attacks on a rumoured contributor. He also made the following statement concerning Wikipedia:

"Wikipedia is a website that declares itself an encyclopedia. However, it's like no other encyclopedia known to the rational world. Specifically, anyone - anyone - can go to any page on the Wikipedia website and edit it. Want to change the entry for Disneyworld so that it says it is the headquarters of the Nazi movement?: wikipedia is the place to do it."[3]

My response is twofold:

(i) It's true that Wikipedia can be misused, and that bad edits can be made on any manner of subject. If someone wants to write that Jimmy Carter was president of Guyana from 1977 to 1981, or that Igor Stravinsky was the first person charged under the Patriot Act (two silly examples chosen at random), that person has a right to do so. Of course, these edits would almost certainly be reverted in a minute or so.

Wikipedia should be used with caution. Due to its very nature, it is open to abuse by unscrupulous users. If a point raised on Wikipedia seems contentious or dubious, it would probably be advisable to seek offsite confirmation instead of taking it at face value.

On a personal level, my hope is that Wikipedia will someday reform itself to deal with this problem -- keeping the good aspects, while ensuring (or doing everything in its power to ensure) that the bad elements are mitigated and kept in check.

For all its faults, though, Wikipedia has the potential to become a revolutionary force in information gathering. This project gives users the ability to chronicle valuable information, unfiltered by the political desires of governments or the financial concerns of private corporations. Information which might slip below the radar of a "normal" encyclopedia has the potential to be included here. Wikipedia also has the potential to be a successful self-policing community, with the multiplicity of viewpoints represented here ensuring that inaccurate or biased information is soon removed.

This project is not without some dangers, but its promise is much greater than its flaws. Wikipedia *works* when used responsibly by honest, autonomous contributors. One would think that members of a libertarian party would be the first to recognize this fact.

If a reader wants to improve the quality of Wikipedia, I would encourage that s/he take the following steps: (i) become a member, (ii) overview pages which are of interest, (iii) if you see something wrong, change it (and give a reason); if you aren't certain about something, discuss it on the relevant talk page, (iv) add these pages to your watchlist; if someone makes an arbitrary change that you disagree with, respond appropriately, (v) create articles on subjects of importance to you, (vi) do all of the above with a spirit of honesty and intregity.

If there's enough "signal", the "noise" can be kept to a minimum.

(ii) Mr. McKeever's criticisms of Wikipedia are beside the point of the present discussion. The contentious points raised in this article are *not* fabrications, nor are they instances of skewed reporting. They are honest, accurate reports of statements made by figures within the Freedom Party -- and they are entirely relevant to this discussion.

I have, in the past, invited members of the Freedom Party to comment on statements made in this article. On one occasion, Paul McKeever actually did this: providing additional information on the Zundel/Northern Alliance situations, and presenting these events in a (somewhat) different light than printed reports suggested.

Members of the Freedom Party have a standing invitation from me to provide additional information concerning the Fromm, Blair and Voice of Canadians situations. Thus far, the only response I've received has been to suggest that these passages should be deleted. This this does not strike me as a fair solution to the problem.

The invitation stands. CJCurrie 20:59, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

• http://www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=493532#493532

(linked so you can't edit your lie) :)

Hey dumbass, FreeDominion isn't operated by McKeever. If you can't get this right, and do some correct research, how are we to trust you with editing this page truthfully. Which is, exactly what you haven't been doing. -Who is John Galt2?. 07 20 05 20:15

• Also, stay the hell off of FD you troll. You got banned 6 times and kept coming back. Methinks if I asked Connie for the IP address The Marshall banned, it'd match the one you post to wiki with.

My response:

(i) My apologies; I was confusing Free Dominion with Mondo Politico. I fully and voluntarily withdraw any insinuation that Paul McKeever is the owner or operator of Free Dominion, or that he in any way determines or influences its content (aside, of course, from the posts that he contributes to the site).

The question of Free Dominion's ownership was not, however, essential to my argument. I can't see how changing this bit of information alters anything else.

(ii) I will repeat: the "contentious" aspects of Wikipedia's article on the Freedom Party of Ontario are easily verifiable. You can confirm the accuracy of my edits by referencing my sources (two of which have been reproduced on this page). If some technical error has crept in (as per the matter of Free Dominion's ownership), I'd be happy to correct it.

(iii) I have never contributed to Free Dominion, under any name.

(iv) So far, the response to my challenge from Free Dominion has been the following: aside from pointing out the aforementioned error (for which, again, I take full responsibility), members of the site have called me a "dumbass", a "troll", a "blatant liar" and a "socialist pansy". No one has questioned the accuracy of the edits themselves. I'm still waiting.

(I wonder if this post will be reproduced on the FD site as well.) CJCurrie 19:02, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

• No fair, that was all my post! OntCapitalist called you a commie. Which I think is true. An obsessed commie to say the least. Qui s'appelle: .. Anyways, can you stop trolling on FD? I just got you banned for the 8th time. Later.

• Don't mess with other people's posts. Make that 11th time of your ban buddy.

To repeat myself again: I don't contribute to Free Dominion. I never have. (Since my words have a tendency of showing up there anyway, I don't really need to.) CJCurrie 23:59, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

• Since... won't allow his name to be published without ..his permission, I think he should email everyone he mentions in the article for permission. It's their privacy he's violating. Until then, I'll blank the names.

Comment on External sources

I've discovered that the original Xtra! article featuring the Paul Blair quote is no longer available online. There is, however, a copy of the article available on Google's newsgroup cache.

Editorial / Just because they're crazy doesn't mean they're powerless

story by Paul Gallant, Features Editor / Xtra! Jun 29 2000

As one of the handful of people who (briefly) attended the straight pride event Sunday, I feel compelled to report back.

Not because the demonstration behind the Ontario legislature merits news coverage or in any way represents the city's straight population - I assure you, it does not - but because someone needs to bear witness to the mentality of those who still feel strongly opposed to homosexuality. They exist and, crazy as they are, political power is not far from their reach.

Judging by the 40-some people who attended, these straight pride folks are odd ducks. The ones who weren't part of the rent-a-crowd have obviously spent many hours thinking, reading and talking about homosexuality. What's remarkable is their inability to develop their half-baked notions into something that makes any sense, even from a conservative perspective.

A superhero-costumed organizer in his 20s told me "we're about family and we're proud to be straight." A woman with a dog said, "We need to have a representation of the 97 percent of the population that isn't gay." Her voice got passionate when she started talking about an AIDS educator she had heard about at a school and how a straight teacher would get fired if he started talking in class about having sex with his wife.

Paul Blair, an affable man who was giving out brochures from the rightwing libertarian Freedom Party, said things to me like, "I'll admit I was born this way. It's nothing you need to be proud of. But I don't think you're born gay...." Then he went on and on about how a "little stroking, a little touching" can turn a boy queer, and how even trees are sexually exciting to adolescent boys (which I suppose accounts for the decline of herbosexuality in industrial urban societies).

A bearded man with kind eyes told me straight people were asleep at the wheel when it came to the homosexual agenda to destroy the family.

The full text of the article may be found at [4] Proof of Blair's presence at the event may be confirmed here: http://www.canadiancontent.ca/articles/050901racism.html.

And, here's a quote from Vaughan Byrnes's article "Discrimination: The Positive Perspective". Again, the quote was not taken out of context:

The next few months were spent deep in thought about matters that had previously been of little concern to me. I began by exploring "racism", the term commonly used to describe discrimination on the basis of race. Soon, I came to realize that there are two broad forms of discrimination. Pernicious discrimination is the malicious or harmful form that I deplore, as do most Canadians.

However, rational discrimination is the predominant form in our society, but it is seldom discussed. In the zeal to purge pernicious discrimination from our society, the rational form of discrimination has also been made taboo.

As a free people, we have actually denied ourselves the right to the rational thought process that allows us to distinguish or differentiate between what we prefer and what we dislike, with respect to other people. In doing so, we have inadvertently forfeited our right to self-determination.

Slowly, a picture took shape before me. My security and the survival of my children were being jeopardized by social policies put into place by my own government. The anxiety I had been experiencing was a healthy response to the pressures being applied by all levels of government to discourage people from questioning the wisdom of such policies. That is why "political correctness" evolved: to suppress public discussion.

What had begun as a personal problem for me had evolved into a political problem. I had never taken an interest in politics but now it was forced upon me. Politics had come between me and survival. Immigration, multicultural and employment equity programs had become identifiable enemies of my family.

Canada's current immigration, multicultural and employment equity programs are genocidal for Canadians. If French-speaking and English-speaking Canadians with a common European heritage cannot peacefully bridge their small gap in language, on what rational basis do we believe that Canadians can bridge the wider gaps of race and religion? Irrefutable evidence is offered daily in the media as we bear witness to the growing number of nations divided by ethnicity. My anxiety was justified. It became increasingly clear that all solutions rested in the political arena. I began by studying the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. One need not be a constitutional lawyer to comprehend certain shortcomings of the Charter.

The full text is available online here: http://www.freedomparty.org/consent/cons25_4.htm. Byrnes contested Willowdale as a candidate of the Freedom Party of Ontario in the provincial elections of 1999 and 2003. CJCurrie 21:26, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

---

I submit that the facts and neutrality of this article on the Freedom Party should be disputed. The article was largely edited by [removed name], who is known to be a member of Anti-Racist Action and is personally antagonistic towards the Freedom Party -as was shown by his posts on Free Dominion (a conservative Canadian forum) Dogmatic 17:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

---

• This is not sufficient reason for a Disputed claim. CJCurrie 19:07, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Dogmatic, don't waste your time on these idiots... CJCurrie and the rest of them are obsessive with their quest to spread mistruths about the party. It would appear they have no lives. Allow them their fun, I just wish Wikipedia had a specific number which you could call to file complaints about these asshats. -- John Galt

"Controversies"

The Wikimedia Foundation has had a letter of complaint about this article. Having reviewed it, and the article and talk pages, I've removed the controversies sections. These should not be replaced. While I appreciate the careful wording and sourcing of this section, and recognise that there has been a lot of talk about it on this page, I can also see the point that it is distorting this article. These sections seem to have a disproportionate weight that is making the overall article less than neutral. The heading "controversies" leads the reader to the conclusion that there is something there to be controversial, which is rather in contrast to the part of the section that says the party itself has never endorsed any of the views implied (or rather quite the opposite). As well as getting the language right, we have to be sure that we do not imply anything by inclusion.

I would suggest that the second section be dropped for now, and that the free speech section be rewritten to give a more balanced view of the party's involvement in this area. I assume that every matter they have got involved in in this area is not about far-right politics? I'm sorry to be heavy handed here, but this is not a minor issue. Please be quick to remove anything from this article that you think problematic, and slow to add anything new. Thanks all -- sannse (talk) 23:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Sannse, precisely what assertions in the sections you have removed are factually incorrectd?

"I assume that every matter they have got involved in in this area is not about far-right politics?"

That is an assumption. I see no evidence of the Freedom Party ever supporting "free speech" for left wing causes. If there is any evidence of this we should by all means included but if the only evidence of their activism is around far-right causes we should not exclude that just because we received a letter of complaint. Homey 19:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the slow response here. As I said above, it is not so much a problem with facts, as the slant that these sections give to the article. It's very possible to give a list of true events, in a way that gives a particular (and biased) view of those events.

I was hoping to post a large section of the email today, but I haven't been able to clarify whether I am allowed to do this in this case. What I say above does summarise the concerns, but it would be easier to give the exact words. I've emailed the Foundation legal list to ask what I can do in this case -- sannse (talk) 20:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Changes

The reintroduction of the removed text seems to have been done very well. Thanks so much for this work, CJCurrie. I removed a small section that didn't seem to relate well to the title, but left all the rest as is. We'll see what the reaction to this change is, and if we get any more mail. But I think that this has done just what's needed - added well sourced information back in a careful and non-biased way. -- sannse (talk) 20:47, 1 March 2006 (UTC)