U of O Watch mission, in the words of Foucault...

"One knows … that the university and in a general way, all teaching systems, which appear simply to disseminate knowledge, are made to maintain a certain social class in power; and to exclude the instruments of power of another social class. … It seems to me that the real political task in a society such as ours is to criticise the workings of institutions, which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticise and attack them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely through them will be unmasked, so that one can fight against them." -- Foucault, debating Chomsky, 1971.

U of O Watch mission, in the words of Socrates...

"An education obtained with money is worse than no education at all." -- Socrates

video of president allan rock at work

Wednesday, September 10, 2014

Report on SPI inaugural event hosted by U of O and held at Chateau Laurier -- US propaganda for Canada's elite

Chateau Laurier, Ottawa, Canada (not USA?)

By Denis G. Rancourt


On September 10, 2014, the University of Ottawa, in Ottawa, Canada, held a fancy inaugural event at the Chateau Laurier Hotel, off campus, to launch its new "Security and Policy Institute", with launch event/gala funded by the main donor Symantec.

This was done on two-day's notice by way of a press release, without any consultation with the university community, and without any mention of the new institute at the so-called "Board of Governers" of the university. (See background report HERE.)

I put on a jacket and went to the event, that I assumed would be a press conference. It was a sit-down banquet and all the other guests had received notice to arrive earlier and were in the middle of their meals.

Another alumnus arrived at the same time as I, a charming woman interested in U of O adventures into the realm of knowledge. The hostess at the door kindly suggested that there were only two seats left at Table #1, so we trotted out together to Table #1. Table #1 was to be found somewhere in this panorama of the grand ballroom rented by Allan Rock for the occasion:



We found Table #1 quickly enough. I did not know any of the important folks at Table #1, except Natalie Des Rosiers, the present dean of the common law section of the faculty of law, the former General Counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the former U of O VP-Governance who trespassed me from campus when I was still a tenured Full Professor, and who was at the meeting at which I was summarily fired and escorted off campus by police in December 2008. She was a bit self-conscious but kindly said hello -- to which I replied with a smile -- but she did not introduce me to the others at Table #1.

The table conversation was horrid. This man told the story of his poor son, it appeared, who for years wanted to served in a US-Canadian war on a front line (Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.), but kept being assigned elsewhere because his services were needed on other military priorities because of his extraordinary talent, etc. Nathalie politely sat beside this man and never uttered a word.

Meanwhile, my date-by-chance and I raced through the salad, main course, and caught up to the crowd at desert and coffee. Best damn ballroom chicken I have ever had, I must say. The keynote speaker was being introduced as we poured coffee.

Allan Rock was nowhere to be seen. Probably not in Ottawa, as usual. The communications guy was master of ceremony. He has moved up in the world since I use to argue with him to provide sign-language interpretation at my events on campus, but that is another story. Obedience pays.

The keynote speaker was George Friedman, Chairman of Stratfor, a US intelligence corporation. (See background report HERE.) He told us that he has a PhD that he obtained, he said, for writing a thesis that has never been cited, about matters of no interest. Ha ha.

Friedman delivered vintage US propaganda tailored to a willing Canadian elite. The cartoon depictions of "geopolitics" delivered in the 45-minute speech would hurt the brain of any informed person unaccustomed to this kind of rubbish for the managers of US interests.

At times it sounded like he was also recruiting clients from the avid-investor category. There were investor tips on where best to invest to get the cheapest world labour, since Chinese labour is no longer sufficiently cheap, and that is causing China's downfall, etc.

He explained how US presidents don't apply geopolitical strategies but rather simply solve unavoidable emerging problems that they are confronted with, blah blah. I filmed a bit of that in this video:



It was all over the map (literally), without providing any information. That tells us what he assumed about the intelligence of his audience. This was confirmed by the probing questions that followed. I could not bear any more so I ran out, after excusing myself to my date.

The whole event completely confirmed my worst scenario. Allan Rock is totally using what is left of the good name of the institution to legitimize Canada's participation in the predatory US-military economy, and to help indoctrinate the elite managers.

There was not a hint of moral examination, or of questioning the foundations of the US-Empire and the destruction that it uses to kill emerging competitors and non-compliant clients. None. It is clear that the "Security and Policy Institute" is mental-bubble fabrication for the elite managers. The degree of mental compliance in the room was nightmarish. And the students and regular teaching staff were not invited.

Disgusting. All funded by the US-corporation and military-contractor Symantec. (See background report HERE.)

Tuesday, September 9, 2014

Major foreign corporation with US-military and IDF ties funds a "security and policy institute" at "Allan Rock's university" in Canada's capital



By Denis G. Rancourt


BACKGROUND ABOUT ALLAN ROCK'S NAKBA AT uOTTAWA

The University of Ottawa was a reputable institution of higher learning in Canada's capital city, before it was taken-over in 2008 by former federal politician and former Canadian Ambassador to the UN Allan Rock.

Following his appointment, Rock immediately proceeded to bring in all his own people to run the place in support of his announced pet projects to support US-colonial "globalization" and to legitimize the state of Israel, in the face of growing international condemnation of Israel's on-going war crimes in Palestine.

There was a complete overhaul of the executive team, and of the Board of Governors (BOG). The new VP-Academic, Francois Houle, disappeared shortly after the start of his mandate. The whole executive team left for one reason or another. The Chair of the BOG left, to be replaced by a retired federal senior civil servant who had been an underling of the then federal minister Allan Rock, and so on.

Rock has gone so far as to receive public condemnations from both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Association of University Teachers for administrative interferences with the student-based Israel Apartheid Week (see Appendix). He created a questionable joint law graduate degree with an Israeli university, for which there was no apparent or expressed need. He has been pressing for a "School of Government" without consulting the academic community. He accepts large anonymous donations for his pet programs. And so on.

Since Rock's appointment, damaging public relations fiascoes have followed, one after the other, somewhat like in Rock's former political career in which a colleague from his own party said that he has "shit magnets in his pockets".

The most recent matter illustrating Rock's ability to continually harm the institution's reputation has been the subject of several harsh editorial critiques in the national print media: Rock prejudicially and publicly dismissed and tarred the entire university hockey team, thereby wrecking student athlete careers, prior to any criminal charges being laid against two of the team's members.

A partial list of Rock's notorious achievements, up to 2010, in both his past political dealings and on campus, is given in the Appendix below.


A PATTERN OF UNILATERAL AND UNCOLLEGIAL EXECUTIVE DECISIONS BY ALLAN ROCK

An illustrative example of how Rock operates, is shown by student reactions to his "School of Government" brainchild, as follows (LINK).

On January 29, 2013, Sarah Tayyem, President, Public & International Affairs Association, Representative of Students from the Public & International Affairs Program, writes (in part):

"Lack of student input into the consultation process ... The consulting group did not include students in their process, and so this report does not address or cover student concerns. ... There was no student input solicited for the original consultative document, and there has been a lack of effort on the part of the University to solicit feedback from students even though we are at the heart of this proposal. GSPIA students would appreciate a consultation session, especially as we stand to be strongly affected by the proposed SoG."

Similarly, on March 4, 2013, the president of the Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO), Professor Christian Rouillard, wrote THIS damning letter to Allan Rock (in part):

I am writing to you in regards to the projected School of Government. Listed as one of the initiatives on the horizon in the plan Destination 20/20, where it is introduced as «a premier centre for governance and public-policy research» (...), this project remains a mystery to most members of our university community.

About a year ago, at the Ottawa Mayor's Breakfast: Ottawa Business Journal and Ottawa Chamber of Commerce, you  explained to the members of the business community present that ... Yet, one year later, as attested by the feedback we received from many members who are themselves part of «the exceptional cluster of expertise that is already at the  University», i.e. faculty conducting research in the areas of governance, public administration, international affairs,  security and human rights, everyone on campus it seems, has been kept in the dark. No relevant information on the projected school has been formally shared by the administration. Not a word on it is to be found in the minutes of the  Senate meetings held in  the  2012-2013 academic year (...). Similarly, not a word on it is to be found in the minutes  of the Board of governors meetings held in the 2012-2013 academic year ...

Such public letters are unprecedented at the University of Ottawa.


THE LATEST ALLAN ROCK SURPRISE: A FOREIGN-FUNDED SECURITY AND POLICY INSTITUTE FOR CANADA

On September 8, 2014, the Allan Rock university put out THIS previously unannounced press release:

MEDIA ADVISORY: Launch of the Security and Policy Institute of Professional Development at the University of Ottawa

OTTAWA, September 8, 2014  —  The University of Ottawa invites members of the media to attend the launch of the Security and Policy Institute of Professional Development. The new institute will offer a unique professional development program for decision-makers working in the public, para-public and private sectors whose responsibilities require them to pay particular attention to national and international security issues.

The courses offered by the Institute will focus on sharing knowledge and best practices to help students take more informed decisions.

In honour of the Institute’s launch, internationally renowned intelligence expert George Friedman will present the first in a series of in-depth lectures on emerging security issues given by world-leading specialists.

Serge Blais, Director of the Centre for Continuing Education at the University of Ottawa, will be on hand to answer questions about this new professional development program.

WHAT: Lecture and inauguration of the new Security and Policy Institute of Professional Development
WHEN: Wednesday, September 10, 2014 at 12:30 p.m.
WHERE: Ballroom of the Chateau Laurier, 1 Rideau Street, Ottawa

It is interesting to note that the press release announces an event to be held off-campus, that a university communications person will answer questions rather than Rock himself, that there is no mention of the funding source of the inaugural event for this new institute, and that the guest speaker is a US military intelligence expert (more below).

THIS university webpage informs us that "Symantec is the main sponsor for the launch of the Security and Policy Institute of professional development."

Symantec is a US Fortune 500 corporation, which deals in software/internet "security" (including "cyber war"), and which has strong US military and IDF ties.

Symantec's nine-member Board of Directors (LINK) includes one "Major General and Commander, United States Air Force (retired)".

Symantec has strong corporate ties with Israel and the Israel Defense Force (IDF). Symantec's country manager for Israel is Shmulik Angel. His web bio at Symentec states (LINK):

Previously, he served in the Israeli air force for 25 years. He retired from service as a Colonel and continues to perform active reserve duty in the air force and in the Ministry of Defense. Mr. Angel holds BSc. degree in Industrial Engineering and an MBA from Ben Gurion University, Israel.

The Mossad's cyber weapon "Stuxnet" is said to be "the world's first cyber-weapon of geopolitical significance". It is believed to have been developed in collaboration with the US military, and it is linked to Symantec, as per THIS media report.


IMPLICATIONS OF ROCK'S SECURITY AND POLICY INSTITUTE

Nothing could be a better illustration of Allan Rock's zeal to make the University of Ottawa an instrument to dissolve Canada's sovereignty and to serve the US-Israeli military complex.

Now let us examine Rock's proposed inaugural lecture to launch his institute, given by "internationally renowned intelligence expert George Friedman". Who is George Friedman?

George Friedman is the Chairman of the US global intelligence firm Stratfor (LINK).

Stratfor is dubbed a "shadow CIA" firm, and Wikileaks has shown that 13 Canadian government agencies have high-cost subscriptions to Stratfor (LINK). "National Defence paid Stratfor $78,225 in 2011, $80,175 in 2012 and $82,200" for 2013.

In addition to obtaining actual contracts for secret services, George Friedman also spews out public "intelligence" reports, which are unabashed propaganda, about every conflict of concern to the US-Israel military. These "reports", masked as objective "intelligence" serve to legitimize the global empire's every intervention, including Israel's so-called "self-defence" against the surrounding Arab aggressors who do not accept Israel's existence and who pose a "long-term threat to its survival".

Allan Rock's star speaker is an Israeli apologist, invited just days after Israel's recent bloody massacre in Gaza. And this invited guest will deliver a "series of in-depth lectures on emerging security issue" to Canada's captive minds.

The Emperor will be pleased to learn that President Rock did not show leadership by condemning Israeli war crimes, or the massacre in Gaza. Quite the opposite, their man has stifled such discussion and replaces it with US-Israel propaganda.

Welcome to "Allan Rock's university", in Canada's capital city.


***

Dr. Denis G. Rancourt is a former tenured and Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa, Canada. He is known for his applications of physics education research (TVO Interview). He has published over 100 articles in leading scientific journals, and has written several social commentary essays. He is the author of the book Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism. While he was at the University of Ottawa, he supported student activism and opposed the influence of the Israel lobby on that institution, which fired him for a false pretext in 2009: LINK


Appendix: Rock's dealings up to 2010

PART-I : At the University of Ottawa
  • Made a commitment at university Senate (April 12, 2010) to repair the Ann Coulter freedom of expression fiasco and then "clarified" at Senate (February 7, 2011) that this "was not a commitment"
The "clarification" only occurred after physics student Senator Joseph Hickey insisted that the commitment should be honoured as agreed by Senate (LINK, LINK).

  • Deceived the student body and university community regarding donation ethics, again (February 2011)
In the fall of 2009 Allan Rock put on a series of show panels as a mock consultation to prepare an upcoming administrative policy for “donor recognition”. The policy was to be presented “within weeks” (LINK). It never materialized.

There was a tacit understanding that large donations would not be accepted until the new policy was developed and instituted.

On June 22, 2010, the University announced a 3.5 million dollar anonymous donation for a research chair in business management (LINK, and below).

On February 7, 2011, the University announced a new exchange program with Israel "generously supported by the Gerald Schwartz and Heather Reisman Foundation" (LINK, LINK)

  • Lied about the origin of the infamous March 2010 Francois Houle letter to Ann Coulter  
“Worse yet is that Mr. Rock fudged when initially questioned about the letter. He stated that “it was sent with my knowledge” – when the truth is it was sent at his instigation. When it blew up into a controversy, he let Mr. Houle take the brunt of the heat. Talk about the boss hiding behind his staff.”
– National Post, June 30, 2010.

BC Blue blog report: HERE.


  • Hypocrisy regarding respect, restraint, civility, consideration, and a reasoned and intelligent approach…
“I therefore ask you, while you are a guest on our campus, to weigh your words with respect and civility in mind. There is a strong tradition in Canada, including at this University, of restraint, respect and consideration in expressing even provocative and controversial opinions and urge you to respect that Canadian tradition while on our campus. ... [This will] lead not only to a more civilized discussion, but to a more meaningful, reasoned and intelligent one as well.”
– Rock-Houle letter to Ann Coulter, March 19, 2010.

Versus Allan Rock to Houle and staff:

"Ann Coulter is a mean-spirited, small-minded, foul-mouthed poltroon... She is 'the loud mouth that bespeaks the vacant mind'."

"She is an ill-informed and deeply offensive shill for a profoundly shallow and ignorant view of the world. She is a malignancy on the body politic. She is a disgrace to the broadcasting industry and a leading example of the dramatic decline in the quality of public discourse in recent times."

"You, Francois, as Provost, should write immediately to Coulter informing her of our domestic laws. ... You should urge her to respect that Canadian tradition as she enjoys the privilege of her visit."

"Quel excellent message! Merci et felicitations. I am sure she has never been dressed down so elegantly in her life!"

  • Deceived the student body and university community regarding donation ethics
In the fall of 2009 Allan Rock put on a series of show panels as a mock consultation to prepare an upcoming administrative policy for “donor recognition”. The policy was to be presented “within weeks” (LINK). It never materialized.

There was a tacit understanding that large donations would not be accepted until the new policy was developed and instituted.

On June 22, 2010, the University announced a 3.5 million dollar anonymous donation for a research chair in business management, anonymous no less (LINK).

It seems to us that anonymity would be an important discussion point in any “donor recognition” or donation ethics policy.

  • Was publicly accused of lying by a student representative about budget consultations
On June 2, 2010, Martin Schoolts-Mcalpine, Senator-elect for undergraduate students of the Faculty of Arts publicly called for Rock to be impeached and publicly accused Rock of have lied to him about the Faculty of Arts having been consulted in an imposed budget exercise. Rock responded by belittling the student representative who had made every effort to be consulted by his faculty. (VIDEO LINK HERE)

  • Mislead the Board of Governors with incorrect budget information
At the April 27, 2010, Board of Governors meeting Rock told the Board members in his briefing that the projected budget deficit was 25 M$ whereas he had previously told the media that the projected deficit was 19 M$ (without ever explaining how the figure jumped from 25 million to 19 million).

Rock only corrected himself to the Board near the end of the budget discussions and only after being confronted on the question during a break by graduate student union representative Sean Kelly (LINK).

  • Lied to the media to cover up his attacks against freedom of expression
““Freedom of expression is a core value that the University of Ottawa has always promoted,” said Allan Rock, President of the University.”
University press release, March 24, 2010.

Rock had been sent a letter in 2009 from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) explaining that the University had violated the principle of freedom of expression by banning a student poster. And in 2010, the national media had the CCLA and the Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) explaining to the Rock administration that its March 2010 letter to potential speaker Ann Coulter was a violation of freedom of expression.

Therefore Rock knew that the University of Ottawa had not always promoted freedom of expression (LINK).

  • Hired a student newspaper editor in the president’s office, effectively as a reward for favourable editorial support, in violation of the paper’s rules of ethics
Quite remarkable: LINK. The student retained a senior position at the paper while he was fully salaried by Rock.

Related background articles: LINK.

  • Practiced flagrant disregard for student democratic and procedural rights
THIS letter from the student union was sent to Rock requesting urgent attention to student rights being violated by his administration.

The student concerns were disregarded and the student representatives were simply brushed off.



PART-II : Before becoming University of Ottawa president



  • Accepted what was effectively a bribe – This put an end to Rock’s political career and showed him to be “ethically challenged”
"[Rock's] behaviour since the Irving affair became public has revealed him to be ethically challenged. […] it took Rock days to apologize. And he only grudgingly did so after Labour Minister Claudette Bradshaw rose in the Commons and offered an unqualified apology for accepting a ride on the Irving corporate jet three years ago. She also announced she was reimbursing the family for the flight."
– Ottawa Citizen, November 8, 2003, page 1.

In 2002 when the then Ethics Counsellor Howard Wilson discovered that Minister Rock had in summer 2001 accepted a private jet stay at the Irving family salmon fishing lodge, he issued a ruling that Rock was to avoid all ministerial dealings benefiting Irving enterprises for one year. During that blackout year Rock made three significant ministerial decisions benefiting Irving Shipbuilding Inc.

On investigating the latter multimillion-dollar violations, "Wilson said it 'would have be better' if a minister other than Rock had signed the $55-million grant, but noted the signature was made by a machine on instructions from Industry officials." (Ottawa Citizen)

Rock accepted the latter whitewashing that the opposition leaders called a "complete joke" but it put an end to his political and federal judgeship ambitions.


Other well known affairs:

  • Deceived Parliament and the Canadian public regarding the cost of the gun registry: The costing reported to Parliament was overshot by one billion dollars.

  • As Minister of Justice, Rock paid 2 million dollars to Brian Mulroney for no known reason. This was never justified. (RECENT COMMENTARY)

  • As Minister of Health, Rock allowed and found justification for a dubiously discriminating attribution of reparations to tainted blood victims: Victims had to have been infected between 1986 and 1990, not before, not after.
“The offer came despite a recommendation by the report of the Krever Inquiry a year earlier, which called for compensation for anyone harmed by bad blood, regardless of when they were infected.

In just over two months, Ontario would break ranks, saying people who were infected before 1986 had waited long enough for help. The province came up with another $200 million for victims of tainted blood.

"Regardless of legal liability, all governments have a moral responsibility to Canadians who placed their faith in the blood system, and, through no fault of their own, became infected," [said Ontario Premier Mike Harris.]”
CBC media report, July 2006.

"We've done the best we can under very difficult circumstances."
– Federal Health Minister Allan Rock, February 27, 1998.

The cost of the inadequate federal compensation package was less than the gun registry budget overshoot.

Sunday, September 7, 2014

Just a thought about Allan Rock and the Globe & Mail


The Globe & Mail is dedicated to the Liberal Machine. Why then did several Globe & Mail editorials so viciously trash Rock about the embattled president's hockey team fiasco? Never before seen.

(Not to diminish the magnitude of the fiasco, which may yet lead to a lawsuit or settlement.)

Rock even felt compelled to respond in fanfare, with the usual empty lines, in a desperate move to attempt damage-control.

My guess is that -- in the context of Justin Trudeau being positioned as the next Prime Minister (even Brian Mulroney is chiming in) -- the Liberal bosses and their funders do NOT want Rock and his baggage back on the scene.

The message is clear: Stay away. Do another term of destruction at the U of O if need be. You have not been cleansed of your famous "shit magnet in his pocket" image.

Too bad for the U of O that its president will not have more important matters to attend to.

Just a thought.

Monday, August 25, 2014

uOttawa's Allan Rock gets another well-deserved thrashing from the Globe & Mail -- Justice gets iced

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/justice-gets-iced-at-u-ottawa/article20178757/

Justice gets iced at U Ottawa

Tuesday, July 15, 2014

Globe and Mail (not the National Post) teaches Rock a lesson about due process

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/editorials/due-process-on-ice-at-the-university-of-ottawa/article19576175/

Due process on ice at the University of Ottawa

PublishedSunday, Jul. 13 2014, 6:00 PM EDT

Allegations that some members of the University of Ottawa’s men’s hockey team committed sexual assault in Thunder Bay earlier this year are deeply disturbing. If they prove to be true, the young men involved are guilty of a serious criminal offence, punishable by up to 10 years in prison. But the university’s recent decision to suspend the entire hockey program for a full season is hasty and unjust to those players whose only fault is one of circumstance: They happen to play on the same team as the three alleged offenders. Twenty-one players are innocent of any crime – even an alleged one – yet they are being treated as though they are guilty by association. It’s a kind of collective punishment.

It’s a surprising verdict, coming from Allan Rock, the University of Ottawa’s president, who once served as justice minister. He justified the sweeping sanctions after an internal review – details kept confidential – showed some team members’ behaviour during the tournament in Thunder Bay “did not meet the university’s expectations of our student athletes” and “was not in keeping with the university’s values.” If that sounds vague, it is no more so than statements from the Thunder Bay Police concerning the alleged Feb. 1 incident. Their investigation is complete but they have not yet decided whether any charges will be laid. Perhaps the university’s investigators uncovered something the police missed, but unless Mr. Rock makes their findings public, it’s impossible to understand why he chose such a harsh course of action. Would it have made more sense to wait for the police to lay charges, and for those charges to be proven (or not) in court? It’s called due process, and one would think that Mr. Rock would get that.

The university’s suspension of the hockey program doesn’t just mean a couple of dozen players don’t get to play their sport. A group of people who had nothing to do with the alleged incident – some of whom weren’t even in Thunder Bay – have had their reputations tarnished, job offers revoked, and have been ostracized by peers. Mr. Rock should have waited; if any players are ultimately found guilty, the university can punish them (after the justice system does). But based on the evidence that’s publicly known, at least 21 other players have done nothing wrong. They deserve something else from Mr. Rock: the presumption of innocence.

Thursday, July 10, 2014

St. Lewis v. Rancourt: Notice of Appeal served and filed


The defendant Denis Rancourt will appeal the judgement resulting from the May-June 2014 trial of the St. Lewis v. Rancourt defamation case.

The Notice of Appeal has been served to the plaintiff and filed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, and is posted HERE, and as a PDF file HERE.

The Overview section in the Notice of Appeal reads:

OVERVIEW

1. This appeal raises fundamental questions about:
(a)    the sufficient conditions that give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias, regarding financial and institutional ties, in-court procedural decisions, the charge to the jury, and express findings from the bench;
(b)    the right of a litigant to argue an abuse-of-process remedy in a defamation trial, which was pleaded in pleadings that were not stuck out;
(c)    the right of a defendant to have his pleaded defences and remedies considered by the jury in a defamation trial;
(d)    whether the charge to the jury in a defamation trial can limit the jury members to either accept or reject specified meanings of the words complained of;
(e)    whether an imbedded video that is an integral part of a web article (“blogpost”) complained of and that is essential to the context of the alleged libel in a defamation action must be shown to the jury at trial;
(f)    the limiting of a defendant’s freedom of expression by a permanent injunction that forbids future unknown statements about the plaintiff, following a successful defamation action;
(g)    costs policy principles, the Charter principle of freedom of expression, and the common law of awarding costs, for costs of a defamation trial against an impecunious defendant when there are no costs to the plaintiff.

All/most court-filed documents of both parties in the overall action and its appeals are HERE.


Professor Joanne St. Lewis: Why I Stood Up to Racist Cyber Libel


On June 25, 2014, guest blogger Joanne St. Lewis posted this blogpost on the SLAW legal magazine blog:

Professor Joanne St. Lewis: Why I Stood Up to Racist Cyber Libel (LINK)


Wednesday, June 25, 2014

Defend the right to criticize!

http://t.co/xZyHVtV9tk

Here is the answer:




Please view the story at Indiegogo and consider contributing to the Denis Rancourt Legal Defence Fund campaign: LINK

Monday, June 16, 2014

Cynthia McKinney's petition "Give a Fair Court Hearing to Denis Rancourt " surpasses 1000 signatures

Cynthia McKinney's change.org petition "Give a Fair Court Hearing to Denis Rancourt" has surpassed 1000 signatures. It is addressed to chief justices in Ottawa, Ontario, and Canada.

Ottawa Citizen articles about the petition are HERE and HERE.

https://www.change.org/en-CA/petitions/beverley-mclachlin-scc-csc-ca-james-mcnamara-scj-csj-ca-give-a-fair-court-hearing-to-denis-rancourt
Click image for link to change.org petition

University of Ottawa paying for pointless legal battles -- Sun News

Ezra Levant interviewed Executive Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association Joseph Hickey on May 23, 2014, about the St. Lewis v. Rancourt lawsuit.

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/3585179969001
Click image for link to Sun News video report

Related Links:
OCLA campaign: Public Money is Not for Silencing Critics
Cynthia McKinney's petition: Give a Fair Court Hearing to Denis Rancourt

Sunday, June 8, 2014

Denis Rancourt has lost the defamation lawsuit -- Summary and update


By Denis Rancourt

TABLE OF CONTENT
  • Jury awarded damages of $350,000.
  • Permanent injunction and take down order
  • Plaintiff seeks judicial finding of contempt of court
  • Strong case for appeal
  • Need financial help and pro bono lawyer for appeal
  • Trial judge's ties to the University of Ottawa
  • Links to media reports

The last day of trial was June 6, 2014.

The six-person jury found that two 2011 blogposts on the U of O Watch blog were defamatory of Joanne St. Lewis.

The jury awarded $100,000. in general damages (the plaintiff wanted $500,000.), $250,000 in aggravated damages (equal to the amount requested by the plaintiff), and zero dollars in punitive damages (the plaintiff wanted $250,000. and to give half to the University of Ottawa), for a total of $350,000.

After the jury left, the trial judge made an order for a permanent injunction against me. The orders from the trial are HERE.

The judge's court order has forced me to remove my two blogposts complained of, and thus the links to these blogposts no longer exist: HERE, and HERE.

In addition the plaintiff, whose legal costs are paid by the University of Ottawa, orally submitted, through her lawyer, that a "show cause" hearing should be set to make a judicial finding of contempt of court against me, regarding documents published during the trial.

The judge ordered that there would be this "show cause" hearing on September 25, 2014.

The judge said in court that the September 25, 2014, "show cause" hearing could result in a jail sentence against me.

My desire is to appeal the result of the trial. I believe I have a very strong case for appeal. So does Cynthia McKinney who started the petition entitled "Give a Fair Court Hearing To Denis Rancourt": LINK-petition. The petition presently has over 900 signatures and over 200 comments.

I have a strong case because the trial judge cancelled my main ("Jameel") defence while I was trying to present it to the jury (LINK to statement on walking out of trial), and then, in his charge to the jury at the end of the evidence, the judge cancelled all my remaining defences by saying:

"The defendant has not introduced any evidence establishing a defence therefore there is no defence for you to consider."

In fact, the plaintiff had already introduced ample evidence supporting the legal defence of "fair comment", and I had explained this defence to the jury in my opening statement.

I need to raise enough money (approximately $20,000.) to pay for the required court transcripts (one cannot appeal without buying the court transcripts of the trial). And, I need to find a lawyer who will agree to do the appeal on a pro bono basis (i.e., for the public good).

The trial judge has all of his university degrees from the University of Ottawa, and is a regular and annual donor to the University of Ottawa (LINK to recusal motion court documents).

The judge gives money to the university that is using money to finance the plaintiff in the lawsuit; without a spending limit, "without a cap" in the words of president Allan Rock.  

Media links in this case are:
LINK--May 15, 2014--Ottawa-Citizen
LINK--May 16, 2014--Ottawa-Citizen
LINK--May 22, 2014--Ottawa-Citizen
LINK--May 23, 2014--PressTV (TV and print)
LINK--May 23, 2014--SUN-News (TV)
LINK--June 5, 2014--Ottawa-Citizen (with video)
LINK--June 5, 2014--Ottawa-SUN (with video)
LINK--June 6, 2014--Canadian-Lawyer-Magazine
LINK--June 6, 2014--Ottawa-Citizen
LINK--June 6, 2014--Ottawa-SUN

Saturday, June 7, 2014

Duck and cover, a la Allan Rock


When a lawyer-politician runs a university...

Remember this? (LINK-CBC-video-report)

In March 2014, Allan Rock was directly called out by student groups for covering up a real issue rather than authentically admitting and addressing it. The issue was evidence of a rape culture at the University of Ottawa. (LINK-CBC-video-report)

The students claimed that Rock was window dressing, smoothing over, spin doctoring, diverting away from actual consultation using a hand-picked committee, ..., instead of admitting reality and calling on the community to come together to compare notes and solutions.

His only actual action was to wrongheadedly and summarily dismiss and shun of an entire hockey team. (LINK)


Thursday, May 22, 2014

Why did Regional Senior Judge Charles T. Hackland resign on May 8, 2014?

Charles Hackland

[CORRECTION made on June 7, 2014::: In court, on June 6, 2014, Justice Michel Charbonneau stated on the record, in his decision to order a permanent injunction against the defendant in the St. Lewis v. Rancourt lawsuit, that Justice Hackland had sated to those in his entourage in May 2013 that he would be resigning in May 2014. Therefore, it was known by other judges since May 2013 that Justice Hackland would be resigning his position and returning to the bench in May 2014. Consequently, the chronology of events described below cannot be taken as evidence supporting a link between Rancourt's request that Justice Charbonneau recuse himself, and Justice Hackland's resignation.]


By Denis G. Rancourt

How often does a Regional Senior Judge resign, without any explanation?

The media did not report this unusual event. A Department of Justice memo has the terse statement "He resigned from that position effective May 8, 2014."

This is the man who handled some of the most high-profile cases of the last several years. Gone.

He was replaced by Justice James E. McNamara on May 12, 2014, as per the same memo.

I'm going to boldly propose that this resignation-and-replacement was not a mere random event, and that it is related to the on-going defamation case St. Lewis v. Rancourt; that the thematic and chronological relations are not simply coincidences.

On May 6, 2014, I brought a Recusal Motion that was heard and decided by Justice Michel Z. Charbonneau on May 7, 2014. HERE are all the court-filed documents for that motion.

The motion asked Justice Charbonneau to recuse himself from the trial of the St. Lewis v. Rancourt case because the case is all about the University of Ottawa, because the plaintiff's legal fees are paid by the University of Ottawa, because all of Justice Charbonneau's university degrees are from the University of Ottawa, because Justice Charbonneau is a regular and annual donor to the university, because Justice Charbonneau was a law firm partner with the case management judge in the case (Justice Robert Smith, who is barred from being the trial judge), and because there is thus a mutual financial interest between the university and the trial judge (which I explicitly argued orally).

I also argued in my motion that Justice McNamara had set a precedent by recusing himself in a litigation in which the University of Ottawa was a party, because he has a degree from the university (see Justice McNamara's endorsement decision here), and that Justice McNamara had asked Justice Hackland to assign a judge that had no ties to the University of Ottawa in that case. The latter was doubly specified via a separate endorsement signed by Master Calum MacLeod (see here).

And, I showed that I had asked Justice Hackland, back in 2012, to assign a case judge that has no ties to the University of Ottawa, that he answered he would not and that if I had "legitimate" bias concerns to bring them in a motion (see Hackland letters here).

Justice Charbonneau decided the recusal motion the same day that it was heard. He decided to not recuse himself, he was silent on my shared-interests argument, and he stated that if a judge were to recuse himself for the mere reason that he had a degree from the University of Ottawa, that the said judge would be avoiding his duties.

The next day, May 8, Justice Hackland resigned, and on May 12, 2014, he was replaced by Justice McNamara (Justice Department memo).

And, it turns out from the memo, that Justice Hackland practiced with the Gowlings law firm prior to his appointment to the bench in 2003. The law firm representing the plaintiff in St. Lewis v. Rancourt is the Gowlings firm.

Would it not have been simple for Justice Hackland to assign a trial judge that has no ties to the University of Ottawa?

Is it reasonable for me to have a "reasonable apprehension of bias" (legal term meaning a good reason to seek a judge's recusal)?

Cynthia McKinney thinks so: LINK.

Saturday, May 17, 2014

Why I walked out of the trial in which I am being sued

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/life/Rancourt+walks+kangaroo+trial/9848050/story.html
Media photo -- Ottawa Citizen
By Denis Rancourt

On May 16, 2014, at 10:00 AM, in courtroom #36 of the Ottawa Courthouse of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice I walked out from the trial in which I am being sued, and in which I was representing myself without a lawyer. The trial is continuing in my absence, before a Jury of my peers.

This is my translation from the French of what I said to the Court, to Justice Michel Z. Charbonneau, to explain my reasons for leaving the trial process:

Your Honour, the law foresees that I must be free to advance the very serious charge of “reasonable apprehension of bias”.

It is very difficult for me to make this intervention. Give me five minutes because I must present the new evidence.

During my motion of May 7, 2014, asking that Your Honour recuse himself, Your Honour’s decision was silent on the central point that I had made that Your Honour’s decisions in this action could affect the reputation of the University of Ottawa and affect the monetary value of its scholarships, to which Your Honour donates money regularly and annually.

Then, on the first day of trial, Monday May 12 of this week, we did a motion in the afternoon, a so-called “Voir Dire”, with detailed facta [see all court-filed documents for this motion HERE]. Mr. Dearden [plaintiff's lawyer] brought the motion with a factum of 32 pages served on May 9 and accompanied by a book of authorities of 347 pages. His motion was to eliminate my defence called “Litigation by proxy contrary to the Charter”.

I answered with a factum of May 9 containing 14 pages and accompanied by a book of authorities of 342 pages. I argued in detail that, in fact, my defense was a defence of abuse of process having three branches, with one branch being the “Jameel” defence based on a 2005 decision of the England and Wales Court of Appeal: Dow Jones Inc. v. Jameel, and I pointed to paragraphs 68 to 71 of my “Statement of Defence” as pleading this Jameel defence.

The decision of this Court [of Your Honour] was pronounced on May 14 regarding the said motion or Voir Dire: The paragraphs 61 to 67 of the Statement of Defence were struck. Paragraphs 68 to 71 remained intact, as did my Jameel  defence.

Then, on May 15, yesterday, during my Opening Statement, the Court allowed Mr. Dearden to interrupt me when I was explaining my Jameel defence to the Jury. And Your Honour, off the cuff, struck and forbade my Jameel defence despite my protest, and despite the fact of not having done so when Your Honour should have done so if you had had that intension.

It has been more than three years that I have been fighting for procedural justice in this action — and my “Statement of Claim” is struck, cut into pieces, before my eyes during my Opening Statement, in contradiction with the considered decision of May 14 of Your Honour.

This would give nightmares to Kafka himself.

To my eyes, we are no longer in Canada — and we can no longer claim to have a system of justice in this action before you Your Honour.

I am outraged by this gag order imposed in a manner that is apparently arbitrary, which does not allow me to be heard and to “have my day in court”.

I have pleaded “abuse of process” at every step and now, at trial itself, I don’t even have the right to say that the University of Ottawa is entirely financing the plaintiff or the right to use the Jameel defense that applies to situations where the defendant advances a lack of actual damage to reputation, that’s “actual” damage, and to “reputation”, not some other kind of damage.

I was very disturbed by these incomprehensible events, and I have been deeply perturbed all day yesterday; confused also, as a self-represented litigant. This morning I inform the Court that I can no longer participate in such a process.

Therefore, I’m leaving this unjust process. You will take the decisions in my absence. It’s over for me: I’m leaving.

[Followed by an intervention by Mr. Richard Dearden (plaintiff's lawyer) addressed directly to me, my statement to the Court about appropriateness of the said intervention, and my departure from the courtroom.]

Background links:
Ontario Civil Liberties Association public campaign page
All (many) court documents in the case

On May 21, 2014, Cynthia McKinney launched a petition asking for a new trial with a judge that has no ties with the University of Ottawa: SEE PETITION AND NEWS HERE.

Thursday, March 27, 2014

Six more IPC rulings released against the University of Ottawa, in the last two months


Between January 16, 2014, and March 11, 2014, six more rulings of the Information and Privacy Commissioner for Ontario have been released against the University of Ottawa.

No other university in Ontario has so many violations of access to information law.

Here is the list for that period alone:

Order PO-3294: University ordered to disclose all the records to the individual.

Order PO-3298: University ordered to require a named doctor to perform a search.

Order PO-3302: Adjudicator does not uphold the University's application for its exclusion on the alleged basis of "employment or labour relations".

Order PO-3312: University ordered to disclose 20 records that it was withholding.

Order PO-3314: University ordered to disclose 50% of the records that it was withholding.

Order PO-3318: University ordered to disclose all the responsive information in the withheld records.

To me, this suggests an institutional disregard for the law of access to information.

In my opinion, instead of using its discretion to promptly provide access to requested information, the university appears to be using constructive attempts to avoid its statutory obligations, and appears willing to fight lengthy and costly appeals to prevent being transparent with its students and the public.

It's not winning the appeals. But it is delaying fair access. Rather than using the law primarily to protect the privacy of individuals, the university is using the law to shield itself against needed institutional transparency.

As a result, individuals are being prevented from accessing their own personal information generated by and/or kept by the university, while others see their information improperly disclosed to political opponents.

Certainly an area where the U of O stands out. A culture of political-party-style management darkness coupled with irresponsible refusals to protect the information of its students and professors. For example, THIS, and THIS.

More to come before that particular culture changes... stay tuned.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Law student Paula Frawus has correctly gauged the mind and motives of president Allan Rock on rape-culture -- Opinion


In our opinion, this (below) media article shows that law student Paula Frawus has correctly gauged the mind and motives of president Allan Rock and his administration regarding primacy of image over substance:

Sexually explicit song on University of Ottawa law school field trip draws fire -- Ottawa Citizen, march 18, 2014

“It is disappointing that it takes involving the media to get a statement from the administration” Krawus said, adding that the statement is geared toward the media as opposed to the student body.
...
But according to Krawus, the university’s fear of attracting bad publicity trumps a stance against sexist behaviour.

“In failing to apologize in a timely manner, the message (the administration) is sending is: We’re afraid of attracting bad press,” says Krawus, adding that “the message should be: what happened will not be tolerated at school sanctioned events.”

Additionally, our opinion is that rather than asking the institution to impose a "this expression will not be tolerated" stance or rule, the adult law students could have talked it out on the bus ride back from the sugar bush, as a first step. If not sufficient, then the discontent students could search to implement more venues to continue the talking out of the matter, possibly asking for institutional resources in seeking out such venues. The university ombudswoman could be of some assistance here.

If professors or staff were involved, then there is a formal complaint process, which foresees mediation at an early stage.

We fail to see how a knee jerk reaction of calling for immediate institutional reprimand or sanctions, without making a significant effort to communicate in view of improving relations and working out differences, is productive.

Nonetheless, there is hope that Mr. Rock might eventually, with the help of his hand picked rape-culture advisory committee (which excludes all unions and associations of staff and students), come to understand that his primary role should be to enable communication and learning through inter-personal exchanges, rather than to create a facade, and to delay while the media crisis dissipates. (His public relations advisers, hired at corporate rates, regularly give him this advice, as access to information records have shown.)

Or the advisory committee might unfortunately make the usual canned recommendations of more and required classroom training and courses, with just the right "curriculum" and Power Point presentations?

We are in a nasty place when the students themselves ask for institutional controls on thought and expression, rather than primarily dedicate themselves to making the community through rich and intense (also risky) interpersonal exchanges of all sorts. In community, the question and practice of crass or vulgar language needs to be continually discussed and challenged in each of its inter-personal contexts, not regulated from above.

The institution has removed the physical spaces where such exchanges can spontaneously and routinely occur, and regulates posters, classroom access, physical disposition of furniture, etc. There are no true agoras on campus. The institution has segregated students into different programs of study, and created demanding yet sterile curricula. It appears that the institution has succeeded in atomizing us all when students themselves demand more rules that stifle social confrontation and protect individual isolation and group segregation.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Professor's union takes Rancourt arbitration to judicial review


The Association of Professors of the University of Ottawa (APUO) will challenge the Foisy arbitration of the university's unjust dismissal of Denis Rancourt by filing for judicial review before a panel of three judges of the Ontario Divisional Court.

The APUO's announcement was released on March 10, 2014, after careful consideration of the arbitration judgment, and reads:

The APUO is extremely disappointed in the decision rendered in Professor Denis Rancourt’s case. While the decision not only upheld the Employer’s unjust dismissal decision, the arbitrator also made some troubling statements concerning Academic Freedom which can have a profoundly negative impact on academics everywhere. APUO has filed for judicial review and will continue to work diligently on this case so the decision does not adversely affect the right to academic freedom of professors, librarians, and students in the university setting. (LINK)

This is the first time in APUO's history that an individual grievance is taken to judicial review. The Divisional Court is one of the busiest appellate courts in Canada, and it hears appeals from administrative tribunals such as labour arbitrations.

Friday, March 7, 2014

Grassroots community addresses rape culture at U of O -- U of O Watch comment

An ad hoc association of community members, union representatives, staff, and students has moved ahead and formed a campaign to address the rape culture at the University of Ottawa. It has produced eight recommendations for discussion, which are presented on its web site here:

http://www.uofo-lets-talk-about-it.org/
Click image for link to web site

There is also a petition to support this discussion.

One of the organizers, Anaïs Elboujdaïni, graduate student representative on the Board of Governors of the institution,was interviewed today on Radio Canada (CBC) about this initiative.

Ms. Elboujdaïni stated that students have been asking president Allan Rock to move on this issue for a long time. For example, there has been the concrete demand for a telephone help line, and other requests.

Ms. Elboujdaïni stated that the recommendations were meant for immediate discussion in view of implementing measures before the start of the new academic year, and before initiation week, whereas Allan Rock's advisory committee can be going on in parallel and will not produce changes prior to the new academic year.

U of O Watch hopes that a broad and inclusive discussion will occur in which open criticisms of the recommendations can be heard without being excluded by insurmountable accusations of rape apologism. We hope that a discussion about effective or counter-productive aspects of the actual implementations of any recommendations can be vibrant, free, and receptive.

There is a broad criticism of the related and relevant theoretical construct known as "critical race theory" which should be heard and considered.

Rules, regulations, norms of behaviour, detecting atitudes, and so on, in view of behavioural modification, including normative modification of expression, can be highly counter productive. This is evident already in many systems of behaviour and expression suppression, such as implemented by several religions, and the state education system itself.

Therefore, less rules and more debate between individuals of differing view points is the way to go. Rules should be designed solely to limit the harmful effects of institutional oppression of the individual, not to limit individual expression and political participation.

Let us look at the best societal outcomes of the 1960s. This creative, liberating, and unifying period was the result of rejecting rules and rejecting parenting by the institution, in favour of teach ins and sit ins. We need to rediscover our power to discuss and debate without exclusionism and mobbing. The present institutional (education, legal, government, police, employers, etc.) pressures are so great that the individual has become insecure and highly defensive. The same pressures are at the root of male predation and rape culture. It's a pressure cooker. We must find ways to alleviate the pressure, without relying on paternal "protections" from the very institutions that are causing the problems. We must take some democratic control of those very institutions to limit their oppressions of individuals.

Those are some of this author's concerns.

Thursday, March 6, 2014

Supreme Court of Canada refuses to address judicial bias -- Complaint to UN Human Rights Committee to follow

In a judgement released today, three judges of the Supreme Court of Canada joined seven judges from two lower courts, in refusing to address an evidence-based complaint of apparent bias of a judge in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice.

As a result, the bias complaint was never heard on merits in a court of competent jurisdiction and the allegedly tainted rulings stand, even the rulings made by the judge after he recused himself for actual bias moving forward.

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association released THIS response:

Release: Supreme Court of Canada refuses to address judicial bias loophole

(OTTAWA, March 6, 2014) – The Supreme Court of Canada has refused today to close a loophole that allows judges to circumvent their duty to address complaints of bias made against them by litigants.
Three judges of the Court dismissed a leave to appeal regarding an egregious case of apparent bias. A judge of the Ontario Superior Court in Ottawa had a financial and emotional connection with a party in a lawsuit, and a family connection with the law firm representing that party. When the defendant in the lawsuit requested to bring a motion regarding the judge’s appearance of bias, the judge threatened him with contempt of court, then abruptly withdrew from the case. Previous decisions made by the judge still stand and have never been reviewed in light of the bias allegations.
The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) intervened both by providing material witness evidence about the judge’s in-court conduct, and by seeking intervener status to address the national importance of the matter before the Supreme Court. Its motion for leave to intervene was denied, as was the applicant’s leave to appeal.
This opens a new era within the Canadian legal system, where judges can circumvent their duty to directly address bias accusations against them, making it possible for a complaint of bias to never be heard on its merits before a court of competent jurisdiction.
OCLA is taking the necessary steps to make a complaint to the UN Human Rights Committee for violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, which guarantees an impartial court to every litigant in signatory countries.
About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association
OCLA is an organization formed to defend civil liberties at a time when fundamental freedoms are subjected to systemic erosion in all spheres of social life. OCLA opposes institutional policies and decisions that remove from the individual his or her personal liberty or exclude the individual from participation in the democratic functions of society.
Background: An Ontario superior court judge had strong personal, family, emotional, and contractual financial ties to a party intervening for the plaintiff in the case, and also to the law firm representing the party in court, and did not disclose any of these ties. This party was also the employer of the plaintiff in the lawsuit, and funded the plaintiff’s litigation. The judge was tasked with determining the propriety of the party’s funding of the plaintiff, which was done with public money. The judge’s ties made it inconceivable that he would rule against the party. When the defendant discovered the judge’s ties and presented the evidence, the judge lost decorum, threatened the defendant with contempt of court, and recused himself, but refused to consider whether there was an appearance of bias, and continued to release decisions. The judge’s in-court reaction and walkout further confirmed his ties with the party in the lawsuit. The defendant raised the matter with six more judges, up to the court of appeal, but all of them refused to duly consider and properly apply the facts. As a result, all the decisions of the judge in the impugned motion to end the action stand to this day, even the decisions he released after recusing himself. [From: the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of Dr. Denis Rancourt]

Allan Rock on rape culture at the University of Ottawa


Allan Rock has been silent and hiding from the media until today. His explanation is that "he had nothing to say until today", until today's press conference.

Michaëlle Jean essentially confirmed that there is a rape culture at the University of Ottawa, while clarifying that it is also a broader societal phenomenon.

Rock did not acknowledge any responsibility for the apparent rape culture at the school, and appeared to be in denial:

"Rock said he’s been involved with the school for over 50 years and recent events 'stand in shocking contrast' to what he’s experienced."(LINK)

Rock's answer is to create a "task force" that will make recommendations. There is no evidence of immediate interim measures, apart from having summarily suspended an entire hockey team.

Rock did not acknowledge the significant union and association joint efforts that have already occurred to address the crisis.

On the positive side, Rock appears to have received the student association message that academic sanctions for non-academic offenses will not be tolerated. Now he needs to tell his staff.

Anne-Marie Roy did not attend the press conference. No effort was made to expressly include the unions and associations as an integral part of any solution at the school. Corporate paternalism seems to be the order of the day.

Monday, March 3, 2014

Male witches burn a lot less frequently

[Original title: Response to "University of Ottawa statement on comments made about Student Federation President"]

University of Ottawa statement on comments made about Student Federation President

OTTAWA, March 1, 2014  —  The University of Ottawa is appalled by the recent online dialogue about Anne-Marie Roy, President of the Student Federation of the University of Ottawa.

uOttawa President Allan Rock spoke with SFUO President Roy directly on Friday to offer the University’s support and committed to work with her to develop an appropriate response.

“The comments demonstrate attitudes about women and sexual aggression that have no place on campus, or anywhere else in Canadian society” said Mr. Rock.  “The University will work with our student President to ensure the situation is addressed properly.”

The University of Ottawa is committed to maintaining a campus that promotes respect for the dignity of every individual and a University community that is free from sexual harassment and discrimination.

Allan Rock has stepped-in to "work with her" to "develop an appropriate response", and to "ensure the situation is addressed properly".

“The comments demonstrate attitudes about women and sexual aggression that have no place on campus, or anywhere else in Canadian society” said Mr. Rock.

***

There appears to be no consideration given to the fact that this was a private exchange that was made public against the will of the participants, and that a large public mobbing ensued, which caused irreparable damage to four elected student representatives, who are being burned as witches that practice "rape culture". And Allan Rock wants to be seen as providing the stage. (media links)

If we start using extracted private exchanges (i) as a measure of success in our social engineering endeavors, and (ii) to identify those worthy of punishment and banishment, then we are headed straight into a totalitarian nightmare.

Your staging, Mr. Rock, does not address the root of the problem, and only drives us further down the wrong path. Open dialogue, without the fear of crippling material and status punishments, is what is needed, combined with less institutional oppression of the students all-round (who are bored to death by meaningless demands, and who dare not try to have a say).

Generating fear of expression and of having bad thoughts only makes things worst Mr. Rock. It is a mess you could have helped defuse but instead you joined and encouraged the mob. U of O is developing mobbing as the ultimate social betterment tool, under your enlightened leadership. What a mess.

It's not an election with branding points to be made Mr. Rock. It's a campus for learning. Is that so difficult to understand? You can't fight "rape culture" with campaigns and threats. You have to speak to the hearts of men. D - I - A - L - O - G - U - E.

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Ontario Civil Liberties Association moves to intervene in Supreme Court application about unresolved judicial bias complaint


The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has moved to intervene in the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada of appellant Denis Rancourt, regarding an unresolved judicial bias complaint that is advanced as grounds to overturn a Court of Appeal for Ontario decision to dimiss Rancourt's appeal from a lower court motion to end a defamation action against Rancourt on the grounds of maintenance and champerty.

The OCLA has posted all the court documents about its motion to intervene (OCLA's motion, St. Lewis response, U of O response, Rancourt response, and OCLA's reply): HERE-LINK.

At one point in argument, counsel for St. Lewis, Mr. Richard Dearden, rejects OCLA's intervention on the basis that:

"It is submitted that any organization that subscribes to Founding Principles that support hate speech and expression about child pornography, genocide and slavery utterly fails to 'represent the broad interests of citizens' in Canada." [at paragraph 19 of St. Lewis's response]

The Founding principles of OCLA are HERE, and are in evidence before the Supreme Court.

Iconic public intellectual Noam Chomsky, on reading the founding principles, endorsed OCLA as:

“I am very pleased to learn of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, and wish it the greatest success in its work, which could not be more timely and urgent as elementary civil rights, including freedom of speech, are under attack in much of the world, not excluding the more free and democratic societies.”

It appears that Mr. Dearden is stating, inter alia, that a civil liberties association that supports free expression on all topics, including taboo and sensitive topics, cannot possibly represent the broad interests of Canadians? Mr. Dearden often acts for clients defending freedom of the press.

***

All other posts about the application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada are: HERE, and HERE.

The summary of the application for leave to appeal is:
An Ontario superior court judge had strong personal, family, emotional, and contractual financial ties to a party intervening for the plaintiff in [the] case, and also to the law firm representing the party in court, and did not disclose any of these ties. This party was also the employer of the plaintiff in the lawsuit, and funded the plaintiff’s litigation. The judge was tasked with determining the propriety of the party’s funding of the plaintiff, which was done with public money. The judge’s ties made it inconceivable that he would rule against the party. When the defendant discovered the judge’s ties and presented the evidence, the judge lost decorum, threatened the defendant with contempt of court, and recused himself, but refused to consider whether there was an appearance of bias, and continued to release decisions. The judge’s in-court reaction and walkout further confirmed his ties with the party in the lawsuit. The defendant raised the matter with six more judges, up to the court of appeal [for Ontario], but all of them refused to duly consider and properly apply the facts. As a result, all the decisions of the judge in the lawsuit stand to this day, even the decisions he released after recusing himself.

--Summary, Memorandum of Argument, Application Book, page-34