Scott Duncan strikes back in Quebec

[eric]

Over on Pete's facebook page, as per the inevitable, they are starting down that slippery slope. Pete has even made what could be a significant error - sending "surety of the person" missives to government functionaries probably are relegated to File 13, but when you link them to statements that could fall under assorted hate speech laws someone might raise their eyebrows. https://www.facebook.com/notes/pete-dao ... 1179303918
You can use google translate if you want, but in summary Pete has sent an email to the premier of Quebec that could possibly raise a few eyebrows.

Yes, I am being careful of what I say to prevent this discussion verging into the political realm. Besides I am emulating Burnaby49 by sampling assorted efforts by budding young brewmasters - visited https://www.oldscollege.ca/community/oc ... index.html yesterday.

[arayder]

Burnaby49I had no idea what Arayder was talking about either. I haven't taken any moderator action on this discussion. I assume by "censored" he meant that I pointed out longstanding Quatloos policies.

A mod comes around and tells you your perfectly appropriate post (neither off-topic, abusive or offensive) violates some "policy" which apparently resides only his head. Then you are told the admonition isn't really censorship because the post wasn't removed.

Attempting to suppress speech is also censorship, folks.

Wait a minute. . .am I on the Ickes forum?

[Burnaby49]

Burnaby49I had no idea what Arayder was talking about either. I haven't taken any moderator action on this discussion. I assume by "censored" he meant that I pointed out longstanding Quatloos policies.

A mod comes around and tells you your perfectly appropriate post (neither off-topic, abusive or offensive) violates some "policy" which apparently resides only his head. Then you are told the admonition isn't really censorship because the post wasn't removed.

Attempting to suppress speech is also censorship, folks.

Wait a minute. . .am I on the Ickes forum?

I know, Quatloos is dystopian nightmare of free speach suppression. For those of you unfamiliar with the very few Quatloos rules I refer you to a post I made back in 2015;

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10330&start=1020#p190677

[arayder]

Over on Pete's facebook page, as per the inevitable, they are starting down that slippery slope. Pete has even made what could be a significant error - sending "surety of the person" missives to government functionaries probably are relegated to File 13, but when you link them to statements that could fall under assorted hate speech laws someone might raise their eyebrows. https://www.facebook.com/notes/pete-dao ... 1179303918
You can use google translate if you want, but in summary Pete has sent an email to the premier of Quebec that could possibly raise a few eyebrows.

I think Duncan's missives mischaracterizing the nature of hate speech laws (often followed by a dose of anti-semitism) are examples of the sort of intellectual poverty and dishonesty that occupies a sick little corner of freeman/sovcit/TFL subculture.

First Duncan tells us hate crime laws prescribe something they don't. Then he tells us the Jews are behind it all.

It's an insult to the intelligence of the TFL toadies, who apparently don't know a logical fallacy from shinolla.

[notorial dissent]

The only comment I saw or noted was one reminding people NOT to get lost in the Canadian hate Speech laws as that is off topic.

Discussing Duncan or Doust has nothing to do with that, and they are fair game. The law IS NOT.

[Burnaby49]

Yes, I am being careful of what I say to prevent this discussion verging into the political realm. Besides I am emulating Burnaby49 by sampling assorted efforts by budding young brewmasters - visited https://www.oldscollege.ca/community/oc ... index.html yesterday.

"This beer contains nuts."

Never thought I'd see that on a beer ad. The days of yeast, hops, barley and water are way behind us. Having said that the Pecan Brown Ale sounds good. A little off of my usual pubbing route though.

[arayder]

For those of you unfamiliar with the very few Quatloos rules I refer you to a post I made back in 2015;

viewtopic.php?f=52&t=10330&start=1020#p190677

This part?

There are few formal stated rules but just guidelines to keep things civil and at least semi-professional. The two big ones are the ban on discussions of religion and politics.

Respectfully said, I don't think busting the TFL brain trust for purposefully misrepresenting the law (in this case hate speech laws) is a discussion of religion or politics.

I think it is exactly what we do here.

Lest one argues that the very discussion of hate speech laws is indirectly about religion, I would point out that the "hate" in hate speech is just as often aimed at others based on their nationality, race, gender or sexual preference.

If a discussion of hate speech laws is thought to be about politics because the laws were written as part of a political process then every constitution, or statue we cite here would be off limits too!

Just saying. . .

[eric]

"This beer contains nuts."
Never thought I'd see that on a beer ad. The days of yeast, hops, barley and water are way behind us. Having said that the Pecan Brown Ale sounds good. A little off of my usual pubbing route though.

They didn't have that variety when I went in there so I didn't bother getting into a discussion over it. They're fairly close to me and I was more interested in the fact that they have an excellent butcher shop at the college. Also sort of work related, which is veering sort of off topic, not the beer but the fact that it's an ag college. Their students used to do their practicum with us.

[The Observer]

If a discussion of hate speech laws is thought to be about politics because the laws were written as part of a political process then every constitution, or statue we cite here would be off limits too!

But that is not what Burnaby was addressing. The comment came up as to whether hate speech laws were going too far. That has nothing to do with whether a particular sovrun is anti-Semitic, nor did it have anything to do with "busting the TFL brain trust." The comment went directly to the political question of whether a law is right or not; that invariably becomes a subjective issue and we could argue both sides of the issue until the cows come home and still not have an answer.

The thread topic is about Scott Duncan, not about whether hate speech laws go too far. If you can't figure out the difference, then I can certainly understand why you are confused.

[arayder]

The thread topic is about Scott Duncan, not about whether hate speech laws go too far. If you can't figure out the difference, then I can certainly understand why you are confused.

I guess I wasn't being clear. My main point was that, indicative of Duncan's poor understanding of law, he misstated the nature and purpose of hate speech laws. I suppose in the process myself and others may have wandered by the issue of the propriety of hate speech laws.

But if I had a dime for every time somebody here talked about a law going too far, not far enough, being just or effective I'd buy you all several rounds. And I'll be stumped if I can recall the times a mod jumped in a threw down the don't-talk-politics-or-religion card.

I suppose it could be time to call the mods in after a couple of members went round and round on the issue for a couple of pages.

[The Observer]

I suppose in the process myself and others may have wandered by the issue of the propriety of hate speech laws.

Bingo. That is why Burnaby addressed the issue at that point.

But if I had a dime for every time somebody here talked about a law going too far, not far enough, being just or effective I'd buy you all several rounds. And I'll be stumped if I can recall the times a mod jumped in a threw down the don't-talk-politics-or-religion card.

I think you exaggerate the frequency of such conversations and minimize your memory of the number of times the mods get involved. I am usually the moderator who pulls the trigger first when threads start moving into political or religious territory, though not as frequently in the non-US threads since we have moderators for those threads. Incidents like these happen rather infrequently since most people who post here are reasonable and understand the intent of the no-politics/religion rule. And most of the ones who run afoul of the rule understand after the mod intervenes. It usually boils down to a couple of users who simply are either incapable of understanding or are in defiance of the rule.

I suppose it could be time to call the mods in after a couple of members went round and round on the issue for a couple of pages.

You suppose wrong. Generally, the moderators get it right 95% of the time, and the few times that things get out of hand, we discuss it behind closed doors and move on. If errors are made, it is usually on the side of allowing a topic to continue until it can be discussed among ourselves before making a final decision. This is why your accusation of censorship is out in left field, at least in terms of what passes for censorship on this site. Yes, I know, you can come up with a Merriam-Webster's definition of censorship that will expose us as the Thought Police from hell, but I will also point that Quatloos is a benevolent oligarchy, not a libertine democracy.

Now, in a further moment of censorship at its finest and darkest, you need to drop the subject and not respond further. There is no need for you to respond further to this since the moderators' position and authority has been explained. This thread does not need to be further derailed off Scott Duncan. Any more posts off-topic will be removed by me, unless another moderator beats me to it.

[Burnaby49]

Since I'm moderating the Canadian forum I'll give some details on my thought process in banning discussion of Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code.

Arayder wrote that all laws are part of the political process and therefore logically, under my heavy hand, are subject to being banned if discussed. I think that a flawed analogy because our hate laws are unique and can't be compared to other Canadian laws. Murder, fraud, arson, you name any provision of the Criminal code and there is no argument that a political process got them enacted. But nobody, except perhaps fringe actors, have any issues with the intent or application of most of these laws once enacted. Everybody agrees that murder is a crime. However there is no general agreement on our hate laws. Let's take another look at the legislation.

Section 318: Hate Propaganda
Advocating genocide

318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.

Definition of "genocide"

(2) In this section, "genocide" means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,

(a) killing members of the group; or

(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

Consent

(3) No proceeding for an offence under this section shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definition of "identifiable group"

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

Section 319: Public incitement of hatred

319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred

(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Defences

(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;

(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;

(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or

(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

Forfeiture

(4) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section, anything by means of or in relation to which the offence was committed, on such conviction, may, in addition to any other punishment imposed, be ordered by the presiding provincial court judge or judge to be forfeited to Her Majesty in right of the province in which that person is convicted, for disposal as the Attorney General may direct.

Exemption from seizure of communication facilities

(5) Subsections 199(6) and (7) apply with such modifications as the circumstances require to section 318 or subsection (1) or (2) of this section.

Consent

(6) No proceeding for an offence under subsection (2) shall be instituted without the consent of the Attorney General.

Definitions

(7) In this section,

"communicating" includes communicating by telephone, broadcasting or other audible or visible means;

"identifiable group" has the same meaning as in section 318;

"public place" includes any place to which the public have access as of right or by invitation, express or implied;

"statements" includes words spoken or written or recorded electronically or electro-magnetically or otherwise, and gestures, signs or other visible representations.

Have you ever seen vaguer, more subjective, yet all-encompassing legislation? I assume that this is deliberate since the perceived threat is, itself, vague and subjective. Murder can be defined as a specific act but how can you define in advance what can be reasonably assumed to promote hatred? For a start what is hatred and how do you define it for legal purposes? The Criminal Code doesn't even try and instead leaves it to the subjective view of government enforcers.

This is one of the most, if not the most, controversial laws ever enacted in Canada. Opinions on it range from it being a gross infringement of the right to free speech to a passionate defense of it as a necessary law to protect the victims of "hatred". Who are these potential victims?

(4) In this section, "identifiable group" means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.

That list is so wide-ranging that it covers a majority of the Canadian population and puts us smack dab into the middle of religious and political discussions. Religious because the main application has been in respect to comments or actions against religious groups, mostly Jews. Try going into that topic without getting into things like Israel's Palestinian policies. Political because as soon as you start talking about race or sexual orientation being protected by law politics inevitably comes to the fore.

All of this could possibly be a great topic for passionate debate about the allowable limits of free speech in a democracy. But we're not having that debate here.

Note - I finished this just before reading Observer's last post. I agree, time to move on.

[arayder]

My understanding is that Karl Lentz has a version of Tender For Law. I wonder if Lentz's theory predates Duncan's revelation thus suggesting he borrowed Lentz's idea rather than thinking it up as a product of his self-proclamed brilliance?

I don't know. I will start making a research on Karl Lentz, because I admit I don't know much about him. On his page broadmind.org, he shows himself as a multiculturalist Freeman theorist and, unlike Duncan, calls for donations via Paypal. I wonder if his business is very lucrative, but it's clear he's wishing to make money with this.

I did a little poking into Lentz and found this link: http://commonlaw.5leek.com/the-tender-f ... diots.html and an old Quatloos thread with the usual valuable insights :viewtopic.php?t=10048

The site has a lot of material written by Lentz. You would think that would be helpful, but reading through Lentz's material is just as difficult as getting through Duncan's. Some of his advice seems to be contradictory.

I have a few thoughts. . .

Lentz likes to shout as does Duncan.

His theories regarding personhood and surety are similar to those of Duncan.

My guess is that Lentz's experience in attempting to use his methods predate Duncan. So we should be able to find a record of Lentz's failures that set precedent. Many of Lentz's failures are referenced at the Quatloos link.

As you say Lentz has tried to make money off his theories.

He has spent a lot of effort explaining his failures.

More to come. I hope this helps.

[coffeekitten]

If I understand, it's still allowed to say Scott Duncan is a damn racist, misogynist asshole and that he hates possibly everyone but himself.

He's a fan of Milo Yiannopoulos:



Interesting fact: he also posted this:


http://aplus.com/a/bernice-king-resist- ... 4c456e1db2

"Do not argue with those who support him - it doesn't work and it makes them feel important." (speaking of Trump)

"The only thing they don't know how to handle is non-violence and humor."

I don't know, it could be about Scott Duncan and his apostles too: what do you think?

[Arthur Rubin]

"This beer contains nuts."

I'm reminded of a sign I saw at the "Con Suite" at an SF Convention: This room contains nuts. It may also contain peanuts and tree nuts.

[eric]

I'm not even sure if the brew even contains nuts. In the last couple of years in this province there have been some efforts to grow unusual strains of barley and hops for the micro-brew market. After all, for the farmer, if his malt barley gets hit by hail he can cover his inputs by selling it for feed, if he has good weather he makes ridiculous profits by selling it for malt. BTW, barley is probably the number two crop around here for the grain farmers simply because the margins are so much better than for wheat and canola for eco-diesel is still not fully established.

[coffeekitten]

There are great connoisseurs of beer here in Quatloos.

Pete Daoust is angry today with Satanists. He's angry with people who have "imaginary friends", as he calls people who are religious. I don't know: maybe he would like this country to forbid all religions, but it's against the Charter of Rights and we're not in a communist country. But I believe the Charter of Rights is only important for him when he doesn't want to pay his tickets.



Well, I think those Satanists just look funny and I can't really know if they take themselves seriously, but they're probably inoffensive. I don't know why Pete Daoust is so upset.

[coffeekitten]

Will Bed, another Duncan apostle, have sent a letter to the Sûreté du Québec, economic crimes section.



Here's the envelope content:

https://steemit.com/surety/@willbed/rev ... a-personne

I won't translate everything, but I'll try to summarize:

Revenu Québec would owe him $4828.95.

Because Revenu Québec ignore or refuse to answer his questions, he reclaims $ 2 000 000.

He also wants to send this letter to radio guys.

I admit that when I try to read this, my head wants to explode. But well, what I can say is that Revenu Québec sent him a statement of account from February 10th and a letter from February 1st. Will Bed writes that this letter has been void and corrected (by him), because he decided it is unacceptable.

Pete Daoust already said that he wishes to dismantle Revenu Québec (démantelons Revenu Québec): http://www.lasuretedesapersonne.com/201 ... uebec.html I guess that would take more than a couple of gibberish letters to achieve that.

[eric]

Back somewhere towards the beginning of this thread I mentioned that youtube videos exist of Scott interacting with the authorities regarding the loss of his condo. Here's one of his half dozen or so specific to Scott:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hld1UBBn7Xg
(Derek Moran, Scott and Tara Duncan, and an unknown "Peter" when the locks got changed on Scott's Condo)
It seems that at this stage of the development of his philosophy he was still very early and hadn't fleshed out much. BTW, the poster of these videos is Derek Moran, a long time supporter of Scott from the old days. Here's his facebook page, not much interesting unless you're a friend, but his friends list is a virtual telephone book of Canadian Freemen from the old days, including such characters as Dean Clifford and Sino General.
https://www.facebook.com/derek.moran.71 ... 1487363517

[Burnaby49]

A comment on my friend the Chief. He seems to have gone completely legit after his contempt of court conviction. His main passion in life is his music which he's trying to promote on a commercial basis. Not to my taste but I'm an ancient geriatric whose primary listening is a 15 disc CD set of Bach's harpsichord works transcribed for piano played by Angela Hewitt, a fellow Canadian, and a 25 disc set I'm working through of Haydn's complete string quartets by the Kodaly Quartet. My life is a blaze of never-ending excitement.

You can follow the Chief here;

https://www.facebook.com/ChiefRock2k9?fref=tl_fr_box

He has a separate Facebook page for his musical endeavours

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Chief-Ro ... 5824024163

Actually a nice guy face to face. I always had congenial dealings with him.