Talk:Freedom Party of Ontario/Archive 1

message: 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
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  False Insinuations on Wikipedia entry for Freedom Party of Ontario 

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

message: 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."
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)
thread_title: Response to Paul McKeever's comments on Free Dominion

message: 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   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)
thread_title: Comment on External sources

message: 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)
thread_title: Changes