So Who Is This Demonstrating?

[CHIMO]

Jean denies link to separatists



Debbie Jodoin protests Tuesday the planned appointment of governor general-designate Michaelle Jean at Parliament Hill.
http://www.canada.com/national/story.html?id=e98926ab-b9e8-4094-b6c6-e5d549f2d5e4

I thought that I would do a google.

Welcome to the Conservative Party of Canada
But the web page doesn't turn up. However the cached selection has this.
Date: Wednesday, September 29, 2004
City: Ottawa
Location: New Edinburgh Yacht Club
Time: 1800
Title: Crack the Lobster Fundraiser – Ottawa-Vanier

Description:
John Reynolds – House Leader is the Guest Speaker

Contact:
(yyyyyyyyy) (???@rogers.com)

Well on to another entry.

Christian Coalition Strongly Supports Ottawa National Marriage Day Rally: 10,000 take to Hill to oppose changes to marriage laws
Saturday, August 23, 2003

Ottawa Sun - By KATHLEEN HARRIS, Parliamentary Bureau
PARLIAMENT Hill was awash with hymns, prayers and anti-gay union slogans yesterday during a mass rally to defend the traditional definition of marriage.

Arriving by busloads, the all-ages, multi-ethnic group raised a collective voice against the Liberal government's draft bill to legalize gay marriage.

Marching from the Supreme Court to the Peace Tower, demonstrators carried signs that read "Adam and Eve, Not Adam and Steve," and "Don't Mess with Marriage" and wore red T-shirts with the universal symbols for man and woman. RCMP estimate the crowd was close to 10,000.

"I don't mind gays and lesbians, may they join in civil unions," said Debbie Jodoin of Orleans. "But do not undermine the majority of Canadians. We are here and we are saying no. We're tired of giving up our rights."

http://ccicinc.org/nation/082303.html

And on to the next entry.

March 30, 2003
REDEEMING THE MAPLE LEAF:
Rain can't halt pro-U.S. rally on the Hill: 4,000 gather to support Iraq operation (Paula McCooey, March 30, 2003, The Ottawa Citizen)

Supporters of the war in Iraq grabbed their opportunity yesterday to voice their approval of the U.S.-led coalition forces' efforts to remove Saddam Hussein from office and liberate the Iraqi people, while a smaller crowd rallied for peace outside the U.S. Embassy.

Nearly 4,000 supporters of the U.S. and coalition forces weathered the rain to relay their opposition to Prime Minister Jean Chretien's decision to exclude Canada from the 45 nations listed as allies.


Signs piercing the sea of red, white, and blue read "God Bless America" and "Shame to Chretien."

Ms. Jodoin, a member of an anti-Liberal group "Free Dominion," organized the rally. Strong backers of Free Dominion and the pro-war rally included members of the Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative parties, as well as personalities such as CFRA talk show host Lowell Green.

http://www.brothersjudd.com/blog/archives/004915.html

Well, so now I have a good picture of this name. But one thing confuses me. An earlier item listed this:

The following is censored. Not for public exposure.

http://www.pafso.com/english/membership.html

I find it a funny coincidence anyway, considering everything!

[SteppingRazor]

1. Psst... per site rules, you shouldn't give out addresses...

phone numbers, etc. in posts.

[CHIMO]

2. They Are Copied

From web pages. If that is not permitted let me know and I will delete it before editing time finishes.

[SteppingRazor]

3. .

"Do not post personal information about any other person, even if that information is publicly available. Do not "dig up" information about any other visitor to this website. You may post the public contact information for public figures, but you may not post anyone's private information without their consent. "
-- From the Big Book o' Rules.

I'm not saying this to be a hardass. Just pointing it out because I got in trouble for the same thing a couple days ago :evilgrin:

[CHIMO]

4. Thanks

Hope that it is now acceptable. Has it been edited enough in your opinion, or does it require further editing?

[SteppingRazor]

6. Nice!

Yeah, that oughtta do it! :rofl:

[CHIMO]

7. Just A Question

How is a public figure defined?
For example someone that has 150 to 200 google entries, is that a public figure? Or Ralph Nader, is he a public figure? Or is a public figure only an elected official, which would exclude radio announcers?

Someone that organizes political demonstrations and events would seem to be a public figure in my mind and should be put up for public scrutiny. But I can also understand that some statements could be libelous?

[iverglas]

10. I don't think you broke a rule

You didn't dig up the contact information in question; it was intentionally published by the person in question for the purpose of being contacted.

It was also entirely incidental to the content of your post: all you were doing was reproducing something from the net, and from an official political party site at that, to make a point about the political opinions/activities of the individual in question (who seeks out every opportunity to do so herself). Your intent wasn't to post personal information about an individual, or to encourage/incite anyone to contact her, for instance.

The *fact* of her contact information being given -- by her -- in a particular context was the point you were placing in issue. It's kind of hard to make that point without referring to the contact information. ;)

I found it amusing that her big hug-the-neighbours fest was given a notice on the paix/nowar site. Her contact information was there, too -- in the announcement of the rally in favour of Canada getting in on the ravaging of Iraq.

Your post really wasn't in the vein of "here she is, here's her email address, now go get her".

An analogy might be the rule against hearsay evidence in a court -- with the exception that such evidence is perfectly admissible not to prove the content of the statement that was heard, but to prove the *fact* that the statement was made.

You weren't reporting her contact info for your own purpose; you were reporting that she gave out her contact info for her purposes, the purposes being what was in issue, and the fact that she gave out her contact info in relation to them being the point.

[CHIMO]

11. Thanks For The

Comment.

However, at the time the post was made there was additional information in the post, although it was all copied from the web pages given above. I also had an additional comment in my summary.

I suppose that insinuation could be questionable. I believe that the caution was about the contact information that was available.

I would have taken the attitude that the person looses anonymity by the fact that they are demonstrating and giving out their name and as such have become a public figure. But it is not my area of expertise with a first course in contract law my limit.

Thanks again for your comments.

[iverglas]

12. nono, I got that

I meant in the post's original form as I took it to have been, w/o the xxx and ??? business.

That contact info was just part of the material being reproduced in order to convey the point, not the point of the post.

Granted, the point was made w/o the specific contact info being included. But I think the person lost "anonynimity" by making herself a contact for a purpose, and publishing that fact and that information.

There's no "law" involved, really. Just etiquette and common decency, in cases to which such a rule would actually apply. Nobody actually has any right to "anonymity", and privacy laws certainly don't apply to information that is obtained on websites readily accessible to, and designed to be accessed by, the public.

I'm a stickler for the personal info "rule" on the net myself, and I've been enormously peeved, for instance, with discussion board operators who have permitted under-18s, in all their self-important and self-righteous and stupid bravado, to publish their own identifying information to show what big brave people they are. Actually, I've been peeved when board operators have allowed *anyone* to do it; being stupid and/or obnoxious does not mean that someone deserves to be vulnerable to harm.

I've been stalked by a hateful loon on line myself, so I tend to take it all a little seriously (and practice extreme caution since then).

But if I had published my personal and contact info openly and unrestrictedly on the internet (or in the newspaper, or on television) in association with a political cause or a controversial event or person, I certainly wouldn't expect someone else to come all over solicitous about my welfare and insist that I be protected from myself by having that info excised when it, and the fact of my publishing it in a particular context, was the very subject of comment.

Jodoin has made herself what is apparently a very comfortable bed; I don't think she needs us to make sure that no springs poke through it and bite her in the ass, or would have any business expecting us to do that.

[CHIMO]

13. Understood

But in addition to my modified summary I had posted the area that is now identified as censored.

I think that the caution was perhaps partially warranted. But it wasn't worrying me. I think the final revisions got it across, almost. And I realize that there is a law in the location of the writer and the location of the publisher. Anyway it was no big deal.

Again thanks for the words.

[Spazito]

5. Surprise, surprise....NOT

The faux Con party is desparate to find a wedge issue but they have failed yet again. Give it up Harper and your right wing christian cohorts, it ain't gonna happen.

Thanks for the info!

[Swede]

8. This Debbie Jodoin doesn't like anything does she?

Boy is she in the wrong country.

[iverglas]

9. good one

A tracker after my own heart. ;)

Gonna write to the news service?