Talk:Marc Lemire/Archive 1

Protected

I've protected this page because of the anon IP vandalism and now the creation of a sockpuppet. No point in waiting until more of them appear. If anyone would like to edit the page, just give me a shout and I'll unprotect; otherwise, I'll leave it locked for a day or two. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 06:02, May 7, 2005 (UTC)

I submit that the facts and neutrality of this article on the Mr. Lemire should be disputed. The article was largely edited by [name removed] who is known to be a member of Anti-Racist Action and is personally antagonistic towards anyone on the opposite end of the political spectrum. Dogmatic 17:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The authorship of the article is not sufficient proof of inaccuracy or POV. CJCurrie 19:47, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And please stop spamming talk pages with your accusations about editors. -Willmcw 21:35, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced negative claims

I blanked this article down to a super duper sub stub because it contained highly inflammatory claims without any sources at all. It is extremely important that all such claims be properly sourced at all times. If you ever see an article like this, and a history like this, the proper response is to either fix the article or stub it, because leaving up inflammatory claims (by you as the author of the article) without references is not scholarly.--Jimbo Wales 22:44, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you explain the {{fact}} tags everywhere? It seems more like trying to hide something by just removing it because some povs consider it to be inflammatory. I think it would be better to put up a {{disputed}} tag and let people know that this view is an outside and possibly untrue view. If the consensus thinks it best to remove the portion, then it should be removed. If it isn't presented as fact, it cannot be libel, and if it isn't libelous, it isn't scholarly to hide information.Just H 02:36, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone has time to source the article, sources are easy enough to find:

Three sources that can be used in an article are: Web of Hate by Warren Kinsella (paperback edition) pgs 416-424, this article by Matthew Lauder, this article from B'nai Brith Canada. Homey 04:48, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few other sources at my disposal beyond these. I'm busy with something else (not Wikipedia related) at present, but will try to redraft the article tomorrow. CJCurrie 05:03, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try and help out. Is it possible for Homey to re-insert the photo? --—Viriditas | Talk 07:06, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Freedomsite does not host the Heritage Front, or Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform. If you look at those links, it points to other sites (heritagefront.com and populist.org)

As well there is no evidence he runs the Heritage Front. (anon)

Paul Fromm refers to Lemire as "CAFE webmaster"[www.stormfront.org/archive/t-151348CROWN'S_ARGUMENT_DESTROYED_IN_ZUNDEL_CASE.html]. Lemire has also been listed as the admin of Fromm's canadafirst.net[1] The address provided in the WHOIS for populist.org is the address at which Lemire's freedomsite is based. The registrant's email address is marc@LEMIRE.COM[2]Homey 14:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the IP address that anonymously posted above is the same that vandalized the article several months ago[3]Homey 14:34, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As for evidence that he "runs the Heritage Front", there is Matthew Lauder's evidence. Lauder infilatrated the far-right and knew Lemire personally (a fact Lemire acknowledges in various writings). The Heritage Front may or may not be defunct, if it has gone under then it would be true to say that Lemire does not run the Front anymore but that doesn't change the fact that he did at one time. Homey 14:39, 22 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your source is a book? Want to provide directions to the library and the catalogue number for people to verify it? post links

Is this for real? CJCurrie 19:47, 24 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Human Rights Commission

Why are the changes I made being reverted? Veritas-Canada

The changes make a number of claims that are not sourced. How can you say it's he is the first person to "prevail" at the Commission? And what exactly does it mean to prevail anyway? I'm not denying that the case never happened but you must cite a more authorative source than a Lemire advocacy site in order to include such information. -PullUpYourSocks 23:48, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The claim was sourced to Mr. Lemire's website. After all this is an article on Marc Lemire and to quote his website should not be an issue at all. If this page just exists to libel Mr. Lemire with biased sources (Like Matthew Lauder and Warren Kinsella - who has already been sucessfully sued numerous times for libel) it should be removed all together. It seems clear that this page is only put online by people who are in disagreement with Mr. Lemire, and any edits which portray him in any positive light gets removed within a few minutes, by sock puppets or Wiki admins who want to enfore their own agenda. The fact is Mr. Warman LOST his case against the Freedomsite. Why on earth would I face so much crap to have that included in the article. Warman filed a complaint, it lasted more than two years, it went through various investigations and was adopted by the Canadian Human Rights Commission, who took the case to teh tribunal. It is a victory by Mr. Lemire, plain and simply. Mr. Lemire won. Veritas-Canada

I'll repeat my previous comment: a case abandoned is not the same as a case lost. The current wording is better than what came before, but this is still misleading information. CJCurrie 00:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More to the point, I think that V.C. is being a bit selective with his information. Take a look at this link, which covers a case between Warman and Lemire that was still active as of February 2006. It looks like Warman may have withdrawn one submission in order to concentrate on another -- which is not precisely the "victory for Lemire, plain and simple" suggested above.

It's possible that I'm misreading this situation, but I'm going to remove the notice again pending clarification. By the way, V.C., are you familiar with the three-revert rule? CJCurrie 01:05, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link you provided is about Interested parties, and doesn't have anything to do with the Tribunal withdrawing the complaint against the Freedomsite. Veritas-Canada

I think you may have missed my point. CJCurrie 02:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The links provided reference craig harrison posting that material, not Mark Lemire. Veritas-Canada

This article was horrible

Nizkor is not a reliable source. Stormfront message boards are not reliable sources. This article has been a problem for a long long time. I started out trying to fix it myself, but it was hopelessly complex for me, not knowing a lot about the subject matter.

Therefore, I have stubbed it again.

I am really serious: you MUST write with attention to SOURCES. Random message boards do not count. Internet achives of unknown provenance do not count. We need newspapers, magazine articles, actual government documents, etc. REAL SOURCES. --Jimbo Wales 02:35, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a reliable source? Khoi khoi 03:10, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Indymedia? Goodness, no.--Jimbo Wales 03:55, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok. ~~What about Warren Kinsella?~~ Khoi khoi 04:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I guess according to Veritas-Canada, he is a "known liar"... Khoi khoi 04:08, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do we have any other reason to think that Warren Kinsella's work might not be reliable for our purposes? Has he been critiqued by reliable sources, etc.--Jimbo Wales 16:05, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some reviews of the book and some information on Mr. Kinsella: A wake-up call against hate, Warren Kinsella, Shedding Light on the Prince of Darkness, National Post: Warren Kinsella, 1997 Audit of Antisemitic Incidents (note that B'nai Brith uses Web of Hate as a source). I would say that Kinsella is as reliable a source as anyone in Canada on the far right in Canada. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AnnieHall (talk • contribs) 18:37, 1 January 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Shoot. Sorry about that. Forgot to sign. AnnieHall 19:14, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My edits

I've added a reference to a Canadian Broadcasting Company source. Though my sentence is poor, the reference is rich, and adds to Lemire's notability. In a nutshell, the CBC links Lemire to several arrests (13, to be exact) in France.

I added the reference because CBC was the only Canadian source I knew. However, I intend to ask for more from the help desk. Obviously, the most rich sources are going to be Canadian and European ones.

I recognize that this person is a hero to some and odious to others. However, he is a living person, and notable. As a living person and a human being, he deserves neutral (read fair) coverage from Wikipedia. If you were a subject of the largest online encyclopedia that anyone can edit, I'm sure you would want the same. Nina Odell 14:29, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nina, I agree. One thing to be clear on here, and I am NOT yet fully clear on it, is a distinction between a free speech activist and an advocate for the sites he hosts. I can grasp fully that someone might not agree at all with certain odious views, but might agree to host websites for those who do, on the principle of freedom of speech. I don't share that approach, myself, but I can grasp that it could be the case. So we should be careful not to jump to the conclusion that Mr. Lemire's political sympathies lie with these websites, unless we have evidence of it. If there is evidence, we follow where it leads. But that seems to me to be at least part of where the argument has been.--Jimbo Wales 16:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Let me be clear in the addition of this reference. Whatever views Mr. Lemire has or has had in the past, his actions appear to have some "positive" consequences, i.e. raising the specter of internet free speech in general. It's an important topic for those of us who care about it, such as myself. I have yet to receive much more data, however. On the face of it, in "protecting" himself and his website, he is, in a sense "protecting" the internet with regards to free speech. That doesn't mean that was his intent, just a consequence. This is an example of a "positive", that can be potentially be included in the article. Nina Odell 17:00, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Something possibly useful an anon left on my user talk page

I did not write the following, I found it on my user talk page. There are some claims here that I have not verified. Is heritagefront.com really hosted by Lemire's web service, for example? Anyway this does seem to be a potentially useful source. --Jimbo Wales 22:42, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Heritage Front website identify Lemire as a Heritage Front organizer. Since the site is hosted by Lemire's web service there can be no doubt, whatsoever, about the accuracy of this source:

http://www.heritagefront.com/updates/feb11_2001.html Heritage Front Warns Hamilton Residents Of Health Threat Posed By Immigration

For Immediate Release — February 11, 2001

HAMILTON: On Saturday, February the 10th, The Heritage Front, Canada's largest Racialist organization, distributed over 6,000 pamphlets in the area of Henderson Hospital alerting Hamilton residents to the inherent health threats posed to all Canadians by the current dilapidated Immigration and Refugee systems.

In a pamphlet entitled "Community Health Alert: Immigration can KILL You!" the Heritage Front outlines the devastating effects of unscreened immigration to Canada.

The pamphlet highlights several recent high-profile examples of unscreened or poorly screened immigrants which have caused tuberculosis outbreaks in Hamilton, Montreal and Toronto. In the December TB outbreak in Hamilton, an immigrant from the Dominican Republic has already cost tax payers close to two million dollars to treat. That cost could escalate to over five million dollars due to the fact that this immigrant has Multi-Drug Resistant Tuberculosis, which can cost up to one million dollars per patient to treat.

"The event was very successful and the reception we received from Hamilton residents is very encouraging" says Marc Lemire, one of the event organizers. "Everyone we spoke to was very supportive and one eager resident, who lives down the street from Henderson Hospital, immediately reached into his pocket and gave us a donation on the spot to help continue our work."

Many of the medical staff at Henderson Hospital were also quite supportive of our efforts. A group of nurses on a break, stopped us on the street, invited us for coffee and spoke honestly and openly about their misgivings and feelings about Canada's Immigration fiasco and its serious health implications.

The nurses at Henderson Hospital have suffered a lot of stress and tension with the recent arrival of Colette Matshimoseka, a 32 year old Congolese visitor with what was initially thought to be the highly-infectious Ebola virus. Although Ebola has been ruled out, her mysterious ailment remains undiagnosed. Seventy people are known to have come in contact with her, as well as five who were "splashed" with bodily fluids. The nurses at Henderson are flabbergasted that there is no health screening in place for people arriving from seriously high risk areas like the Democratic Republic of Congo. In a bid to enlighten other medical staff members at Henderson, the nurses took a handful of our pamphlets to distribute to co-workers.

Heritage Front Hamilton has received dozens of supportive calls since Saturday and many inquires for more information via the Internet.

http://www.heritagefront.com/updates/update_march17-2001.html HF White and Proud Flyers Distributed at University of Waterloo

In January and February of 2001, supporters of the Heritage Front distributed "White and Proud" and "Just the Facts" flyers at the University of Waterloo. Some of the flyers were handed out to students, while others were placed on bulletin boards and around the campus.

There was an article in the University of Waterloo's newspaper "Imprint", and in response a letter from the Heritage Front's Marc Lemire was published."

I'm taking it on good faith that Marc Lemire is merely a member of Heritage Front and not an agent of it's website. Should there be evidence to suggest to contrary, then so be it. I wrote a paragraph in relation to this press release that I feel is neutral. Nina Odell 01:46, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That paragraph wasn't neutral at all. It merely quoted the Heritage Front press release as fact. I deleted that paragraph. Feel free to rewrite it so it is genuinely neutral, and doesn't simply promote the HF line. Spylab 12:24, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In truth, I think I've done all I can here. I wasn't trying to paint an overly rosy picture, I was trying to put in a sentence here and there that was neutral and not overly pejorative. I feel strongly about BLP. I don't think it's a bad thing to err on the side of "too positive", but I did expect that my paragraph would be added to or tweaked. I didn't expect it to be removed. Even as an African-American, I have no "dog in this fight", so I'll withdraw. Nina Odell 15:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases promoting a political organization are not neutral or reliable sources. Several claims were deleted from this article because the sources were considered too negative to be neutral. Replacing them with sources that are blatantly positive is not acceptable either, especially with controversial topics like this. Also, I have no idea what BLP is supposed to mean. Spylab 22:07, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't know what it's supposed to be called, but I meant biographies of living people. You are also quite right, Spylab, the content shouldn't be slanted on any one side. I'm afraid I have no experience with biographies of living people, and really try to avoid them. Thanks for inadvertently letting me off the hook:).Nina Odell 00:20, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the notice at the top of the page. WP:BLP. -Will Beback · † · 00:30, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New source

In January 1997, the Canadian Jewish Congress produced a report on hate groups called "From Marches to Modems: A Report on Organized Hate In Metro Toronto" which has a section on Marc Lemire under "leaders".

It can be downloaded from the Canadian Jewish Congress website as an MS Word document: http://www.cjc.ca/docs/RD/98_Marches%20to%20Modems.doc (the part on Lemire is on page 26 on the copy I just downloaded) It's listed on this document index on the CJC site but it's a bit difficult to find since the index isn't in alphabetical order (or any order that I can determine) http://www.cjc.ca/template.php?Language=EN&action=rd Dimitroff 01:03, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CBC Article and Canadian Jewish Congress

The CBC Article CJCurrie is referencing does not mention the Freedomsite at all and the title of the article is clearly about this quote from the article "The Canadian connection is a website run by the Charlemagne Hammer Skinheads, which has blatantly anti-semitic content. At one point it says: "the six million...the Holocaust...the gas chambers... what a joke." "

Also note the Canadian Jewish Congress has intervened against Marc Lemire in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing case and should not be considered an unbiased source -> CHRT Tribunal Decision allowing CJC As Interested Party <-. -- Veritas-Canada 05:34, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A source doesn't have to be "unbiased" to be used in wikipedia. Jimbo has accepted and used Bnai Brith as a reliable source in this article [4] so there's no reason not to accept the CJC. You're going to have a lot of difficulty arguing that Jewish groups can't be used as sources on anti-Semitism. Dimitroff 05:41, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jewish organizations talking about anti-semitism is one thing, but the two mentioned groups have directly intervened against Lemire. Therefore their comments on him might be somewhat slanted. As well the quote you are putting on is very inflamatory, calling groups on Lemires site "Canada’s most virulent antisemitic organizations". That certainly is not veritiable nor is it even close to being neutral-- Veritas-Canada

PS a quick check of Lemires Freedomsite and the Heritage Front is just a link there.. Veritas-Canada 06:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the Bnai Brith and Canadian Jewish Congress are both notable organizations and have been granted intervenor status in a proceeding against Lemire is all the more reason to quote what they have to say about him. Dimitroff 07:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

On that note I've reverted the article to the last one edited by Dimitroff to inlude the sources mentioned. AnnieHall 17:59, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CSIS and Justice Pierre Blais on Marc Lemire

Earlier this decade Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel was detained in Canada under a National Security certificate. A court hearing was held challenging the certificate and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service report on Zundel's links with violent extremists that informed the governtment's decision to issue the national security certificate against Zundel was entered into evidence. The declassifed report included a section on Marc Lemire. Zundel's website has posted a scanned version of the report. The section on Lemire begins on page 21 of the report (paragraphs 38, 39 and 40) and can be found here http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/legal/certificate/page3.html

Among other things, the CSIS report states that Lemire formed the Canadian Patriots Network "in hopes of bringing racial supremacist groups together" and "has been under the tutelage of and received financial assistance from Zundel and an anti-immigrant activist, Paul Fromm" and that Lemire became head of the Heritage Front in 2001. It also states that Lemire has been called "the webmaster for the far right-wing" and that Digital Freedom, another service launched by Lemire, was "Canada's largest Holocaust revisionist data archive".

On February 24, 2004, Justice Pierre Blais of the Federal Court of Canada issued a written ruling upholding the National Security Certificate. A PDF of the ruling can be found here http://www.zundelsite.org/zundel_persecuted/legal/blais_final_decision/DES-2-03_e.pdf

On page 23 of the ruling, beginning at paragraph 49, Justice Blais has the following to say in regards to Zundel's relationship to Marc Lemire:

[49] I also have reservations concerning the scope of Mr. Zündel’s knowledge of Mr. Lemire and his involvement in the Heritage Front. I believe that Mr. Zündel was well aware of Mr. Lemire’s presidency and particularly of the efforts of Mr. Lemire, a computer expert, to develop websites to disseminate messages of racial hatred and to incite violence. Based on reliable evidence provided to me in camera, I believe that Mr. Zündel was in close association with Mr. Lemire, who was working full-time in Mr. Zündel’s house until his departure for the United States in 2000. Furthermore, I also believe that Mr. Lemire had access to Mr. Zündel’s website. Mr. Christie testified that Mr. Lemire was constantly admonished by Mr. Zündel about his behaviour; should I therefore believe Mr. Zündel's testimony that he never discussed Heritage Front business in his house with Mr. Lemire? In my view, Mr. Zündel and Mr. Lemire did in fact discuss Heritage Front matters in his house but most probably in Mr. Christie’s absence.

I think that a report from a government national security agency and a ruling by a federal court judge certainly meet and exceed our threshold when it comes to acceptable sources. Dimitroff 08:25, 3 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Legal Information Institute

I found a copy of Justice Blais' February 24, 2005 ruling on the Canadian Legal Information Institute website, which is an online depository of Canadian judicial and quasi-judicial rulings.

References to Marc Lemire are in paragraphs 29 (passim), 35, 39 (which discusses Zundel hiring Lemire as am employee), 49, 52, 68 (passim) and 114 (passim) http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/fct/2005/2005fc295.html

CLII has several legal decisions online that mention Lemire see: [5]

Of particular interest may be this Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision which considers evidence given by Irene Zundel, Ernst's ex-wife, in regards to Lemire's involvement in running Zundel's website http://www.canlii.org/ca/cas/chrt/2002/2002chrt10002.html see paragraphs 29 and 47.

Dimitroff 01:31, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

CHRC Letters

Regarding this edit, I have no problems including information regarding the letters from the CHRC, although I submit that Veritas-Canada's interpretation of them isn't quite accurate and may constitute OR. In particular, I don't feel the letters assert that "every single document" is hate, they assert that the entire website as a whole constitutes hate with different documents reflecting various degrees. I'm off to bed right now so I can't make the edits I wish to, but I would be much more comfortable with direct quotes from the letters instead of interpretation. —bbatsell ¿? 06:54, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would concur. A close reading indicates that the CRHC is looking at the site in its entirety rather than at individual portions of the site. I would ask Veritas-Canada if she or he wishes to include the information he provided to first simplify the language and make it clearer for readers to understand and to not include analysis, interpretation, and speculation. AnnieHall 07:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The main point I was putting is is that the CHRC is attacking Lemire based on articles from the Vancouver Sun, Canadian Jewish News, National Public Radio and Gerogia Straight. And even listed Lemire's posting of the Canadian Human Rights Act as hate. That is very clear from the CHRC's letter and the "Schedule A" as shown. Veritas-Canada 02:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, but that's original research. If you want to quote parts of their letters and it's relevant to the article, fine. Placing your own commentary/criticism/whatever along with it is NOT fine. If you can find that criticism in a reliable source, then you can point to that criticism. The policy is pretty black-and-white here. —bbatsell ¿? 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I might add that the CHRC did not "attack Lemire based on articles from the Vancouver Sun, Canadian Jewish News, National Public Radio and Gerogia [sic] Straight". It identified certain pages on Lemire's website as hate literature, which is not the same thing. I haven't seen the pages in question, but would not be completely shocked if Lemire added commentary or images which caught the CHRC's attention.

And I agree with what others have said concerning original research and reliable sources. CJCurrie 03:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]