|
Revitalizing the archives
From 1998 until
2002, injusticebusters was in the throes of an identity crisis.
What was it? What were we doing? We grappled with editorial policy
at the same time we were learning the nuts and bolts of building
and posting a website. Once we had a secure, paid site I had
full editorial control, although I talked regularly to Richard
Klassen who was forced to move his family several times and did
not always have access to the internet.
I began following
other threads to stories of police and prosecutorial misconduct
and the site took on another facet to its character: a newsclipping
scrapbook where stories could live longer than they would in
print form. I also began picking up other stories of wrongfully
convicted people. It was an explosion. By 2003 there were over
700 pages. I also had contact with several other people (Don
Smith, Leon Walchuk, Monique Turenne, the Vopnis) and kept these
stories going.
When Richard
Klassen began to make progress in bringing his civil claim to
court, the government and police defendants alleged he was breaking
the rules of court by publishing discovery material on the internet.
This claim
was absolutely false. However, rather than risk being thrown
out of his civil claim, Klassen undertook before Judge Mona Dovall
to sever all ties with the website.
Now that some
of the dust has settled, I have been going back through the material
we had posted in the early days. In the spirit of keeping the
scrapbook alive, I have been reformatting and placing links.
The original material remains intact. I hope the information,
which chronicles our struggle is useful to you.
The identity
crisis is over. We know who we are --Sheila Steele, March
28, 2005
Pre-Sermonette
Brash Comment 1998
A record of
our struggle to keep the Foster Parent Scandal in the public
eye
When we first posted injusticebusters
on our 5MB of "free" webspace in June, 1998, we put
up some basic pages and made contact with others on the internet.
We were careful to tell the truth at the same time we broke the
publication ban. The following
correspondence took place before SaskTel simply blocked our site
so visitors were faced with an "error" page. It took
us a couple days to post on geocities (the fragments of which
can still be found on the internet -- we just can't get to them
to service them) and at the end of July we were able to purchase
commercial space from a U.S. server. We were there for more than
two years, pitching the story everywhere until we had the good
fortune to be "discovered" by fifth estate.
Subject: inJustice Busters'
Website Date: Thu, 23 Jul 1998 07:58:47 -0600 From:Brent.Munro@sasktel.sk.ca>
To: steels@sk.sympatico.ca.
I am replying to your note
in reply to the note sent to SaskTel regarding some of the content
on your site.
SaskTel has no quarrel whatsover
with your desire to advocate free speech. Our concern arises
only when the content goes beyond free speech and may be defamatory.
As our previous note to you made very clear, SaskTel will not
be associated with material which may be defamatory.
In reply to your question,
SaskTel will not indicate from whom or where the complaint with
repsect your site that we received originated. Our policy is
not to do so. I note that your site still contains the same material
that we requested you remove. Altering a poster, changing the
title of one site and moving the content from one of the sites
we asked you to remove to another is clearly not what our request
was. Either the content noted in our previous note to you must
be completely removed as requested by 10:00 a.m. tomorrow or
we will take the steps indicated in our previous note to you.
I trust our position is now clear.
The e-mail from Sask-Tel (Thursday,
July 23) alleges changes were not done in good faith and ends
with the line "I trust our position is now clear."
About as clear as the mud a
bully might smear on your face when it has you in a half nelson.
The changes were significant.
We blurred Tom's identity entirely
and changed the words "bad" to "corrupt"
and "killer" to "dangerous criminal." These
changes were made in good faith and were a reasonable interpretation
of Sympatico's request.
We stand in contempt of bullying.
injusticebusters! stand for justice and fair play.
injusticebusters! stand by
our right to inform the public of information which other media
have been bullied into suppressing. The information which SaskTel
would seem to want us to remove is information which alerts the
public to dangerous people who have hurt children in the past,
and a policeman who has refused to acknowledge his own culpability
and therefore cannot be trusted to not make the same mistake
again.
SaskTel and its lawyers are
running scared from imagined litigation from people they choose
not to name. SaskTel finds itself in the position of making legal
decisions regarding free speech which it is not SaskTel's job
to make.
We repeat: injusticebusters!
are responsible citizens who do not defame anyone. To name a
policeman and accurately report what he has done is not to defame
him. What about revealing the name of an undercover cop? Would
he or she be defamed if we did that? No. He/she would be put
back in uniform because he/she didn't do her job.
To inform the public of dangerous
sex offenders amongst us, whom the police have refused to arrest
and charge for reasons to do with their own "policy"
is not to defame anyone, either.
For a couple hours inJustice
Busters' site has had certain names blocked out. After careful
reflection we have decided that to continue to do so would be
to give in to the playground bullies, just as local media has
done before us. So we're back.
SaskTel should stop playing
Big Daddy and stand up for inJustice Busters' right to tell the
truth in a shameful story.
The truth is not defamatory.
Group
turfed by Web site provider finds new Net home
By Leslie Perreaux of The
StarPhoenix
A determined group of self-described
"injustice busters" is testing the limits of the law
and its ability to control cross-border communication on the
Internet.
A day after being thrown off
of SaskTel's Sympatico service
for posting material which may break court-imposed publication
bans and libel laws in Canada, the group has found a new home
on the Web through an American-based Web site provider.
"Injustice Busters"
level accusations against a Saskatoon
police officer over his handling of a sexual abuse investigation
in the early 1990s.
They also identify a youth
who was between 10 and 14 years old at the time of the investigation
and accuse him of terrible sex crimes.
The youth's identity was kept
secret by several publication bans. According to Crown lawyers,
the Young Offenders Act may also protect the youth's identity.
SaskTel shut down the Web site
Monday, but by Wednesday the site and its allegations reappeared
in a shortened version through a New York-based company, Geocities.
A Geocities spokesperson reached
in New York said the site is also getting special attention from
his company.
"If this page violates
content guidelines, it will be removed. We've sent it off to
our alert department to be checked," Ed Gyurko said.
Authorities have been monitoring
the site's content for more than two weeks and Justice Department
officials Wednesday followed the site to its new location.
"We're looking at it.
Again it's the whole Internet law thing. I think it's going to
require a fair amount of research for us and it may fall into
the realm of international law," said Justice spokesperson
Debi McEwen.
Testing the law and freedom
of speech is nothing new to Sheila Steele, one of the site's
organizers. She was acquitted on rare charges of defamatory libel
for a poster and picket campaign against the police officer in
the early 1990s.
"Nobody knows how this
is all going to shake down, but I think this is about the right
of people to get a free discussion going. Some of this conventional
wisdom has to be shaken up a bit," Steele said.
Jim Russell, a Saskatoon lawyer
who specializes in information law, said the Internet is only
beginning to pose a range of challenges to courts and law enforcement
officials.
"Most laws which affect
private action are national and assume there are borders,"
Russell said. "The problem with the Internet is jurisdiction.
Courts in one jurisdiction have no authority to make decisions
which affect other jurisdictions."
Russell said all national laws
still apply on the Internet. Many cases involving child pornography
have been cracked cross-border, he pointed out.
But when it comes to matters
of copyright infringement, advertising law, property rights,
libel and other civil litigation, legal procedures become fuzzy
and expensive.
"If someone in California
is using my trademark or is libelling me on the Internet, do
I have to go to California to seek relief? Can a local court
assume jurisdiction? These are issues that haven't been worked
out here yet," Russell said.
"Going to California to
fight it out is very expensive and impractical in most cases."
According to Russell, courts
in the United States have been quicker to assume jurisdiction
on material available in the U.S. but originating outside the
country.
But, he said, laws are based
on culture and some cultures may have laws banning material which
is acceptable in other places.
"Nudity and other things
we find fairly acceptable may break Iranian laws," he said.
And closer to home, Russell
said the U.S. has much looser libel laws. Sweeping bans preventing
publication of evidence and identities are much less common in
U.S. courts.
In 1994 and 1995, grisly details
of the Paul Bernardo murder case were available in Canada from
the U.S. on the Internet despite strict publication bans.
Eventually the Canadian legal
system may have to accept a more American way of doing things,
Russell said.
"Our cultures are going
to continue growing closer together and the more permissive culture
will continue to push things. Probably the more aggressive culture
will dominate the passive one."
Internet censorship
unhealthy
It is an outrage for SaskTel
to ban the Sympatico websites of John Lucas and Rick Klassen
because they published allegedly libellous material.It's yet
another nail in the coffin of free speech.
People are being banned, gagged
and threatened more and more for speaking out about things.
The published material addressed
Justice Department officials, police officers, judges, lawyers
and social workers --people with a great deal of knowledge about
how the legal system works.
Seriously, newspaper stories
don't mention any criminal or civil action taken since the material
was published on the web-site. Could it be that the complainants
know that, to be libellous, it first has to be false? Perhaps
this material is for the most part true. It would be one explanation
why such prominent and legally knowledgeable people would resort
to threats rather than legal action.
The allegedly libellous material
refers to a court case in the early 1990s concerning child sexual
abuse allegations. At the time, a publication ban was put in
place to protect the children and the accused. Perhaps, this
was appropriate at that time, but now, many years later, the
details of this case still seem to be a sensitive issue. Why?
Judging by my experience with
a sexual abuse allegation and the subsequent investigation by
the authorities, their handling of such matters is tantamount
to criminal.
As we are about to enter a
new millenium, we all should strive to maintain ever-increasing
vigilance of those whom our society entrusts. It's good to hear
there are still people who, when they encounter something terribly
wrong in our justice system, havethe courage to stand up and
expose this wrong.
Garry Verhey, Saskatoon.
SaskTel following
industry guidelines
Garry Verhey (Internet censorship
unhealthy) SP Feb 25) writes, "It is an outrage for SaskTel
to ban. . .Sympatico websites . . . because they publish allegedly
libelous material."
SaskTel does not make it a
practice to censor any individuals or web content. However, as
an Internet Service Provider (ISP), SaskTel is concerned with
out liability where potentially illegal or defamatory content
is published on our servers.
We will not host any content
that is libellous, defamatory or discloses personal matters respecting
any individual or which might expose us to criminal or civil
liability. This is clearly stated in the SaskTel Sympatico Service
and Personal Webspace Service agreements with all our customers.
In the vast majority of cases,
SaskTel does not restrict the content on the web sites which
it hosts. However, SaskTel simply cannot be associated with,
nor host, information that has potentially defamatory or illegal
content.
This practice is shared by
IPSs across Canada and is reflected in the guidelines of the
industry as we understand them.
Sean Caragata,
General manager, SaskTel corporate affairs , StarPhoenix, Mar.
12, 1999
John Lucas made the following statement
to injusticebusters after his site was pulled by Sask Sympatico,
at 930 a.m. Friday, February 5, 1999 ( This is the
email they sent.) Notice no one has signed a name to it!
StarPhoenix article, Feb. 6, 1999.
Lucas has a stronger
site on Geocities.
"It would be easier for
those in authority to get rid of Dueck than face the criticism
that will continue and escalate if they continue to protect him!"
 Email Sympatico |  Email
the address that sent the final eviction notice! Last summer,
a short three weeks after posting injusticebusters first website on SaskTel's Sympatico webspace,
we were told to pull certain material or or site would be pulled.
These hicks who never heard of free speech played with the site
for a bit, pulled the picture of Tom out of our graphics folder
on the site, whined to the media, generally insulted our intelligence
and finally pulled our site. We immediately reposted it on Geocities
and the nostalgiac remants of our first efforts are still there.
Now John Lucas has had his site pulled.
- As another
example of what hicks Canadians are, check out Compuserve's response to WCB's
request to pull a site critical of the government and compare that
response to what Sympatico has done to us, without much protest
from anywhere!
- And read this
email injusticebuster Sheila Steele received after trying to
publicize these injustices on Sympatico Forums (emphasis ours):
Date: Sun, 07 Feb 1999 21:35:30 -0500
To: injusticebusters@shaw.ca
From: Beth Dranoff/3rdEye New Media <bdranoff@3eye.com>
Subject: Politically Speaking Forums
Cc: Mike <mcoulson@sympatico.ca>, Eleanor Mitchell
<emitchell@sympatico.ca>
Shelley:
I have been receiving complaints
about several of your posts in the Politically Speaking forum.
Specifically, it is those areas
where you ostensibly start a discussion topic and then use that
discussion to promote injusticbusters -- as opposed to encouraging
debate on a particular topic, which is the purpose of this forum.
Having visited the injustice
busters site, I
notice that at least one member of this group has already received a warning from
Sympatico.
If you have something to contribute
to Politically Speaking by way of debate, please feel free to
make a statement which can be responded to by others -- providing,
of course, that it is not abusive to the other participants.
Using (or abusing) this forum for the purposes of promoting your
group, however, simply is not acceptable and I must ask you to
stop.
Thank you for your anticipated
cooperation in this matter.
Yours truly,
Beth Dranoff
Host, Politically Speaking
=====================================================
Life is the ultimate adventure
=====================================================
Beth Dranoff
Senior Partner/Executive Producer
3rdEye New Media
http://www.3eye.com/ 3rdeye@3eye.com
(p)416-631-9950 (f)416-631-9619
======================================================
injusticebusters
would point out that we have never claimed to be a group. We
are two people who openly run a website and bust injustice. We
encourage others to do likewise, following our example. We believe
that as responsible citizens, we should use whatever forums are
available to us to bring matters of public interest to public
attention. If Sympatiko forums will not allow us to expose the
what we can clearly demonstrate are the criminal actions of the
Saskatchewan Justice System, Nova Scotia Children's Aid Society
and Alberta Workers' Compensation Boards, then it is not much
of a forum, is it? Maybe Elementary School Show and Tell is what
it should be called!
Sympatico takes
down John Lucas' site
- Subject: Re: WWW3.sk.sympatico.ca/simple
- Date: Mon, 01 Feb 1999 14:25:45 -0600
- From: Complaints <complaint.abuse@sk.sympatico.ca>
- To: simple@sk.sympatico.ca, starchamber@sk.sympatico.ca
- Re: WWW3.sk.sympatico.ca/simple
Your website maintained in
conjunction with your personal Sympatico service you receive
from SaskTel has been brought to our attention. The terms and
conditions applicable to your Sympatico service provide that
the customer of such service agrees not to use the Service to
post or transmit information that could give rise to criminal
or civil liability or which is contrary to your Service Provider's
policies. If such terms are breached your service may be terminated.
SaskTel does not wish to be
associated with the type of material that is located on your
website. Accordingly we suggest that there are three alternatives.
Those solutions are for you to remove this material from your
site, purchase your Internet Access service from an alternate
supplier or ,alternatively, if the site in question is not removed
within 48 hours have your service terminated.
Thank you for your attention
to this matter.
SaskTel Sympatico Administration
Lucas made the following
news release, Feb. 1, 8 p.m.: To Sask. Sympatico:
Sergeant
Dueck and Ms. Bunko-Ruys have had more than seven months to either
refute the allegations on several sites, or to try and convince
Crown Prosecutors to use the criminal code. I find it hard to
understand why Sympatico would try and pretend there is even
a possibility of a civil action, or anything else. These people
are on the ropes and it should be obvious. I want it clearly
understood that I intend to take some action regarding Sympatico.
I am very certain about the eventual outcome since we have the
facts, but that is about as far as I am willing to go at the
moment.
Subject: Webspace for simple
Userid Removed
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 1999 09:28:37 -0600
From: Personal Webmaster <personal.webmaster@sk.sympatico.ca>
Organization: SaskTel - AIS
To: simple@sk.sympatico.ca
The webspace for the simple
userid has been removed for being in
breach of the terms & conditions of the Personal Webspace
service.
--
a message from the Personal Webmaster
personal.webmaster@sk.sympatico.ca
Before the Nazis took them
to the concentration camps, they passed laws saying Jews couldn't
own property. Then they took over their houses. The neighbours
thought they had moved. The SS didn't leave behind a message
saying, "we kicked these people out of their own homes because
they are Jews!" And if you think this is farfetched, consider
that it was criticism
of the government and the
right to
assemble in groups in public
that were outlawed before the Nazis moved in on the property
and then took the people to the deathcamps to be gassed. There
is no doubt that Sympatiko is playing the role of police state
enforcer when it removes people's websites! They have no badge,
they have no authority. They must be stopped.
Updates: UPDATEFeb. 2003: Rick Klassen still standing. Pretrial conferences
in May will prepare September trial. New Justice Minister Eric
Cline has inherited a badly corrupted portfolio
StarPhoenix
editorial: Privilege ruling blow to justice : Dueck succeeded in pressing
his bad faith block to exculpatory evidence | Holgate's
motions on Fab. 19 | Matt Miazga | Terry Hinz | The $10M+ lawsuit | StarPhoenix
report from July, 1991
|
Truth can never be
told so as to be understood, and not be believ'd. William Blake, The Proverbs of Hell