We've said it before, we're sure we'll say it again in the future, and we will say it again right now. Considering how often this blog is declared irrelevant with absolutely no readership by some of our self-styled opposition, they sure do pay an inordinate amount of attention to us.

We, on the other hand, don't usually go out of our way to read what they're writing about us, but we are occasionally sent links by our non-existent readership when we are mentioned. Sometime we read what they have to say about us. Sometimes we don't. But when we are, in part, the subject of an article by the mighty blogger Jay Currie, well, our hearts go all a twitter.

Our dear readers may remember when we published documents indicating the real life identities of the Free Dominion "John Does" who, along with Mr. and Mrs. Fournier, are subjects of a Richard Warman defamation suit. Our readers may also remember the folks at Free Dominion were not please that these documents, all of which are public domain and available to those who wish to access them once they were filed, were made public, even in their redacted form (unlike some of those published by those on the right, we removed home and work addresses, email addresses, some websites, names of spouses, and in one case information regarding a family matter). They called us all sort of nasty names, including but not limited to communists, a violent street gang, and criminals. That the folks at Free Dominion rather routinely post similar court documents on that web forum seems to be of little consequence; it would appear that these powerful voices for free speech get a little squeamish when they themselves don't approve of the speech.

After the initial hubbub died down we figured that cooler heads had ultimately prevailed. Perhaps it did, but it was brought to the surface again recently.

That brings us to Jay. On August 23, 2009, Jay Currie published an article detailing an apparent "investigation" by the Department of National Defense into Richard Warman to determine whether he had been pursuing his human rights work (though we're sure Jay would use a different term) on company time and using the department's resources. To his credit, Jay seems to think that not much, if anything, will be found to have been improper. His original article linked to a Free Dominion thread that appears to have now disappeared, perhaps owing to fears that it may be used against the subjects of Warman's litigation. In that thread was an email (written not long after the Free Dominion meltdown about ARC having published public domain documents and when emotions were pretty heated), ostensibly from one of the "John Does" to no less than the federal Minister of National Defence Peter MacKay. Jay republished it on his blog:
From: [Redacted] [mailto: [Redacted]@ [Redact-it].ca]
Sent: June 8, 2009 3:51 PM
To: MacKay, Peter – M.P.
Subject: Richard Warman, DND employee? June 8/09 Dear Mr. Mackay, As Minister of Defence, perhaps you could look into the situation
regarding one Richard Warman who I believe is a counsellor employed at
DND in Ottawa. Mr Warman has been running a legal and political campaign in which he
targets people who do not agree with his political views (which are
Liberal) with expensive lawsuits and other harassment. In my case, he
reported my name and address to so-called anti-racist groups, who are in
fact communist street gangs [we're quite sure that he's talking about us, but we'll get to this shortly]. My question is this—does Richard Warman spend working time on these
projects, and has he been using the computer facilities at DND to gain
information on his targets? This situation should have been addressed by the Prime Minister and the
Justice Minister at an earlier stage, but now it has reached the level
of a sort of Stalinist political operation in plain sight, operating out
of the DND and the offices of [Redacted] Essentially, what we have here is a case of a powerful civil servant,
quite possibly using the surveillance capabililty of the DND, harassing
political opponents with the full support of the Government of Canada. I
am not sure if you were aware of this situation, and I would hope that
you would want to reverse it. An extensive investigation is required to satisfy natural concerns that
the power of the state is being used against the citizens of Canada, and
in particular, of western Canada, because Warman seems to prefer
residents of the western provinces (it is more expensive for us to fight
his charges in court down in Ontario). Thanks for your co-operation. —[Redacted],
—[Redacted]
"John Doe" even received a reply:

RE: Richard Warman, DND employee?
Monday, August 17, 2009 3:55 PM
From: “dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca”
Add sender to Contacts
To: [Redacted]@[Redact-it].ca Dear [Redacted]: Thank you for your e-mail concerning a potential conflict of interest
involving Mr. Richard Warman, an employee of the Department of National
Defence. I am advised that Chief Review Services, the authority responsible for
conflict of interest issues for the Department of National Defence and
the Canadian Forces, is currently investigating and that a report is
forthcoming. I trust this information is of assistance, and thank you again for
writing. Sincerely, Peter G. MacKay
Minister of National Defence MCU2009-03804One thing we noticed immediately is that our "John Doe" serves up all of the conservative red meat right away:

1. Just happens to mention the political party affiliation of Mr. Warman which, as it so happens, is the Official Opposition and the key opponent of the federal Conservative Party. Hoping for a little political retribution, are we? ("Mr Warman has been running a legal and political campaign in which he targets people who do not agree with his political views (which are Liberal)")

2. Complaints of, "Western Alienation" ("An extensive investigation is required to satisfy natural concerns that the power of the state is being used against the citizens of Canada, and in particular, of western Canada, because Warman seems to prefer residents of the western provinces") which is a bit of a battle cry for Alberta conservatives.

3. Repeated references to the dirty Red Menace as if we were living in the 1950s and he's about to chair the House Un-American Activities Committee ("In my case, he reported my name and address to so-called anti-racist groups, who are in fact communist street gangs" and "...but now it has reached the level of a sort of Stalinist political operation in plain sight, operating out of the DND and the offices of [Redacted]")

On this last charge, let us at the ARC Collective (yes, we're aware of the irony we're about to commit here) unequivocally answer our "John Doe":

We are not, and have never been, members of the Communist Party.

Actually Lucille Ball had the best response when asked if she was a commie which wents something like, "the only thing red about me is my hair and even that's fake."

We would also ask if our accuser has no shame or sense or decency, but we fear the reference might be lost on him so we'll direct him to this link.

More the point, we're accused of being a criminal street gang. We'd like to know where exactly he gets his information about us because we can assure him and our dear readers that not one of us has ever been charged with or been under investigation for a single crime. Collectively, our running afoul of the law has amounted to a total of four speeding tickets and one driving with undo care and attention ticket in the past 20 years. If our accuser is going to try and equate us with one of their current bogeymen, the ARA, sorry but that dog don't hunt either. We are not members now, nor have we ever been members, of the ARA, though when we actually look at their records, we don't see a lot of criminal activity outside some relatively minor infractions and whatever the BONEHEADS (not blockheads, "The LS from SK") have claimed. But we may very well have missed something so we'll move on.

One would think that someone currently facing defamation charges would be more careful about the accusations that they make.

And at this point do any of our dear readers think that denying Mr. Warman was the source of the documents will be believed? That's sort of a rhetorical question.

Still, we do have some support. One person, "truewest" makes the following comment about ARC:

As for ARC, it’s better researched, more accurate and more responsible tha[n] most of the blogs you link to from your site.

Just to illustrate that point, when he's arguing that Richard Warman has some sweetheart deal with the CHRC that get's his complaints heard while others are dismissed, Jay uses the example of Andrew Guille, brother of Melissa Guille, who's human rights complaint against an anti-racism organization was tossed out. As "truewest" notes again:

You’ve linked to a complaint filed by hate-monger Melissa Guille’s brother against an anti-racist website. It was dismissed under s. 41(1)(d) of the Act because it was “trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith”. (Shocking!) Is that what you’re calling the “hitherto unknown ‘intent’ test”?

We would also add that we wouldn't necessarily take the word of a convicted distributor of child pornography either, but hey, we here at ARC have standards.

Now, we here at the ARC Collective, an insignificant blog with no readers but which appears to be the subject of a great deal of speculation, wonder how long it will take for this most recent post to become the subject of heated conversation on conservative blogs and web forums. Will they be able to resist the siren song leading them astray or, like one of Pavlov's puppies, will they begin to salivate?

Jay? Connie? Mark?

Ding ding ding ding.