sda2.jpg

January 20, 2008

Richard Warman: not a racist -- he just plays one on the internet?

UPDATE added January 22, 2008


MPORTANT: Regarding my post below.

The FreeDominion post I read and linked to says: "the rest of what he [Richard Warman] wrote" and then quotes a highly incendiary racial screed.

This original post also quotes a sworn affidavit by an "expert technology witness":

"Based on the information provided in this affidavit, in my expert opinion, I concluded that the Freedomsite message board user accounts "90sAREover" and "lucy" are those of Richard Warman and that Richard Warman was the poster of the message headed "Cools don't belong in our Senate" posted September 5, 2003."

The couple behind FreeDominion and their lawyers obviously have profound confidence in this evidence, so much so that they published it on their website.

Other people received the same information and they too posted it on their sites that morning, using the exact words "Richard Warman wrote", the phrasing in the original FreeDominion statement. Which led me to post the story here, confidence being contagious, I suppose.

However, Small Dead Animals is not my site -- I am a guest here and as such, was obliged to mind my manners. I didn't. I apologize. I have no excuse and take full responsibility.

I HAVE EDITED MY ORIGINAL POST BELOW to include the words "alleged" and "claimed" because, quite naturally, the information stated with such confidence in FreeDominion's original post is now being challenged and questioned by others for its veracity.

This is an ongoing matter with accusations and evidence on both sides, and it was reckless of me to write about it here as if the matter was completely settled.

The bell cannot be unrung. However, I request that the many readers of Small Dead Animals take this addendum to heart and publicize it to the best of their ability, by posting a link to this update on their sites and even emailing it to anyone to whom they might have emailed the original links.

***

ORIGINAL POST:

"Yeah, I'm a fascist, but for the Left..."
-- Woody Allen in Manhattan


Must be read to be believed.

Richard Warman, the ex-Human Rights Commission employee who uses the Commission as his own personal s&m dungeon/ casino, looks like a piece of toast right about now. With butter and raspberry jam.

Here's what Richard Warman allegedly wrote at one website (and FreeDominion claims it has the IP addresses to prove it):

[Addendum: in my hurry to post this, it was very foolish of me to leave out the words "allegedly" and "claims" in the sentence above. FreeDominion and their attorneys profess great confidence in their discovery and my sympathy of them outweighed my common sense, and better judgement. This is not my site and it was reckless for me to post that sentence without greater care. I apologize. The rest of this post will be ammended slightly from the original. ]

“Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is a Negro, she is also an immigrant!
And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt.
She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before
there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced
their bullshit down our throats.
Time to go back to when the women nigger imports knew their place…
And that place was NOT in public!

Be sure to read the whole thing, and make up your own mind. please tell your MP what you think of this use of your tax dollars -- funding employees and ex-employees of the HRC in these dubious "undercover" activities.

Another suggestion: that everyone who reads this and has their own blog post a link to the original post at FreeDominion, and use the words "Richard Warman" as often as possible in your post.

That way, when self-googler Richard Warman (or someone else, say a potential future employer) googles "Richard Warman," the chances that this unflattering information about Richard Warman will show up near the top of the results will be greatly increased.

PS: Richard Warman.

PPS: for some wacky reason, I can't stop humming this song this morning. Your mileage may vary...

UPDATE: FreeMarkSteyn asks if anyone has informed Senator Cools about this? Good question.

Another wonders if Bernie Farber of the Canadian Jewish Congress might now regret giving Richard Warman an award. Why not ask him?

bfarber@on.cjc.ca
Phone: (416) 635-2883 x186
Fax: (416) 635-1408

Posted by KShaidle at January 20, 2008 9:37 AM
Comments

Why do we have "hate" laws and Hate witch hunters spreading fear in society?

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it...There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.

Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with." - (Atlas Shrugged' 1957)

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 20, 2008 10:02 AM

While no fan of Ayn she was bang on with that observation. Amazing how Canada has been reduced to the level of Banana Republic, blindsided really by our new inquisitors.

Posted by: Blazingcatfur at January 20, 2008 10:11 AM

The site is back up (was mysteriously down for a while) so here is some background on Warman's imperonating fraudulent personas:

http://www.richardwarman.com/covert_ops.html

In the ethically degenerate world Warman swims in, entrapment, fraud and impersonation are all justifiable....he states as much on the stand in these star chamber farces.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 20, 2008 10:15 AM

This is precisely what one expects of a dyed-in-the-wool modern liberal, is it not? Any perversion of the public discourse, any ad hominem attack, is justifiable so long as it serves their ultimate political ends. After all, they know better than you; they can do this sort of thing because it's in the service of a higher good. What's next? Liberals shooting people to encourage stiffer gun laws, or deliberately ramming their cars into other vehicles in order to prove how desperately we need to outlaw cellphone use while driving?

There's something uniquely Trudeaupian in the mindset that can contemplate and justify this sort of activity. We saw it back in the 70s, when the Mounties under the Great Leader were burning mailboxes. As Mark Steyn reminded us a while ago, when questioned about the legality of this sort of "agent provocateur" behaviour, Trudeau blithely responded that if people were bothered by it, he might consider legalizing postal incendiarism. It never occurred to Trudeau - as it never would to any statist liberal - that arson was not wrong only because it was illegal; it was illegal simply because it was wrong.

Undercover "sting"-type operations of this sort are all about exposing "hate". In a way, they do - they expose the hate that liberals have for civil discourse, the public exchange of ideas (and the pivotal role of thereof in defeating, through reasoned argument, genuine hatred), and the basic human freedoms that have been ours since Runnymede. Who is more truly dangerous to this country - the gibbering racist who posts his inane screeds for the amusement of like-minded dimwits on the internet; or the public servant who is employed and paid by the state for the sole purpose of ferreting out thoughtcrime (and in this case, creating it), thereby weakening the free and open exchange of ideas that is our only true defence against hatred?

In answering this question, it's helpful to recall how the two sides are shaping up in the Levant and Steyn cases: on one side, the defenders of liberty, freedom of speech, personal responsibility for one's actions, and open discourse, no matter how "offensive"; and on the other, Islamic radicals...and anti-free speech liberals. Appeasement has been likened to feeding the crocodile in hopes that it will eat you last - but when you let the crocodile out of its cage and help it eat your comrades, it's called something else.

P.J. O'Rourke, speaking of the vast, oleaginous Kennedy clan, said it best: "There is something worse than hoodlums, churls and vipers, and that is knaves with moral justification for their cause." The worst part, of course, is that we have no excuse; as America did with the Kennedys, we inflicted this upon ourselves. When people charter a government to take care of their every need rather than to serve them as they take care of themselves, they have no cause for complaint when that government - as it always, inevitably will - begins to treat them as its children rather than its master.

We can get used to more - MUCH more - of this sort of thing; or, we can remember it the next time we are privileged to exercise that franchise that is one of the last remaining artifacts of Runnymede, and we can do something to change it.

D.A. Neill
Ottawa

Posted by: D.A. Neill at January 20, 2008 10:32 AM

i guess that's the trouble for you folks, is john west (and others) really a racist or just posing as one? it must me frustrating trying to identify who you can actually trust as one of your own.

is kingstonlad really a demented ex-military type or a CHRC mole?

is missasauga matt really a homophobe or just a fag in disguise? hard to say.

i hope shaidle didn't accept cash for the blurb at the cbc, afterall, aren't you guys trying to shut it down?

Posted by: jeff davidson at January 20, 2008 11:12 AM

Blagh...blagh...blahg=LLL. May as well call yourself I am Not A Crazy Mullaaa...

Posted by: John W at January 20, 2008 11:13 AM

D.A. Neill - thanks for your post. Very nice.
I'm attaching the letter I sent to Jason Kenny and copies to a few MSM pundits.

"Further to my letter (email) to you of January 17/08 against the abrogation of freedom of speech by the Human Rights Commissions, I'd like your office to explore whether the allegations against Mr. Richard Warman, an ex-HRC official, who has filed almost half of the HRC complaints, are valid.

These allegations are that he is, himself, under a pseudonym, posting offensive comments (as defined by Section 13.1 of the HR Act) on various blog sites. The web site SDA (Small Dead Animals) has been examining his posts on other sites.
http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/

They claim that Mr. Warman admitted to the HRC, under oath, that he did post under the code name 'Lucy' to Free Dominion (and other sites). FreeDominion is claiming that he is posting racist comments against Senator Anne Cools under another code name - but with the same ISP address.

http://www.freedominion.com/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1130657

My concern is on several levels.

First, I am extremely concerned about the not merely indifference but open hostility to freedom of thought and speech that is being expressed by the Canadian Human Rights Commissions. Their actions operate outside the limits of due process, their actions violate the Charter of Rights and the long history of democratic rights in this country. We cannot allow a government-sanctioned abrogation of fundamental rights to operate in Canada.

Second. I am concerned about the agenda and intentions of Mr. Warman. Why is he taking it upon himself to file so many human rights complaints? It is obvious that he is not, himself, exposed to these assumed results of 'hatred and contempt' but he is filing these complaints as if he were. Because of the may I say, outrageous structure of the HRCs, which allocate full costs to the defendant even before proof of guilt, the result is that Mr. Warman himself bears no financial costs for these actions; he even financially benefits because he is awarded sums for 'pain and suffering'. Yet he subjects the defendant to serious financial costs as well as the hardship and stress of being accused by the HRC of 'inciting hatred and contempt'. Why is an ex-HRC officer engaged in filing complaints which do not refer to him personally? Why is he financially benefiting from these complaints?

Third, I am concerned about the agenda and intentions of Mr. Warman, who files these human rights complaints, yet, under the protection of anonymity and false names, writes allegedly racist and 'hateful' comments on websites. This is not merely hypocritical but betrays a disturbing psychological focus on either expressing himself, or inciting reaction, or other unknown agendas.

The Human Rights Commissions began as a 'local' arena for dealing with local issues of discrimination in the work place and housing. They have transformed into an extremely dangerous, unaccountable Thought Police, engaged in what can only be described as serious threats to our democracy and our fundamental rights. "

I haven't received any response to my original post against the HRCs, which I think I also copied here - but, I didn't expect a reaction yet. I think we have to write and write and write our govt, and the MSM, and other blogs, to express our concerns about these HRCs and their violation of our rights.

How can we permit a taxpayer funded government agency, a totally unaccountable set of people, to operate within ambiguous, individually-driven activities outside of due process, outside of the law and that are in open, blatant violation of our rights?

Posted by: ET at January 20, 2008 11:16 AM

Jeff, I've contacted Kate about whether or not your last comment is allowable. Calling people 'fags' even sarcastically isn't the kind of thing she's normally happy about.

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at January 20, 2008 11:16 AM

Did you know that 2 days of non-smoking gives you a better than average defense against non-capital murder than twinkies???


anette funichellos's biggest fan. (founder ofteh Mouscateers)

Posted by: JohnW at January 20, 2008 11:17 AM

This is incredible stuff on Warman.

Well, not incredible when you see where/who it's coming from, but incredible that our lib-left moral watchdogs seem not to have sniffed this guy out--I guess they find it difficult, seeing as his smell is their smell. Nothing here, doggies, move along.

The double standards on the Left are breathtaking; on the one hand, they say they support human rights, openness, tolerance, diversity, and all the other multi-culti "values" but don't know an infraction of them when it's staring them in the face.

We all know that the only "justice" (sic) worth anything on the lib-left side is justice for them. The rest of us can go to Hell.

Banana Republic, alright: The Librano$' and their lapdogs in the MSM's legacy.

Posted by: 'been around the block at January 20, 2008 11:21 AM


When zealousness for the cause becomes pre-eminent, the abdication of the cause is the result.

When honest enquiry becomes paramount the first thing to go is honest enquiry.

When individual freedom becomes paramount the first thing to go is individual freedom.

When rational thought becomes the ideal the first thing to be lost is rational thought.

Sadly enough when human rights become pre-eminent the first to go is human rights.

Posted by: Joe at January 20, 2008 11:28 AM

Why does anyone think Richard Warman is acting when he posted that vile hatred? Someone as twisted as he is probably means it.

Posted by: terrence at January 20, 2008 11:38 AM

I just threw up in my mouth,,,but only a little.......ITS SIMPLE>> you have the right to be pissed off ... ..or NOT

Posted by: Anon--Amous at January 20, 2008 11:40 AM

I think we may have been a bit sidetracked here ideologically by the degeneracy of Warman's entrapping actions here. The real issue to focus on is contained in the proceedings of the HRC in regards to the evidence they allowed and disallowed in this case.

http://tinyurl.com/2bppkw

The committee or star chamber or whatever stands in for judicial authority in proceedings, has decided to allow the one entrapping post and delete the one which made Warman culpable in a hate crime from the allowable evidence....they continue to cover for these quasi-illegal impersonations and entrapment screeds in a number of other quasi-illegal acts by HRC investigators..then there is the fact that Warman perjure himslef under oath when he stated he did not troll sites under assumed user name accounts:

http://www.freedominion.com/images/transcript.gif

As Mark Fournier says: "When Richard Warman repeatedly denied under oath that he was "lucy" (the internet posting pseudonym used to entrap Freedomsite)the CHRC was very aware that he was not telling the truth. (this becomes obvious in the respondent's affidavit)

They were completely aware of what was going on, which at least makes them complicit. I don't believe for a second Richard Warman and Dean Steacy were rogues within the organization, they were doing exactly what the CHRC wanted them to be doing and what the CHRC was paying them to be doing""

....this is called COLLUSION folks...or at the very least conspiracy to subvert due process....these are CRIMINAL acts conspired to between the commission and its investigators.

THIS is the thing we have to get to our politicians...the CHRC and other HRCs are so unaccountable and given such leaway outside due process that corruption and criminality has set in.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 20, 2008 11:44 AM

For the first time, I wish I had a blog so I could do multiple posts and links coupling "Richard Warman" with "fascist" and "racist" in the same honestly informative way it has been done here (although I think I'd dedicate equal effort to doing the same for "HRC" and "fascist").

Results on Google already look good and I hope the effort is sustained for some time.

At least I can pump Google's stats for searches by searching for "Richard Warman fascist", etc. 10 or 20 times a day.

Posted by: Levans at January 20, 2008 11:44 AM

joe, your 'homespun axioms' sure sound nice; they have a 'zen' overtone ofa humble 'drawing back from the action' but I don't think they function as basic truths.

However, the underlying theme of 'humility' about our capacities IS, I think, an important point. We have to be careful about our capacity to fix everything and achieve utopian perfection.

The HRCs operate within this mindset that some agency in Big Government not only can actually oversee, guide and instruct the citizens in all aspects of life--but that it SHOULD do so. That's 'hubris' or arrogance.

The most dangerous aspect of the HRCs is that they have moved out of the area of actions and into the area of the imaginary. Their original agenda was focused on actual, provable actions of discrimination in concrete situations of employment and housing. Obviously there weren't enough cases to keep a funded bureaucracy gainfully employed (over 20 million in salaries and benefits a year). They slid into the world of the imagination.

Now, they focus on what 'might happen' if you write or say such and such. Not what actually happens. But what 'might happen'. Their activities reject due process of law, their activities violate our fundamental constitutional and charter freedoms. Their activities reject empirical evidence, objective proof, and focus purely on the fictional speculation of individual HRC commissioners and individual complainants.

This is extreme arrogance - to declare that a small group of appointed, unaccountable people have the RIGHT and the DUTY to oversee what you think, censor what you say and write, investigate whether or not your 'thoughts are pure and acceptable'.

When you are accused, and anyone can accuse you, you have no legal protection. You must pay your own legal costs while the complainant pays nothing. You, as the taxpayer, pay his costs. As for the judgment of what constitutes 'pure and good thoughts and speech' - there is not and cannot be, any objective criteria. It is entirely and totally arbitrary and subjective. Remember, there need not be any evidence of results to your speech. None. The focus is on 'likely to result'. Not 'actually did result'.

Another assumption is that everything you say must not 'offend' anyone. No criticism, no dissent, no debates are allowed because such might 'offend' someone.

This is - Canada.

Not in the Soviet Union. Not in China. Not in Saudi Arabia. This is happening here. In Canada.

Posted by: ET at January 20, 2008 11:45 AM

Mr. 'block @11.21

"but incredible that our lib-left moral watchdogs seem not to have sniffed this guy out"

Because he is attacking their enemies.

Posted by: Wimpy Canadian at January 20, 2008 11:47 AM

It gets even more interesting when you factor in Senator Cool's transformation to conservative values as she gained experience and wisdom. This classifies her as a 'neocon' and therefore a legitimate target for left hate. So Warman gets a double whammy with his postings.

Posted by: abcd at January 20, 2008 11:56 AM

BRW Jeff: I support your right to maliciously call anyone you want a "homophobe" "Poser" "Racist" wothout some costry nany state moderator handing out parking tickets on your free speech or trying to make Kate responsible for what YOU post here.

The reality is that when speech codes are truely free, tossing around unfounded slurs like you do only devalues the meaning of the word...you and those like you have used the slur "racists" so inappropriately that it is largely meaningless ...to those if us here at SDA who have been exposed to Leftist intolerance for decades, having you call someone a "racists" or "homophobe" simply means that you disagree with them and haven't the intellectual capacity to mount a substantive counter argument...so the slur is used.

Ant it's really too bad that rectal intellects like you Jeff have devalued the meaning of the word racist or bigot so much because racism and bigotry do exist in all their ugly glory and it continues to retard social cohesion...unfortunately ass hats like yourself have convoluted the meaning of these words to a point you ( and your robotic cult) have no idea where to look for destructive aggressive bigotry...least of all in your own mirror...you're too busy masturbating over your presumed moral superiority to actually be cognitive of real racism or act definitely in defeating it.

But I still support your right to open your mouth and prove to us what an ignorant servile partisan dick head you really are.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 20, 2008 12:05 PM

Do I understand this correctly....this Warman guy used to work at the HRC. Then he spews hate and racist based comments on web sites....then he complains about those websites to the HRC and wins judgement?

Please correct me if I have the story wrong.

Stock promoters have been jailed and CEO's fired for posting anonymous comments on their own stock chat boards or bad comments on competitors boards.

Undercover policemen, I believe , are not allowed to committ crimes in the pursuit of their investigations....

So whats different here. The behaviour is wrong and unethical, and in other contexts illegal.

Do these convictions not get appealed to "real courts"

And lets be clear that the stuff being spewed is ignorant, disgusting and worth all the derision that is heaped on it, so lets not think the speech itself is being defended here.

The tactics are incorrect and outside the norm of law. That someone can profit personally from an entrapment that they themselves setup is kafkaesque in the extreme.

Once again, I may have misread the storyline here, so please correct me if I have it wrong.

Posted by: Stephen at January 20, 2008 12:12 PM

But, Richard Warman is "FIGHTING" hatred and racism. So, it is OKAY if he uses hatred and racism in his heroic fight; in fact, he MUST use it. So get used to it. Orwell nailed scum like him.

Posted by: terrence at January 20, 2008 12:16 PM

Yo, moonbat.

Yes, I am really a demented, ex-military type.

Sorry to burst yer bubble, leftard!

Posted by: kingstonlad at January 20, 2008 12:16 PM

One other thing. I consider it an honor whenever any moonbat lobs an insult at me. It must mean that I am having an effect, and to me, that is good!

Posted by: kingstonlad at January 20, 2008 12:23 PM

No, Stephen. You are correct.

The man is odious, as are all the "human rights" councils.

That such a state persists is becuase many of our politicians are self-serving cowards, and many in our judiciary have a fevered sense of self-importance and autocracy. This in a supposed democracy. Don't ask for my opinion of the electorate, a member of which we all are.

Posted by: Tenebris at January 20, 2008 12:24 PM

Any chance to get the CHRC commissioners and employees before the ethics committee in the HofC. The damage they are doing is happening now. What Brian/KS did 15 years ago can't hurt us now.
As for worrying about what might happen if something is said or written or done,
tell the opposition partys that by defeating the govt PMSH MIGHT get a majority, or the libs MIGHT break Kim Campbells record, so Dion better sit on his hands. Then again, those 23 liberals that are not running again MIGHT want to get on with their lives and vote against Dion's orders.

Posted by: MaryT at January 20, 2008 12:27 PM

jeff just handed us the rope with which to hang him via his beloved People's Truth Tribunal.

Mwahahahahahahahaha!

Posted by: Doug at January 20, 2008 12:27 PM

Oh, BTW, John West? Jeffie called you a racist. I believe this is slander, and that your reputation may be damaged, and that you may thus suffer financial loss. Suing for defamation is warranted.

I’m all for starting a legal fund to nail the Richard’s and Jeffie’s of the world.

Posted by: Tenebris at January 20, 2008 12:32 PM

Done

http://haneyguy.blogspot.com/2008/01/richard-warman.html

Posted by: Ian Vaughan at January 20, 2008 12:38 PM

Stephen, it would seem that you understand the situation correctly. There are several points where I would like some illumination. Was Mr. Warman still a Commission employee at the time of the Cools posting? While there is circumstantial evidence pointing towards him as the poster, what would be necessary to bring confirmation? Rogers apparently had logs that show him posting later from that same IP address - is it necessary for someone (hello, Sen. Cools) to bring an action that would prove or disprove he made that post? While I agree with people who hold that complaining to Human Rights Commissions gives them a legitimacy they do not deserve, in this situation their use might be justified. Mr. Warman has the experience to file such a complaint but perhaps not the inclination.

Posted by: AcrossTheRiver at January 20, 2008 12:39 PM

WLMack, Excellent putdown of our resident pinhead. I needed a good laugh because this Richard Warman affair makes my blood boil. To realize this is how the lowlife bastards at HRC operated and continue to operate makes me sick. How many tens of millions of dollars have these phony tribunals cost and how many lives have been ruined by the actions of these government sponsored fascists.

Posted by: prospector at January 20, 2008 12:39 PM

Richard Warman is a saint, a man to be revered and respected. NOT!

Posted by: terrence at January 20, 2008 12:41 PM

I just emailed Senator Cools some info for her to cogitate on, with some CC's to various individuals.

I missed a CC to Bernie Farber.

Posted by: Joe Molnar at January 20, 2008 12:52 PM

I just emailed Senator Cools about this.

I suggest everyone else do the same.

Posted by: Kris at January 20, 2008 12:53 PM

... that is, if you want to blow this whole extra-legal crypto-fascist nightmare apart.

It is time to star using the levers of power in an efficient way.

Please remember that Senator Mccarthy’s witchhunts were finally stop, not by the media, but when he attacked a sitting senator.

Posted by: Kris at January 20, 2008 12:56 PM

Good Move!

Senator Anne Cools is a stanch defender of civil liberty and has been an antagonist of these star chambers from the outset.

She is currently a member of currently a member of The Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.....this issue with the CHRC/Warman corruption just dropped right into the committee's jurisdictional lap ;-)

Contact info here:

Contact Info

178-F, Centre Block
The Senate of Canada
Ottawa, ON K1A 0A4
Telephone: (613) 992-2808
Toll free: 1-800-267-7362
Fax: (613) 992-8513


Email Address: coolsa@sen.parl.gc.ca

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 20, 2008 1:01 PM

I guess in Jeffie's and other moonbat's world, Warman may be a bastard, but he's their bastard.

Ann Cool's is a distinguished Canadian who has devoted her life battling racism and injustice, which she has witnessed first-hand.

BTW, Jeff, Warman is acting as a private citizen (if otherwise, then we require further disclosure and, if so, he must be fired for gross abuse of his office), so he is not entitled to a racist idiot shield. If allegations against him true, Warman is quite a piece of work whose reckoning is likely a hand, given the obvious embarassment caused to whatever HRC he purports to represent.

As distasteful as my suggestion my be to many who post here, perhaps someone should launch a third party complaint to HRC on Senator Cool's behalf.

Wouldn't that be ironic.

Posted by: Shamrock at January 20, 2008 1:07 PM

kris said: "Please remember that Senator Mccarthy’s witchhunts were finally stop, not by the media, but when he attacked a sitting senator."

In defence of Joe McCarthy's "witchhunts".
...-
The Ultimate Vindication of Joe McCarthy
Progressivism item by Cliff Kincaid

Senator Joseph Raymond McCarthy died 50 years ago. For a half century, elite establishmentarians - echoed (to some extent led) by the media - have moved heaven and earth to make certain succeeding generations swallowed their portrait of him as villainous.

Finally, America has the most thorough scholarly examination of his career in Blacklisted by History: The Untold Story of Senator Joe McCarthy and His Fight against America’s Enemies. This volume results from years of painstaking research by M. Stanton Evans—longtime journalist and author. Unsnarling the errors, distortions and deliberate falsehoods that have been spread regarding McCarthy’s stormy five-year exposé of Soviet agents is nothing less than a full-time job.

Why is it necessary to set the record straight on so-called “McCarthyism” at this point? First and foremost, we have a mainstream media which go along with or are cowed by the “political correctness” police. Attempts to deal with today’s deadly threat are met in many media quarters with charges of “Islamophobia.” One radio talk-show host was driven off the air in Washington because he dared to lean on the Islamic community to speak out more clearly against suicide bombings and terrorist attacks.

Many in the “prestige” media seem quite comfortable with an airport security system that—for fear of arousing the ire of the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR)—will wand an 85-year-old grandmother from Keokuk, Iowa and let an angry young male from Saudi Arabia zip through. And this despite an attack on our own soil—something that had not happened in McCarthy’s time.

Senator McCarthy violated all the “political correctness” taboos of his day—long before that Orwellian term was invented. In that era, “political correctness” meant that almost anyone nailed as a Communist traitor was the victim of a “witch hunt.” ...-
http://americanewsjournal.com/index.php/more/302

Posted by: maz2 at January 20, 2008 1:14 PM

I am speechless. May Warman and the HRC go down for this.

Posted by: Sean at January 20, 2008 1:15 PM

WLMR, I notice that you seem to have recently discovered the bold tag in HTML. There's also the italics tag. At least you're not doing ALL CAPS.

Posted by: PiperPaul at January 20, 2008 1:27 PM

How ironic that the Danish Cartoonists were (wrongly) called provocateurs and this POS is supposedly a champion of 'human rights'.

Posted by: Zip at January 20, 2008 1:32 PM

Wouldn't you think that a fellow, Richard Warman, who has filed half of all HRC cases (10) and won all ten would set off some alarms at the HRC around the third time, and perhaps it may have entered their noggins that they have a serial nutjob on their hands.

What is he doing by posting that quote in the above post? Is he trying to draw out racists so he'll have a new victim to bring before the HRC to destroy financially, humiliate, and steal their hard earned cash from?

It pains me to say so, especially after consuming some organic granola, but I agree with Terrence's
post at at January 20, 2008 11:38 AM.

"Why does anyone think Richard Warman is acting when he posted that vile hatred? Someone as twisted as he is probably means it." by terrence


I mean who says this guy doesn't actually think this way. He is just preying on the easiest profile of people to bring before the HRC - it isn't like he could bring a black person before the HRC and get them on a racist charge.

Posted by: Joanne at January 20, 2008 1:39 PM

Just visited Ezra's site and he and Mark Steyn will be on the O'Reilly Factor tuesday evening. That is sure to keep this pot boiling as I expect Richard Warman sorry affair will be front and centre. A pity the show is not available on Canadian cable however it is on the dish.

Posted by: prospector at January 20, 2008 1:39 PM

Joanne, it is more likely that Richard Warman set off cash register bells than alarm bells at the Commission. More complaints mean more jobs for more bureaucrats, with money for complainants as a by-product. And when someone has the audacity to fight back, jobs for lawyers! Whoever made the Cools post may simply have been priming the money pump.

Posted by: AcrossTheRiver at January 20, 2008 1:46 PM

Prospector, FOX news is available on Rogers Cable

Posted by: Kathy Shaidle at January 20, 2008 1:54 PM

Well,

problem is in HRC world intent and thought matter. So Mr Warman can say his intent and thought was hate, but hate for racists and he was only trying to capture them.

In HRC world ends justify means, ethics are situational and process matters less than objective. Of course this is in contrast to those who are going after macleans, where their justification is that they followed an extensive process (albeit a wrong headed one....not that it yielded anything other than the requirement to use someone elses property (macleans) to meet their ends (promoting their point of view)

Maybe the difference between a conservative and others is knowing th edifference between rule of law as a process and bureacracy as a process. Both are processes but former is expected to yield a fair outcome protect a citizen from the abuses of the latter. A bureacratic process is there for administrative purposes not justice.

Posted by: Stephen at January 20, 2008 1:55 PM

WL Mackenzie Redux at January 20, 2008 12:05 PM

LOL, good one.

Posted by: PiperPaul at January 20, 2008 1:57 PM

If anyone wants to see what Warman actually looks like, I have a pic of him up as part of my effort to spread the word on this unfolding story.

Warman

Posted by: John West at January 20, 2008 2:06 PM

Rogers apparently had logs that show him posting later from that same IP address

In the old dial-up days it would have been difficult to prove that an IP address belonged to one individual because there were floating IPs when people logged-in. These days, with high speed connections, one's IP address remains the same (unless I'm mistaken, please correct me if I'm wrong).

Oh wait, maybe the dog did it, because on the internet nobody knows you're a dog. Or to paraphrase one of my grandfathers, "Fido under the table farted, not me".

Posted by: PiperPaul at January 20, 2008 2:09 PM

Does anyone know if awards granted from the HRC are considered normal income or are they like lottery winnings and they are tax free....if tax free you can gross up the value of the award by at least 25%. And if Mr warman has any other income then it is likely this would be the equivalent of almost double the award amount.

As well, does the payor of the award get to deduct it off their taxes? I think it works that if payor deducts then payee pays tax, if payor doesnt deduct then it might be tax free....not sure....

Of course if a significant piece of his income comes from this on a regular basis then the income tax department could presume it to be his job and then require tax...this happened to people who were essentially earning money from gambling etc. Deemed to be their job and therefore proceeds needed to be declared like employment income.

Any accountants out there want to comment.....anyone with revenue canada reading anonymously that wants to start looking into this?

Posted by: Stephen at January 20, 2008 2:11 PM

IP's are still "leased" to indivduals, you can request a new IP anytime. But ISP's like rogers keep logs of the home addresses that the IP has been leased to, the time etc.

This is how they catch kiddie porn criminals. They know who has an IP at any given time. They dont give it out without a warrant though, as it should be.

Posted by: Stephen at January 20, 2008 2:15 PM

ET and D.A. Neill have it entirely correct.

"Another assumption is that everything you say must not 'offend' anyone. No criticism, no dissent, no debates are allowed because such might 'offend' someone." (ET, 11:45AM)

"...devalued the meaning of the word racist or bigot..." (WLMR, 12:05PM)

To conflate Ezra Levant's reprinting of the Danish cartoons with the ravings of loons like Ernst Zundel and Jim Keegstra is, quite simply, obscene.

Posted by: Joe B. at January 20, 2008 2:17 PM

There is an interesting photo group of muzzled, fined, sued and threatened with jail *offendrs*, including Steyn and Levant.


muslimsagainstsharia.blogspot.com/

Surprising find? = TG

Posted by: TG at January 20, 2008 2:24 PM

Another group to contact about this would be the BAR association, considering that he is a lawyer and he has certainly transgressed the lawyer code of ethics.

Posted by: sf at January 20, 2008 2:33 PM

Stephen (1:55PM). Well said.

If the bureaucrats have to troll for offenders, then the bureaucracy has outlived whatever usefulness it had, or might have had.

Posted by: Joe B. at January 20, 2008 2:35 PM

Piperpaul said:
"I notice that you seem to have recently discovered the bold tag in HTML. There's also the italics tag. At least you're not doing ALL CAPS."

Sorry Paul does it seem like I'm yelling in here?

I like the bold tabs when making a point it's not as rude as caps ;-) ..italics are proper for quotes though.

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 20, 2008 2:49 PM

I am with Shaw Cable and I subscribe to Fox News and have been watching it for the past couple of years.

It costs a bit more to get and it come in a bundle with some shit that you will never EVER watch, but it's worth it to have that great no spin channel.

Posted by: John West at January 20, 2008 2:57 PM

Mr. Warman is one of Kinsellas heros. Should be interesting to see what sort of convoluted prtzel logic Warren trots out to defend/justify Mr. Warmans actions

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/index.php?entry=entry071218-085900

Posted by: ward at January 20, 2008 3:17 PM

Is there any way for the cases that Warman has allready had success with to be open for a second look. Even for the cases to be brought to the "Blogorights Delegation" for a in depth look.

Posted by: Cal at January 20, 2008 3:37 PM

Looks like Warman is about to become just another small dead animal under the wheels of Kate's Web Cruising pickup truck ..... with the extra weight of all us knuckle draggin', neo-cons who are along for the ride in the back!! :)

Cheers!

Posted by: OMMAG at January 20, 2008 3:41 PM

If i posted inflammatory comments on a website, of the type seen here, could i not be charged with incitement to commit violence?

These comments are about as racially charged ( though contrived and meant to elicit a response) as i have seen, even from the lunatic fringe..

Posted by: Kursk at January 20, 2008 3:51 PM

This information, IF IT CAN BE PROVEN TO BE TRUE, is stunning. Books will be written about this HRC business.

However, there are two hurdles

1) The accusation against Warman, much as we all want it to be true, remains just an accusation. It can only be proven to be true if a complaint is made which forces an investigation, and a judge finds it to be accurate (or an internal committee).

2) This will only have impact if the media (hate'em as we all do) get a hold of it and don't spin it in some insane way like "a bunch of right wingers have launched a crusade against a heroic man who has won awards for his anti-racism work."

So, what concrete steps can be made on these two fronts? The National Post has not been entirely unreceptive to the whole HRC controversy - surely there is an investigative reporter there who might want to take this up. Maybe Macleans? The Ottawa Citizen? The Toronto Sun? Some reporters somewhere must want to get this scoop, no? It's a huge story! Maybe Rex Murphy?

However, we should not (IMHO) expect the CPC to take the lead on this. We have to get the word out ourselves.

Remember. To 95% of Canadians, the name Ezra Levant means nothing, and the phrase "Human Rights Commission" has no negative connotations as yet. Remember this. Please.

Posted by: Lori at January 20, 2008 4:00 PM

RW committed more than one criminal offence with the apparent collusion of the CHRC, so we should be asking the government to investigate at least. I have not seen anything yet about an investigation.

Posted by: Alain at January 20, 2008 4:02 PM

joe, your 'homespun axioms'

Well actually ET these 'homespun axioms' come from observation of human behaviour. Freedom of thought only applies to my thought. Freedom of belief only applies to my belief.

Posted by: Joe at January 20, 2008 4:04 PM

Warman shows he's a white male willing to exploite the Negro for personal gain and profit. Just like many leftest politicians are willing to exploite immagrants for political gain.

My wife who is Hispanic from Honduras says we are prisoners in our so called advanced civilization because of PC. We have all what people in her own country don't have but seem to be all the more miserable for it.

Posted by: Shawn at January 20, 2008 4:33 PM

In Anne Cools's case, the "Honourable" before her name is fully justified.

She is one "cool", courageous, intelligent, principled lady—and I know she wouldn't mind being called a lady, as she understands the grace of courtesy and due credit.

As a Christian, who is not afraid to be one in the public square, in her Christmas card, Anne Cools quoted from the Bible:

“Charity suffereth long,
And is kind; charity
envieth not; charity
vaunteth not itself,
is not puffed up, . . .

“For now we see through a glass darkly;
but then face to face:
now I know in part; but
then shall I know even
as also I am known.

“And now abideth faith,
hope, charity, these
three; but the greatest
of these is charity.”

1 Corinthians 13:4, 12, 13

The Richard Warmans of this world wouldn’t understand the profundity of this passage if one parsed it for them word for word. Lord have mercy on this poor, deluded—but very dangerous—soul.

Posted by: lookout at January 20, 2008 4:36 PM

Wasn't HRC Jannie Stewart's scandal ridden department under Crechen? I think Annie Mc also had that albatross hung around her neck by the same guy. It is not surprising that HRC would be full of racist woman haters - Cretchen surrounded himself with a flock of 'fall girls' to take the heat off the male M.P.s who were busy raking in the $$ from the fallout for Adscam and 'Trusts'. This Warman creep is just a typical Liberano appointee IMO. He is an ignorant fool, he thought he would shut down freedominion by posting the incriminating hate-speech himself; after all the dunderhead thought, rednecks are not even capable of understanding the 'sophisticated' political structure so they would certainly not be capable of tracking someone like him on the digital highway!! He is so stupid that he does not have even basic understanding of IT addresses.

"Stupid is as stupid does' - Conservatives and freedom fighters in Canada certainly overestimated the intelligence of the Puffin/Dipper/msm coalition. There are more rats to trap - and that million or so that Janie and Annie 'misplaced' must be around to prosecute the fools and bigots that the Liberanos appointed to high places.

Posted by: Jema54 at January 20, 2008 4:55 PM

Ms. Cools may be too classy to do anything about this.

Of course Ms Cools committed the ultimate sin and left the Liberal Party and joined the Conservatives. Unforgiveable in progressive circles.

Posted by: Stephen at January 20, 2008 4:56 PM

Unfortunately, this is the first thing that comes up on a Google search of Mr. Warman. Perhaps there is a need to provide more complete information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Warman

Posted by: Barry at January 20, 2008 5:11 PM

Remember, barry, Wikipedia can be self-edited; in other words, you can write your own Wiki entry about yourself.

With regard to the HRC, I'm beginning to suspect that Levant and even Steyn will want the issue to go to the federal court. The issue of the contradiction between Section 13.1 of the HRAct and the Charter has been brought up before. It hasn't been properly addressed or settled.

Indeed, in the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Hearing Case T1073/5405, of Richard Warman vs Marc LeMire, August 16, 2006, the adjudicator said that he "accepts Lemire's submission that there exists a nexus between the issue of the constitutionality of SS 13". As well, he said that the HR Commission itself hadn't "demonstrated that lemire's concerns about constitutional rights are unfounded".

BUT, apparently, the AG says that the only mechanism to challenge the constitutionality of S 13.1 of the HRAct is before a federal court or a provincial superior court.

I don't know anything about LeMire's case or the other cases that Warner has brought up. The focus of my concerns is that the HRAct is operating as a Star Chamber, inhibiting and castigating speech.

The HR Commission has no right to decide which speech is acceptable and which speech is not; that is up to the citizens who will choose to read or listen to - or not - this speech. To set up a government body that alone makes decisions about 'correct speech' abrogates the right and duty to think and make critical decisions from the individual, and transforms citizens into hapless mindless followers of government edicts.

Furthermore, as I've said, the focus of the HRC is not on actual evidence of results of speech. Its focus is purely imaginary, it is purely speculative on 'likely results' of speech that it terms 'hate speech'. We do not and cannot allow legal decisions to be made on the basis of hypothetical speculation of future events.

To define certain speech as unacceptable most certainly will not make the thoughts disappear. These thoughts will remain, indeed they will strengthen, they will become more embedded, more determined, more vicious, because they are not exposed to the light of critical reason, to the light of peer rejection, to the light of laughter and derision at their inanities.

Freedom of speech is a basic and necessary right. The HRCommissions are actually, by their violation of our fundamental right to this freedom, are actually harming Canadians. They are promoting hatred because they are refusing to allow it to be exposed to reason and derision.

Posted by: ET at January 20, 2008 5:39 PM

his mugshot is disgusting as well. Odds are there is an undertow between whoreman and the hercs,

Posted by: reg dunlop at January 20, 2008 5:49 PM

So... whither the MSM now?

Will they cover this up? Or will they tell the People all about it, top and bottom of the hour, front-page coverage, above the fold, in every paper, for a very, very long time?

If they don't make a big stink over this huge SCANDAL, then we can consider that as proof that they're part of the problem.

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at January 20, 2008 6:15 PM

Sent to Senator Cools and ALL Members of Parliament:


Dear Senator Cools;

I'm certain you are aware of the controversy arising from two cases which are under consideration by various federal and provincial 'Human Rights' commissions or tribunals, the first being a complaint against Western Standard publisher, Ezra Levant and the other against Mclean's Magazine and writer Mark Steyn.

As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association’s Alan Borovoy recently wrote, “During the years when my colleagues and I were labouring to create such commissions, we never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech.” This, despite the fact that many warned of exactly such an event. As you'll know, the HRC's were enacted to protect individuals from discrimination in such factual matters as equal right to housing and employment. But we Canadians are largely a tolerant lot and since few of us are inclined to discriminate, the bureaucrats of the HRC's, finding themselves underemployed and naturally inclined to gathering power, have now included such inalienable rights as free speech to be part of their regulatory purview. The result is that one of, if not the most fundamental rights in a free society is under attack by the state itself.

An example of the power of the state run amok now apparently, involves yourself. I refer to a September 5, 2003 internet posting by an individual posting under the name '90sAREover' on a 'Freedomsite Forum' in which you are referered to as:

“Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is a Negro, she is also an immigrant!
And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt.
She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before
there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced
their bullshit down our throats.
Time to go back to when the women nigger imports knew their place…
And that place was NOT in public!

Allegedly the poster, under the username '90sAREover' is none other than Richard Warman. Mr. Warman is a Toronto lawyer and 'human rights activist' who on behalf of only himself, has laid 26 complaints to HRC's - more than all other complaints combined. Even though Mr. Warman had no 'personal stake' in the nature of the alleged hateful writings or comments, his complaints were heard, the 'defendants' convicted, and Mr. Warman was awarded sums of money. And as you'll undoubtably also know, Mr. Warman - unlike the defendant - had all costs paid for by the state or, to put it bluntly, we taxpayers.

Mr. Warman was previously an employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission from July 2002 to March 2004. In other words, while working as an agent of the state, Mr. Warman also acted as an agent provocateur, soliciting hateful comments from other posters who could then face the wrath of the commission for whom he worked. Mr. Warman has apparently also misused his power by posting similarly under the username 'Lucy'. In testimony beginning January 29, 2007 Richard Warman admitted under oath in Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing (Case T1073/5405) that he was, in fact, the poster named 'lucy' who had registered on the Freedomsite (and other) forums.

Mr. Warman is not the only 'mole' within the HRC's who is abusing the power accorded him by the state. Senior CHRC “human rights investigator” Dean Steacy, who once said that “freedom of speech is an ”American concept“. previously posted at a white nationalist website called Stormfront and posts under the name ”Jadwarr“

Under section 13, two small words comprising just eight letters, give absolute power to the state, a power that is completely contrary to the Magna Carta and 800 years of British jurisprudence and tradition. Those words are 'likely to' and they are weilded as a weapon against those who would dare to utter anything not expressly approved by the state. They move the question from fact to conjecture and allow bureaucrats of the state to determine whether what lies in the hearts and minds of Canadian citizens is acceptable to the state, as defined by the self-same bureaucrats. Which perhaps explains the perfect conviction rate against those who face the star chamber tribunals.

I note the irony of current HRC investigator and lawyer Shirlene McGovern, saying to Mr. Levant, "you're entitled to your opinion". To which Mr. Levant of course replied, "That's not true. If that were the case I wouldn't be sitting before you today."


I am calling upon you and your collegues in the Senate, as well as our Members of Parliament to examine the issues of the 'human rights' processe in Canada. Furthermore, I call upon you to reaffirm the fundamental rights of all Canadians to freedom of speech - even distasteful, abhorrent speech with which we personally disagree. The tribunals must be reined in if not disbanded. My uncle and hundreds of thousands like him, died at a tender young age, in defense of our freedom to not just say what is palatable to all, but even to offend or be offended and I ask you now, to help us ensure that my uncle, Peter Biollo, dead at 21 as a bombardier in France, did not die in vain.


[deleted - ED]

Posted by: no guff at January 20, 2008 6:18 PM

I think you can safely assume that the MSM will be mum on this, possibly excepting National Post or Macleans.

Posted by: Lori at January 20, 2008 6:19 PM

no guff. One word: Wow.

Posted by: ET at January 20, 2008 6:31 PM

Warman's intelligence is showing. Have a look here:

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2008/01/former-human-rights-commission-employee.html

Posted by: Sounder at January 20, 2008 6:32 PM

I agree with sf - a complaint should be laid with the Law Society of Upper Canada - assuming he is registered in Ontario. Secondly, MP's and Senators should be interested in whether it is a policy of the CHRC to make this type of posting and if so, heads at the top should roll. It's the whole who knew what and when about this campaign.

Posted by: bobzorunkle at January 20, 2008 6:39 PM

No Guff...well said and summerized. I hope the message will get through the filters on the Hill to Ms. Cool's eyes.

Posted by: So Tired at January 20, 2008 6:46 PM

Ezra is playing hardball?
...-

Questions for Rob Nicholson

My criticisms of Canada's so-called human rights commissions have been on two grounds: their goal is the unconstitutional restriction of free speech, and their methods are procedurally unsound and arbitrary.

To those I would add a third critique: the commissions themselves have become corrupted. [...]

If I were writing QP questions for the opposition Liberal Party today, I'd hang the antics of the human rights commission around the neck of the man who is ultimately responsible for it -- and in the case of the federal HRC, that would be Rob Nicholson.

I'd probably start off like this:

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Justice Minister. One of his staff, Dean Steacy of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, has admitted under oath that, as part of his job, he joined a neo-Nazi website called the "Stormfront", and posted racist remarks there. Can the Minister please explain why taxpayers' dollars are paying someone in his department to join neo-Nazi groups to spread bigotry?

Mr. Speaker, can the Minister tell us: was this a rogue act by a single hate-monger who infiltrated the human rights commission? Or did others at the commission approve of this race-baiting strategy, too? Did the minister himself know? Or did he turn a blind eye to state-sponsored bigotry in his own department? [...]

UPDATE: Of course, those are the questions I would write for the Liberal Party -- but I am sympathetic to the Conservative government. The real Liberal Party or NDP would probably not give the government the benefit of the doubt. Their questions would sound like:

Mr. Speaker, even though it has been public knowledge for weeks that the CHRC employs racist provocateurs like Dean Steacy, who spread bigotry on the Internet, the Justice Minister still hasn't done anything about it. Is that because he has no idea what's going on in his own department? Or is it because he agrees with this bigotry? Is the Minister a bigot, or is he clueless?

I know Nicholson enough to know he's neither bigoted nor clueless -- he's likely facing resistance from bureaucrats and civil service lawyers giving him a dozen "yes minister" reasons why the CHRC can't be reformed or abolished. But they're not the ones who are ultimately politically accountable -- he is. ...-
http://ezralevant.com/2008/01/questions-for-rob-nicholson.html

Posted by: maz2 at January 20, 2008 7:12 PM

I agree with Stephen @4:56. Senator Cools is classy and smooth, and tough. This will not be her first run in with this type of scummy comment.
She knows how to deal with racism without running to an HRC.
She is also media savvy,so if she chooses to take this on, she'll come out on top.

Posted by: bluetech at January 20, 2008 7:13 PM

Richard Warman posts racist comments on a forum under an assumed name.

Richard Warman then files a complaint to the CHRC under his own name about those same racist comments. If the complaint is upheld, he is awarded damages from the owners of the forum.

Can anyone explain to me exactly how this does not constitute criminal fraud?

Posted by: gordinkneehill at January 20, 2008 7:41 PM

no guff : I have taken the liberty to copy and paste your letter to Senator Cools as it expresses my wishes and I am not nearly as eloquent as you.

Posted by: eliza at January 20, 2008 7:43 PM

It isn't really about Sen. Cool. Nor is it even about Richard Warman. It's about something more fundamental.

It's about our right to freedom of speech and expression, our right to think, to critique, to dissent, to debate, to express outrage and have outrage expressed back to us. It's about the right to 'dialectical argument' - that famed method of analysis of the Socratic Greeks.

It's also about the structure of democracy. What is happening here in Canada is that a small body of people are abrogating our right to think. They are taking it upon themselves to define for us and to us - the meaning of 'hate'. They are taking it upone themselves to define for us and to us - the meaning of 'contempt'. They are not permitting us to be equal to them in this capacity to think and define meanings. They alone abrogate that right to themselves.

Since when has Canada moved from being a democracy into being ruled by unaccountable, self-defined, self-asserted Philosopher Kings? Since when has Canada ruled that its citizens have no right to think, to make decisions, to define human interactions, including those of anger, hatred and contempt - but must instead be told what these terms mean and what actions represent these terms? Since when?

When was it that Canadians lost the right to think? And why?

Posted by: ET at January 20, 2008 7:47 PM

WRT the question about what Senator Cools would think about this. I met the lady (and that is the proper term with this member of the fairer sex) back in 2000 when she sailed with us on HMCS Fredricton for a few days. A very classy lady all around.

Me thinks she would be justifably upset at being used in that manner, but probably too much of a lady to say how she really feels.

Once again, regardless of her politics, a classy lady.

Posted by: Jim at January 20, 2008 7:58 PM

ward 3:17

seems the response is up. He mentions a couple of odious people. How are they connected to this? Does anyone know?

But more importantly, even if they are involved it doesnt justify Mr Warmans alleged actions.

It seems warrens spin is that this is not true, although Warman apparently admitted to being Lucy.

The question is, is Lucy the same as the 90's are over.....has warman denied this? has he answered the allegation at all.

It would seem to be difficult to get the exact same IP address if the old one was released, so I am not sure if you can spoof it, or make it circumstantially look that this was done by the smae person that Lucy is.....but stranger things are possible for bright people with a computer and time on their hands.

I dont question warren's or even warman's apparent objective of exposing neo nazi's and anti semitic speech and communcation, a fight worth fighting, but these apparent methods do not do anyone any favours. In fact they are really on the wrong side of it all. Once again, none of it justifies the stuff that appears from real anti semites or neo nazi's.

Maybe I am naive but there have to be legitimate ways rather than writing hate screed under false names. Makes you wonder what else someone willing to do that would be capable of.

Gain the world and lose your soul or something like that.

Posted by: stephen at January 20, 2008 8:02 PM

Kate;
Can you delete the personal info at the bottom of 6:18 for me?

Shouldn't hit send while multi-tasking. Thanks.

Posted by: no guff at January 20, 2008 8:11 PM

Not defending the guy, but can it be definitively proven that the IP attributed to the comments belongs exclusively to Warman's machine?

Make sure you C.Y.A.!!

Posted by: Shere Khan at January 20, 2008 8:27 PM

To conflate Ezra Levant's reprinting of the Danish cartoons with the ravings of loons like Ernst Zundel and Jim Keegstra is, quite simply, obscene.
Posted by: Joe B. at January 20, 2008 2:17 PM

Wrong Joe. It's the same issue: freedom of speech. As despicable as were Zundel's and Keegstra's views they should have been defended too. We can't be selective about which speech we are willing to defend.
We should draw the line only at direct incitement to violence which is extremely rare.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at January 20, 2008 8:27 PM

*
"jeffy bugboy davidson shreiks... is missasauga matt really a homophobe
or just a fag in disguise?"

ah, yes... the mating call of the benevolent, compassionate left.

*

Posted by: neo at January 20, 2008 8:41 PM

I would like to add my agreement to the previous posters who have raised the idea of the possibility of criminal activity by Mr. Warman and perhaps even by other individuals within the HRCs.

Falsifying documents that are part of a securities offering to the public is a criminal offense. Falsifying tax documents is also a criminal offense. If a police officer were to plant evidence at the scene of a crime and then charge someone based on that "evidence", that officer is guilty of a criminal offense.

I am not sure if the allegations surrounding Mr. Warman are similar to the first two examples or not, but there is a striking resemblance to the third example. Further, if evidence can be presented that this type of activity was part of a plan involving two or more persons at the HRC, then does this not involve a criminal conspiracy - a much greater level of criminal involvement?

I do not even know where to begin with this. Does one start with the RCMP? Or does one start with the OPP or the Toronto City police? Does one write to the Federal Justice Minister asking hime to start an RCMP investigation? I think the government will need to have some powerful ammunition to actually shut down the HRCs. Even a simple criminal conviction may not be enough - but a criminal conviction of conspiracy seems like it would help the matter. Conspiracy suggest a deliberate strategy to commit crime.

How does one start this process?

Posted by: Brent Weston at January 20, 2008 9:03 PM

Me No Dhimmi, you are correct. We either have freedom of speech or we do not. It would have been better to expose the insane ravings of Zundel and Keegstra to the light of truth and facts rather than prosecuting them under hate laws, which actually granted them more publicity. I would prefer an open public debate to the use of hate laws and HRC.

I see that the left-wing government in the UK has banned the use of Islamist/Islamic terrorism, which now must be called anti-Islamist/Islamic activities. Orwell's newspeak in its glory, that only the Left can produce. If we are not vigilant here concerning our traditional right to free speech and freedom of the press, we shall find ourselves on the same road as the UK.

Posted by: Alain at January 20, 2008 9:05 PM

Brent Weston, here is some reasoning about this case as a criminal matter, among other things.

Posted by: AcrossTheRiver at January 20, 2008 9:22 PM

Posted by: AcrossTheRiver at January 20, 2008 9:23 PM

*
Toronto lawyer Warren Kinsella, whose 1994 book, Web of Hate, enraged
the radical right, calls Mr. Warman "extraordinarily courageous."

"Most people do not understand that when you speak up against terrorists
-- in this case, far-right terrorists -- they do not thereafter engage you in
scholarly debate. Sometimes, they want to kill you. Warman knows that,
but he keeps going."

That makes him, in Mr. Kinsella's estimation, "one of the bravest
people in Canada."

*

Posted by: neo at January 20, 2008 9:32 PM

Alain:
Yes, as they say, "sunlight is the best disinfectant".

Honest to g-d I thought it was a spot of Pythonian humour at first, but evidently not: Islamic terrorism in the UK will now be referred to as "anti-Islamic activity", which makes me a anti-anti-Islamic activity activist, I guess.
It is now clear to me that the Euro-elites are not simply misinformed about the jihad. They WANT the Islamisation of Europe. Bat Ye'or has exhaustively demonstrated this in her brilliant Eurabia.

Posted by: Me No Dhimmi at January 20, 2008 9:41 PM

Doing good Kate, you are the 7th thing to come up so far when googling Richard Warmam. Let's bring it to the top people!

Posted by: May at January 20, 2008 9:41 PM

From the website of the Law Society of Upper Canada. The want an address and telephone number if you want to use this as a template.

Complaints
Toll-free: 1-800-268-7568
General line: 416-947-3310
E-mail: comail@lsuc.on.ca

I am writing about the professional conduct of one of your members. I understand that Richard Warman is a member of your organization and that you regulate the professional conduct of members. I understand that these are allegations but they are being made involving one of your members and the website owner suggests he can substantiate the claims. I do not have an address for Mr. Warman but he does have some notoriety as he is a former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The conduct that is in question is regarding comments Mr. Warman allegedly made on September 5, 2003 on an Internet site. I have copied the following comments from freedominion.ca earlier this evening.


"Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is a Negro, she is also an immigrant!
And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt.
She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before
there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced
their bullshit down our throats.
Time to go back to when the women nigger imports knew their place…
And that place was NOT in public!"

=================================================
From your own website:
Rule 1: Rules of Professional Conduct

"conduct unbecoming a barrister or solicitor” means conduct in a lawyer’s personal or private capacity that tends to bring discredit upon the legal profession including, for example,
(a) committing a criminal act that reflects adversely on the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness, or fitness as a lawyer,
(b) taking improper advantage of the youth, inexperience, lack of education, unsophistication, ill health, or unbusinesslike habits of another, or
(c) engaging in conduct involving dishonesty;

Dishonourable or questionable conduct on the part of a lawyer in either private life or professional practice will reflect adversely upon the integrity of the profession and the administration of justice. If the conduct, whether within or outside the professional sphere, is such that knowledge of it would be likely to impair the client’s trust in the lawyer, the Society may be justified in taking disciplinary action.

===================================================

I understand that these are allegations but they are being made by one of your members and the website owner suggests he can substantiate the claims. Therefore, I trust that you will want to conduct your own investigation. I am not an attorney but I do belong to a professional association (Engineering) and am aware that the public disreputable conduct of one member can give a poor reputation to the group as a whole. Therefore, I trust that you will perform your due diligence in this matter in a timely and thorough manner to ensure that the Ontario public has the highest possible view of the Law Society of upper Canada.

Yours in good faith:
Brent Weston

Posted by: Brent Weston at January 20, 2008 9:45 PM

Me No Dhimmi

Actually I agree with you on the subject of free speech. What I'm pointing out is the human tendency to exercise power and prohibit the thoughts and speech of those who disagree with the powerful. While the left is at its power peak it strives to limit the speech of those on the right. When the right dominates it will succumb to the same temptation and restrict the speech of those on the left. When the religious exercised power they limited the speech of the secular. Now the secular is enjoying power it is restricting the speech of the religious.

Whenever power is attained the small minds exercise undue influence and assume that by limiting the speech of those opposite they are bringing about a utopia. The wiser amongst us realize that no one sector has all the answers and so need the input even of those whom we most certainly disagree.

Posted by: Joe at January 20, 2008 9:45 PM

Would the slander or libel laws apply to what the HRC and Warman have done? It seems they have labeled people racist.

Posted by: Stan at January 20, 2008 9:50 PM

MND, Alain, let me put it another way.

Ezra Levant reprinted the Danish cartoons, thereby shedding pure, chaste light on the unitary thing which had caused more than a little discomfiture to Muslims around the world, and which resulted in some 150(?) deaths.

Zundel and Keegstra were just plain liars about the Holocaust.

My aim was to imply that bodies like the CHRC seem completely unable to make this distinction(Keegstra was convicted under the criminal code of Canada, I believe). If it cannot do so, it is less than useless.

I remember watching some current affairs program about, oh, 15 years ago; an interviewer tried to speak with Zundel in a public venue... a local pub. Once the rest of the patrons got wind of the camera and microphone, and the word got around the bar that the subject of the interview was Zundel, one younger fellow got up and, from a few feet away, loudly told Zundel to f' off, "we don't need you in Canada". Now THAT'S exactly what was needed.

no guff (6:18PM), that's one beauty of a letter!

lookout (4:36PM), I agree. Anne Cools has done more for Canada than almost any other person who occupies a senate seat. I'd rank her right up there with David Croll and Eugene Forsey.

Posted by: Joe B. at January 20, 2008 10:36 PM

AcrossTheRiver:

Thanks. It looks like several have notified political officials and some may have notified HRCs themselves. I was wondersing if anyone has notified police authorities and what were the specifics.

Posted by: Brent Weston at January 20, 2008 11:11 PM

I've always had confidence in the collective genius and loveliness of Canadians. This is a splendid thing to observe unfold.

Posted by: Bour3 at January 20, 2008 11:48 PM

maz2 at 1:14 P.M.

Your post is pure historical revisionism.

I well remember the McCarth era - the ruined lives, the poisoning of public discourse and the general malaise that gripped the U.S. at the time. McCarthy was an evil and totally unprincipled man.

In the end, he was brought to heel, not by lefties, most of whom were too intimidated to raise their heads aboce the parapet, but by true blue conservatives and classical liberals who honored their country and its constitution.

Posted by: Zog at January 21, 2008 12:00 AM

"I see that the left-wing government in the UK has banned the use of Islamist/Islamic terrorism, which now must be called anti-Islamist/Islamic activities." by Alain

I've heard about this too. I'm just thinking if you call the activities, anti-Islamist, that is a good thing, and if you call the activities, Islamist, that is a bad thing....at least this is how I see it, but I'm sure the UK leftard politicians are thinking the opposite.

Posted by: Joanne at January 21, 2008 12:00 AM

what the hell has happened to Canada?

this country has been hijacked by lunatic secular progressive socialist bureaucrat terrorists....

as insane as this Warman character is, and despite his reprehensible activities, nothing will change and he will not be punished....

I am seriously considering selling my business and moving my family to the United States because Canada's political climate has become unbearable ...


Posted by: Brad at January 21, 2008 12:17 AM

This is when you start marching in the streets and calling public attention to Mr. Warman's antics. I mean, literally march in the street, get in the faces of his enablers and demand an accounting and an explanation.

And why is it that Europe's elites seem to WANT to see their daughters in burkas?

Posted by: Monique at January 21, 2008 1:57 AM

Joe, I know what the neo-Nazis were spouting, but I pretty certain that the charge came from what I call hate laws, not any other criminal law. Otherwise what criminal law would they have been charged under? Yes, they claim the Holocaust never happened, but I am not aware of them inciting attacks on Jews or Jewish establishments, which is more than one can say for the Islamists in Canada.

As a Jew with relatives lost in the Holocaust, I naturally find Holocaust denial offensive. Still it would have been better to expose them and their rubbish to the light of truth and public opinion. Personally I do get sick and tired of secular leftist Jews pushing their own left-wing agenda while claiming to represent all the Jews in Canada. One might as well believe that the radical leftist feminist groups represent all Canadian women. If all these special interest groups/organisations were weaned from the public teat and had to obtain all their funding from domestic donations, most, if not all, of them would fold.

Posted by: Alain at January 21, 2008 2:02 AM

I still see nothing in the MSM.

Next thing we know, WWIII will be underway and the MSM won't say anything. They'll just report on Paris Hilton farting at McDonalds and Britney Spears' becoming a Muslim and blowing herself up on Dr. Phil, or some irrelevant crap like that instead...

I thought the MSM loved to report on SCANDAL.

Hey, MSM: the Schreiber-Mulroney thing is irrelevant. Canadians don't care about that.

The scandal we're talking about here, Canadians will want to know about. So do your job, or we'll do it for you!

The MSM disgusts me. They don't care at all.

Posted by: The Canadian Sentinel at January 21, 2008 5:30 AM

Kate, I greatly appreciate you covering of this odious issue.

Richard Warman is a legal jackal, using the majesty of the Law to suppress speech while lining his own greedy pockets with money.

I am detailing the current suit against Free Dominion here:

-A lawsuit has been served against our Canadian "sister" site, Free Dominion.--

And I covered the earlier CHRC action against it here:

-Free Dominion faces possible Human Rights attack--

Again, I thank you- light needs to be shined upon these cockroaches.

Posted by: backhoe at January 21, 2008 6:08 AM

Just curious - according to the links, these comments were posted FIVE years ago. Why has it taken so long to come into focus?

Posted by: KevinB at January 21, 2008 7:39 AM

Brad @12: 17
"this country has been hijacked by lunatic secular progressive socialist bureaucrat terrorists...."
In more areas than you know.
I realise this post concerns the HRC...but a real rights issue is developing in Ontario that is totally under the radar and not getting the attention it needs:
Hospital employees are losing shifts because they refuse to comply with mandatory flu vaccine.
The government is now telling us what to do to our bodies.
Faux control.


Posted by: anonion at January 21, 2008 8:19 AM

Is this him?
http://yellow.whitepages.com/log_feature/search_suggestion/search/FindPerson?firstname=richard&name=warman&city=Ottawa&state_id=ON&metro_area=1&search_suggestion=2&query_type=120&parent_search_id=40211332672955994264

Posted by: eastern paul at January 21, 2008 10:34 AM

[quote]I dont question warren's or even warman's apparent objective of exposing neo nazi's and anti semitic speech and communcation, a fight worth fighting, but these apparent methods do not do anyone any favours. In fact they are really on the wrong side of it all. Once again, none of it justifies the stuff that appears from real anti semites or neo nazi's.[/quote]

Stephen,
Most things have a "Hobson’s Choice". I like most non-Jewish people spent a near lifetime never understanding what made free speech anti-Semitic. I think I agree that the "intent" and "hatred level" are lacking in Canada. It is one of the "positive" attributes of Canadians that “Most” are not cloaking a hidden agenda behind slick rhetoric.

At least the "toys" of Y2K are helping the good guys.

Posted by: Phillip G.Shaw at January 21, 2008 2:23 PM

If readers honestly believe the RCMP, police, CSIS, the whole gambit of law enforcement organizations and legislative enabled bureaucracies (like the HRC's) don't monitor people or groups they simply decide to, please seek medical attention.

Because the crash that you took falling off of the turnip truck did more harm than you thought.

It is driven by the same reason why extensive polling by the government is to achieve: crafting messages and spin policy that is seen as friendly by the widest swath of the public. They use millions of your tax dollars to create it.

I don't think manufacturing opinion or spying on citizens is a legitimate activity of governance.

And these actions are done for precisely the same reason: to gain/retain power and control. Rationalizing it because the government is ideologically agreeable to you is hypocrisy.

Posted by: hardboiled at January 21, 2008 2:48 PM

You're carrying water for some really disgusting people and Kinsella is going to hand you your lunch - this is what he does for a living. Go him.

Posted by: gray at January 21, 2008 2:56 PM

If all warman was doing was monitoring sites and finding hate speech that he then used the existing law to generate a sanction on then there wouldnt be a problem.

The issue is the positing and participation on the sites and then taking the sites to the HRC.

So if I said something offensive on SDA under a psuedonym and then to Kate to the HRC, thats the equivalent. Not right, even if she doesnt remove the offending post.

Nobody os defending the speech, in fact many people myself included think what was written is horrendous. But the entrapment and then rewarding of the writer is twisted. Generally situations like this are called "moral hazard" where you can be rewarded for bad behaviour.

Systemic incentives like this need to be removed ,at a minimum, and it just brings the whole situation into stark contrast

Posted by: Stephen at January 21, 2008 3:02 PM

What has Canada become? We are suppose to be a beacon of democracy and yet we have organizations like the HRC spying on innocents on the net seeking to find individuals whose opinions offend them and thus they file complaints against these persons and percede to persecute them in the name of TOLERANCE. Mother of God, has this country gone so far leftoid that we can't see what is happening? Radical Political Islamic Groups attacking a Jewish publisher using the HRC to silence those that speakout against the biggest threat to FREE SOCIETY that exist RADICAL and POLITICAL Islam will kill our culture. Why is this acceptable to the Conservative Party and the PM ( aka Liberal Light). If it weren't they'd surely speak out?

Warman is no less repulsive than those that offend him, he may believe he has the high moral ground but I call his highground a "Hunters Stand" with a headlight. He activley pursues innocents to persecute for money. I'm sorry but that's offensive and it should be illegal.

The HRC needs to be disbanded, if they aren't Radical and Political Islam will replace Gay Right's organizations as the major Complainants. We'd be barking mad to give that group yet another forum to shove Sharia Law and their culture down our throats mandated by the HRC of course.

Europe has fallen to Islam, Politial and Radical do we want to become the majority in our country with no voice with which to speak.

Posted by: Rose at January 21, 2008 3:51 PM

"If all warman was doing was monitoring sites and finding hate speech that he then used the existing law to generate a sanction on then there wouldnt be a problem."

Stephan,

Noooo that is still a problem. That is witch hunting. He is an evil man working to shut down any speech he can on RIGHT leaning web sites.

There is more hate speech on the Liberal blogs that you can shake a stick at. The only difference is that it is directed at HIS enemies rather than his beloved Muslims.

Take a deep breath and think.

Posted by: John West at January 21, 2008 5:42 PM

"You're carrying water for some really disgusting people and Kinsella is going to hand you your lunch - this is what he does for a living. Go him.
Posted by: gray at January 21, 2008 2:56 PM"

If you meant me dude - you're off.

He despises me.

I wear that like a badge of honour :-)

Posted by: hardboiled at January 21, 2008 6:21 PM

It would seem that Mr. Warman is doing the people of Canada a great service.

Now anyone accused of these insidious 'hate speech' violations can simply claim that they were merely trying to flush out the real evil doers and were not themselves promoting these 'vile thoughts.' And they can all point to the Mr Warman's own posts as evidence that no crime was committed.

Please everyone, point to his posts.


Posted by: OBQuiet at January 21, 2008 6:38 PM

Gosh. Seems the Canadian Jewish Congress has done its own investigation and demanded that the hounding of what they call an "honourable man" stop.

Seems to leave some people a bit on the vulnerable side. Truth is a defence in libel cases, of course, and a neo-nazi witness or two may save your bacon, being really credible and all, but...are you sure of your facts?

Posted by: MsMew at January 21, 2008 7:55 PM

As a lawyer, I believe as many complaints as possible should be sent (not telephoned) to the Law Society of Upper Canada about Warman. In my view, if he did post those comments about Cool, his behaviour is unacceptable. Do not believe that we have unrestricted freedom of speech --we don't. Our freedoms are limited.

Posted by: A.J. Bickerton at January 21, 2008 8:47 PM

As a lawyer, I believe as many complaints as possible should be sent (not telephoned) to the Law Society of Upper Canada about Warman. In my view, if he did post those comments about Cool, his behaviour is unacceptable. Do not believe that we have unrestricted freedom of speech --we don't. Our freedoms are limited.
Since this is my first submission, I cannot understand why I get a message saying that "too many submissions have been received from you." Is this some form of censorship?

Posted by: A.J. Bickerton at January 21, 2008 8:49 PM

It seems from what I read on Kinsella's blog that the information you posted about Warman is a lie perpetrated by neo-Nazis and picked up by some who didnt realize it. My legal training tells me that promoting a potential libel can land you with a legal suit. I'd get this off my site if this were me.

Posted by: mordechai coopersmith at January 21, 2008 9:08 PM

MsMew (7:55PM)
mordechai coopersmith (Jan. 21, 9:08PM)

I visited Warren Kinsella's website. I read the letter from Len Rudner of the Canadian Jewish Congress, as well as Kinsella's paragraph further down stating "...- making use of the say-so of the two Canadian men who are most associated with online neo-Naziism and white supremacy -..."

Is the website linked above actually run by white supremacists?! If so, I simply have got to believe their accusations leveled at Richard Warman are false.

I concur with mordechai coopersmith; the link should be removed from the SDA site. Any and all articles linked should, in my opinion, be INDISPUTABLY true, or they're worthless.

In future, I'll be vetting any links at SDA to websites with which I'm not familiar.

Posted by: Joe B. at January 21, 2008 10:41 PM

Two things.

First, it surprises me not at all that a Liberal aparatchik would behave as Mr. Warman is alleged to have done. One need only think of the gun registry and the use the Ontario government is currently making of it, namely the pointless harassment of senior citizens who own firearms. One of the many things that make Ann Cools cool is that she stood up against the gun registry -as a Liberal Senator- back in the 1990's when it was being steamrollered through Parliament.

As I've said on many and varied occasions, there is no act so heinous, no lie so base that a socialist will shrink from it if it furthers his cause.

Second, I'm extremely put out at being left off of Jeff Davidson's Mean People list. WTF Jeffie, The Phantom's not hard core enough for ya? Call me something objectionable so I can go whine to the government.

The Conservatives run things right now and I maybe know a couple guys who can rattle somebody's chain at the CHRC for me, know what I mean?

Maybe I'll just go over to the Jeffie blog "Where'd That Bug Go?" and leave some boilerplate Lefty hate speech for you to expand upon. That ought to be enough to cost you a few grand in lawyers fees in front of a nice CHRC star chamber, eh?

You see Lefty morons, the deck is not -always- stacked in your favor. If we play things the Richard Warman/CHRC way y'all are one conservative majority away from having your blogs shut down and your freedom curtailed. (That means jail, Jeffie.) Your only hope of a decent life in this idiot country is to see to it that the deck is not stacked at all, ever.

Posted by: The Phantom at January 21, 2008 11:00 PM

you people are whack. seriously whack. normally you don't even rank high even for me to direct derision your way, but holy fuck.

i hope wk has some serious fun with ya'all. ha.

Posted by: sch at January 22, 2008 12:28 AM

sch - brilliant argument ... learn that in school?

Posted by: ural at January 22, 2008 12:56 AM

This is a perfect example of the kind of politics of personal destruction that is the specialty of the left.

The basis for our article this was a technical report based on objective findings regarding IP addresses and log files. The evidence was submitted by someone who has been accepted by the CHRT as an expert witness on several occasions, and the report was in the public transcripts.

Anyone who thinks that Free Dominion is a white supremacist site has never been there, they are idiots, or they are lying through their teeth. Free Dominion is one of the most pro-Isreal sites in Canada and the white supremacists ridicule us on their sites for that reason.

What is happening here is that the issue is deliberately being clouded. Warman and company have no evidence to refute what we have presented or they would have produced it before now. This has been in the public record since 2006.

So, now we are being called racists. Predictable.

I guess the question to all of you who AREN'T sockpuppets is "How badly do you want to be free?".

Are you willing to stick your head up and allow people to throw muck at you because you know that it isn't true and you know that your friends will stand behind you?

Or will you stand up and fight with people whose opinions you abhor because you know that if the leftists win this battle we are all doomed?

Nobody said that standing up for the truth would be easy, so if you choose to throw us to the wolves to save yourselves, I won't blame you one bit.

But, I'm not going to bow to them.

Posted by: Connie Fournier at January 22, 2008 9:13 AM

LOL lordy lordy looks who's forty, not really but whoo hooo look at all them there lawyers above me stalking the forum. Looking for work fellas?? Are you fellas friends of Mr.Warmans or Members of the Perpetually Offended Club aka HRC that crawled in the form to intimadate and threaten poster with Litigation if we continue to speak out against Mr. Warman? Dear me now he's using his Lawya Friends to silence us yet again. What; is the HRC not taking his phone calls and he's trolling in here looking for people to file grievances against.

The left make me ill, really some of them seem to live by a moral code that is so twisted it looks like a cork screw.

Give me Liberty or Give me death, silencing your opponents with threats of litigation is so sleezy fellas.

Posted by: Rose at January 22, 2008 9:55 AM

Connie:

Please repost your comments in the other thread as the discussion has moved to that thread and I believe your comments are significant. Thank you.

Posted by: Brent Weston at January 22, 2008 10:05 AM

Jate I hope you start logging the IPs of all these Warman sycophants and fraudulent bolshy lawyers...bet they come from some interesting sources ;-)

Posted by: WL Mackenzie Redux at January 22, 2008 1:28 PM

This so-called evidence comes from Bernard Klatt who is neither an "expert" nor a neutral technician but a political sympathizer involved with the far-right. Just because Klatt claims that something was somebody's IP address doesn't mean it was. Given Klatt's conflict of interest how do we know the evidence hasn't been fabricated out of whole cloth? If you get evidence from Warman's ISP, I'll believe you but getting "evidence" from people like Marc Lemire and Bernard Klatt is absolutely useless - no matter how much you want to believe it.

Posted by: LM at January 23, 2008 4:18 PM
Site
Meter