Human Rights Tribunal: Richard Warman’s conduct “disappointing and disturbing”
The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a stunning ruling today, calling the conduct of Richard Warman, Canada’s most prolific human rights complainant, “disappointing and disturbing”.
Tribunal
Chair Edward Lustig condemned Warman – who holds himself out as a human
rights activist – for his membership in neo-Nazi organizations and
ripped into him for his frequent anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi rants. The
Tribunal effectively accused Warman himself of breaking the law –
pointing out that Warman’s online anti-Semitism could quite possibly
expose Jews to even more hatred and contempt. That just happens to be
the offence Warman claimed he was trying to enforce. And, in perhaps the
most damaging finding, the Tribunal pointed out that Warman at first
did not answer questions truthfully – effectively calling him an
attempted perjurer.
It
is the most incredible ruling I have ever read from a human rights
tribunal, and it discredits Warman, his enablers at the Canadian Human
Rights Commission, and section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the
censorship provision).
There have been dark days for the censors and bullies at the CHRC over the past year – like Bell Canada’s uncontradicted testimony that CHRC staff hacked a private citizen’s Internet account or Richard Moon’s surprise recommendation to scrap section 13.
But
those were merely political developments. This is a quasi-judicial
Tribunal ruling. It is not a consultant’s view or a pundit’s opinion or a
mere PR blunder. It is the law. Richard Warman is a discredited man who
promotes anti-Semitic filth online with no good excuse. Warman’s own
favourite Tribunal says so.
Warman is done.
After
this ruling, I would be surprised if he ever files a section 13
complaint again. Scratch that: of course he will. But the CHRC will
never accept his complaints again – Jennifer Lynch, their chief
commissar, is a censor too but she has a sense of political survival.
She’s in enough trouble already with a Justice Department review and a
Parliamentary Committee investigation getting under way, not to mention
the Prime Minister’s Office breathing down her neck. The days of Lynch
running with Warman’s cases – and paying his expenses, which she
continued to do even after he left the CHRC – are over.
I wonder if even Bernie “Burny”
Farber, Official Jewry’s censor-in-chief, will put some distance
between him and Warman. You’d think Burny would have given a damn about
Warman’s anti-Semitic filth – the secular Tribunal did, but not Burny,
even though fighting anti-Semitism is supposed to be his beat. But
Burny’s moral compass has been off for a long time – he denounces
Jew-loving Christian Zionists like Kathy Shaidle, but defends Jew-bashing radicals like Haroon Siddiqui.
But what now for Warman? How does this poor assessment of his integrity affect his job as “Director of Special Grievances – Enquiries and Investigations”
at the Department of National Defence? Every single criticism the
Tribunal Chair makes in this ruling touches on Warman’s job at the
mini-human rights commission that he runs in the bosom of DND. If I were
a soldier hauled before Warman, the first thing I would do is file a
special grievance against the special grievance director – and all I'd
need was a photocopy of the Tribunal’s ruling.
All
of Warman’s showy pretenses of being a human rights crusader have been
reduced to rubble. The Tribunal specifically took on Warman’s thin
excuses for why he joined neo-Nazi groups and engaged in vicious
anti-Semitism himself. The Tribunal listened to Warman’s smug
rationalizations – the excuses that Jennifer Lynch and Warman’s other
enablers at the CHRC have bought for years – and threw them in the
garbage. At paragraph 63:
I do not see any acceptable reason for Mr. Warman to have participated on the Stormfront or Vanguard sites, since
there appears to be ample easily obtained messages on these sites
available without his involvement. Moreover, it is possible that his activity in this regard, could have precipitated further hate messages in response. His explanation for including other hate messages in his postings by mistake seems very weak to me.
I’ve
been writing about Warman’s online bigotry for about a year now, but
with few exceptions that explosive story has been reported only by
bloggers, not the mainstream media. To see his filth reprinted at great
length in a Tribunal ruiling – as it was in this case – is startling to
me. And, mirabile dictu, the National Post reprinted Warman’s anti-Semitic rant for the entire nation to see, too. I’m stunned by how far Warman’s reputation has crumbled in the past year.
The
Tribunal was clearly upset with Warman’s entrapment and impersonation.
But it also mentioned his difficulty telling the truth. Here’s an
example, at paragraph 57:
Contrary
to Mr. Warman's Statement of Particulars, there is no evidence that the
impugned conduct by the Respondents has continued to the present time.
Instead it appears to have been discontinued well before the complaints
were instituted. To a certain extent, there would not appear to be
anything to remediate.
Warman
claimed that the people he was going after had been continuously
publishing their anti-Semitic comments, when in fact the Tribunal ruled
that they had stopped doing so before Warman even filed his complaints.
Normal people would say “what a liar!”. The Tribunal simply said that
the truth was “contrary to Mr. Warman’s Statement of Particulars.”
But that’s just a trifle compared to this, at paragraph 59:
During
his cross-examination, Mr. Warman admitted (after initially denying)
that he had participated in communicating messages on Internet Websites
similar to the Northern Alliance Website utilizing pseudonyms such as
"Pogue Mahone" and "Axetogrind".
Cross-examination
is under oath, of course. Lying under oath is called perjury. The
Tribunal noted that, at first, Warman didn’t tell the truth. The
Tribunal didn’t use the word “lie”; it just pointed out that Warman’s
original answers under oath weren’t true. Again, regular people would
say “what a liar!” It’s not the first time for Warman.
This
hearing was supposed to be about Jason Ouwendyk and the Northern
Alliance. It’s no surprise that they were convicted, maintaining the
CHRT’s 100% conviction rate for section 13 offences. And, also
unsurprising, was the fact that neither defendant had a lawyer – more
than 90% of section 13 targets are too poor to afford one and, unlike
real courts, legal aid is not provided.
But
look at paragraph 56 in the ruling. Warman made three demands: that
Ouwendyk and the Northern Alliance be ordered not to publish “hate
speech” on the Internet anymore; that they be ordered to pay a fine of $7,500 and “compensation” to Warman of $6,000.
The
first demand was granted – the Tribunal gave a cease and desist order,
telling Ouwendyk and the Northern Alliance to stop doing what they used
to do. But as the Tribunal pointed out, they had stopped doing so years
ago. So it was meaningless.
Warman’s demands for cash were refused by the Chair – no fines, and no bounty to Warman.
So what’s the net result of all this?
Warman
filed his complaint in January, 2006 – so this has been grinding
through the human rights industry for more than three years. Countless
hundreds of thousands of tax dollars have been spent, first by the CHRC
to investigate the case, and then by the Tribunal to hear the case.
And in the end a website that hasn’t even been on the Internet in years is “banned”.
I guess this is part of the “stimulus package” to make work for busy-bodies, lawyers and bureaucrats.
There
are a lot of losers in all of this – the taxpayer; common sense;
freedom of speech, including freedom of speech to say offensive things;
natural justice and rule of law.
But
Warman is clearly the biggest loser. Before this ruling came out, we
already knew that Ouwendyk and the Northern Alliance were racist.
Nothing’s changed for them at all, other than their time was wasted for
three years.
But Warman’s reputation has been devastated.
That’s of concern to him as I’ve outlined above. But it’s also of concern to him for his countless defamation nuisance suits, including against me, Kathy, Kate, the National Post and others.
We all have our defences – truth, fair comment, etc.
But
now we have something much more powerful. We have a legal finding that
the man who claims we hurt his reputation, doesn’t have a good
reputation in the first place.
He
“diminishe[d]” it. His conduct is “disturbing”. As a so-called human
rights activist, he’s “disappointing.” His reasons for writing
anti-Semitic filth are not “acceptable”. His excuse for reprinting other
people’s filth is “very weak”.
Try taking that to a defamation court.
***
P.S.
Who is this Edward Lustig who – despite continuing the CHRT’s 100%
conviction rate – spoke such common sense about Warman’s discreditable
conduct? He was appointed by the Conservatives a year ago. But looking
at his brief resume,
there’s something different: he didn’t come from the grievance
industry. He spent 27 years as lawyer for the City of Niagara Falls. In
other words, doing normal legal work, not radical politics masquerading
as the law. Lustig actually sits on the CHRT part-time – he still
practices law – not “human rights law” or “critical Marxist theory” law,
but real estate law, commercial and municipal planning law. No wonder
he was appalled by Warman’s filthy mouth – he hasn’t had the politically
correct training to get the nuances when Warman said that Irwin Cotler
was Jewish “scum”.
I’m
not saying that section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act can be
workable in the hands of reasonable men – it can’t be. It’s an unfair
law that violates our constitutional rights. And, despite the laughable
impotence of the order against the respondents here, it’s still
unconstitutional. But it’s refreshing that someone in the entire human
rights industry had the independence and common sense to finally blow
the whistle on one of Canada’s most abusive legal and political bullies,
Richard Warman. Or as he is now legally known: the disgraced Richard
Warman.
Sites with information on
Richard Warman
David Icke: http://www.davidicke.com
Ezra Levant: http://ezralevant.com
AntiRacist Canada: http://antiracist-canada.blogspot.com
Freedominion: http://www.freedominion.ca
Richard Warman: http://www.davidicke.com/articles/coverups-mainmenu-65/13163-richard-warman
Marc Lemire v. CHRC: http://www.freedomsite.org/legal
SmallDeadAnimals: http://www.smalldeadanimals.com
Maximum Disruption: http://maximum-disruption.blogspot.com
Five Feet of Fury: http://www.fivefeetoffury.com
Documenting the "Maximum Disruption" Campaign of Richard WARMAN: http://richardwarman.wordpress.com
Blazing Cat Fur: http://blazingcatfur.blogspot.ca
Richard Warman Hates Freedom: http://richardwarmanhatesfreedom.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment