The Shotgun Blog

« John McCain vs. MMA | Main | She's not dead yet »

Monday, February 25, 2008

Richard Warman is Suing Ezra Levant

Ezra reports that Richard Warman, former Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator and complainant in "approximately half" of all Section 13 cases that have come before the commission, has hired a lawyer and is pursuing a defamation lawsuit against him.

Incidentally, the CHRC's handy-dandy website lets you view tribunal decisions by complainant. You can see how many times Warman's name appears on that list here. Note that appearances may be deceiving, because the CHRC's website lists all its decisions, including minor, procedural ones, as well as final decisions in which penalties are imposed.

Ezra also posts this chart which appears to report on the total number of times Warman was listed as a complainant, as indicated on the CHRC's website. On his own website, Ezra vows he's going to "fight like hell."

Wish him luck.

Posted by Terrence Watson on February 25, 2008 | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e55075145b8833

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Richard Warman is Suing Ezra Levant:

Comments

"Wish him luck."

I would only wish him luck if I were sure he had not defamed Warman. Defamation suits are not about picking out which guy is the one you like and which one is the guy you don't and hoping the guy you like wins the case, whether or not he broke the law. Defamation suits are about whether one person defamed another. I certainly am in no position to say whether or not Ezra did that, but if he did then wishing him luck would be to wish that he gets away with breaking the law.

While it does not rise to the level of defamation, I can say that the Richard Warman website does intentionally mislead in its claim about the number of cases Warman has brought. They count single cases with multiple defendants as if they were separate actions. So the claim that he has made 26 complaints is not really true. He has only made half that number. It also should be noted that the number of complaints he has made is irrelevent. Either the restriction of speech is legitimate or it is not. If it is not, then even if there had been no complaints the CHRA should be changed. If it is legitimate, then one person bringing many cases does not make it any less legitimate.

I don't know why people seem to so easily get distracted from the real issues and bog down in personality issues. It is possible that Ezra is right about section 13 needing to go and at the same time guilty of defaming Warman. It is possible that Warman is an unreasonable propononet and head cheerleader for a bad law and at the same time a victim of defamation. But soting out this "he said, she said" is not really important to me or to the issue of free speech. No matter how good or bad these guys are and no matter how many cases have been brought by one person, the bottom line is that section 13 of the CHRA is an unreasonable restriction on free speech and should be eliminated. The rest is just a side show.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-25 7:47:05 AM

I just wonder why Ezra seems to think he can go around calling people racists bigots Arab thugs, tin pot fascist, jihadists and anti-semites. Then write on his site that these same people "but most of that is simply rehashing several of my own blog posts. The rest of it is a mix of vanity, self-righteousness, hyper-sensitivity and plain old inaccuracies."

I am curious where the inaccuracies are? Like the one where he Called Syed a facist not once but twice on CBC National last week?
Ezra seems to like to dish it out but cant take it very well. it Seems according to Preston Mannings book he has a few judgement problems.
Not my words but Preston Mannings.

Posted by: fairness | 2008-02-25 8:59:13 AM

Correction, the quote is in regards to complaints by Richard Warman not Syed. However the quote on CBC is correct.

Posted by: fairness | 2008-02-25 9:01:25 AM

Hi Fact Check,

"I would only wish him luck if I were sure he had not defamed Warman. Defamation suits are not about picking out which guy is the one you like and which one is the guy you don't and hoping the guy you like wins the case, whether or not he broke the law."

I kind of knew you were going to say something like that. And, to be honest, the thought was enough to make me pause before I added that line. You're right, of course: if Ezra broke the law, then he broke the law. The fact that he's on "our side" shouldn't matter.

But, Fact Check, there's another part of me that wonders. I read recently (can't remember where) that the records from Warman's ISP that would vindicate or sustain the accusations Ezra's accused of making do not exist. From what I read, it was recently revealed that the ISP's records don't go back far enough.

So it's revealed the Internet records are missing, and then Warman launches his lawsuit. The supposedly defamatory posts have been around for a while, so why wait until now to sue?

Second, Ezra wasn't the only one involved. Indeed, a few other bloggers accused Warman of authoring the racist posts far more directly than Ezra is alleged to have done. As far as I know, they aren't being sued (yet.) But Ezra is the only one who has publicly and repeatedly attacked the Human Rights Commissions, humiliating them on a grand scale.

If the lawsuit against Ezra is somehow "payback" for the strong stance he has taken against the commissions, then I'm going to wish Ezra luck in defending himself against it. The lawsuit can be viewed as a counter-offensive in the broader struggle for freedom of speech in Canada. Thus, the fact that Ezra and I are on the same side in that struggle has to matter, at least a little.

That's what I've been thinking, anyway. But thank you for keeping us all honest.

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-25 9:19:25 AM

Wish him luck. Go to his site and send him some money too...

Posted by: BillBC | 2008-02-25 9:49:00 AM

To the Oxymoronic one,

We have the right to freedom of speech in this country. I can call anyone any name I choose be it a politician, an iman, priest, rabbi or a person of any race or culture.

It is their choice whether or not they choose to be offended. It is not illegal to offend someone.
If they believe they are defamed then they can sue me in a real court under the rules of common law. But not under these one sided kangaroo court star chambers that are completely and utterly unfair.

Personal honour and integrity cannot become the priveledge of the state to enforce and regulate.

I encourage everyone to donate to Ezra's brave campaign for freedom.

Epsi

Posted by: Epsilon | 2008-02-25 9:52:40 AM

Fact Check,

You are so predictable and boring.

Ezra is fighting the good fight, support him against those piranhas who would shut us up and rob up blind.

Donate now.

Posted by: John West | 2008-02-25 10:05:22 AM

Terrence: "The records from Warman's ISP that would vindicate or sustain the accusations Ezra's accused of making do not exist. From what I read, it was recently revealed that the ISP's records don't go back far enough."

If this is true, it is a big problem for Ezra. His defence against defamation (at least on the charge of calling Warman an "anti-Black, mysogynist bigot") would seem to depend on showing that his statement is true, which he cannot do if he cannot show that Warman made the post in question. Warman need not prove he didn't make the post: the burden of proof is on the one saying he did.

I should also point out that having been falsely accused by *ahem* the Shotgun *ahem* of making nasty posts that I didn't make based on a supposed IP check (an error on the WS's part that was acknowledged subsequently), I am not immediately convinced by some website's claim about what Warman might have posted.

"So it's revealed the Internet records are missing, and then Warman launches his lawsuit. The supposedly defamatory posts have been around for a while, so why wait until now to sue?"

Around for a while? The posts Warman is suing Ezra over are all from 2008. There is no significant time lag here.

"Second, Ezra wasn't the only one involved. Indeed, a few other bloggers accused Warman of authoring the racist posts far more directly than Ezra is alleged to have done. As far as I know, they aren't being sued (yet.)"

This is a good point insofar as it is relevent to a defamation suit whether or not Warman has let slide similar comments from others. But if the previous accusations were made by hard-to-identify annonymous Internet posters or made by people not perceived to have much of an audience or influence, then they would either be hard to launch a case against or dificult to show that they actually damaged his reputation. Ezra does like to brag about the number of hits he gets and has said that publicity for his claims is his mission, so suing him and not others makes sense from a legal point of view.

"But Ezra is the only one who has publicly and repeatedly attacked the Human Rights Commissions, humiliating them on a grand scale. If the lawsuit against Ezra is somehow 'payback' for the strong stance he has taken against the commissions, then I'm going to wish Ezra luck in defending himself against it."

That's a big "if". Because if Warman did not make the post in question then being accused of so doing and being called an "anti-Black, mysogynist bigot" seems to be enough to motivate action. Also, just as one could question Warman's motivation as being 'payback' for Ezra's position on the HR commissions, one could question Ezra's motive for saying things about Warman as being 'payback' for Warman's position on the commissions. What we might have, then, is two people who differ on the limits of free speech descending into a childish battle. Which is one more reason I prefer to focus on the real issue - section 13 of the CHRA - and not personal quarrels.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-25 10:21:19 AM

Fact Check,

"If this is true, it is a big problem for Ezra. His defence against defamation (at least on the charge of calling Warman an "anti-Black, mysogynist bigot") would seem to depend on showing that his statement is true, which he cannot do if he cannot show that Warman made the post in question. Warman need not prove he didn't make the post: the burden of proof is on the one saying he did."

Agreed. If the ISP information is gone, it's big trouble for Ezra. And yes, the burden of proof is on him. But Ezra would be in just as much trouble if the ISP info was there, but did not implicate Warman. So why does it look like Warman waited until the information's non-existence was revealed (something he probably wouldn't have known himself: I have no idea how long my own ISP keeps its records, for instance)?

Legally, I know, the question is irrelevant. It's also irrelevant to the larger philosophical point about our right to speak freely.

"What we might have, then, is two people who differ on the limits of free speech descending into a childish battle. Which is one more reason I prefer to focus on the real issue - section 13 of the CHRA - and not personal quarrels."

But look at it this way: my significant other studies rhetoric. She's constantly chiding me for focusing too much on abstract "logos" and not enough on "ethos." There are significant ethos issues at work here. The outcome of this personal dispute is inevitably going to have an impact on the way most people react to the arguments Ezra and Warman (and Kinsella, of course) make in favor of their respective positions. If Ezra loses the defamation suit, that's going to affect his credibility in his position as an exponent of free speech in Canada.

And, for now, no one else has his salience. In the fight for freedom, we need him.

It probably shouldn't be this way. We should be able to examine the quality of a person's arguments without worrying too much about the quality of his character. A good argument is a good argument, right?

Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-25 11:32:43 AM

And here we go. An ethos-directed attack on Ezra coalescing into an attack on free speech itself.

http://www.ideas-issues.com/2008/02/freedom-of-spee.html

"This goes to show that I was right all along: What was made out to be a campaign for free speech was really nothing more than a movement of like-minded bigots, racists and defamers who wanted an unfettered "right" to insult others."

This is what we can expect. This is why I wished Ezra luck, whatever my feelings on the merit of Warman's defamation suit.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-25 11:43:33 AM

WITHOUT PREJUDICE

Ezra has gone out of his way to offend hosts of Canadians especially those of Muslim faith. In my opinion had anyone made the same disparaging remarks about Jews, Ezra would be screaming bloody murder. In my opinion Ezra has no journalist integrity.

In Canada we have hate speech laws if Ezra finds those offensive perhaps he should find another country to live in.

Posted by: John P | 2008-02-25 12:00:54 PM

"If Ezra loses the defamation suit, that's going to affect his credibility in his position as an exponent of free speech in Canada."

I agree. Which only makes it more important NOT to side with Ezra because he is one of "us". Just as when white supremacists voiced support for Keith Martin's private members motion Alan Borovoy "urged [Martin] not to be deterred by the applause of the 'invective mongers' of the white supremacist movement" and said "We should do it in spite of them" he was right. Don't tie yourself personally to those who promote hatred, but defend the cause of free speech despite them.

If Ezra really is guilty of defamation the supporters of hate speech laws will use that against the movement to repeal such laws just as they have used the expressed support of white supremacists. But this does not constitute a reason to hope that Ezra wins his case whether or not he is guilty. The end of free speech does not justify a miscarriage of justice in defamation law.

The best hope for free speech is not to hitch our wagons to the mouthpiece that happens to be getting the most attention at the moment, but to hitch our wagons to the cause. That way no matter what happens to the credibility of those who march beside us, our own credibility remains unblemished and that of the cause survives.

Having disreputable people on your side sometimes does not help. But pretending they are less disreputable for the sake of the overall objective is just plain wrong.

Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-02-25 12:03:55 PM

Fact Check,

Good point, except I think the wagons are already hitched to Ezra, so to speak. There's really no going back, at least not for a while.

Do the ends justify the means? Well, I only wished Ezra luck. That means, in my mind, that I wish chance will go his way, whatever that amounts to. If there is any wiggle room, any area in which the facts are unclear, and things could go either way, that's where I hope those things go his way.

But no, I wouldn't support violating the law, or support those who would violate the law, just to ensure their favored outcome occurs. But to the extent there is any ambiguity in the facts of this case, I hope that ambiguity works out in Ezra's favor.

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-25 12:09:57 PM

John P,
While I agree that Ezra definitely has a double standard when it comes to what you can say about Islam vs. what you can say about Judaism, none of what he's written or said can be construed as hate speech, which I think should meet the standard as acting as speech that causes an action, not merely speech that offends.
Unfortunately for those who love freedom, there are few places in the world where more leeway to free speech is given than in Canada, and if a law is unjust then there is nothing to be annoyed with when someone fights it rather than simply throwing in the towel.
Granted, I need to find a new example, but if slavery were legal in Canada would we be telling those who didn't want slavery to be legal to find another country, or would we be rallying behind them?

Posted by: Janet | 2008-02-25 1:23:27 PM

But Folks...we can play this out in many Libel, defamation and "hurt feelings" cases but is it really not whether or not Warman and others acted individually or in consort to post as Agent Provocateurs on various boards while they were members of the CHRC. If they reposted hate messages then they too are guilty under Section 13.1.

They were not quiet about it and activitist actions have resulted in hundreds of postings and blogs about the various case.

Thus, there is no "professional reputation" left to defend.

Clearly the CJC has lost a "cash cow" and the CHRC has lost credibility and soon they will have every organization scrutinizing their silly decisions and charges. Someone "independant" has to fight back for them and so perhaps RW Paladin got the card."Get Ezra".

But let us get this over with as to who did what, when and where and what he or she actualy said and did and under what ID and Computer.

The RCMP and Toronto Police are among the best so if the CHRC has nothing to hide - call them in to investigate. They have not mentioned that have they? Perhaps Dr. Martin will.!!!

Posted by: The LS from SK | 2008-02-25 2:28:07 PM

Number one point of contention, it has not been proven that Ezra defamed Warman and anyone who posts other wise is in fact "Slandering" Ezra. A court of LAW via Judge or Jury hasn't ruled on this case yet.

I'll gladly hitch my horse to Ezra's cause, I was brought up riding horses. I know a regal and just horse from the arse end of one.

Regarding the IP address, well they don't need the logs in a Civil Case. Expert testimony on probability can be accepted as fact. The HRC accept an expert regarding the IP address just because the Big Ole Nazi Hunters didn't like the expert doesn't negate his expertise. Warman's admited using the same IP address to post on the internet the laws of logic dictate resonable doubt doesn't exist in my opinion. If the IP addy becomes an issue his history of posting and using his posts as a basis to file a complaint with the HRC will appall any real Sitting Judge. His battle ground was the HRC Tribunals, where the investigator is judge and jury. He's on a different playing field and there is so much negative information in the public domain about him it's absurb for him to alledge that he's been defamed or Libeled by Ezra. No self respecting freedom loving person with a soul can justify what has been happening at the HRCs.

To allow a complaintant to file a complaint based initiually on that person's hatefilled post and then further hide that evidence under a Section of the HR act is appalling and completly identical to Nazi methodology.

I'm looking forward to reading all the transcripts Ezra will have access to, I think what I've read so far are the tip of the iceberg.

Good luck winning, the transcripts from the HRC are the most damning evidence against Mr. Warman that the general public have viewed. Ezra hasn't defamed Warman, his actions are the consequences of placing himself in the public eye and demanding no one respond to his actions.

Just my opinion though.

Posted by: Rose | 2008-02-25 5:13:48 PM

Mr. Levant is fighting the battle for every Canadian who values our traditional freedom of expression and of the press. You may not like some of his traits or his looks but be very thankful it is someone like him with the courage, conviction and ability to take on those who want to end this freedom.

Those who commented on the "double standard" of Mr. Levant concerning Islam and Judaism have not followed the debate from beginning to present. Firstly he has not taken to task either Islam or Judaism or any religion. He has taken to task the Muslims (not all by a long shot) along with the Jews (again far from all) who do not want people to have freedom of expression. He has written and spoken out several times about the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC). So let us be clear that this is not about singling out Islam and giving Jews, Christians and whoever else a clean pass. It is a battle between those of us who hold to our traditional freedom of expression and of the press and those who seek to end it.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-02-25 7:20:25 PM

Welcome, Ezra, to the Warman universe. I am one of eight "John Doe" posters over at Free Dominion named in yet another Warman lawsuit.

My thought crimes? I suggested that Warman was acting like a neo-Stalinist thug bringing all of his lawsuits against conservatives who had opinions outside the boundaries of political correctness.

Now, you would have thought that any self-respecting Canadian leftist would be preening in front of a mirror after getting a compliment like that from a perfect stranger, I mean, not just any socialist or communist, but The Big Kahuna, the man who liked the midnight knock on the door and the sudden disappearance of ideological enemies.

Now, I will grant that there is a difference in intimidation factor here, exile to Siberia or a bullet through the head would be worse fates than being sued for large amounts of money for speaking your mind in a free country.

So perhaps I should retract my remarks and say that Warman is on the slippery slope towards Stalinism, and setting a Canadian record time on the way down.

Enough is enough, the government needs to repeal Section 13, compensate its existing victims from as far back as the trail began, and generally change the legislation so that this circus can be closed down. But I appeal to Warman personally, man up and get back to the political process, where everyone else debates their ideas, not the courtrooms of the nation where these controversies do not belong.

There are real crimes that need to be judged, not thought crimes that offend only radical socialists.

The point we need to take away from all this, and this includes our current government who hear no evil and see no evil, while all this is going on, we are living through what amounts to a socialist revolution, a hijacking of our court systems to try conservatives for the alleged crime of holding conservative opinions. If that is really a crime in Canada, then Canada is de facto a socialist dictatorship. So what is Stephen Harper doing as prime minister of such a de facto state?

Reducing the GST so that I now pay $1.05 instead of $1.07 for a Mars bar. Now that's better than having freedom of speech, right?

Can you hear the freedom train coming, Stephen, what was united (2004) can just as easily be disunited (2008) if you don't wake up.

Posted by: Peter O'Donnell | 2008-02-26 12:02:23 AM

Peter,

Excellent post and even better suggestions.

Enough is bloody enough and the K & Ws need to take a deep breath, cancel all lawsuits, threats of them and join MP Keith Martin in repealing Section 13 of the CHR Act.

I can only see these as intimidation and only a full and thorough RCMP investigation followed by a public inquiry will soon suffice.

Posted by: The LS from SK | 2008-02-26 1:02:49 AM

The thing that really makes conservatives angry, I think, is the total lack of balance in the mainstream media on political questions. We feel totally stifled with the lack of real debate and real focus on issues like freedom of speech.

Many feel that the same sex legislation was railroaded through a very illegitimate parliament, one already compromised by scandal and later even more so by revelations of criminal behaviour by the legislation's chief sponsor.

So now we have this draconian legislation that effectively muzzles legitimate free speech, and only one MP with the balls to stand up and say so, that being Dr Keith Martin of Victoria, who is (of all things) a Liberal.

I'm sure there has to be a lot of discontent behind the scenes in Toryland, and believe me I don't want to see a return to the two-party split but for God's sake (if not for Ezra's) let us move away from this far-left make-believe world that the Canadian establishment now calls home, and listen to what the ordinary people are saying and thinking.

Case in point, the Mulroney inquiry. This just goes on and on like Groundhog Day, and it really makes me wonder, is this $300,000 that Mulroney may or may not have received so vastly important that we should be wasting hundreds of hours of inquiry and media time on it, when there are such fundamental issues as the freedom of speech debate being swept under the rug, and the climate change controversy media-managed so that nobody is even allowed to ask who benefits and why, etc.

Now we have David Suzuki rambling on in public about throwing politicians in jail if they fail to do his bidding. This is becoming a trend, and what this country so desperately needs is a strong voice from the government (the Conservative Party of Canada, so what's in a name, I ask) ... the prime minister or at least a senior cabinet minister, to put a screeching halt on this runaway herd mentality towards groupthink and political correctness in all things. We need that leadership like yesterday, not tomorrow.

And if it doesn't come from Stephen Harper, then it will surely come from some other place because Canadians are not going to take all this lying down, enough is enough (read my lips, no new socialism).

Posted by: peter o'donnell | 2008-02-26 4:01:07 AM

Up early Peter?

I read the libel and defamation suits against FreeDominion and Ezra and the 'legal beagles' here are laughing as there is no provision for individual action (via E Mail) unless each 'John Doe' (staring into the headlights of an old car?) is personally served.

Previous 13.1 complaints against such individuals or crimininal complaints would suggest retaliation and abuse of process thus...?

Unfortunately that leaves Mark and Connie alone as it did Lemire and others.

As for E Mail actions against "John Doe" as part of a greater conspiracy and in fact such opens the originator to criminal or law society allegations as well as a ban for inappriopriate use of the Internet and if, the originator posted or reposted neo-nazi posts - French and German (via Europol and Interpol) might ban those posters from EU entry.

THIS is why an RCMP investigation is urgently required as the French and German Police cannot move forward without their investigation into Poque Mahone, Lucy and others.

That aside...the world unfolds and Canadians pay for the sins of only a unchosen and unappointed few!

Posted by: The LS from SK | 2008-02-26 6:32:22 AM

"Ezra seems to like to dish it out but cant take it very well."

Whether we agree or disagree with Ezra's assessment of other's political standing or cultural beliefs is irrelevant. We're all entitled to an opinion even if its distasteful.
At least Ezra isn't using the HRC as his personal podium to level thought crime charges at others.
The very idea of "Running to Big Brother" to tell on someone is childish and the whole thing
ought to be abolished. Our government has absolutely NO business telling ANY of us what to think. The only role government has is the preservation of justice. It can not "create" justice with any amount of laws. Words are only words, but violent acts will be punished by law.
Real law...not the HRC and its Kangaroo forum.

Posted by: JC | 2008-02-26 7:10:05 AM

Peter,
You're suprised that you got sued for defamation because you compared someone to Stalin? You figure this is some great infringement of your right to free speech. Get real.
As Ezra knows, you can launch a defamation suit on the basis of far less-scathing assessments than that. How does he know? Because he's done it several times, bringing or threatening defamation actions again people -- former employees, political allies -- who have called into question his actions and competence.
My advice? Quit whining. Apologize or hire a lawyer.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-26 9:25:56 AM

very true truewest re:Ezra he uses the courts to try and silence his critics and former employees.
Its sad that very few others on the right can see this? maybe they can see it, but are too afraid to speak up? and why? law suit maybe?

Posted by: fairness | 2008-02-26 10:45:39 AM

Rose,

Sorry to take so long in responding to your post. First, I HOPE I never claimed that Ezra was actually guilty of defamation in this case. I tried my best to keep all my comments very neutral, even in my discussion with Fact Check. If I failed in that regard, I apologize. For present purposes, I'm not even taking up a position on the overall merit of Warman's allegations.

But I do wish to say something about the IP evidence. If Warman wants to cast doubt on the idea that because he used an IP at time t that therefore he must have still been using it at time t+x, it will not be difficult for him to do so. The difference between t and t+x is irrelevant.

If I unplug my cable modem, wait a sec, and then plug it back in, many times my computer will be assigned another IP by my ISP's DHCP server. I don't know if this is common, but it's been the case with several ISPs I've dealt with. Why couldn't Warman simply claim that he unplugged his own modem for some reason?

ISP logs would block this argument because they would link the IP to a certain MAC address. Although MAC addresses can also be changed and forged, that is less likely than a simple change of IP. Unless someone were specifically out to frame Warman, the MAC address would be a reliable indicator that the person using the IP address at time t was the same person who used it at time t+x (if the IP was linked to the same MAC address at that both times.)

That's my (admittedly) limited understanding, anyway. The balance of probabilities might still favor Ezra, but far less decisively than they would with the addition of evidence from Warman's ISP.

Terrence

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-26 3:27:14 PM

Language police alert: It's "favour," not "favor." It's "colour," not "color." It's "honour," not "honor." "Neighbour," not "neighbor." And so on.

This police action applies all and only to Canadians, Brits, and Aussies. Americans are exempt from these requirements.

Posted by: P.M. Jaworski | 2008-02-26 3:53:54 PM

Are the language police like the jazz police? If so, have they got their final orders yet?

Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-02-26 3:58:18 PM

The point is, I didn't compare him to Stalin, I placed him in the Stalinist tradition, and he is throwing his toys out of his pram because of that.

The actions taken against Stephen Boissoin there in Alberta are very Stalinist, he has been hauled in front of a kangaroo court and essentially found guilty of somebody else's crime through a phony claim of incitement.

Who is next, God? He said some pretty hurtful things about gays too. Let's put God on trial.

Oh I forgot, they tried that. Didn't end the way they expected it would.

Posted by: Peter O'Donnell | 2008-02-26 5:17:58 PM

fairness

"very true truewest re:Ezra he uses the courts to try and silence his critics and former employees.
Its sad that very few others on the right can see this? maybe they can see it, but are too afraid to speak up? and why? law suit maybe?"'

You are whistling in the wind with Truewest. He'll just remind you that Ezra's use of the courts is a LEGISLATED right and thus is inviolable.

Is that about right, Truewest?

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-26 5:23:50 PM

I am moved to add that I find it disturbing that even on this presumably conservative-leaning blogspot, there is hardly what you would call a storm of protest or outrage over this planned legal harassment campaign against Canadian conservatives. It would seem that many don't want to rock the boat, in other words, the premise of Section 13 has been ingrained into the national character already.

However, I sense this is more of an elitist problem, the less politically active people "out there" especially outside the larger cities are probably not that aware what is going on in this field yet, and when it does come to their attention somehow, the inevitable reaction will come.

As a country, we are ignoring very important issues, like the groupthink phenomenon, one-sided media coverage of many subjects, an erosion of really robust intellectual standards on campus in favour of packaged socialist opinion, and the growing threat to real free speech and real religious freedom.

If we continue to ignore these things, so that even the nominally conservative party resonates with the left-liberal elite, then we will not continue to be a truly free people in Canada.

It is for this reason that I have written as follows to the Prime Minister:

Feb 26/08

To: Rt-Hon Stephen Harper, MP

Prime Minister of Canada

Dear Prime Minister,

You may recall that I wrote about a month ago to express concerns about a lack of public statements from you or your ministers on the subject of free speech and more specifically the recent trend towards frequent legal challenges at both the HRC and regular Court settings, brought against conservatives who express any opinions not appreciated by two groups, the gay rights lobby and radical Islamic groups in Canada.

I have no illusions that you read all of the e-mails that come into your busy offices every day, and I have doubts that the first inquiry, which was greeted with some sort of form "we have your e-mail" response, got much further than the first desk that it landed on. I hope that will not be the case here.

Recently, the same individual (Richard Warman) who has been firing off lawsuits almost at random at any conservative target he can identify, has decided to plague Ezra Levant after that worthy gentleman recently demonstrated to the Islamic challengers that we still have freedom of speech rights in Canada de facto if not de jure.

At this point, perhaps the political optics would finally be right for you to act, because instead of helping out Joe Schmoe types such as myself who have no friends in high places, and who are merely expected to troop out and vote for your party no matter what it does, now you would be helping Ezra Levant, and by extension Mark Steyn, and people who actually have some significance to the cultural elite that you have inherited from Paul Martin and that rather lamentable government.

Now, here is the main point I wanted to make. People in the rank and file of the conservative movement are fed up with this situation, the culprit is Section 13 and the only man in parliament saying anything on that subject is Keith Martin who is not even in the Conservative caucus (yet?) .

This subject really required action a year or two back, because it represents draconian and to many of us, entirely inappropriate legislation in a democracy, designed to give gays and lesbians a pretext to sue anyone they find antagonistic to their visions of the future course of Canadian society. And many Canadians have suffered silently through all of this, those of us who are facing the court challenges are just the tip of the iceberg of considerable social unrest about the threats to freedom of religion and freedom of education that are represented by the militant gay lobby.

Those of us who want to question this headlong rush towards social engineering should at least have the unqualified right to speak in public without the fear of being sued at the drop of a hat by immature people who seem to want to toss their toys out of a pram at the first opportunity. I know you see this sort of behaviour on a regular basis sitting where you do in the House of Commons, and so we thought perhaps you might sympathize with a basic conservative position like this.

If we conclude by, say, the end of March that you don't, I think many will be looking for a more effective political alternative. At some point, the risks of voting for some other conservative party are not as big a consideration as the possibility that action will never be taken and the voting public will never be given a clear chance to express their point of view.

So this is more or less a word to the wise on the subject of keeping the conservative vote together, which would be the first choice of all concerned. But make no mistake, whoever might read this at whatever level of the CPC, the voting base has the right to expect a conservative leader to have basic minimum commitments, some issues can be finessed perhaps, but freedom of speech and freedom of religion are absolutes that are under attack in Canada, and many conservative voters will not tolerate that.

Yours sincerely,

Peter O'Donnell.

Burnaby, BC

------------------------------------------

I hope that readers of this forum will consider this argument and let the PM know how they feel about conservative priorities ([email protected])

Posted by: peter o'donnell | 2008-02-26 8:46:18 PM

Ezra Levant is a hypocrite and a snake oil salesman...He SUES people for DEFAMATION, his own preferred way to take away people's freedom of speech. Levant is a fraud who feeds off his blindly faithful neoconservative fools who believe ANY thing he says, accept ANY pose he strikes. Laughable...but not for those he ties up in Canadian defamation court. And as long as its "the law" and the donations keep coming in, Conservatives will go right on supporting Levant's assault on free speech while attacking Warman for -- what? For being just like Ezra Levant?

Posted by: Free Marc Emery | 2008-02-26 9:20:43 PM

Funny how people on here believe that one kind of legislation against free speech, namely the Left's so-called human rights legislation is "bad" and another way, the (originally, conservative elite)defamation courts, is "good"...critics of Levant's, who point out he is hypocritical, are told that 'well, defamation law is handled by the courts' and human rights law is handled by kangaroo courts? What is the difference, really? Both judges and HRC commisars are appointees of their respective political constituencies, and both serve same. Both kinds of legislation are laws of the land. You can't just pick and choose which law is legitamte based on your political point of view. If you support free speech, and not just free speech for neoconservative activists like Ezra Levant, then you must oppose all laws against free speech.
I ask again: what is the difference? Just that Ezra is a lawyer and not an HRC activist and so prefers defamation law because that is what he studied at university?
Conservatives are doomed to irrelevance as long as they are so riddled with internal contradictions and inconsistency.

Posted by: Free Marc Emery | 2008-02-26 9:33:30 PM

Peter,
You called him "neo-Stalinist thug", the plain connotation of which is, to borrow your words, that he is like "The Big Kahuna, the man who liked the midnight knock on the door and the sudden disappearance of ideological enemies". You've compared him to a mass murderer. It's as if I responded to your rant by suggesting that your morals and mental capacity are somewhat Pickton-esque.

Warman isn't "tossing his toys of his pram" to borrow your inane coinage, he's defending his reputation, relying on a common law tort that is hundreds of years old and that presumes that a person is entitled to his good name. And one that the Supreme Court of Canada (like every other court in the common law world) is entirely consistent with freedom of speech.

Like I said -- apologize or get a lawyer. And quit whining to Harper about not sucking up to the base. Little Steve isn't my cup of tea, but he's clearly clever enough to know that pandering to the remedial reading class isn't going to get him the majority he so desparately desires.

h2o,
Do you stay up nights practicing being clueless? Ezra's right to bring pointless and harrasing defamation actions againt people who point out his incompetences is derived from the common law, same as Warman's right to sue blustering right-wing twits who compare his to mass murderers. We could limit that right with legislation, but then Ezra would have something else to whine about.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-26 9:34:04 PM

I'd comment, but I'm afraid I'd be sued.

Posted by: dewp | 2008-02-26 9:36:13 PM

All the above stated, is it reasonable to hope Levant and Warman both lose? Can Levant lose and Warman lose worse?
Here's hopin'!

Posted by: Free Marc Emery | 2008-02-26 9:40:09 PM

> I am moved to add that I find it disturbing that even on this
> presumably conservative-leaning blogspot, there is hardly
> what you would call a storm of protest or outrage over this
> planned legal harassment campaign against Canadian
> conservatives. It would seem that many don't want to rock the
> boat, in other words, the premise of Section 13 has been
> ingrained into the national character already.

What? Only Conservative Party (or is it now Wildrose Party) Card Carrying members are allowed to use the legal system? If the claims he makes are unsubstaniated the judge will throw it out, if not it will proceed. What's your fear? That the Judge doesn't see Ezra as saint that you seem to perceive him?

> However, I sense this is more of an elitist problem, the less
> politically active people "out there" especially outside the
> larger cities are probably not that aware what is going on in
> this field yet, and when it does come to their attention
> somehow, the inevitable reaction will come.

Yes, this darn Common Law System, how dare people actually use it AGAINST one of yours.

> As a country, we are ignoring very important issues, like the
> groupthink phenomenon, one-sided media coverage of many
> subjects, an erosion of really robust intellectual standards on
> campus in favour of packaged socialist opinion, and the
> growing threat to real free speech and real religious freedom.

Funny, where has anybody said anything about banning a certain religion? Oh yes, that's happening on this blog mainly where there is a cry to arms against Islam. Or where exactly has anybody closed down churches or outright banned the Bbible?

> If we continue to ignore these things, so that even the
> nominally conservative party resonates with the left-liberal
> elite, then we will not continue to be a truly free people in
> Canada.

Canada has a very long way to go before it gets to "unfree". Not quite sure where you see the end of it all, politics ebb and flow, and right now people seem to tend more to the left than the right of the spectrum. No worries, sooner or later it'll swing back.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-02-26 11:16:14 PM

Now, now Truewest...no temper tantrums allowed here.

What reputation can RW have left? Type his name into Google and see how many entries there are. Positive = 2. Negative = 100s.

RW has already changed his Wikipedia salutation twice this Month - any reason? Damage control perhaps as everyone is now really getting focused and sharing information from the original which was a bit of showmanship?

Now type your name in and how many do you get?

Type my name in and sadly there are 0 :).

So what does that say?

HEATSEEKER...missile inbound?

Posted by: The LS from SK | 2008-02-27 12:38:29 AM

Truewest,

"Do you stay up nights practicing being clueless?"

More insults instead of dialog, I see. Perhaps if you paid attention, you wouldn't have written the following:

"Ezra's right to bring pointless and harrasing defamation actions againt people who point out his incompetences is derived from the common law, same as Warman's right to sue blustering right-wing twits who compare his to mass murderers"

I believe I said this same thing just last week when we were (ok, I) was discussing Ezra's right to challenge the HRCs. You were busy insulting instead of discussing then as well.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-27 6:04:54 AM

>""Ezra's right to bring pointless and harrasing defamation actions againt people who point out his incompetences is derived from the common law, same as Warman's right to sue blustering right-wing twits who compare his to mass murderers"

While Stalin was a mass murderer, that isn't the aspect of Stalin's rule that Mr. Levant is drawing a comparison of when he compares Mr. Warman to Stalin.

Mr. Levant is comparing the aspect of Mr. Warman's use of the HRCs to Stalin's use of the Troikas.

Troika (Russian: тройка, meaning threesome) is a committee consisting of three members.

NKVD Troikas
The word became notorious in the Soviet Union during the Stalinist era: troikas replaced the normal legal system for quick persecution of dissidents or anybody accused of political crimes. This quickly turned into witchhunts, which filled the country with dread.

FROM>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troika_%28triumvirate%29

It is the extra-judicial aspect of the Troikas that is similar to the HRCs and Mr. Warman is using the HRCs as Stalin did the Troikas.

It is a valid comparison and one which is easily and correctly drawn.

The idea that Ezra Levant was comparing Stalin's aspect as a killer is no more basis for a lawsuit than the idea that Mr. Levant was comparing Stalin's proclivity for young girls or even his dietary preferences, when the issue that brings Mr. Levant into conflict with Mr. Warman is extra-judicial courts dealing with unorthodox(PC) open expression of ideology.
(free speech)

Again>

NKVD troika

NKVD troika or Troika, in Soviet Union history, were commissions of three people employed as an additional instrument of extrajudicial punishment (внесудебная расправа, внесудебное преследование) introduced to supplement the legal system with a means for quick punishment of anti-Soviet elements. It began as an institution of the Cheka, then later became prominent again in the NKVD, when it was used during the Great Purge period in the Soviet Union.

The Russian word troika literally means "threesome" or "triumvirate".

FROM>
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NKVD_troika

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-27 6:43:57 AM

Well free marc emery you hit it on the head, dead on Sir. I wonder how Ezra sleeps at night suing former employees and then does what he does.
He does 100% what he sues others for. Then people continue to give him $$ wow its astounding how naive our conservative base is.I say we as I count myself as conservative, but not a Ezra supporter.

Posted by: fairness | 2008-02-27 7:45:09 AM

Speller,
Interesting point, but not much help to Peter (whose comparison of Warman to Stalin led to his being named as a John Doe in Warman's defamation suit against FreeDominion).
The defendant's intended meaning is irrelevant in a defamation action; it's the meaning that a reasonable person would take from the words that determine whether they are defamatory. Hard to say what that meaning would be without seeing the original post, but generally comparing people to Hitler or Stalin or Pol Pot will be found to be defamatory. A couple of further points: HRT's aren't "extra-judicial" any more than securities commissions or utilities commission are extra-judicial. And any attempt to compare the human rights tribunals with troikas fails miserably, if only for the reason that, as your wikipedia entry not, troikas were set up as a means of "quick punishment". As we've seen, nothing particularly quick about the human rights proces.

LK,
Nice try, but the fact that the remedial reading class has joined forces with folks like Paul Fromm (whose history with Warman is extensive) to smear Warman on the internet doesn't mean he doesn't have a good reputation. If many people thinking you were a putz was a bar to bringing a libel suit, Ezra wouldn't be able to file as many as he does.

h2o,

If you stop being stupid while trying to be clever, I'll stop insulting you. There is, I expect, no danger in that happening if your latest post is any guide.
You appear to suggest that Ezra's right to challenge the HRC scheme is derived from the common law. In fact he would be challenging the particular section of the Human Rights Act as being contrary to our Charter, a constitutional statute which, unlike the common law, allows ordinary legislation to be declared invalid. Keep this up and we'll have to boot you out of the remedial reading class and make you repeat finger-painting.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-27 7:50:56 AM

>"The defendant's intended meaning is irrelevant in a defamation action; it's the meaning that a reasonable person would take from the words that determine whether they are defamatory."
truewest | 27-Feb-08 7:50:56 AM

A reasonable person would draw the meaning from the context of the discussion.

The context of the discussion is the context that defines the relationship between the talker and the subject.

The context in this case, being free speech, would be the Troikas and the HRCs being compared, not killings or sexual proclivities or favourite foods or hairstyles.

If someone wants to go out of their way to be offended or draw an inference which is unrelated to the context, that is their own bias, not the intent of the speaker but the the bent of the listener.

Intent is an important aspect of the law, is it not, truewest?

It is reasonable to pay attention to context if one wants to receive a communication or message, is it not, truewest?

Posted by: Speller | 2008-02-27 8:12:39 AM

Speller,
Intent is an important aspect of the law in many areas, but not in defamation, where the court will consider the "sting" of the impugned words without any reference to what the publiher says he intended.

As for context, we don't really have any before us, so it's hard to say what a reasonable understanding of the comparison might be. But even if Peter made the explicit connection between Warman's filing of complaints under a legally constituted HRC process and the troikas, which are a beast of a very different colour, he might be vulnerable to a defamation complaint. He might offer the defence of fair comment, but that would be vulnerable to the argument that comparing the complainant in a human rights case to the creator and operater of an extrajudicial system in which an unrepresented individual comes before a body that is, in practice, prosecutor, judge and executioner goes beyond the bounds of the defence, not least of all because its not based on proven facts.

Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-27 8:55:14 AM

Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-27 8:55:18 AM

truewest,

"If you stop being stupid while trying to be clever, I'll stop insulting you. There is, I expect, no danger in that happening if your latest post is any guide. "

tsk tsk. So sad that you must resort to such tactics.

"You appear to suggest that Ezra's right to challenge the HRC scheme is derived from the common law. "

"In fact he would be challenging the particular section of the Human Rights Act as being contrary to our Charter, a constitutional statute which, unlike the common law, allows ordinary legislation to be declared invalid. "

As derived from common law.

Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-02-27 2:58:26 PM

The saying comes to mind, "the acorn does not fall far from the tree." I've heard more scatological and probably more appropriate versions.

I can see the Warman-sympathizers on here are flapping their wings with outrage at the mere mention of Stalin ... this is typical of Canadian leftists in general, people who don't want to examine our rather sordid history in Canada of cozying up to all communist regimes around the world, Castro's Cuba, China, the former Soviet Union -- all of them were great friends of the Great Icon Trudeau (G.I.T. that he was) and all are still in the thoughts and prayers (to Karl Marx, presumably) of most Canadian "progressives" today in their blind anti-American, anti-western rage against the father figure that is typical of spoiled liberal youth.

I make no apologies for my comparisons, the intention is the same whether the means differ or not, and who are you to say whether these actions are nowhere near as harmful as the midnight knock on the door or the exile to Siberia? Who are you to tell a Canadian conservative anything, go back to Rabble where you belong.

Posted by: Peter O'Donnell | 2008-02-27 6:46:55 PM

Peter,
I never said you had to apologize. However, legal reality looms large. Perhaps a second mortgage on the house might be in order. Or perhaps you'd prefer to represent yourself; that'll be fun.
Or perhaps you can get h2o to help you. Don't worry about his glaring ignorance of legal matters. He's a fellow member of the remedial reading class. And for a proud know-nothing like you -- "Who are you to tell a Canadian conservative anything," says he. "Someone who knows a little about the law," says I -- that's what's really important, isn't it?

Posted by: truewest | 2008-02-27 9:32:18 PM

Truewest,

Spoken like a true materialist ... sadly for your friend (alter-ego?) Mr Warman, I have absolutely nothing of value (to him) and will not be worried in the least about the financial implications of his lawsuit. I very well may come out from behind the shadow of my pseudonym which in any case is my birth-name so I may instead legally change my name to this one. Also, the conservative movement is rapidly rallying behind those charged with these thought crimes, and this will not be the kind of pushover situation that may be envisaged on past experience. I am actively seeking compensation for those already harmed by these distorted quasi-legal processes, such as Stephen Boissoin who has been falsely implicated in serious crimes committed by other people under their own responsibility. The thing that really concerns me is this continual slur that goes out from the Warman death star, that all of his enemies are "neo-Nazis." Perhaps that's why I thought of Stalin in regard to him, I understand that Stalin had a run-in with real Nazis.

The Western Standard may not be the place for this discussion, but with all of these legalistic minds pondering judgement, do you never think about the final judgement from which you will have a lot more trouble escaping? Because if I were you, I would think about that, and not how I am going to pay my mortgage.

Posted by: peter o'donnell | 2008-02-28 3:20:29 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Monday, February 25, 2008

Richard Warman is Suing Ezra Levant

TrackBack

Comments