The Shotgun Blog
« Somebody finally goes after the surrender to North Korea | Main | David Suzuki: Get rid of the Green Party [Green Party responds] »
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Richard Warman wins lawsuit; a speech warrior yawns
"Speech warriors suffer another setback," reads the headline on a prominent left-wing Canadian blog.
Well, as a "speech warrior", I'm yawning.
Richard Warman, you may recall, is the guy who has filed most of the complaints under Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act. That's the section most of us free speech types have focused on because -- in our view -- it allows for the suppression of unpopular ideas and unjustifiably infringes on the right to free expression guaranteed to all Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
For example, the Canadian Islamic Congress filed a complaint against Maclean's magazine under Section 13(1) after Maclean's published an excerpt from Mark Steyn's book, America Alone. That complaint was eventually tossed out.
Warman has filed complaints under Section 13(1) of the CHRA many times. Most recently, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal upheld a complaint filed by Warman against Melissa Guille, the webmaster of the Canadian Heritage Alliance (CHA.) We covered that on the Shotgun here. Ms. Guille posted nothing hateful herself on the CHA's website, but other commentators did.
The "speech warrior" position -- or my position, anyway -- is that the persecution of Ms. Guille and other victims of Section 13(1) is completely unjust. Section 13(1) ought to be scrapped, and the Canadian Supreme Court ought to revisit the 1990 Taylor decision which upheld the section as a "reasonable limit upon freedom of expression."
But as far as I can tell, Richard Warman's recent lawsuit has little or nothing to do with the unjustifiable censorship of unpopular ideas. That's why I'm yawning.
Warman sued William Grosvenor for "defamation, assault, and invasion of privacy." (See the judgment here.)
According to the Globe and Mail: "Mr. Grosvenor had provided photographs and Mr. Warman's address, as well as Google maps showing how to get to his home," and "...openly incited readers to take violent action against Mr. Warman."
I'm going to assume the Ontario Superior Court got the facts right in this case. According to those facts, Grosvenor openly accused Warman of having sex with a 13-year-old girl. Grosvenor repeatedly posted messages online containing such charming sentiments as: "I AM GOD AND I HAVE A RUGER P-90 AND IT'S BULLETS HAVE YOUR NAME ON THEM FAGBOY", with clear reference to Warman.
The language was threatening, repetitive, and libelous. As the court found, Grosvenor's Internet postings
have persistently expressed hatred and anger and have called on others to act against the plaintiff, to try to get him evicted and to make him a target of violence. They are not general threats. They are threatening and intimidating and by virtue of their repetitiveness, their detail regarding the plaintiff's whereabouts and their level of malevolence, they are more than empty threats and insults. They are vicious and serious and are to be taken seriously.
One might quibble with the court's view, but from the evidence cited, I have to agree with it. Inciting others to take violent action against an individual is not protected speech, nor should it be. Falsely accusing a person of statutory rape/pedophilia is not protected speech, nor should it be.
Grosvenor deserved to lose this case -- and, in fact, made no effort to defend himself.
Congratulations to Richard Warman for winning a case in "real court." Now excuse me while I engage in another yawning fit.
Via Dawg's Blawg.
UPDATE:
Please keep the discussion civil. Defamatory comments will be deleted. Comments accusing me of being inconsistent about free speech because of my intention to delete these comments will also be deleted. You can read my attempt to justify such acts of private censorship here.
Posted by Terrence Watson on October 22, 2008 in Freedom of expression | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e2010535ae54e6970c
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Richard Warman wins lawsuit; a speech warrior yawns:
Comments
Spot on Terrence! An unhinged wackjob got way out of line and was appropriately spanked in a real court of law. End of story. It has nothing to do with section 13, the CHRC or kangaroo judges and for the MoonBats to promote it as some sort of section 13 victory is completely disingenuous.
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-22 10:41:30 AM
Thanks, Richard.
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-10-22 10:49:50 AM
That is one desperate Dawg.
Posted by: Blazingcatfur | 2008-10-22 10:53:25 AM
Not all speech warriors agree with you, Terrence. Connie Fournier over a Free Dominion thinks that Grosvenor is the victim here, daily bayonet is whining about this too, and Shaidle is as well, at least by implication.
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-10-22 11:39:41 AM
Dawg,
Understood. I checked out a few blogs, but didn't see any _argument_ for the counter position. There was nothing for me to address or refute.
I'm wondering if anyone actually took a look at the judgment and the evidence (that's why I spent so much time on it in my post.) It's pretty damning, in my view.
And at least someone on Free Dominion is saying Grosvenor went over the line. That's good.
I'd be happy to hear arguments from the other side on this issue. As it is, I'm a little disheartened that not everyone is having a good yawning fit over this one.
Best,
Terrence
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-10-22 11:48:18 AM
Mr. Grosvenor has "gone over the line" on the net for more than 12 years. Speaking as a long-time target for his disgusting vitriol, I can only add a hearty "WELL DONE, MR. WARMAN!"
I will be participating in a workshop in Washington, DC next month on the subject "The Internet, Anti-Semitism and Holocaust Denial," and this lawsuit will provide a perfect focus for my presentation.
Mr. Grosvenor is no stranger to libel suits, and has convictions for assault and extortion, and I'm not going to weep for him.
Posted by: Ken McVay | 2008-10-22 12:09:52 PM
Terrence, if you look more carefully at all 17 words of my post again, you will note that there is no defense of anyone, don't mistake the rabid Dawg's opinion for sane discourse.
Posted by: dailybayonet | 2008-10-22 12:14:30 PM
The Dawg is being very misleading, disingenous and even dishonest.
Connie F over at FD is wondering why Warman is targeting someone who she understands to be a mental patient. Her question is valid in that sense... mental patients are supposed to be in rubber rooms, not getting sued by vultures like Warman. Not once did she mention free speech.
The Daily Bayonet is complaining that the courts are being used as bank machines. Not once did he mention free speech.
Shaidle mentioned it only in reference to Warman as a serial complainer.
Not a single one of the people above spoke to Grosvenor's case as a free speech issue.
Bad Dawggie!
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-22 12:37:31 PM
Well, Dawg, Kathy's response must have been one of those "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" times you speak of often. Her entire "whine":
"Oh, and The Guy Who Is Suing Us was just awarded $50,000 in another case."
I don't read any defense of Grosvenor at all. How hard do I have to squint?
Posted by: James Goneaux | 2008-10-22 12:46:08 PM
DailyB,
Hm. So you don't really think Warman used the legal system like an ATM in this case?
I suppose I interpreted you as implying that there was something frivolous about the lawsuit. Do you normally claim that people who win libel lawsuits under similar circumstances are using the legal system as an ATM?
Do you think the award was due to the "courtesy" of the judge, or because Grosvenor deserved to lose?
Posted by: Terrence Watson | 2008-10-22 1:06:09 PM
Grosvenor didn't even mount a defence. He didn't show up, he didn't hire a lawyer. So, Warman didn't "win" anything here. The judge just awarded him what he asked for because he was unopposed.
It was the Nizkor site who said that he is a mental patient...I'm taking them at their word.
I will not make any excuses for the comments that Grosvenor made because they are clearly over the line. I'm sure if you visited your local psychiatric hospital you would hear lots of very inappropriate things, too.
I'm questioning the justice in taking away the home of a person who, according to Nizkor, is mentally ill. Does anyone seriously believe that this guy was ever in a position to damage Richard Warman's reputation??
I don't think so.
Posted by: Connie Fournier | 2008-10-22 1:20:19 PM
"Alberta Report" (July 1989) wrote, "Alberta Report has also obtained numerous letters, court documents, newspaper articles - even Grosvenor's own resume - dating back to 1970, revealing that Grosvenor, 48, has a criminal record for assault and extortion, that he was diagnosed at Riverview Psychiatric Hospital in British Columbia in 1973 as suffering from a paranoid personality disorder, and that his harassment of the Ghermezians is only the latest in a 20-year series of vendettas against corporations and individuals, including leading figures of the British Columbia legislature and judiciary."
Nizkor simply archived the entire article and made it available to the public. Grosvenor advised the Court that he would defend the suit, but chose not to. Under Canadian (and American) law, that means that the facts alleged in the suit are taken as proven. Section 9 of the Reasons for Judgment states this plainly.
Note that one does not require a lawyer to file a defense. All Grosvenor had to do was provide a notarized statement to the Court. He chose not to, and Warman's win stands in accord with the rule of law. If that was not so, all one would have to do to defeat any civil suit is not show up.
Prior to the Ghermezians winning a multi-million dollar libel suit against Grosvenor, he tried to extort them out of $1.2 million to shut him up. This is but one example of the character of the man.
When the Ghermezians won their $22 mil. suit, the Grosvenor home was owned by his wife. I understand that this is no longer the case, and that it now belongs to both.
From my perspective, this suit was less about Mr. Warman's reputation than about his safety, and anyone who fails to acknowledge that fact seems pretty disingenuous to me.
Grosvenor invited people to harm Mr. Warman, and I can understand how anyone who hasn't bothered to read the Statement of Claim (now online) AND the Judgment might not understand that.
Grosvenor attempts to incite hatred. As one of those he has targeted, I can assure you that my complaints about the man have nothing to do with potential damage to my reputation.
Mr. Grosvenor richly deserves this judgment. If he didn't want to put his assets at risk, he should not have devoted years to inciting harm to others.
Posted by: Ken McVay | 2008-10-22 1:57:58 PM
Richard Warman and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal work in cahoots to stiffle ethnic white dissent.
The "Canadian" Human Rights Tribunal comprises:
Richard Warman - Jewish
Chairman J. GRANT SINCLAIR - Jewish
Vice-Chairperson Athanasios Hadjis - Jewish
Full-time Member - KAREN JENSEN - Jewish
Part-time Members - MICHEL DOUCET - Jewish
Part-time Members - KATHLEEN CAHILL - Jewish
Part-time Members - MATTHEW D. GARFIELD - Jewish
Part-time Members - KERRY-LYNNE FINDLAY - Jewish
Part-time Members - WALLACE G. CRAIG - Jewish
Part-time Members - MARC R. GUIGNARD - Jewish
Part-time Members - RÉJEAN BÉLANGER - Jewish
Part-time Members - EDWARD LUSTIG - Jewish
As an outfit they are as phony and as sinister as hell. Richard Warman paved the way to his law degree with a degree in Acting, he shouldn't be allowed ANYWHERE NEAR a court room. They should be jailed, all their judgements should be reversed and the victims paid compensation for the perscution they have sudffered at the hands of these bandits.
Posted by: RF | 2008-10-22 4:15:52 PM
Two things, Ken.
1) If the suit was more about Warman's safety than his reputation, why was Grosvenor not charged criminally? It seems to me that, if this guy is dangerous, it would have been safer for Mr. Warman to have him had put in jail (or a mental institution) than to have driven him even closer to the edge by taking away his house. However, I understand that that would eliminate a large financial benefit.
2) You said he is suffering from a "paranoid personality disorder", and I believe you. So the question remains, how do we, as a society justify, taking the home out from under someone who is mentally ill over something he wrote on the internet? I don't see it as something to celebrate.
Posted by: Connie Fournier | 2008-10-22 4:24:13 PM
Connie from FreeD defending the mentally ill? Thought you guys were Social Darwinists.
Posted by: bigcitylib | 2008-10-22 5:27:45 PM
RF; This wasn't a CHRC ruling. It was a civil suit tried in a real court.
Ken; I have to echo Connie's question. If Warman feared for his safety as much as he indicated, why didn't he press charges? Why did he go for the money shot instead?
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-22 5:29:17 PM
BCL sez: "Connie from FreeD defending the mentally ill? Thought you guys were Social Darwinists."
You have FD'rs confused with the NDP. NDP members worship at the feet of Canada's greatest eugenicist, Tommy Douglass.
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-22 6:03:07 PM
RE & CF: It is extremely difficult to obtain Crown approval for criminal defamation charges. I can attest, having tried it in 1998. Alberta Crown would not lay the charge, citing SCC restraints on Defamation convictions.
My formal complaint to the EPS ran more than 550 pages, all material published by the same author, but it still was not enough. In that material, I was accused of being a convicted child molester (the same charge was used against Warman by the same author), a homosexual, convicted car thief and convicted sex offender. None of these assertions were true, but that didn't stop Grosvenor from making them.
Had I the money to bring a civil suit, I would have - it's easier, and it's faster. It's also very expensive. I would guess (that is all it is, but based on past experience, an educated one) that Warman's legal bills will be well over $10,000. (My Edmonton attorney wanted $2000 up front, as a retained, and that was in 1998.)
CF-2: If Grosvenor's incitement had led to death, would you excuse it based on Grosvenor's mental problems? Warman would still be dead.
This isn't just about "something he wrote over the internet," this is about a vicious and violent campaign which spanned years.
I can tell you that had Warman NOT taken action, the incitements to violence would have continued. I have archived 12 years worth of Grosvenor's "work," and a good deal of it concerns me, so I know exactly what would happen if Warman simply had let it slide.
I have corresponded with one man who actually lost his employment because of Grosvenor. Shall we shrug it off as mental illness and ignore the economic and mental suffering that resulted?
I am pleased that someone has finally said "Enough!" It's been a long, long time coming.
RF: Careful! The Jews may be under your bed!
Posted by: Ken McVay | 2008-10-22 6:45:00 PM
Who the hell is this "RF" poster? That tinfoil hat getting a wee tight perhaps?
Now, I may not agree with much (well, anything) that Warman does, but seeing as how I went to school with him, I'm pretty sure he isn't Jewish. Even if he was, so what?
Freak.
Posted by: Dave Tracey | 2008-10-22 6:52:41 PM
Ken; I think I see your problem: You're an idiot.
If someone is threatening your life/safety, you don't press "criminal defamation" charges. You have the cops nail his ass to the wall for uttering threats. Period.
I'll ask the question again; Why didn't Warman neutralize the threat by pressing criminal charges as opposed to leaving the threat intact while perusing a civil suit?
Like Connie, I have to guess that Warman really wasn't all that "threatened" and that he saw dollar signs at the end of his little offended rainbow...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-22 7:34:24 PM
...pursuing...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-22 7:36:44 PM
Dave, you are right that he isn't Jewish nor are most of those listed by RF, who most likely is a troll. Based on the evidence my bet is on the easy money rather than feeling threatened.
Had we true justice the case would have been either thrown out or postponed when the accused was not represented for whatever reason. But in our enlightened and progressive society one can be convicted for a crime he has not committed but someone believes he may. Go figure.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-10-22 7:57:08 PM
RE: I see your problem. You live in a fantasy world where local or national police agencies react instantly to threats posted through anonymous servers and "nail his ass to the wall."
I can tell you from personal experience that it doesn't work that way. It matters not at all what the police are or are not willing to do. They won't move a muscle without Crown approval, and Crown rarely, if ever, provides it.
Your fantasy world appears to extend to the point where you believe people should be able to avoid accountability by hiding behind locked doors. As Mr. Grosvenor learned in the Ghermezian case, that isn't realistic.
He could have defended himself. Indeed he legally committed himself to doing so and then failed to do so. That was his choice, and it was clearly deliberate.
If you wish to live in your goodie-two-shoes bubble, by all means do so in happiness and good health, but please don't impose your delusions on those of us who live in the real world.
I have devoted nearly 18 years of my life to this issue. I have spent countless hours discussing legal aspects with federal, provincial, state and local police, prosecutors, lawyers, human rights workers and NGOs in North America, Australia and the UK. Your assessment of the situation is, to be kind, nonsense.
Posted by: Ken McVay | 2008-10-22 8:17:39 PM
Ken,
I don't mean to sound argumentative, but I don't see how this ruling will help protect Richard Warman...unless he is planning on using the $50,000 to buy a security system.
I am obviously not as familiar with William Grosvenor as you are, but I can't imagine him simply apologizing and stopping this campaign. He didn't care enough about this suit to even show up in court!
On a side note, at over $10,000 a pop, how does Warman afford to sue everyone on the internet? If he was doing it on his civil servant's salary, he'd have to be living in a cardboard box!
Posted by: Connie Fournier | 2008-10-22 8:37:57 PM
CF: It can protect him by reducing or halting the flow of incitements to violence. The less incitement, the less likely some moron will take up Grosvenor's invitation to violence. With all due respect, I don't think you really understand what a vicious campaign Grosvenor has waged on the net for the past 12 years.
He doesn't just hate Warman, he hates Jews, homosexuals, French Canadians, Communists, and anyone else with the temerity to disagree with him. If you doubt this, do your homework - and keep a barf bag handy. You'll find a disgusting sampling of Mr. Grosvenor's work here:
http://www.nizkor.org/ftp.cgi/people/g/grosvenor.william
I am not privy to Mr. Warman's finances, but did once hear him say his unpaid legal bills (pre-Grosvenor) were substantial. My response, based on that knowledge, is that he CAN'T afford to "sue everyone on the internet." I think he does it for people like you and me, who can't afford to, and I'm grateful.
Why does he do it? Ask him.
Frankly, I'm glad someone finally has the willingness and the wherewithal to shut down some of the most violent, vile expression originating from Canadian Internet gutter trash.
If I had had the finances to file a civil suit against Grosvenor, believe me, I would have, and I appreciate Mr. Warman's refusal to roll over and play victim to one of the most vile hatemongers on the net.
By the way, Mr. Warman is not a civil servant, he is a practicing lawyer in Ottawa.
Posted by: Ken McVay | 2008-10-22 8:59:38 PM
Ken sez: "I see your problem. You live in a fantasy world where local or national police agencies react instantly to threats posted through anonymous servers and "nail his ass to the wall."
Sorry Ken but there was no anonymous involved. Warman had the guy's name and address. Further, I can't think of a single policing agency in this country, (federal, provincial or civic) that when presented with a credible threat on the life of an individual, wouldn't take immediate action. Their first step would be an EPO. It'd move up from there.
Ken sez: "I have devoted nearly 18 years of my life to this issue. I have spent countless hours discussing legal aspects with federal, provincial, state and local police, prosecutors, lawyers, human rights workers and NGOs in North America, Australia and the UK. Your assessment of the situation is, to be kind, nonsense."
I don't care if you've sucked ass with the queen of spain. You failed to answer the question: Why didn't that parasite Warman neutralize the threat by pressing criminal charges as opposed to leaving the threat intact while perusing a civil suit?
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-22 10:38:18 PM
Ken sez: "He doesn't just hate Warman, he hates Jews, homosexuals, French Canadians, Communists, and anyone else with the temerity to disagree with him."
So what?
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-22 10:43:33 PM
Ken, I'm sorry to say it but your fascist approach to thought control makes you no better than the imaginary nazis you spend your time hunting.
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-22 10:47:40 PM
RE: You evade the issue. When I filed a criminal defamation complaint against Grosvenor in Edmonton, I had his name, his address, his phone number, his ISP and 550 pages of defamatory material he published under his own name.
Crown refused to lay the charge.
That you do not understand the realities of the criminal justice system is clear. I do - been there, done that.
Three cheers for Richard Warman, who DOES understand.
Posted by: Ken McVay | 2008-10-22 11:00:49 PM
Ken, you're talking about a criminal DEFAMATION suit. Were Warman really concerned about his safety, he could have pressed charges based on HARASSMENT, THREATS and STALKING. He never did. Why not?
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-22 11:13:57 PM
RE: I had evidence every bit as convincing as Mr. Warman's. In fact, mine was better, because Grosvenor published it under his own name. You don't seem to want to accept reality: When it comes to Internet crime, the Crown does not seem to care unless it involves child molestation or threats to national security. The police, and the Crown, are understaffed, underfunded, and overworked, and cases like mine, or Warman's, are simply ignored.
As to Mr. Warman's motives, ask Mr. Warman.
Governments around the world have been trying to cope with this issue for more than a decade.
I attended a conference (Toronto, 1999) where I emailed a death threat to a member of the Metro Toronto Hate Crime Unit while he watched me do it, then challenged him to establish the identity of the perpetrator.
While it is not an impossible task (although I believe it WAS in 1999), it is an extremely difficult one, and much easier to prove in civil court, as Mr. Warman just demonstrated.
I have received threats for 17 years. Some of them have resulted in positive police response. The last time that happened was in 1998.
Neither you nor I know whether or not Mr. Warman pursued criminal charges, so your question is moot. Unlike you, given my background and experience, I will not assume he did not.
Posted by: Ken McVay | 2008-10-22 11:28:24 PM
Evans,
Why are you asking other people to answer for Warman? Only Warman can. You seem to be engaging in published speculation without seeking clarification from the target of the speculation. Be careful. Warman could send you a warning letter as per Canada's libel law for this, citing defamatory innuendo.
All the normal reasons why a person seeks to tort instead of filing charges have already been named, or at least alluded to:
1. Criminal proceedings often are not followed through
2. Punishments may not be sufficient to the complainant (Conservatives know this one)
3. Victims do not receive adequate compensation; often, they receive none
4. Complainants can spend considerable time in proceedings, despite the drawbacks named above
The issue we can discuss is whether or not Warman had a civil case. Well, he clearly did.
Nothing the Crown could do would compensate Warman. My experience with the police and Crown in matters of harassment and violence is also not satisfactory.
Next, a personality disorder is not a 'mental illness.' For paranoia to be a mental illness it has to be psychotic in nature. A personality disorder is a lower grade than that. People with paranoia as a personality disorder make up as much as 2.5% of the population.
"Patients with paranoid personality disorder are characterized by suspiciousness and a belief that others are out to harm or cheat them. They have problems with intimacy and may join cults or groups with paranoid belief systems. Although not ordinarily delusional, these patients may develop psychotic symptoms under severe stress."
Finally, torts don't get thrown out just because the defendant has a screw loose. If there's damage, our courts tend to want to compensate the victim.
Grosvenor, like any other person with a personality disorder, is aware of the difference between proper and improper behaviour. If his thoughts are driven by his disorder, we can forgive him for them; but not for his methods.
Just because you dislike, or even hate someone, for rational or irrational reasons, is no reason to commit crimes against them.
Even persons suffering from mental illness often are deemed to still know the difference between right and wrong.
Posted by: Mark Francis | 2008-10-23 5:40:48 AM
Ken:
This continuing smackdown is a joy to read. Just one minor quibble: Richard W. does indeed practice law, but at the DoD, so he's a lawyer *and* a public employee. And taking out the detestable criminal William Grosvenor was in itself public service of the highest kind.
"Not a free speech issue" harrumphs one of the commenters. And yet it's interesting how the speech warriors (not all of them) fell into line to give Warman the gears, instead of the poor. victimized perp.
(Incidentally, folks, Ken is a bit of a free speech absolutist, along First Amendment lines. We once crossed swords in the old days on that very matter. If you asked him nicely, he'd probably give you his views on the hate speech provisions of our legislation.)
Posted by: Dr.Dawg | 2008-10-23 5:53:55 AM
Mark Francis wrote: Why are you asking other people to answer for Warman? Only Warman can. You seem to be engaging in published speculation without seeking clarification from the target of the speculation. Be careful. Warman could send you a warning letter as per Canada's libel law for this, citing defamatory innuendo.
Feel the chill, RE. You are not worthy to speak his name. :-)
Posted by: Connie Fournier | 2008-10-23 6:22:04 AM
Ken sez: "Neither you nor I know whether or not Mr. Warman pursued criminal charges, so your question is moot."
Not knowing the answer to a question makes it moot? Are you serious? Had you said earlier that you didn't know instead of obfuscation and excuse-making, you would have saved us a lot of typing.
Mark sez: "You seem to be engaging in published speculation without seeking clarification from the target of the speculation. Be careful. Warman could send you a warning letter as per Canada's libel law for this, citing defamatory innuendo."
If Warman wants to sue me for asking a question, he's more than welcome to try.
Dawgiw sez: ""Not a free speech issue" harrumphs one of the commenters. And yet it's interesting how the speech warriors (not all of them) fell into line to give Warman the gears, instead of the poor. victimized perp."
Dawg, the only person looking at this as a free speech issue is you. Bad, bad Dawgie!
Connie sez: "Feel the chill, RE. You are not worthy to speak his name. :-)"
It's scary isn't it?
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-23 8:33:51 AM
RE says "If Warman wants to sue me for asking a question, he's more than welcome to try."
The issue is, you are supposed to ask him the question. No one else can answer for him. So, what is the purpose of speculating and demanding others answer for him when they can't?
Defamation, one might argue.
Asking questions can be so much fun. For instance:
What's Richard Evans' involvement with NAMBLA?
Posted by: Mark Francis | 2008-10-23 8:47:59 AM
Mark sez: "What's Richard Evans' involvement with NAMBLA?"
That one's easy. Richard Evans outs pedophiles and their vile supporters on-line. Ask your friends CC and Thai-guy why the have such a big problem with that.
Mark sez: "The issue is, you are supposed to ask him the question. No one else can answer for him. So, what is the purpose of speculating and demanding others answer for him when they can't?"
Have you got his phone number? I'll give him a call...
Posted by: Richard Evans | 2008-10-23 9:10:54 AM
There is nothing stopping Richard Warman from replying to Richard Evans right on this site. He is obviously VERY experienced in using forum/blog software, and he has to know the discussion is taking place because: a) his friends are here, and b) he's probably the biggest self-googler in the world. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :-)
Posted by: Connie Fournier | 2008-10-23 9:49:22 AM
From my chair it looks like Connie's misapprehensions and re-parroting of other peoples' misapprehensions/expressed distortions have already cost her plenty.
And I see no reason for that not to continue based upon her above posted remarks and the stuff she continues to allow/encourage to be posted on her own blog.
Posted by: Harry | 2008-10-23 10:23:50 AM
Harry,
The only reason that we find ourselves on opposite sides is because I don't believe it is in anyone's interest to allow the government a free hand in controlling our freedom of speech. You need only look at history to see that they won't stop with the people you don't like. Ultimately, they will come after you, too!
You would have to look long and hard to find a secular forum in Canadian cyberspace that is more supportive of Israel than Free Dominion. That is because both my husband and I hold those beliefs very strongly, and we always have. It is an intrinsic part of our faith.
We believe that the best way to handle bigotry is to immediately counter it with logic and reason. When people are clearly posting with the intention of stirring up hate (rather than merely expressing controversial opinions that can be debated and refuted), we ban them. Free Dominion has never been about promoting hatred, and anyone who suggests otherwise is a liar or a fool.
I find it amazing that you (and others I don't bother to list) find so much pleasure in seeing your allies attacked. There may be a day when your friends will finally succeed in destroying Free Dominion. But I have visited the Canadian leftwing forums, and I can guarantee that if they are the only voice left in Canadian cyberspace, you will find more hatred and bigotry against Israel in their unopposed message than you ever dreamed possible.
If you think I am alone in this opinion, talk to Alan Borovoy.
Posted by: Connie Fournier | 2008-10-23 10:56:09 AM
Another misapprehension. Among many.
The "Government" isn't interested in "controlling free speech." This is what happens when someone takes their cues from the likes of Lemire, Fromm et. al.
You can publish, post, host, whatever you want. But let those who have been damaged by hurtful expressions and wilfull (especially multiple and ongoing ones) have the means to respond, clear their names and/or seek justice.
But Connie, you've heard this many times before. And disregarded it many times. That's why you're where you are.
If I was you, I would attempt to make amends with Mr. Warman. But I'm not. So this now has to play out, and the piper still must be paid at the end of the party.
Posted by: Harry | 2008-10-23 12:28:00 PM
Come on, Harry. I presented you with a well-constructed argument and you replied with a smear and a veiled threat. I know you can do better than that.
Posted by: Connie Fournier | 2008-10-23 1:06:54 PM
I think it is important to remember exactly how our expression rights are defined in the Charter.
It seems clear that the Charter's protection of EVERYONE'S expression rights is deliberately placed at the top of the list.
Claus 1 reads, "The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it SUBJECT ONLY TO SUCH REASONABLE LIMITS PRESCRIBED BY LAW as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." (Emphasis mine.)
There is not, and never has been, any right to unrestricted speech in any nation on earth, as best I can ascertain.
There are free speech absolutists who would have us believe that we DO enjoy a God-given right to say anything we damned well please, but that's nonsense - an assertion often used by extremists to justify the nonstop vilification of some minority group.
I have never supported Canada's so-called "anti-hate" legislation, and I've made that clear for nearly two decades.
I have accepted, however, that Canadian society has made a public statement to the world, through those laws, that Canadians will not tolerate certain kinds of speech which they deem repugnant.
Whether one agrees with that public statement or not, it is absolutely in keeping with Clause 1 of the Charter. That is why our Supreme Court has found Canadian human rights legislation consistent with the term "reasonable limits."
While I still do not support such laws, I am coming more and more to understand the need for them, and have had to acknowledge that they have demonstrated some value for our society.
The self-identified "free speech advocates" I have contended with for the past 17 years have been hypocritical in the extreme.
None of them reject reasonable restraints upon speech (libel and assault laws come to mind), yet they prattle endlessly about how anti-hate laws cripple their "freedom of expression."
Phooey. Let's be clear about what we're dealing with here.
For an analysis of Zundel's idea of "free speech," Dr. Gary Prideaux's findings are instructive - I recommend his Summary to everyone:
http://nizkor.org/hweb/people/p/prideaux-gary/
Having been subjected to twelve years of abuse at the hands of Mr. Grosvenor (and others), I have no confusion whatsoever about why Canadians advocate for such laws.
Grosvenor is a disgusting, vile excuse for a man. and I'm delighted he has been "bitch-slapped" in such a public manner.
One of Grosvenor's favourite ploys is to publish an article (See Google) which asks, "Is McVay still dealing drugs?"
Another advertises a non-existent Gay escort service which it is alleged I own and operate.
Another claims that I sexually abused my own children.
All of these activities are expressions which are clearly intended to expose me to hatred and contempt. They are such blatant examples of hate-motivated speech that I have used them as exhibits in symposiums with police officials, yet I have never filed a complaint. (I have, however, filed a criminal complaint, as I noted earlier.)
It would be hypocritical of me, however, to deny the Schadenfreude I now feel at the public humiliation Mr. Grosvenor so richly deserves.
If far-right racial supremacists vilify me because of my appreciation and support of Mr. Warman's suit, I will feel completely vindicated. If Paul Fromm and Marc Lemire don't like me, I must be doing something right.
Posted by: Ken McVay | 2008-10-23 1:28:42 PM
I have never argued that there should be no limits on free speech. The problem is that the CHRA is too ambiguous, the process is Lucy-goosey (if you will forgive the expression), and people are being routinely slapped with lifetime cease and desist orders which put them on a slippery slope to jail with no clear line as to what speech might land them there.
As a webmaster, I could also wind up with fines (or ultimately jail time if I kept the forum open while under a cease and desist order) as a result of anonymous postings of other people...and, those people could easily be CHRC employees because at least one of our members is an investigator there!
FWIW, the free speech right of EVERYONE, is what we advocate at Free Dominion. Unless someone is being disruptive, we allow all sides of the issues to be debated.
Anyway, Ken, I don't understand why you would approve of a process that is now being used to drag you in front of a tribunal over hateful speech that was posted on Nizkor. Don't you think that, at the very least, "intent" should be a defence?
Posted by: Connie Fournier | 2008-10-23 1:46:40 PM
Intent *is* a defense, and always has been. I have often said, during presentations, that Nizkor probably carries more hateful content than any other site in the world, other than Google, simply because it archives hate speech.
I have asked the question, "That being the case, when will you come for me?" The answer has been consistent, and did indeed include intent.
If someone wishes to claim that Nizkor violates the CHRA, all I can say is "bring it on."
Posted by: Ken McVay | 2008-10-23 2:24:28 PM
Interesting discussion - especially by Dr. Dawg who rants and raves at the police for misdeeds but steps up to the plate (switch hitting)/batting for "Lucy". - who has been mentioned in the the last 2 CHRC cases as being somewhat less than truthful and misleading (to put it mildly and using false IDs to entice and entrap.
Dawg would not allow that in any police force but has no trouble with the CHRC and its dubious and 'jaded' record. For many Marxists - the end always justified the means.
But it is interesting the his ("Lucy"s) name keeps getting mentioned in the press. Why would the G&M even care and the authors are never well known.
He must have a full time propagandist as for the life of me cannot see what this individual other than suing a whole lot of people and using Section 13 of the CHRC even while he was working there has achieved in life.
While he apparently spends his nights searching the websites for Nazis - he never seems to be around to openly debate his own values and methods.
A Zealots life must be a very lonely one.
Posted by: The LS from SK | 2008-10-23 5:03:35 PM
The Supreme Court in Taylor held that no intent was required under section 13 because the CHRA is a remedial statute and its objectives related to remedying the effect of discriminatory practices, not to punish them. [para. 70]
Phillipe Dufresne from the CHRC spoke at a law conference I attended last weekend, and he confirmed (several times) that intent is not a defence.
Posted by: Connie Fournier | 2008-10-23 6:03:20 PM
Dr. Dawg
"Not all speech warriors agree with you, Terrence. Connie Fournier over a Free Dominion thinks that Grosvenor is the victim here, daily bayonet is whining about this too, and Shaidle is as well, at least by implication. "
So, by your own admission, your own headline is fraudulent.
"Speech warriors suffer another setback"
Terrence, for instance. Just to name one.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-10-23 6:29:04 PM
Dr. Dawg
"Not all speech warriors agree with you, Terrence. Connie Fournier over a Free Dominion thinks that Grosvenor is the victim here, daily bayonet is whining about this too, and Shaidle is as well, at least by implication. "
So, by your own admission, your own headline is fraudulent.
"Speech warriors suffer another setback"
Terrence, for instance. Just to name one.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-10-23 6:29:10 PM
Funny how all these supporters of a secret Gestapo style police state will change their tune quicker than the blink of an eye when the same police come after them.
The very reasonable and valid question still remains unanswered. If "Lucy" received death threats, why were they not reported to the police instead of this? Three guesses and the first two do not count: easy money once again. Had they been reported, the police would have been obligated to act, and as they did not it confirms that "Lucy" did not pursue this route.
Posted by: Alain | 2008-10-23 7:28:44 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.