The Shotgun Blog
« Ideological dimensions of Canadian conservatism | Main | Weekend Watch: ABC 20/20's John Stossel takes on bailouts, stimulus and other bull**** »
Saturday, March 14, 2009
A pyrrhic victory for anti-racism crusader Richard Warman
Reports the National Post:
Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman yesterday extended his perfect record when the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal upheld his hate speech complaint against the Northern Alliance, a long-defunct London, Ont., white nationalist group, and its bankrupt former leader, Jason Ouwendyk.
The ruling brings Mr. Warman's victories at hate speech tribunals to more than a dozen, more by far than any other complainant under the controversial Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
But in denying Mr. Warman's request for financial compensation and a fine, the tribunal also harshly criticized him for "disappointing and disturbing" online behaviour, including his posting of hate messages written by others that "could have precipitated further hate messages."
Over at his blog, former Western Standard publisher Ezra Levant interprets the significance of the Tribunal's condemnation:
Tribunal Chair Edward Lustig condemned Warman – who holds himself out as a human rights activist – for his membership in neo-Nazi organizations and ripped into him for his frequent anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi rants. The Tribunal effectively accused Warman himself of breaking the law – pointing out that Warman’s online anti-Semitism could quite possibly expose Jews to even more hatred and contempt. That just happens to be the offence Warman claimed he was trying to enforce. And, in perhaps the most damaging finding, the Tribunal pointed out that Warman at first did not answer questions truthfully – effectively calling him an attempted perjurer.
It is the most incredible ruling I have ever read from a human rights tribunal, and it discredits Warman, his enablers at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the censorship provision).
(h/t Wendy Sullivan)
Posted by Kalim Kassam on March 14, 2009 | Permalink
Comments
I don't mind if people go after actual perpetrators of hate crimes, but as we have seen in this case, there is such a thing as taking things too far, such as when a "crusader" virtually breaks the law -- and he is no law enforcement officer that would give him the authority to operate sting and undercover operations!
Besides, my view is that no verbal hate crime (i.e., online postings, etc.) should be prosecuted (or persecuted) until an actual physical crime has either been attempted or committed as a result, and even then, the perpetrator of the physical act should be punished first and foremost, but not the blogger or forum poster.
We have heard so many stories about battered women who turn to the police only to be told that they can't do anything about threats or threatening behaviour unless the spouse or boyfriend actually follows through on his threats and commits an actual criminal offence. Why should it be any different for online postings or utterances that are perceived to be hateful?
Posted by: Werner Patels | 2009-03-14 12:44:17 PM
Werner, if Section 13 covered speech as well, you can rest assured the HRC (and Warman) would be all over it. That section 13 covers even the Internet is a joke. Section 13 was intended to provide protection from telephone harassment. But because of a foolish interpretation by technology imbeciles, it now also covers the one medium that will probably come to dominate all others, on the grounds that it was once received through telephone connections.
The future of laws covering cyberspace is rife with peril, considering that Canada is currently governed by a generation which still has trouble programming a VCR.
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2009-03-14 7:11:51 PM
Warner Patels,
It appears your views have modified from where they were last year. Or do you still believe Warman has been criminally libelled by Free Dominioners, as you claimed last March?
http://www.agoravox.com/article.php3?id_article=7831
Posted by: Mark Fournier | 2009-03-14 9:39:36 PM
Mark, there are several aspects to this story and others involving Warman. In the case of Freedominion, yes, those comments clearly met the definition of malicious (including criminal) libel. Still, even such problems should be addressed through a proper court (in this case, either through a civil or criminal trial), but not a HRC.
So, to answer your question, no, my views have not changed. The libellous comments posted about Warman (which were attacks and insults beyond the pale) were libellous as they are now. But Warman appears to have acted improperly too -- at least in this current case.
Posted by: Werner Patels | 2009-03-14 10:24:56 PM
Werner, it is unfortunate that your views have not changed, but on the upside, the Warman SLAPP suits against us will be decided in a real court by a real judge who understands what criminal libel actually is. On the merits of the cases we will easily win them all.
I guess we'll all just have to see who is right, Connie and me or you and Richard Warman.
Posted by: Mark Fournier | 2009-03-15 2:00:31 PM
Mark,
I understand your efforts. I too was the victim of a SLAPP suit. I do think however that you maybe not getting good advice. The best libel lawyer in Western Canada (hired by CanWest) was brought into our case. When I had my brief conferrence with him he urged me not to discuss the case with anybody. That I would just be creating more work for him if I did. That if we wanted to win, our best option was to stay quiet and let the courts decide.
If your lawyer is not giving you comparable advice.. she is creating more lawyer fees for herself and every post you make about Warman is going to end up costing you hundreds of dollars... since Warman can bring it ALL in - especially when it comes to issues of deciding regarding malice... It won't cost him anything and he can paper you to death...
Don't you see that?
Why do that? You should make perhaps one declaratory statement or refutation which your lawyer has reviewed and approved - and just refer to that document when it comes up.
Seriously... You folks are going to end up bankrupting yourselves and making ALL the lawyers involved VERY rich.
Why do that?
Posted by: MW | 2009-03-15 5:42:36 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.