Free Kathy Shaidle!
By “free”, I mean help. She’s one of my favorite bloggers (Five Feet of Fury), is Canadian, and is being sued by one of the biggest assholes in Canada for “defamation”. It’s kind of a complicated story and I had to spend most of my free time today following link after link on various sites to figure out what the deal is, and here is the Rachl Lukis Nutshell Version, to save you the same time, so you can just get to helpin’ if you feel you can.
First you need to know that one of the good guys here, Ezra Levant, is a Canadian publisher who ran the Danish “Mohammad” cartoons and for his trouble, was hit with some human rights complaints. Yes, really.
The huge asshole suing Levant and Shaidle today is named Richard Warman. Levant can tell you who Warman is:
..[Warman is] the former investigator for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, who quit the commission in 2004 to become the commission’s biggest customer. Approximately half of all complaints filed under the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s section 13 “idea crimes” provision have been filed by Warman.
The CHRC has a 100% conviction rate under that section, and besides ordering the poor shleps Warman complains about to pay fines to the government, they’re often ordered to pay thousands of dollars to Warman himself, too, for his “hurt feelings”. Unlike the paycheque he got when he used to work there, the cash he gets from commission fines is tax free.
Michelle Malkin predicted a month ago that Warman would soon be going after other conservative bloggers in Canada, and she was right. Today, Kathy Shaidle posted that she, Levant, Kate McMillan of SmallDeadAnimals, and a couple of other site owners have been sued by Warman for defamation.
I haven’t been able to figure out exactly what posts he’s suing Kathy for, but here are some examples from Levant about the sort of thing that Warman flips his shit over:
It’s not the first threat I’ve received from him; back in December, when I mentioned him in passing in a National Post Op-Ed, Warman fired off another threatening letter to me. You’ve got to read it. I mean, really — it included the complaint that I dared to call him “anti-racist”, rather than anti-racist. That’s right: the fact that I used quotation marks around those words was one of the reasons he was threatening to sue the National Post and me.
If that was Warman’s most petty complaint, his most ironic complaint was that I called him a censor who abused the legal system, and that if I didn’t immediately censor myself with a retraction and apology, he’d hit me with a lawsuit. That blissful lack of self-awareness would be cute if it wasn’t accompanied by a threat – sort of like when Warman encouraged some young rowdies to “take the piss out of… people who are so pompous and so full of themselves” by assaulting them with a cream pie. It was unsettling to watch a lawyer conspire in the commission of an assault.
Levant has more about this lawsuit here, including a link to the suit itself.
Anyway. I know this is happening in Canada so doesn’t affect me or most of you. Not yet, anyway. What I really care about is Kathy Shaidle because I really like her and she has done nothing wrong. Michelle Malkin has donated $100 to each of the defendants and I’m donating some to Kathy right now, too. If you want to and can do the same, go to her post about this and hit her Paypal button.
You can also go to The Nose On Your Face and buy an Ezra Levant T-shirt; all the profits will be donated to the group’s collective defense fund.
Meanwhile, I just want to say that Richard Warman is a giant douchebag who is simply itching for a butthurtin’. Is that defamation? I intend it as such.
Wow… “Idea Crimes!” I’m glad I’m not Canadian. WTF?
April 9th, 2008 at 3:40 pmIsn’t truth an absolute defense against defamation and slander?
A quick overview of the Canadian Human Rights Commission can be found here. Or maybe it was here. The infamous Secotion 13 is the part you’re looking for, and there’s a brief description here.
April 9th, 2008 at 3:41 pmFuzz - I’m not so sure this kind of crap isn’t around the corner for Americans as well - with the PC movement and the “multiculturalism” crap.
Oh, here is an apropos from the wonderous Charlton Heston “Political correctness is tyranny with manners.” (May he rest in peace)
April 9th, 2008 at 3:48 pmRachel, I’m all about backing Kathy and the Canadian right blogosphere against this f*ckwad of a Warman, but I do have to say that I’m also right there with Instapundit when he asks why the Canadian right blogosphere isn’t filling the air with countersuits and countercomplaints.
I know that some (including Mark Steyn) have said that inverting the process would give the process a certain legitimacy, but like it or not, it is the process.
File twenty or thirty suits against Dicky boy for being an asshat, and he might think twice. (He might not. But no way to know till they try.)
April 9th, 2008 at 3:49 pmThe fun part is that filing suit under that system is free. Defending yourself from a suit, however, is not.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:04 pmIsn’t truth an absolute defense against defamation and slander?
It is in the United States. It is NOT in England. So it may not be in Canada, either.
Canada has “idea crimes.” I don’t put too much stock in their defamation/libel/slander laws making any damn sense.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:10 pmIf anal orifices such as Warman continue to gain traction, legally, in Canada, we will see such legislation here. After all, we are on the brink of considering certain words as examples of hate crimes in America. And, punishable as hate crimes. Certainly, such words used in the workplace, even if overheard by a 3rd party, can constitute grounds for a job action, including dismissal.
NOW you know why it’s so hard for Canadians to own a handgun! And, might I add, “the things you see when you don’t have a gun . . .”
April 9th, 2008 at 4:14 pmOh hells no, that guy needs to be taken to the wood shed out back and get his ass kicked…
April 9th, 2008 at 4:17 pmAnybody got any contact info for that guy? He’s in serious need of hate mail if nothing else.
Attempts are being made here… see -
Threats to citizen journalism
In short, a lawyer has subpoenaed all of a blogger`s records - bank statements included - for having the temerity to criticise the [pseudo-]science he is using in a case.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:19 pmI’ve been following Levant’s escapades with this asshat for quite awhile now, and I knew the Warman toad would broaden his horizons. It costs him nothing and he revels in it. He is one of the most odious characters I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading about.
The Canadians better stir up a shit-storm up there, because it’s just about too late for them.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:27 pmIts only defamation if he can prove he’s not a giant douchebag….ummm and so far the evidence is so against him.
In regards to Canadian defamation laws:
Defamation tort law protects your reputation, not your feelings.
The major points of defamation law in Canada are as follows:
* Defamation is an unusual tort in that it is a “strict liability” tort. In other words, it does not matter if the defamation was intentional or the result of negligence. Defamatory material is presumed to be false and malicious. “Whatever a man publishes”, according to one case, “he publishes at his peril.”
* Defamation must be a direct attack on an actual reputation, not an alleged reputation that a “victim” believes they deserve. A judge will assess the statement against the evidence of the victim’s reputation in their community.
* The remarks must be harmful (i.e. “defamatory”) and this will be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Some statements are clearly defamatory. Other statements would only be defamatory to the person targeted by the remarks. What may be a nonsensical or mildly offensive remark to one person may constitute serious defamation to another. The judge will consider the situation of the person defamed in assessing the claim of defamation.
* The defamatory remark must be clearly aimed at the plaintiff. General, inflammatory remarks aimed at a large audience would not qualify as the remarks must be clearly pointed at a specific person.
* The defamatory remarks must be somehow conveyed to a third party. Private defamation just between two parties causes no damage to reputation because there are no other persons to be impacted by the remarks. With libel, the damage is presumed as it is published. With slander (verbal defamation), proof of repetition to other people is essential to the claim; damages have to be proven (there are four exceptions: the defamation imputes the commission of a crime, the unchaste status of a woman, a “loathsome disease”, or a professional incompetence).
There are a number of special defences available against defamation:
April 9th, 2008 at 4:45 pm* The “defamatory” remark was basically accurate.
* The plaintiff agreed with the defamatory remarks. For example, if the plaintiff subsequently publishes the remarks, they would be hard pressed to succeed in a defamation claim.
* Some special privileges exist for remarks made in certain venues such as in a court room during trial or in a legislative assembly or one of its committees. A privilege against defamation claims also exists for judicial or legislative reports.
* There is what is known as a “qualified privilege” where remarks that may otherwise be construed as being “defamatory”, were conveyed to a third party non-maliciously and for an honest and well-motivated reason. An example would be giving a negative but honest job reference. The criteria for this defence are: defamation was incidental to the protection of an interest or discharge of a duty and the remarks were given to a person who had an interest in receiving the information. In assessing this defence, judges will ask themselves whether a reasonably intelligent person would have given the information to the person to whom it was conveyed.
* Citizens are entitled to make “fair comment” on matters of public interest without fear of defamation claims. A good example of this is a letter to the editor on a matter of public concern. The author of the remarks may even go so far as to presume motives on the part of the person who’s actions are being criticized provided only that the imputation of motives is reasonable under the circumstances. The rule of thumb is that the fair comment must reflect an honestly held opinion based on proven fact and not motivated by malice. It should be noted, however, that some provinces have enacted laws which give their citizens varying rights to “fair comment.”
I keep seeing these ridiculous stories about the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission going after people - even using “drive by wi-fi attacks” to frame people. It’s truly scary.
April 9th, 2008 at 4:51 pmThanks for your support - please send your military to liberate us. Really we mean it.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:10 pmi’m not so sure this sort of thing isn’t headed here. the UN human rights commission has made it illegal to defame islam, and want all countries to follow suit with this! also, this “race card” thing seems to be making “certain” words now illegal, n-word and now monkey, and its going to get worse before it gets better, muslim groups on campuses are starting to call for laws against “islamaphobia”.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:33 pmAs far as using the human “rights” commission to fight back against warman (the vermin): if you lose a case to someone in the hrc, you are forever prohibited from filing a claim against him (that would smack of retaliation); and, the hrc is sort of like the SCOTUS in that they pick whatever cases they want to hear[you have no right to have your case heard or even considered]and they seem to want to hear only cases that are brought by friends of the commission. They even rejected one case because one of their employees (secretary or some such) didn’t like a person who had filed a grievance. And another because the plaintiff had sent a “double-sided fax”. Ever seen one of those?
Investigators from hrc go onto far-right sites and try to stir up shit to see who will respond. Then they close the site. They have even tapped into regular people’s wireless systems to do this (without a warrant). At one time, about four investigators from hrc were investigating each other, because they were the only people making provocative comments on a site - and they hadn’t even co-ordinated with each other about their “screen names”. And they were all filing reports about how they were close to a “hotbed of hatred”.
Ezra Levant, Mark Steyn, Maclean’s Magazine - and now Kathy - are all fighting back, and all of them need our help. Maclean’s, of course, has a whole battery of lawyers and the resources to wage a real battle.
The fight has already started here in the USA, too. A couple who operate a photography studio in New Mexico were sued by a lesbian couple because the photographers - being Christians - did not feel right about photographing the lesbians’ “commitment ceremony”, as they felt it would be compromising their religious beliefs. Instead of just going out to find another photographer, the lesbians ran to the new mexico human rights commission and sued the photographers to force them to take their photos. The photographers have said that they will close their studio before they’ll be forced to do that. I don’t know what the upshot is, yet - but having lived in the people’s republic of new mexico for a while, I’m pretty sure what the verdict will be.
This is what the islamofascists are going to use to dig deeper and deeper into our system - until we are no better than England (may she rest in peace).
Mamba1-0
April 9th, 2008 at 5:34 pmI don’t think it’s possible to get more Stalinistic than that without actually sending people to gulags.
It doesn’t matter whether he wins or not, he can still force Kathy to sacrifice tons of money defending herself from this kangaroo court. As Ezra Lavant said in his hearing at the “Human Rights Court”, the process ITSELF is the punishment. It doesn’t matter if you win or lose (though the odds are on you losing). Your only choices are spending your own money to fight the lawsuit or kowtowing to the wishes of the court and censoring yourself.
Can anyone who lives in Canada or is knowledgeable about Canadian politics tell me how this is all being received by Canadians? It seems like the sort of thing that would have people raising Holy Hell all over the place regardless of their political beliefs, but I’ve not seen any mention of this story outside of a few conservative blogs.
Has liberalism actually gotten that bad in Canada?
April 9th, 2008 at 5:37 pmI donated to Ezra the last time he was in this fight.
April 9th, 2008 at 5:56 pmChristian Photographer Fined $6,637.94 For Not Filming Gays
The New Mexico Human Rights court sentenced Christian photographer Elaine Huguenin a fine of $6,637.94 for refusing to photograph a gay commitment ceremony.
Here is a copy of the ruling:
Click to Enlarge
STACLU and Volokh Conspiracy reported:
Photographers Denied the Freedom To Choose What They Photograph:
Elaine Huguenin co-owns Elane Photography with her husband. The bulk of Elane’s work is done by Elaine, though she subcontracts some of the work some of the time. Elane refused to photograph Vanessa Willock’s same-sex commitment ceremonies, and just today the New Mexico Human Rights Commission held that this violated state antidiscrimination law. Elane has been ordered to pay over $6600 in attorney’s fees and costs.
…the New Mexico government is now telling Huguenin that she must create art works that she does not choose to create. There’s no First Amendment case squarely on point, but this does seem pretty close to the cases in which the Court held that the government may not compel people to express views that they do not endorse (the flag salute case, West Va. Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, and the license plate slogan case, Wooley v. Maynard).
It pays to be gay in New Mexico.
The plaintiff, Vanessa Willock (pictured) is currently an EEO Compliance Representative with the Office of Equal Opportunity where she investigates claims of discrimination and sexual harassment. She is also a member of the Diversity Committee at University of New Mexico.
Previously:
Photographer Hauled to Court For Refusing Gay Job
posted by Gateway Pundit at 4/09/2008 03:30:00 PM | 7 comments links to this post Trackback
Code Pink Victimized at Petraeus Hearing
April 9th, 2008 at 5:58 pmUnfortunately, ‘human rights commissions’ have already come to the US and they have started in just like the Canadian ones.
http://stoptheaclu.com/archives/2008/04/09/new-mexico-human-rights-commission-christian-photographer-guilty-of-discrimination-for-declining-to-photograph-same-sex-commitment-ceremony-slapped-with-nearly-7k-in-legal-fees/
April 9th, 2008 at 6:27 pmBill,
Thanks for the heads-up. I’m a resident of New Mexico. You just laid a stick on a wasp’s nest, my friend. I WILL NOT STAND FOR THIS SHIT! Yes, I’m yelling. Shit suddenly got real personal, real fast. Tyranny just placed a jackboot on my front doorstep.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:34 pmActually that case is somewhat different because it deals with anti-discrimination laws, not “hate speech” or “idea crimes”. Still, anti-discrimination laws are just as creepy.
April 9th, 2008 at 6:41 pmThanks for helping us get the word out! We appreciate it!
April 9th, 2008 at 6:43 pm$20 on its way. I know it’s not much (what, $15 Canadian? *smirk*), but if it helps, I’m all for it.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:03 pmIs “Warman” Canadian for “Fred Phelps” or “Westboro ‘Baptist’ ‘Church?’”
April 9th, 2008 at 7:04 pmI’ve got some ideas on how to use that arsenal of guns you’ve been shootin’. Sounds to me like that Canadian Asshat needs a visit from a pissed off Texan. What a prick!
April 9th, 2008 at 7:06 pmTechnomad Says:
Is “Warman” Canadian for “Fred Phelps” or “Westboro ‘Baptist’ ‘Church?’”
Kind of, except he’s easily offended, has the force of government behind him, and he’s really really really poltically correct.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:17 pmOkay, been reading for a while, never posted. This is gonna be a bit long, and I apologize in advance for that, but here are some answers from someone located pretty much at ground zero of this bullcrap.
Rachel - Defamation – not relevant, this is a
kangaroo courthuman rights commission, not a civil court, the only relevance is if Warman’s feelings are, or might possibly be, hurt. I doubt he’d win in a real court, but in front of one of these, all bets are off.Tully/Adam - truth is a defense up here, but still not relevant, see above.
Ethne/Snakesavage - your SC is taking foreign precedents to
make shit upsettle cases, decide for yourself if it’s coming.Nathan - these “courts” only take suits by lefties against righties. Post 9-11 an Indian immigrant, professor of woman’s studies got off on a complaint about her anti-American hate speech using the defense, “But I’m a brown, socialist woman, I can’t commit a hate crime.” Seriously. Her name is Sunera Thobani and at one time she headed up the Canadian National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Not a joke, a real govt. department.
Doug - he could probably, if you said that in Canada, drag you in front of one of these arfing commissions.
Redhead Infidel – it’s not just about too late, it is too late. Our notion of rabid right winger is Prime Minister Harper, who will do nothing about these commissions, because that might cost him votes in the next election. Canadians will stir up a shitstorm the day they try to move another one of our hockey teams south of the border.
Bill - one of the early test cases up here was pretty much the exact same, a Christian print shop owner forced to print Gay Pride Parade materials, and pay a fine for hurt feelings. This in Toronto, where, obviously, in a city of 2.4 million, his is the only print shop, he had to be forced to print the stuff.
MightySamurai – yes Liberalism is that bad up here. This is a country that complains that CNN is too jingoistic and right wing.
Uh, oh, blood beginning to boil. Must go play with the boy.
We on the freedom side up here do note your interest, and we do truly thank you all for anything you can do. Most of all, keep vigilant, it can happen to you, too.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:26 pm“Human Rights Commission”. Such an innocuous term. How could anyone possibly be against human rights?
And yet I’ll bet there are plenty of people in Canada (and now in New Mexico) who feel fear when they hear that phrase.
Sort of like the “Committee for Public Safety.” Public safety is a good thing, isn’t it? Everyone is for that, right?
But during the French Revolution, the above-named committee was responsible for sentencing thousands of people to the guillotine.
When governments and legal systems cease to be defenders of individual liberty–and instead become malevolent threats to it–then it is only a matter of time until the sane and rational people of the West will be forced to resort to violence to defend their rights.
I’m not advocating it, but I am predicting it. And history teaches us that if we wait until the situation becomes intolerable, then it may already be too late.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:26 pmmightsamuari:
“Can anyone who lives in Canada or is knowledgeable about Canadian politics tell me how this is all being received by Canadians? It seems like the sort of thing that would have people raising Holy Hell all over the place regardless of their political beliefs, but I’ve not seen any mention of this story outside of a few conservative blogs.
Has liberalism actually gotten that bad in Canada?”
When you ask how Canadian’s are receiving this… this presumes that the average Canadian has a means to find out about the story through mainstream media channels. All of the media in Canada is controlled by the left and this story is almost completely and utterly ignored — not glossed over, mis-represented, etc. Just plain ignored.
Liberalism has gotten that bad here.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:34 pmThanks sooo much for drawing (even more)attention to this Rachel.
Until Steyn and Levant were brought before the respective (sic) HRC’s, not many Canadians were aware they had gone beyond the original mandate of settling landlord tenant disputes or employment discrimination. Sadly, only the political junkies amongst us are aware, or care, but the stories are finally getting out there.
If the sheeple only knew.
Oh, and Warman isn’t the only “character” involved in this …this is the kind of person who has a hand in determining what are “acceptable thoughts” in Canada. The judgment of a pubescent tween.
ADDED: Steyn’s case with the Ontario HRC has been dropped … but not after a public tongue-lashing.
Some gems from the decision:
While freedom of expression must be recognized as a cornerstone of a functioning democracy, the Commission has serious concerns about the content of a number of articles concerning Muslims that have been published by Maclean’s magazine and other media outlets
The Commission has long emphasized that forms of racism exist in all of society’s institutions. In order to effectively respond to racism, it is necessary to clearly acknowledge its existence.
Racism exists in the media and the media has a significant role to play in either combating societal racism or refraining from communicating and reproducing it.
The Commission is concerned that since the September 2001 attacks, Islamophobic attitudes are becoming more prevalent in society and Muslims are increasingly the target of intolerance, including an unwillingness to consider accommodating some of their religious beliefs and practices.
Unfortunately, the Maclean’s article, and others like it, are examples of this.
Starting July 2008, human rights complaints will no longer be filed with the Commission but will be made directly to the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. At the same time, the role of the Commission in preventing discrimination and promoting and advancing human rights in Ontario will be strengthened.
Scary days in Canuckistan, for sure.
April 9th, 2008 at 7:53 pmRachel,
You Bitch. You wonderful bitch. You have the voice. You have the power. You are the Bitch Queen from Blogger Hell. With a very big hat tip to Bill. And a nod to Volokh. As a minion in your army, I revel in the glow of your glory. I instruct my students likewise, “never pass on an opportunity to suck up.” You whore for attention. You bitch of the blogosphere. You champion of freedom. Umm, maybe the last is a bit of a stretch. But not by much. New Mexico Human Rights Commission?. It took me an hour to launch the counter-response. Modernity is wonderfully fast. We shall see. Bet on me, baby, bet on me. With an additional nod to Bill and Volokh. And thanks.
And thanks also for your support of YouTube Smackdown. YTS knocked down 1500 enemy vids last month. Got that? Hundreds of enemy vids showing our guys getting blown up were pulled from YouTube by your efforts. Ya need to repost the logo and the link, Rachel, sweatheart. Kudos to Andrea. The most awesome cyberwarrior this side of Dantooine. See? See? This ain’t mere entertainment. This is war. Ideas matter. Every citizen has an opportunity to play. So be it.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:14 pm“It can’t happen here
It can’t happen here
I’m telling you, my dear
That it can’t happen here
Because I been checkin’ it out, baby
I checked it out a couple a times
But I’m telling you
It can’t happen here
Oh darling, it’s important that you believe me
(Bop bop bop bop)
That it can’t happen here”
-Frank Zappa
April 9th, 2008 at 8:16 pm“Scratch a lefty, you’ll find a totalitarian.”
-Kim du Toit
April 9th, 2008 at 8:21 pmYou guys in the US have a law which I believe is still in process in your Congress. I did a post on this in April last year. The bill is “HR 1592: Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2007 [USA]” and is just the kind of thought crime legislation you should be up in arms about. Last I heard was that it had passed the House and is yet to go through your Senate. It seems that so far the Democrats have defeated any modifications to the bill that the republicans have tried to introduce. Here’s one govt link to the bill. Like all its ilk, it’s a very dangerous piece of legislation. Lots of references to ‘perceived’ crimes - in other words, thought crimes.
April 9th, 2008 at 8:33 pmthere’s a lot of evidence that the skumHRC are working as an offloading zone for cops, CSIS in particular. It probably needs not be said, but Hang On to Your Guns!!
April 9th, 2008 at 8:53 pmActually we ARE up in arms about so-called “hate crime” laws and have been for some time. Still, our hate crime laws are not nearly as bad as Canada’s hate speech or “idea crime” laws. At the very least, hate crimes require that someone actually suffer some sort of harm. The same cannot be said for the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
BTW, President Bush has indicated that he plans to veto the LLEHCPA if it gets to his desk.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:00 pmWell…Fred Phelps is easily offended. I daresay he’d be down on our lovely, talented and gracious hostess; she’s admitted to living “in sweet, sweet sin,” after all.
He’s got the government behind him—or at least the power of having a law firm that’ll fire off volleys of civil suits at the drop of an insult, which can be the same thing.
And he brags and brags about his days as a big-time civil rights crusader—which, in my view, makes him Politically Correct. The way things are these days, anybody at all who was on MLK’s side gets the same plenary indulgence that the Popes used to grant to Crusaders.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:34 pmToo late. It’s here too.
April 9th, 2008 at 9:35 pmI don’t want to sound like a left wing wienie, but that case in New Mexico scares me.
I cannot believe that could happen in the great US of A.
April 9th, 2008 at 10:54 pmMighty Samurai said:
Damn, I’m glad to hear that.
Some people have asked me why I, an Aussie, care about what goes on in the US. Our destinies as countries are a lot more intertwined than many Aussies want to believe.
April 9th, 2008 at 11:22 pmDear Richard Warman,
Although I’m sure the owner of this domain may agree with me, I make this assertion of my own free will and choice:
You are a massive douchebag, a charlatan and a lazy horse’s ass.
You’ll note that none of the aforesaid nouns were placed between quotation marks. I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding.
Your “friend” south of the border,
Cosmo
P.S. “F” off.
April 10th, 2008 at 12:02 amAll I can say is that this guy is a complete at total asshat of the highest order. The last time I saw any crap this deep was when I accidentally stumbled into a Michael Moore movie.
Now I truly have to wonder how long freedom and democracy will be around and when all hell will break loose and men and women finally get fed up with all this crap.
To follow in Cosmo’s footsteps:
Mr. Richar Warman,
Please reach down between your legs, grab onto your ears and pull your head out of your ass you stupid little prick.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:04 amBelieve it or not most people up here haven’t really been paying attention to this. Even me…I was a subscriber to Ezra’s magazine when they ran the cartoon’s(the only publisher in Canada to do so!)……I had heard and read things mentioning the lawsuit but untill today hadn’t realized how bad it really was. I will be giving to the defence funds even though right now I’m on a production lay-off in the forestry sector….Freedom isn’t Free,and a few bucks now to fight this 1984 like chrc is a small price compared to later.
April 10th, 2008 at 1:43 amIn albuquerque they also just convicted a guy of a hate crime that tore down a mexican flag that was left flying after the US flag had been taken down. This was at the university, and he is a veteran. He took down the mexican flag, tore it up and was convicted. However, if he’d taken down the US flag and burned it, he would have just been expressing his right to free speech.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:20 amNM and especially Albuquerque is the most fucked up state ever.
Anyone interested in signing up for “Operation Free Canada”, please see me in the foyer. We will be collecting guns, ammo, and money for the printing of leaflets on how free people should live to drop behind enemy lines. We hope that resistance fighters will find them and begin efforts to sabotage the communist regime now occupying Canada in preparation for a new “D-Day” to liberate our northern neighbor from the communists.
A man can dream, can’t he? Unless he lives in Canada. Then it’s an “idea crime”. How’s that different from “thought crime”?
April 10th, 2008 at 7:47 amHere’s the thing about Canadians.
There is no “FOX” or “National Review” (the closest we got was Levant’s western standard - a very minor publication), the TWO main TV purveyors are CBC - the government funded/owned Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, which is staffed quite lefty as you might imagine ( or at thevery least very urban), the CBC also controls a coast to coast radio network. There is also CTV, another network and they aren’t any better.
So when you say the rest of Canadian “conservative” movement had better speak up, it’s not a deep well, 50 years of telling conservative they are marginal, and accusing anyone with a mildly conservative voice of being bad, mad, and dangerous and completely controlling the major media outlets (and academe and the arts, through gov funding) has left the right field shy , battered and wan.
This is why this case is so important, if the bloggers can be shut up then there is no competition for Canadian ideas and the cozy status quo ante bellum resumes.
April 10th, 2008 at 8:28 amSo why hasn’t someone found the guy in a dark alley and beat the snot outta him yet?
April 10th, 2008 at 9:10 amEzra Levant is one of my heroes. I wish these Canadian bloggers luck with their ordeal, but I fear this is a glimpse of our own future. The thought police do exist and the Islamic Fundamentalists are experts at using the court system to intimidate. I hope the rest of the country wakes up before it is too late.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:18 amSomeone should sue Warman so he has to suffer the withering financial burden he inflicts on others.
April 10th, 2008 at 9:19 amNot normally a person to advocate bodily harm on someone….
but Mr. Warman is someone that is in desperate need of having a severe accident that will end with him in a 6ft long box.
clean teh gene pool of this pond scum.
April 10th, 2008 at 10:16 am*
this guy is simple enough to wanna square off with kathy shaidle in a court of law?
geezus… that’s like shakin’ up a bag of feral cats… and then sticking your face in to see how they’re doin’.
i “ALMOST” feel sorry for this dumbstick.
*
April 10th, 2008 at 10:53 amDear Rachel,
I am legal counsel for the Douchebag Anti-Defamation League. Please send me your counsel’s contact information.
Yours,
April 10th, 2008 at 1:16 pmRichard Knowes, Esq.
Of course some of the hate speech seen in comments deplored by Warman on the subject blogs were put there by Warman himself under another name.
When that came out the CHRC removed just those examples from the suit, but let the suit continue.
Can this be more fucked up. Warman needs a good ass-kicking.
April 10th, 2008 at 3:33 pmhere is a lot of info on that fucking bag of pig shit, Richard “panty-waste” Warman
http://www.richardwarman.com/
April 10th, 2008 at 4:37 pmI’ve just been reading richardwarman.com, and came away shaking my head. Methinks when someone this evil (I don’t use the word ‘evil’ lightly) can get away with this kind of shit….words fail me. The law used to be for protecting the innocent and punishing the wrongdoer, but now pricks like this can use it to beat the innocent around the head and smarmy lawyers knowingly use the law to get evil people off scott free. Excuse while I go pray to the porcelain…
April 10th, 2008 at 8:09 pm“Rachel - Defamation – not relevant, this is a kangaroo court human rights commission, not a civil court,”
No. It is a civil case involving an alleged tort. I know Ezra’s post clouds tries to conflate the two, since it’s obviously good for raising money… but this case is about libel, not the HRC.
April 11th, 2008 at 7:03 amThe Left in Canada is MUCH MORE LEFT than the Left in the USA, especially when it comes to free speech.
IMHO is Warman is acting like a certified fascist? Canada is now a fascist country? I bet American and European bloggers can mock Warman right into a straight jacket. Everyone in Canada must hear about this Warman and the HRC injustice!
This fellow in the HRC, Richard Warman, sounds like a totally wonderful human being who doesn’t have a huge chip on his shoulder or one evil bone in his whole fair-minded body.
He doesn’t at all sound like a sick and demented bastard who is angry and bitter because he got his butt massively kicked in those elections years ago.
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe likes
human rights commissions
that violate human rights
while claiming to protect them
.
absurd thought -
God of the Universe hates
real freedom of speech
an American concept
which is NOT for Canada
.
Why Does Canada Allow This?
All real freedom starts with freedom of speech.
If there is no freedom of speech, then there can be no real freedom.
http://www.richardwarman.com/
http://haltterrorism.com
April 17th, 2008 at 1:17 am.