Well, nobody is suing me….yet
Talk about libel chill.
A couple of days ago I posted about Lucy being investigated at DND. I took the information from Free Dominion. As many of you know, Free Dominion is one of the victims defendants in Lucy’s stalled libel litigation and, in the circumstances, thought it more prudent not to publish the following, entirely innocuous, correspondence. As I said in my original post, “I rather doubt that Lucy will be found to be in conflict of interest. But the report will be interesting and the push back is important.”
So here is the correspondence:
RE: Richard Warman, DND employee?
Monday, August 17, 2009 3:55 PM
From: “dnd_mdn@forces.gc.ca”
Add sender to Contacts
To: [Redacted]@[Redact-it].caDear [Redacted]:
Thank you for your e-mail concerning a potential conflict of interest
involving Mr. Richard Warman, an employee of the Department of National
Defence.I am advised that Chief Review Services, the authority responsible for
conflict of interest issues for the Department of National Defence and
the Canadian Forces, is currently investigating and that a report is
forthcoming.I trust this information is of assistance, and thank you again for
writing.Sincerely,
Peter G. MacKay
Minister of National DefenceMCU2009-03804
__________________________
From: MacKay, Peter – M.P. [mailto:MackaP@parl.gc.ca]
Sent: Tuesday, 9, June, 2009 09:59 AM
To: +MCU@MCU@Ottawa-Hull
Subject: FW: Richard Warman, DND employee?Quote:
From: [Redacted] [mailto: [Redacted]@ [Redact-it].ca]
Sent: June 8, 2009 3:51 PM
To: MacKay, Peter – M.P.
Subject: Richard Warman, DND employee?June 8/09
Dear Mr. Mackay,
As Minister of Defence, perhaps you could look into the situation
regarding one Richard Warman who I believe is a counsellor employed at
DND in Ottawa.Mr Warman has been running a legal and political campaign in which he
targets people who do not agree with his political views (which are
Liberal) with expensive lawsuits and other harassment. In my case, he
reported my name and address to so-called anti-racist groups, who are in
fact communist street gangs.My question is this—does Richard Warman spend working time on these
projects, and has he been using the computer facilities at DND to gain
information on his targets?This situation should have been addressed by the Prime Minister and the
Justice Minister at an earlier stage, but now it has reached the level
of a sort of Stalinist political operation in plain sight, operating out
of the DND and the offices of [Redacted]Essentially, what we have here is a case of a powerful civil servant,
quite possibly using the surveillance capabililty of the DND, harassing
political opponents with the full support of the Government of Canada. I
am not sure if you were aware of this situation, and I would hope that
you would want to reverse it.An extensive investigation is required to satisfy natural concerns that
the power of the state is being used against the citizens of Canada, and
in particular, of western Canada, because Warman seems to prefer
residents of the western provinces (it is more expensive for us to fight
his charges in court down in Ontario).Thanks for your co-operation.
—[Redacted],
—[Redacted]
Meanwhile, you have to wonder how long Lucy can postpone his own document production before the Canada 5 move for dismissal. This is getting more than a little ridiculous.
August 23rd, 2009 at 9:02 pm
what a good idea….good letter to…and a good response from…i think you made things somewhat warmer for Lucy…
again what a good idea to take the battle to the enemy !
i’m feeling warm and gooey thinking of Lucy’s discomfiture…
August 24th, 2009 at 3:50 am
Jay,
The difference between you publishing the letter and those boneheads at Free Dominion publishing the letter is that the boneheads at Free Dominion are currently embroiled in litigation with Warman. The complaint letter, which I suspect originated with one of their co-defendants in the libel litigation, may not be defamatory itself, but the fact that it was sent in the middle of the libel litigation by one of the defendant would likely be considered evidence of malice, which would aggravate damages.
August 24th, 2009 at 9:24 am
truewest – First, you assume too much. There is no evidence of who sent the letter to the Minister of Defence. Moreover, the owners of Free Dominion didn’t post the letter on their site – an independent poster did. The owners took it down, presumably due to libel chill.
Second, so what you’re saying is that if a public employee files numerous nuisance libel suits and CHRC complaints, raising the issue that he may be doing so on government time with a Member of Parliament is evidence of malice? Sounds fishy to me.
By the way, if this letter is evidence of malice in a libel suit, what is a libel plaintiff’s continuous filing of nuisance libel suits, Law Society complaints and other nuisance litigation as part of a campaign of “maximum disruption” evidence of?
August 24th, 2009 at 9:43 am
Well truwett (Boneheads? the language of the ARC) – given that Lucy is a DND employee and collected damages (house even) against the elderly and infirm and sent a letter to some BC paper threatening retaliation on behalf perhaps and in support of BB BC might MITIGATE and diminish any damages as per LUSTIG?
August 24th, 2009 at 10:16 am
OK - now that this is working again, the governing legislation is the Federal Accountability Act and the TBS regulations that deal with conflict of interst and even “APPARENT” conflict of public servants that must be resolved in the public interest.
August 24th, 2009 at 2:10 pm
TW, you wrote:
...but the fact that it was sent in the middle of the libel litigation by one of the defendant would likely be considered evidence of malice, which would aggravate damages.
Mitigated mayhap by the Complainant in that litigation offering up this information, duly posted on ‘Anti-Racist Canada’ – a blogsite that exists soley to publicly expose so-called ‘neo-nazis’:
August 24th, 2009 at 3:36 pm
Truewest has it exactly right.
Eventually the letter posted on FD addressed to the DND will be traced back to the sender (if indeed there was a letter sent). If the sender is one or more of the no-longer-anonymous co-defendants, they swing for malice for attacking Warman at his workplace (a genuine no-no) and then boasting about it “back in the locker room” during the litigation period.
By removing it promptly, the owner of the blog might escape the wrath of the court for that specific incident, but not the co-defendant(s) who contrived and posted it.
August 24th, 2009 at 5:38 pm
Harry Abrams-
Again, there’s no evidence of who sent that letter to an elected public official. It may be an anonymous co-defendant, or it may not. We don’t know. If it was one of the anonymous Free Dominion co-defendants, what most of them initially said about your pal “Lucy” will likely not be found defamatory anyway, since they were largely statements of opinion or fair comment. If so, wouldn’t malice after the fact be irrelevant? Nobody likes the guy who is suing them.
Doesn’t someone have a right to contact their elected officials about the possible misconduct of a public employee? Would you want public employees with whom you disagree with politically using government time to prosecute personal lawsuits against you or your allies? Or would you want a government investigation of whether allegations that they are using government time for personal benefit are true?
I don’t know whether the specific allegations against “Lucy” are true or the DND will find any conflict, but why shouldn’t the DND be looking into this?
August 24th, 2009 at 6:22 pm
Harry,
href=http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?p=1368263#1368263>35 different posters were named in the suit against FreeDominion, including Connie, Mark, and 8 anonymous others singled out for ‘special attention’ (which included being ‘cyber-hunted’ down and exposed on ARC).
In my opinion, from a vantage point of having witnessed the threads germane to that suit as they unfolded, as well as the details of the suit itself, the Complainant sought to ‘muzzle’ any discussion in that forum which included his significant role in the then ongoing CHRC/T ‘hate-speech’ persecutions.
The emails are ‘likely’ no more a product of FreeDominion ‘locker room’ hijinks than the exposure of Paul Fromm’s after hours activities were a product of his own colleagues’ pursuing Fromm’s extra-curricular escapades and then ‘tattling to teacher’.
August 24th, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Cinyc,
Spare me the ill-informed blather about nuisance libel suits and fair comment; Warman has been repeatedly demonized and defamed by the clowns at FD and elsewhere. If anyone can be excused for suing in libel, it’s him. (Besides, unlike Ezra, he actually wins the damn things).
The fact that he works for DND doesn’t mean squat. Absent evidence that he’s filing lawsuits on company time, he can sue and file complaints against whoever he wants in his spare time.
And it is clear that the complainant here has no evidence that Warman has done anything wrong. In the space of three paragraphs, the letter goes from the rhetorical—My question is this…—to the prosecutorial—“essentially what we have here…..” In short, it’s a nuisance complaint, a smear job. I suspect it will be treated as such.
LS and Maikeru,
You guys have some weird ideas about what constitutes mitigation of damages. Yes, Warman tried to collect damages from William Grovesnor, a racist old coot in Edmonton who had defamed him—and the boneheads at FD berated Warman for it, whinging about the injustice of it all while shaking their own tin cups.
As for Warman’s efforts in unmasking half of the so-called FD 8, good for him. He found out these people’s identities through public available sources, without the aid of court orders or website owners. While people may choose to remain anonymous, and while privacy laws may protect information in some cases, there is no absolute right to anonymity, such that if you disclose the information in a public place, someone is barred from revealing your real identity.
August 24th, 2009 at 7:12 pm
BTW, let’s not shed any tears for Paul Fromm (yet another “victim” of Warman’s deft use of libel law). What’s next, a candle-light vigil for that other educator of children (and fine human being), Jim Keegstra?
August 24th, 2009 at 7:25 pm
See my “conditional” per above?
IF THERE WAS A LETTER SENT.
If there was a letter sent, and it was sent anonymously,then there isn’t much to talk about is there?
A redacted letter was defiantly posted at FD for reasons best known to “Peter O’Donnell” who if memory serves, posted that little wonder.
If there’s a three-way match between a defendant in the libel action, the letter writer and sender out to cause work problems for the complainant, and the FD posting, then it could make life more “interesting” or at least more expensive for whoever it was when or if they are positively ID’d.
As to the merits or lack of merits in the action, I’ll wait to see the results of the hearing before commenting further.
August 24th, 2009 at 8:41 pm
tw, unmasking is one thing, posting, or allowing to be posted the affidavit information to a site like ARC is quite another.
The writer of the letter has a perfectly legitimate concern, given Warman’s past antics, as to whether or not he is doing his litigating on his own time or on DND’s. I suspect that Warman is bright enough not to be abusing his position at DND but it is a question which any member of the public is entitled to ask the Minister.
I shed no tears for Fromm though I thought the reasons for judgment in the matter were and are a travesty.
Harry, the letter was not sent “anonymously” and asking a question about a public employee’s activities is not “making trouble” unless there is trouble to be made. As I said to tw, I have no doubt that Warman is smart enough never to have sent an email, made a phone call, run a search or, posted a message under an alias, from a DND computer. And I have no doubt that his time sheets are meticulous.
It is foolish to underestimate Lucy. The false steps he has taken so far have been hard to uncover and his apparent stonewalling in his Canada-5 case suggest he is not about to let any more errors be found even at the risk of the dismissal of his action.
Of course, his actions to date have been come to light and that light is hardly flattering “evidence in this case of his participation on Internet sites similar to the Northern Alliance site is both disappointing and disturbing”.
August 24th, 2009 at 9:38 pm
Jay wrote “posting, or allowing to be posted the affidavit information to a site like ARC is quite another.”
Oh, really? Do tell. Once filed with the court, an affidavit is a public document. And unless it contains information obtained on discovery (which Warman’s affidavit doesn’t) there is nothing wrong with making public an unsworn and unfiled affidavit.
As for ARC, it’s better researched, more accurate and more responsible that most of the blogs you link to from your site.
So where’s the harm? If Warman is wrong (and judging from the howls from the boneheads, he’s not), he may have opened himself and ARC to a counter-claim. If not, the John Does are going to be added to the Statement of Claim sooner or later in any event.
Jay wrote: The writer of the letter has a perfectly legitimate concern, given Warman’s past antics, as to whether or not he is doing his litigating on his own time or on DND’s.”
Bullshit. The letter writer no basis for his complaint, other than paranoia, speculation and a hatred of anything to the left of Atilla the Hun. (I like the way he throws MacKay a bone by pointing out that Warman’s view are capital-L Liberal).
And yet you think that, even in the absence of a speck of evidence, it’s just fine to accuse someone of a breach of trust and misuse of government resources. Nice. Not a whiff of malice there.
You and your right wing pals are as obsessed with Warman as the rent-a-crowds were with the WTO and Jim Garrison was with the grassy knoll. You shuffle your little scraps, like Lustig’s obiter comments and Klatt’s supposed Internet expertise, and hope that the glue of invective will make them add up to something.
Warman made use of a democratically-enacted, constitutionally-valid law. He did so openly and unabashedly, because he thought it was a good law that was not being used as intended. He fought back when thugs like Fromm tried to attack him for doing so.
You don’t like the law. Persuade someone to change it.
August 24th, 2009 at 10:07 pm
truewest-
To clarify, my comment about nuisance libel suits was in the abstract. It didn’t even mention “Lucy” by name. Many a libel lawsuit and Law Society complaint has reportedly been filed against Ezra Levant – some by a public employee not named “Lucy” and another by a cat meat-loving jackal. It’s too early to call any of these libel suits nuisance suits – they haven’t even been adjudicated yet.
By the way, when did “Lucy” win his threatened libel suit against the Vancouver Public Library?
August 24th, 2009 at 10:48 pm
bugger the ‘law’..what about what is right and fair and true…and just….what about what any reasonable man would agree is fair comment….simply because you don’t like the taste of the boiled egg doesn’t necessarily mean it was cooked by a villain.
you gutless hair splitting jarndycean lllieberals are a pox upon everything you are allowed to become involved in…
sometimes i feel the dawctordawg’s disease is epidemic…i see hear and read squishy fainthearted wobbly lllieberals with the vapours at every turn…
August 24th, 2009 at 10:55 pm
Harry – you and Truewest seem to have had more than a passing acquaintance. The term “Blockhead” has been used almost exclusively at the ARC? Lustig though is now the target for saying what? “like Lustig’s obiter comments”. Daring to break ranks and say what everyone has been thinking for some time?
The discussion about “malice” etc seems to be an effort to curtail complaints about a public servant. It is any and every Canadian citizen’s right and duty to complain to the Minister, their MP or any government agency dealing with such matters to report what they perceive as wrongdoing.
And that includes the CHRC which is not totally owned by special interest groups the last time I checked.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:03 pm
tw, typically you manage to both obnoxious and wrong.
“like Lustig’s obiter comments”.
“Mr. Warman has, with the assistance of the Commission, instituted most of the s. 13 (1) complaints under the Act that have come before the Tribunal. He has been very successful in these cases and has garnered accolades for his work in this regard. The evidence in this case of his participation on Internet sites similar to the Northern Alliance site is both disappointing and disturbing. It diminishes his credibility. For this reason and because the activities of the Respondents have ceased for a lengthy period of time, I will not make any further Orders in this matter.”
Reasons for decision are not, by definition, obiter.
I pass no opinion on Klatt’s “supposed expertise” rather I rely on the Tribunal’s having accepted him as an expert witness in these matters.
As to the posting of names in an unsworn affidavit, certainly it is open to a plaintiff to conduct his trial in the press. Unseemly, but open. However, to post personal details and photographs and addresses is wrong and unjustified. Not, I suspect, illegal but certainly an indication of the sort of people Warman choses to associate with and their utter contempt for the concept of personal privacy.
The basis of the letter writer’s claim is the simple question as to how Warman, while holding down what is presumably a full time job at DND, manages to run his extensive litigation and complaint campaigns. My own view is that he is very diligent and has a good deal of help. But it is certainly a question which is reasonable to put to his political boss who, properly, kicked it down the line to the proper person in the chain of command. I await the report of Chief Review Services.
Warman’s use of s. 13 is a question for another day. He certainly seemed to have remarkable luck having his complaints accepted even where others were not and enjoyed what can only be described as a unique working relationship with the people in the hate speech investigation section as well as CHRC counsel. Just how unique will have to await trial.
cinyc, to answer your question as to the VPL, the British Columbia Libel and Slander Act was amended as follows “Subject to subsection (3), no legal proceeding lies or may be commenced or maintained against, and no damages or compensation of any kind is payable by, a public or educational library, any of its owners or operators or any of the directors, officers or employees of the public or educational library or of its owners or operators because the public or educational library makes a record available generally or to any person.” link Warman’s attempt at prior restraint were seen as so noxious and contrary to free expression that the BC Legislature cut the legal ground out from under him.
August 24th, 2009 at 11:27 pm
Thank You Jay – the attempt to bully people has so infuriated me I might just write the Minister.
Harry speaks of Malice, Retaliation etc – but as far as I know, retaliation is most applicable to CHRC Section 13 complaints.
A parallel would be that it would be retaliation if the police arrested you, roughed you up, threatened you and your family and YOU COULD NOT file a complaint?
Is that the world we want?
August 24th, 2009 at 11:54 pm
AND then there was the March/08 hearing with 157 “I don’t remember” comments.(see Ezra’s site for confirmation TW)
Has anyone heard a peep/explanation from ANY of the “official” Intervenors? Or the AG rep? Forgot – that was supposed to be a SECRET Hearing.
How about Lynch? Ooops she was off in Nigeria???
August 24th, 2009 at 11:57 pm
TW
I have no delusions that ‘outing’ FreeDominion posters, involved in a ‘cyber-libel’ suit of dubious merit, on a self-professed ‘anti-racist’ website, will carry any courtroom weight, nor balance off potential repercussion from other factors.
My comment meant to introduce a facet of the methods employed by the Complainant even in the face of growing public disdain for ‘cry wolf’ tactics previously so effective they were used with gay abandon.
Nor have I any delusion about the underlying contempt you have for FreeDominion, contained in your every opinion which relates to that site.
The fact remains that FreeDominion has weathered the petty approbrium cast by those of like mind as yourself, and continues to add members drawn to the ability to discuss topics, and express opinions you may consider they have no right to hold.
I don’t mean you to take that as generally demeaning of every point you make, just those which paint you as ignorant of FreeDominion absent any lengthly experience there.
Harry, perhaps you could expand on how Anti-Racist Canada came to be the ‘public place’ where the complainant chose to publish details of his ‘outing 4 of the ‘FD8’, when the litigation against those 4 are not concerned with the over-riding thrust of ARC content.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:37 am
Jay,
It’s an honour to be called “obnoxious” by someone whose rhetorical arsenal relies to heavily on schoolyard taunts. But on to matters of substance.
– Lustig’s comments are obiter in the sense that they have no precedential value. They are perversely obiter in the sense that he takes Warman to task for posting to sites like the Northern Alliance site, but never finds that he posted to the Northern Alliance site.
– On one hand the CHRT is condemned for having lax evidentiary standards. On the other, Klatt is puffed up into an expert because the tribunal agreed to hear from him? Of course, when he does testify, the results are revealing: “Mr. Klatt was frequently argumentative, evasive and unable to answer elementary questions in his field. Most troubling to the Tribunal was the extent to which this witness responded as an advocate for the Respondent and not as an objective, independent expert. Mr. Klatt’s responses are replete with references to what “we are arguing”, and similar allusions to his shared common cause with the Respondent.” Citron v. Zundel
– As I recall, FD raised a great hue and cry on its site about Warman’s attempts to discover the identities of the John Does. Was that unseemly? How about Levant’s blustering about the pleadings served on him? Unseemly? As for personal details, the affidavit was posted without exhibits (i.e., no photos) and with extensive redactions.
– And speaking of Ezra, kindly explain why it is “lawfare” to file a complaint to the law society about lawyer who, in his public statements, repeatedly and wilfully spreads misinformation about legal institutions but just peachy to
file a complaint about a public servent based on nothing more than speculation.
Maikeru,
My contempt for FD is considered and based on frequent visits to the site over a numbers of years. I don’t post there and I’m not a regular, but you don’t have to live in pigpen to notice it stinks.
August 25th, 2009 at 5:42 am
Well M – the FD 8 or 9 are likely to blow the burger.
First, because I suspect they now have enough cash, enough support and sympathy because of their religious beliefs to turn this around.
Secondly, Maikieu was right in that the original suit involved 35, then 8, then #8 was replaced with another #8 as previous #8 Eds was outed as being a parishioner of Rabbi Kulkas flock. Smells like racial and religious discrimination to me.
If Harry really wants to be a “Dutch Uncle” – he would advise the litigant to let it all go before it all implodes.
August 25th, 2009 at 6:24 am
If you google JAG annual Prefeormance Report-FY 2003, go to page 9 and near the bottom of the page labeled Client Objectives funding etc you will find the following statement: a legal section to provide LITIGATION SUPPORT for the CHRA tribunals and courts. Why is the CHRA a client of DND and who staffs this program?
Why is DND funding this program, it falls under JAGs command structure and that’s the only available document (that Ican find) that refers to this section. On that information alone a full inguiry is needed to find out who and why DND is providing legal advice to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Military Law is a seperate legal system, it has nothing to do with civil law or petty CHRC juristrictional legislation.
Perhaps it’s time to send an email to the Minister of National Defense to find out why they are funding and paying for legal services for seperate arm of the Federal Government? Something stinks and I want to know what is causing said stench?
August 25th, 2009 at 7:24 am
Maikeru:
“...Harry, perhaps you could expand on how Anti-Racist Canada came to be the ‘public place’ where the complainant chose to publish details of his ‘outing 4 of the ‘FD8’, when the litigation against those 4 are not concerned with the over-riding thrust of ARC content….”
No. I cannot and will not answer for the contents of ARC’s blog that is not my own. Nor should I.
Jay:
It’s not fair ball to extrapolate a comment or decision in one case to apply to a completely separate matter.
Here (per above) you have taken comments from an HRC decision to apply as you see fit towards an as yet unresolved and unrelated libel action.
“...It is foolish to underestimate Lucy. The false steps he has taken so far have been hard to uncover and his apparent stonewalling in his Canada-5 case suggest he is not about to let any more errors be found even at the risk of the dismissal of his action.
Of course, his actions to date have been come to light and that light is hardly flattering “evidence in this case of his participation on Internet sites similar to the Northern Alliance site is both disappointing and disturbing….”
August 25th, 2009 at 9:43 am
tw-
Here’s what people on your side don’t seem to get: Yes, Lucy’s use of Section 13(1) was likely legal on its own and that law hasn’t been declared unconstitutional – yet (that’s one basis of Marc Lemire’s defence and it’s still an open question whether the law has been unconstitutionally applied in practice). But just because something is technically legal doesn’t make it right. The ends simply don’t always justify the means.
Suppose you annoy the mayor of your town by publicly stating that you think he’s a bad guy who is using the municipal police to target his political foes. As a result, the mayor has his municipal police trail you every time you get in your car and ticket you if you go even 1 kph over the speed limit. Everything the police did is technically legal – after all, you WERE speeding, and that law is on the books. Yet the mayor’s campaign of harassment isn’t right – or probably even constitutional.
When those who dare question the tactics of a government employee using a law to his advantage as part of “maximum disruption” tactics end up with a speeding ticket, getting hauled into court, become the subject of Section 13(1) complaints or whatever, it creates a chill that, if no man were bold enough to fight, would ensure that that law never gets repealed or changed. The only way to get a bad law off the books is to show why it is bad and how it has been abused.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:49 am
Rose – good find as it indicates DND has outsourced “SPYING” on Canadians (against their mandate) as did the Bush administration with Blackwater.
Chapter 7 – I suspect! An unregulated and unrestrained Militay Industrial Complex?
August 25th, 2009 at 9:52 am
“I like pigs. Dogs look up to us. Cats look down on us. Pigs treat us as equals.”
– Sir Winston Churchill -
August 25th, 2009 at 10:12 am
Harry, it was unfair to ask you to explain the motivations of another, and I apologize for doing so.
I can appreciate why you would post information pertaining to the recently stale-mated Abrams v Topham hearing therein – even though I personally disapprove of the somewhat bizarre and unusual feature at ARC of having several people share the same online moniker to express their opinions.
The only prior instance I am aware of which mirrors that custom in any way is the CHRC use of the ‘Jadewarr’ title.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:26 am
Rose, I would think that since DND has a civilian side of employees that those civil servants would be generally handled under normal government protocols. Where it may get dicey is that some of these civil servants may have access to confidential military information, which may require specific handling of specific grievances should in a human rights complaint setting require disclosure of particulars of a confidential military sensitive aspect. This might also apply to military personnel with grievances. With that in mind, it raises the control level of what may become public knowledge. Under those types of circumstances, individuals investigating and adjudicating these matters with a confidential aspect to them, would suggest, at least to the average Canadian, that a certain degree of security clearance, information control and oversight would be in place.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Cinyc,
If your example was at all analogous, you might have a point. However, you’re comparing apples and oranges.
Warman files human rights complaints as a private citizen and prosecutes them as a private citizen as well. He does it, apparently, because he believes that hate speech is toxic and causes harm. He’d be there before the tribunal even if the CHRC wasn’t.
And when people tell lies about him or defame him for using s.13, he uses the same legal remedy that every other private citizen has at his or her disposal – a libel action.
I don’t see Ezra Levant bad mouthing Conrad Black for using libel law aggressively against the media(indeed, I seem to recall Mr. Levant cuddling up to the press-baron-turned-jailbiird as a Great Man and benefactor), but somehow when right-wing bloviators are the target of libel actions, the word “nuisance suit” and “lawfare” are dragged out and the tin cup starts to rattle.
August 25th, 2009 at 9:40 pm
tw, I suspect one of the less controversial elements of Lucy’s maximum disruption activites, is the fact that while various other complainants are turned down at an early stage, his complaints simply sail through. Or at least they used to until people started calling him on his tactics. Lucy has a unique relationship with the hate speech folks at the CHRC…he trained many of them. They gather round the printer to create “better” evidence despite the fact the chap is, after all, just a private citizen.
No doubt Lucy enjoys this unique status because, as a former investigator for the CHRC, he knows just how to fill out a form. Which buttons to push, where the rents are to be sought.
But you can’t blame people for thinking, tw, that Lucy has(or had) something of a sweetheart thing going on with his pals at the CHRC. There may be no truth at all to that and it is quite possible that the CHRC treated Lucy complaints exactly the same way as anyone else’s. After all, superior form filling talents can get you a long way in life. All the way to the printer when you need to swap out evidence.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:32 pm
He does it, apparently, because he believes that hate speech is toxic and causes harm
I seem to recall that Mr Warman pocketed a couple of bucks along the way, tw – but no doubt, his motives are pure. Nothing of a shakedown in this at all.
August 25th, 2009 at 10:58 pm
Jay,
As I understand it, Warman was filing s. 13 complaints before he was an investigator. And he knows how to fill out forms because he’s a lawyer—it’s part of the training. He also knows the law – and what it takes to cross the line drawn by Taylor. He is also, it seems, dogged and persistent.
In other words, there are so many reasonable explanation for Warman’s success before the HRT —and he does appear himself before the HRT - that I can, in fact, blame ignorant people for indulging in asinine speculation.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:14 pm
Interesting tw, do you have an example of such a complaint and, as I quest for knowledge, when did Lucy begin at the CHRC?
As to the Taylor line that appears to move depending upon who is filing the complaint and against whom the complaint is filed.
I agree with you completely on the dogged and persistent piece.
I note that he also fails to appear with any regularity before the CHRT on many matters in which he is the complainant.
But I trust that no one will take from my comments that Lucy is anything but persistent.
August 25th, 2009 at 11:34 pm
truewest-
I haven’t and don’t want to get into specifics about “Lucy” because, quite frankly, he might sue me if I say something that’s arguably false in his mind. Suffice it to say that many people disagree with your view of the man and find his “maximum disruption” tactics a bit distasteful. Even if one agrees with Lucy’s ends, one could see that using a sledgehammer against a fly can be counterproductive overkill that alienates objective observers and gains sympathy for the fly. As Jay pointed out, the law was changed as a direct result of his previously legal conduct before – and it very well may be again. Libel chill that causes people to fear discussing a public employee or private litigant’s arguably questionable tactics for fear of being sued could hurt any reform effort – a matter of legitimate public interest and debate. That was my main point.
By the way, if I recall correctly, “Lucy” filed and prosecuted CHRC complaints both while he worked at the CHRC and after. The line between filing Section 13(1) complaints as a private citizen and filing those complaints as a current (or former) CHRC investigator (and, as best I know, always as a public employee) is a thin one.
August 26th, 2009 at 12:40 am
Sorry Jay, I did promise to be away but a review of the latest ARC post suggests further news about/for Warman. This time about another major win ($2300.00) – I guess against someone for Space Lizards?
DND must be expanding their mandate to UFOs?
One can only speculate about the Warman connection and a mutual Neo-Nazi fascination.
How does the ARC owner always JUST happen to get the latest? I thought that was Don Butler’s job?
:)
August 26th, 2009 at 1:22 am
Upon reflection – in the EU one cannot take even pictures of people without permission. Doing so gets a visit from the CRS.
I think in the USA posting names and addresses is considered “Reckless Endangerment”.
There was considerable outcry when some nutbar from the USA posted Lucy’s coordinates but it is surprising there is not outcry about the ARC doing so???
This is not looking good for any Libel suit or complaints to the Minister of DND.
August 26th, 2009 at 7:15 am
“I note that he also fails to appear with any regularity before the CHRT on many matters in which he is the complainant.”
Uh huh.
If you’re referring to the Lemire hearing…Warman’s presence was not strictly required during the constitutional arguments after the merits were heard, so it’s not unseemly to go back to work while that’s going on.
But I guess if the “optics” don’t look bad enough, you can always make something up, right Jay?
August 26th, 2009 at 11:55 am
BTW,
Which “various other complainants” were “turned down at an early stage” when they tried to file s. 13 complaints?
August 26th, 2009 at 12:13 pm
Heck Harry,“Warman files human rights complaints as a private citizen and prosecutes them as a private citizen as well. He does it, apparently, because he believes that hate speech is toxic and causes harm. He’d be there before the tribunal even if the CHRC wasn’t.”
One trusts that you, as seminal Complainant victor using hate speech legislation to bludgeon ‘toxic’ blather, and currently seeking to extend your winning streak in the ‘big leagues’ of the Canadian Human Rights industry, will set better example than that upstart pretender, by bearing the mind-numbing agony of listening to constitutional argument (obviously less glamourous than merit argument).
One also trusts that if you ‘succeed’ – as you did a decade ago against Doug Collins (grrr) – that hate speech will finally be expunged from Canadian society, and the people of this great land will live in silent harmony therafter.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:09 pm
Here’s one for you tw: http://www.pointdebasculecanada.ca/article/682-the-canadian-human-rights-commission-refuses-to-investigate-the-complaint-filed-by-marc-lebuis-director-of-point-de-bascule.php
August 26th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Sarcasm noted.
No moral high road in calling Richard Warman ( or anyone else) stupid names in an attempt to belittle them, just because you disagree with their choice of legal action. Section 13 of the CHRA has not been rescinded. Until then it’s still a Canadian statute in law.
Your choice of remedy for repeatedly posted violent ravings of racist lunatics is to engage them in “debate.” I’m not calling you childish names for that.
You know who were just as appreciative as Jews in the wake of the Collins decision?
The Vancouver Iranian Canadian community.
Their leaders thanked me profusely for marginalizing Collins and NSN for pumping out hate week after week. Hate expression deserves to be marginalized wherever and however it appears. End of story.
August 26th, 2009 at 1:24 pm
“Here’s one for you tw: http://www.pointdebasculecanada.ca/article/682-the-canadian-human-rights-commission-refuses-to-investigate-the-complaint-filed-by-marc-lebuis-director-of-point-de-bascule.php”;
Not enough information to give a proper assessment, if you want to see an opinion from me. Let’s see a copy of the original complaint, and the response letter from the CHRC.
To my knowledge, “infidel” is not a “protected” minority group.
August 26th, 2009 at 4:20 pm
Harry, I felt comfortable using that wee bit of sarcasm when addressing you due belief that you understood my manner of speech well enough by now do allow it (as I’ve done yours elsewhere).
And far from calling Pogue Mahone an ‘upstart pretender’ as a perjorative, it was actually used, quite accutately, as a double entendre, the interpretation of which is up to the reader’s frame of mind.
I was, and remain, actually not as appreciative of ‘official’ Jewish representation following the tag-team Collin’s hearings.
I believe that in pursuing the second hearing, you and BBC diminished the Canadian Jewish community by painting same as petty and vindictive in the aftermath of having used recently introduced and highly controversial legislation more than once, and against the same Respondent, immediately following his successful defense against the CJC Complaint which dealt with an article included in your Complaint.
Furthermore, in holding up profuse thanks from the ‘Vancouver Iranian Community’ for ‘marginalizing’ Doug Collins as proof of pudding, you echo the current bane of Canadian unity – putting identifiable community ahead of anonymous individuality.
As much as I believe your heart is in the right place, I do not believe the same of your mental process.
You differentiate your own approach from both the CJC and the CIC Complaints in their quests to ‘marginalize haters’.
Where they found fault with one example, you focus on ‘pattern’ of Respondent discourse, even while hypocritically using testimony from the failed CJC v Collins Complaint to bolster your own.
End of chapter.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:01 pm
“...even while hypocritically using testimony from the failed CJC v Collins Complaint to bolster your own….”
Nice try. Clean miss.
My case was filed long before I ever knew that CJC had indeed also filed one, and it was at least a year before either they or I knew what each others’ content was.
Me and CJC “tag-teaming” Collins/NSN was a canard promulgated by the neo-Nazis.
August 26th, 2009 at 5:17 pm
Chapter XIV - What’s up with that ?
Harry, you have inferred that Doug Christie’s credibility is diminished due his Law Society reprimand – the same association of peers as upbraided Moe Sihota.
Yet you posed alongside Moe for a cause that you believe in, duly posted that pic online, and continue to excoriate Doug Christie for his lesser ‘offense’ before that association.
If those amenable to Christie’s argument are somehow diminished due his Law Society handslap, how are your actions not diminished by making common cause with Sihota?
August 26th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Jay,
I’m aware of that one, although I’ve never actually seen the complaint and I don’t trust the complainant’s own description.
In any case, you spoke of “various other complainants”, which I believe suggests more than one. Shurely you’re not blowing smoke here?
August 26th, 2009 at 6:09 pm
Maikeru
I just read your posting twice, and maybe it’s the glass of cider I had with dinner, but I just can’t for the life of me see what Doug Christie’s misconduct fine and a photo taken in 1998 of a crowd scene that includes me standing next to the MLA for the electoral district in which the Juan de Fuca library stands…has to do with this thread about a scurilous letter sent to Richard Warman’s workplace.
Can anybody else here help?
August 26th, 2009 at 7:46 pm
tw, perhaps you might marc and ask about it. He actually had a lawyer draft it. I’ll have to root about for other complaints which were dumped. You are aware of course of the complaint which was not accepted by fax because it was double sided or this where the hitherto unknown “intent” test was used by Stacey to dismiss a complaint before hearing.
August 26th, 2009 at 8:27 pm
Jay,
You’ve linked to a complaint filed by hate-monger Melissa Guille’s brother against an anti-racist website. It was dismissed under s. 41(1)(d) of the Act because it was “trivial, frivolous, vexatious or made in bad faith”. (Shocking!) Is that what you’re calling the “hitherto unknown ‘intent’ test”?
Let me ask you this: why is it that so many of you “experts” on human rights law appear not to have read the legislation?
BTW, am I correct in guessing that the double-sided fax was sent in by, um, Marc Lemire?
Andy Guille and Marc Lemire?
Quite a collection of poster boys you’ve got on your wall, Jay.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:13 pm
So tw, so far you have rejected one example because you have not seen the complaint and another because the complainant is related to a respondent. Cute.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:31 pm
Not cute, Jay. Realistic. The Guille complaint was clearly made in bad faith. To suggest that it—or the rejection of Lemire’s complaint—is somehow proof that Warman got special treatment is goofy, even by your standards.
August 26th, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Have it your way tw. One might argue that Lucy’s entire career as a serial complainant is in bad faith simply because he himself was not a member of a single one of the protected groups on whose behalf he was purportedly complaining. But, using the loosey goosey rules of the CHRC that is just fine.
You asked for examples I gave you three. I’m off to bed.
August 26th, 2009 at 11:08 pm
Harry, ‘tag teaming’ Doug Collins was no ‘neo-nazi’ canard, it was a perfectly reasonable conclusion reached by perfectly reasonable people:
Abrams v Collins Judgement
excerpt:
[58] Dr. Morton Weinfeld is a professor of sociology. He
did not testify at this hearing. However, an expert report
that he submitted at the hearing into the CJC complaint, and
a transcript of his evidence from that hearing were entered
into evidence before me. Before leaving this hearing,
counsel for the Respondents expressed his support for the
admission of Dr. Weinfeld’s report and transcript into
evidence. I admitted his evidence as an expert in the areas
of ethnic and race relations, ethnicity and public policy in
modern Jewish studies. He is qualified to give an opinion on
the identification and effect of hate speech. His evidence
relates only to the “Hollywood propaganda” column.
I agree with you, though, that I’m veering off topic here, and so will cease this and the Christie/Sihota diversion (the latter I’ll
return to the appropriate venue
I do respect the fact that you punch back against personal criticism online, and toast your cider with my whiskey – la chaim !
August 27th, 2009 at 1:07 am
TW, you queried:
“Let me ask you this: why is it that so many of you “experts” on human rights law appear not to have read the legislation?
It’s ‘likely’ due disbelief that the spirit and intent of that legislation is actually reflected by the pretender’s activities in carrying out same, coupled with the ‘complexity’ of wording which actually fostered such activity.
Where you focus on the legitimacy of hate speech legislation, others look beyond to the actual impact on society.
‘Marginalizing’ so- called ‘neo-nazis’ through such government initiative has done bupkis to subdue anti-Jewish rhetoric and activity in Canada, if the ever-increasing examples paraded by the BBC are to be believed.
It has, however, given folks such as Arthur Topham plenty of grist for his mill, created increasing support for his right to speak tripe, and diminished both politicians and the Judiciary in the public eye (although the former would take it in the neck even if such appalling legislation had never existed).
August 27th, 2009 at 5:32 am
Three examples—two of them clearly made in bad faith. And some lame argument that Warman’s complaints should be tossed because he’s not Jewish.
Clearly, the legal profession is much diminished by your decision to pursue other opportunities.
August 27th, 2009 at 10:14 am
Harry Abrams
Posted: 09/08/ 27 12:17 pm
Let’s see.
I didn’t rise to “Maikeru’s bait” here, So then he went and re-posted the same junk to another discussion thread on another fellow’s [Jay Currie] website, then re-posted it on FD again.
Looking to cook up some dirt I suppose.
Just as I beginning to get a better impression of some of the nice folks at FD, too.
Bye.
response
August 27th, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Mighty Maikeru states:
‘Marginalizing’ so- called ‘neo-nazis’ through such government initiative has done bupkis to subdue anti-Jewish rhetoric and activity in Canada, if the ever-increasing examples paraded by the BBC are to be believed.
It has, however, given folks such as Arthur Topham plenty of grist for his mill, created increasing support for his right to speak tripe….”———-———-
Nonsense Maikeru. For all your apparent wisdom, diplomatic shrewdness in dealing with the gambler (which I’ve thoroughly enjoyed throughout your discussions on FD) as well as your acknowledged debating acumen, you still fail to understand that it is the actions of the Zionist Jewish element itself (both within Israel and outside it) that is furnishing the world with all the requisite evidence necessary to produce legitimate, justified anti-Jewish criticism which you prefer to call “rhetoric.”
My job as a publisher of alternative news is to cover that growing critique of Zionist crimes and add my own editorial commentary. What is (still) tripe to you is as the clear morning light to those awakening to the machinations of that element of your tribe which the world is now quickly recognizing thanks to the net and also quickly learning to despise and hold in absolute (and rightful) contempt.
August 27th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
amazing…web exposure to my first anti-semitic freako …..
but have a nice day art !...and keep that dawgdoc freako hairsplitting parsing fisking from the dark side crap goin’ on ‘cause it’s grist for the mill for sane people.
August 28th, 2009 at 3:26 am
So, Herr Ludvig – ve meet again – and zis time you vill tell me what I vant to hear – slap…pals…slap
Arthur, I appreciate the compliments, thankyou.
Furthermore, I applaud the staunch defense you’ve mounted against the horribly unfair bureaucratic process which currently seizes you.
I trust that you reserve sufficient time and energy away from more ‘worldly’ matters to maintain the most important pleasure in life – keeping the better half feeling cherished above all.
I note that you maintain the uncanny ability to use the word ‘Zionist’ as a noun, verb, adjective and recipe, which I first observed in your diatribes on FreeDominion.
I agree that members of the Jewish faith need healthy criticism (the same as all others on God’s green earth), and point to Ezra Levant as an excellent example of how well they fulfill that function themselves, even when folks such as yourself are absent from the debate due being ‘marginalized’ for attempting to marginalize others.
Now, I don’t want to allow myself to be led too far astray from the thread topic again, as my amigo Harry has already called me on that bad habit, but perhaps Jay will see fit to spark up a thread on, say, the BCHRT Doug Collins’ hearings, which took first and second place in the cross-Canada race to use ‘Human Rights’ legislation to squelch ink-stained wretches.
Bill Gates and Steve Jobs have created a target-rich environment for pretenders, but you hold the honour of facing the Man Who Shot Liberty Valence
August 28th, 2009 at 9:13 am
Intersting and useful debate Jay.
Scary though as I think you described Harry perfectly.
Why he would want to defend anyone who APPARENTLY played fast and loose with the rules is beyond me (who aided and abetted this swill will have to come out).
Why he would even try and suggest there is anything untoward in a Canadian citizen filing a INQUIRY/Complaint against a CIVIL SERVANT - be it Lucy or Jenny escapes me.
He must realize that there is always an end to a RUN and the 13.1 stuff is overdone in the microwave. It is fine if everything is above board but this 13.1 stuff appears not to have been so let the chips fall where there will.
Damage control?
September 1st, 2009 at 9:43 pm
Debate, Harry is how differences of opinion are resolved in a free nation. You seem to prefer the Gulag approach.
December 1st, 2009 at 9:09 pm
This is a very enlightening video about Richard Warman.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yT946TGtvjo