Marc Lemire files complaint against Toronto Police for thuggish arrest of Non-Violent Letter Writer

Marc Lemire files complaint against Toronto Police for thuggish arrest of Non-Violent Letter Writer

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/mar28-09_lemire_complains_to_tps_re_brad_love.html

Date of complaint: March 28, 2009

To: Complaints Administration

c/o Toronto Police Service

791 Islington Ave.

Toronto, ON

M8Z 5W8

Telephone: (416) 808-2800

Fax No.: (416) 808-2802

E-mail: professionalstandards@torontopolice.on.ca

COMPLAINANT INFORMATION:

Marc Lemire

152 Carlton Street

Suite 545

Toronto, Ontario

M5A 2K1

REVLEVANT PROHIBITED GROUNDS:

Police Services Act - R.S.O. 1990, CHAPTER P.15

Rules and procedures of the Toronto Police Service, Professional Standards

ALLEGATION:

Eight unknown members of the Toronto Police Service, contravened the Polices Services Act, and Rules and procedures of the Toronto Police Service, Professional Standards, by working in conjunction with reporter Colin Freeze and the Globe and Mail, to arrest Brad Love on March 19, 2009 during a public meeting. This conduct tends to lower the reputation and brings discredit upon the Toronto Police Service, and marks it as a police force more interested in getting their faces in the newspaper then to dispassionately and professionally uphold their duties in violation of the Police Services Act and Rules and procedures of the Toronto Police Service.

DATE AND LOCATION OF INCIDENT:

March 19, 2009, 9:00pm, at the [HOTEL], Toronto, Ontario.

Name of police service(s) involved: 32 Division of the Toronto Police Service

Division name/number: unknown

Police Service Location – Address: unknown

PARTICULARS:

On March 19, 2009 at 9:00pm, 8 unknown members of the Toronto Police Service burst into a public meeting of the Alternative Forum (sponsored by the Canadian Association for Free Expression) to arrest a Mr. Brad Love.

The officers coordinated the raid with the Globe and Mail who dispatched, both a reporter and photographer, to publicize the arrest of Mr. Love on an alleged violation of his probation.

Prior to bursting into the public meeting, the police coordinated with the Globe and Mail reporter and photographer.

On March 20, 2009, the Globe and Mail ran a story on page A-2 on the arrest, along with a photograph of Mr. Love in handcuffs surrounded by 6 members of the Toronto Police Service. The article was erroneously headlined “Man’s speech in Toronto leads to fourth arrest”. This headline was false, as it was not Mr. Love’s speech but letters he had written in the past few months that led to his arrest.

COMPLAINT:

This complaint is on the actions, behavior and coordination with the media. I make no submissions on Mr. Brad Love, his alleged probation violation or any charges against Mr. Love. The courts are seized with that matter. This is a public interest complaint regarding the policy and actions of the eight unknown members of the Toronto Police Service.

ALLEGATIONS AGAINST THE TPS:

I am complaining that ...

1: Members of the Toronto Police Service alerted the Globe and Mail about an upcoming arrest, which the officers wanted to make public. This marginalized and demonized the accused who, is after all, a political dissident charged with sending non-threatening letters..

2: Members of the Toronto Police Service conspired with the Globe and Mail to arrest Mr. Love.

3: Once the coordinated assault on a public meeting had been arranged with the media, members of the Toronto Police Service, acting as a political police force and wanting to publicly embarrass Mr. Love, excessively dispatched 8 officers to arrest a non-violent, unarmed 45-year old, letter writer on an alleged violation of probation.

4: Members of the Toronto Police Service were rude and used excessive force to burst into a public meeting. The 8 officers were overtly aggressive with participants of the public meeting and refused to give their names along with taunting participants of the meeting. Further the officers refused to state what the charges were against Mr. Love, which caused the Globe and Mail to erroneously report that Mr. Love was arrested for a public speech he gave. The headline in the press was “Man’s speech in Toronto leads to fourth arrest”, which is 100% erroneous. Paul Fromm, the meeting chairman, respectfully asked an unknown officer why Mr. Love was being arrested and was ignored and rudely dismissed with: "Are you his lawyer?"

5: Members of the Toronto Police Service acted unprofessional in violation of the Police Services Act and Rules and procedures of the Toronto Police Service, Professional Standards.

6: The actions of the 8 members of the Toronto Police Service have brought the service into disrepute and tends to lower the credibility and reputation of the service. This is especially so considering that Rexdale is an area of high gang activity and the use of eight officers to arrest a middle aged letter writer seems to a reasonable member of the general public to be a woeful waste of manpower and resources.

PHOTOGRAPHS AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:

Article. Globe and Mail. March 20, 2009. Page A-2 Man’s speech in Toronto leads to fourth arrest”

Photographs. Globe and Mail. March 20, 2009. Page A-2. Brad Love surrounded by 6 members of the Toronto Police Service. (enlarged and enhanced)

WITNESSES:

Marc Lemire

Paul Fromm (Statement attached)

Brad Love

Colin Freeze (Reporter, Globe and Mail)

Deborah Baic (Photographer, Globe and Mail)

Eight unknown members of the Toronto Police Service

Others members of the public meeting

---

WITNESS STATEMENT

Mr. Paul Fromm, Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression

REXDALE. March 19, 2009. Eight burly Metro policemen burst into a Rexdale hotel meeting room this evening and handcuffed and arrested former political prisoner Brad Love, apparently, for "breach of parole."

Mr. Love had just finished giving a rousing talk on freedom of speech in Canada to a standing room only gathering of supporters of the Canadian Association for Free Expression. He had warned that police were eager to crack down on immigration critics. Almost prophetically he explained: "If immigration were reformed and criminals kept out, it would mean far fewer cops and less overtime, also fewer social workers. Immigration is a growth industry."

Mr. Love was convicted, in 2003, under Sec. 319 of Canada's notorious "anti-hate" law Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code for writing letters to MPs, MPPs, and newspapers -- over 10,000 letters he reckons in a 20 year period. He drew the stiffest sentence ever -- 18 months in prison. Earlier, while violent criminals were released on bail, Mr. Love was repeatedly denied bail. At one point, his parents unsuccessfully offered to post $250,000 and were turned down.

Mr. Love was twice sent back to prison, once for 46 days, the second time for 5 months, again for writing non-violent, non-threatening letters to public officials. After his last stint in prison, he was ordered for three years not to write to ANY elected official in Canada.

For the past two and a half years, Mr. Love has worked in Fort McMurray in the oil industry.

Meeting chairman Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, called tonight's arrest "an outrage. This is like Haiti. We're becoming a banana republic -- 8 cops to arrest an unarmed man at a political meeting!"

Mr. Fromm pointed out that Rexdale has some areas notorious for gunfire and killings between rival Jamaican gangs. "I guess there are no crack dealers to arrest tonight. So, the local constabulary can free up eight men to arrest a letter writer who complains about poorly screened immigration and immigrant crime."

CAFE organized protests outside the prison when Mr. Love was twice incarcerated for writing letters in apparent violation of his parole conditions.

"What sort of country jails political dissidents and letter writers?" he demanded. "It's a disgrace."

---

PHOTOGRAPHS AND PHYSICAL EVIDENCE:

Photograph from the Globe and Mail website, March 20, 2009

Photograph from the Globe and Mail printed edition, March 20, 2009, Page A-2

---

---

It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission!

Stop Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act

http://www.StopSection13.com

http://www.freedomsite.org

http://blog.freedomsite.org

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

Marc Lemire files a complaint with the Ontario Judicial Council over FreeDominion ruling

To: The Ontario Judicial Council

P.O Box 914

31 Adelaide St. E.

Adelaide Street Postal Station

Toronto, Ontario M5C 2K3

416-327-2339 (FAX)

 

 

Complaint RE: Judicial Conduct of S Kershman

 

 

Dear Ontario Judicial Council;

 

I am writing to file a complainant against provincial justice, the Honourable Mr. Justice Stanley Kershman, for a decision he rendered in the following case:

 

Decision date: March 23, 2009

Court File No. 07-CV-039927SR

Date Heard:  2009/01/22

Richard Warman v. Constance Wilkins-Fournier and Mark Fournier, et all.

 

          (Ruling attached as Exhibit “A”)

 

 

In particular, my complaint is over erroneous comments that Justice Kershman simply added into the decision, that were not a part of any evidence tendered or submission made.

 

At para. 33, Justice Kershman states:

 

[33]    In the case before the court, we are dealing with an anti-hate speech advocate and Defendants whose website is so controversial that it is blocked to employees of the Ontario Public Service.

 

This statement is incorrect, is not derived from any evidence submitted, and as such was never able to be properly challenged by counsel.

 

Not a single document submitted by either side in this dispute, mentioned any allegation that Ontario government employees are blocked from visiting this site.   Further, no evidence was called to support this allegation, and it was not brought up at all during oral arguments.

 

Instead, Justice Kershman, simply throws in comments about this website, which by their very nature is exceedingly negative of the defendants, with no foundation in the evidence.

 

A simple google search of the Ontario government blocking of websites, shows that many websites are blocked,  but not due to their “controversial” nature, as Justice Kershman erroneously claims, but rather due to a host of other reasons, including that government employees spend too much time on those websites. Such websites under this category include sites such as Facebook and Youtube.   According to CTV, Facebook has in excess of half a million users in Toronto alone. 

 

In this case,  the provincial justice, both added unsubstantiated and untested evidence into a ruling, then used it as justification in his ruling in favour of the plaintiff.

 

I believe that the following is a violation of the professional duties of a Justice in Ontario, which constitutes misconduct and brings the judiciary into disrepute.  If provincial justices can simply add material into judgments, which are not subjected to even the minimal requirements of knowledge of the parties, the appearance and application of justice is seriously diminished.

 

I look forward to your response on this matter.  If you have any questions, or require further information, please contact me via Email or telephone.

 

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

Marc Lemire

25 March 2009

 

Political Prisoner Brad Love May Not Write Letters to Anyone -- Yes, That's In Canada, Not North Korea

Political Prisoner Brad Love May Not Write Letters to Anyone -- Yes, That's In Canada, Not North Korea

TORONTO, March 24, 2009. Today, the outspoken voice of the workingman, Brad Love was released from prison on bail conditions his own lawyer, Peter Lindsay suggested are more usually imposed on people facing murder charges. Mr. Love is accused of five counts of writing letters, contrary to his previous parole conditions.

Herr are the conditions imposed on Mr. Love who was arrested by eight burly Metro police who burst into a free speech meeting sponsored by the Canadian Association for Free Expression in Rexdale, Thursday, March 19.

• $2,000 cash bail paid by his sister-in-law
• $110,000 surety – the entire value of his brother and sister-in-law’s house
• Mr. Love is prohibited from sending mail to anyone, unless that person has specifically requested it;
• He must reside at his brother and sister-in-law’s Bolton home;
• He must get a job.
• He must keep the peace.
• A 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. curfew (just like some naughty 15 year old)
• He’s specifically forbidden to have any contact with the Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith or York University, Peter Lindsay told CAFÉ.

The Crown had demanded Mr. Love’s continued incarceration for having written letters. The female Crown commented darkly that “Mr. Love’s purpose of returning surreptitiously to Ontario was to give a lecture on ‘hate.” In fact, Mr. Love flew openly for two weeks vacation with his family and only as a side matter spoke to a Toronto CAFÉ meeting as has before.

“To the best of our knowledge, it’s not yet illegal to criticize Canada’s poxy, minority-inspired, thought gagging hate laws,” a furious Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, said outside the court. “Besides, he isn’t charged with speaking to the free speech meeting.”

Mr. Love’s sister-in-law, promised the court: “We’re not going to have any newspapers in the house and we’ll review his outgoing mail.”

One of the Crown’s reasons for wanting Mr. Love kept in prison pending his trial, which Peter Lindsay said might not occur for six to nine months, is that he has not changed his political views: “It’s quite obvious,” she said, “his beliefs still exist and he’s not going to stop his behaviour no matter what conditions are put upon him. Despite sentences on his record, he is going to continue [to express himself.] He is an individual obsessed with racial hated and others sorts of hatred.”

In an interview with Café tonight, Mr. Love, settling down after enjoying his first decent meal in five days explained the writings that have stirred the powers that be to send him back to prison. He wrote taunting comments to the York University Student Union, B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress on the occasion of Israel Equals Apartheid Week. Among his comments were: If all these Third World people are against Zionism, maybe they’re right. He also wondered in his letters whether Third Worlders demonstrating against Zionism would be called racists. Brad Love told CAFÉ: “Many of the comments I made I borrowed from Jewish comedians.”

Mr. Lindsay told the court that the surety of $110,000 is more usually demanded in crimes of serious violence or murder, not for a man who wrote non-violent, non-threatening, even if provocative, letters. He also suggested that the previous parole condition that Mr. Love was not to write, FAX or e-mail letters to anyone who had not asked for this communication may well have violated his Charter rights to freedom of speech.

“It’s because it’s a thought crime,” Mr. Love commented on his legal shackles and restrictions. “Fort McMurray is my fortune. I have a great job there. All my clothes and possessions and my car are there. There are almost no jobs in Toronto,” he added.

The Crown hinted that three police forces have an ongoing investigation into Canada’s most famous and most jailed letter writer.

Over a 20 year period, Mr. Love wrote over 10,000 letters to elected officials and newspapers. In 2003, he was sentenced to 18 months in jail under Canada’s thought control “anti-hate” law, Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. He subsequently spent a total of six months more in prison for having written letters to persons other than those elected officials his initial parole conditions forbad him to contact.

“It seems the state is intent on shutting Brad Love up,” Paul Fromm observed. “What does it say about the emotional fragility of the powers that be that they can’t withstand a little needling and criticism from a blunt spoken working guy, without running to the State to have him gagged and jailed? And we’re over in Afghanistan trying to bring democracy and human rights to those people. We ought to start right here in Canada.”

RADICAL PRESS: Files Motion for Dismissal of Complaint

 

MOTION TO DISMISS COMPLAINT

 

BY EMAIL

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Box 4633 Barkerville Hwy
Quesnel, B.C. V2J 6T8

Email: radical@radicalpress.com
 
March 23, 2009

Nancy Lafontant
Registry Officer
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Nancy.Lafontant@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca

Dear Nancy Lafontant,
 
RE: Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com
File Number: T1360/9008

I write to you on an urgent matter concerning the above case.  

I note in my CHRT “guide to the Tribunal process” booklet under “Disclosure” (P. 35) the following:

“The Tribunal encourages the parties to complete their disclosure in the shortest possible time, which can sometimes mean within a month. The deadline for disclosure by the complainant and the Commission is sooner than that required for the respondent. This gives the respondent an opportunity to prepare a response to the material provided in support of the complaint. The complainant and the Commission are then given a short time to reply if they intend to raise additional facts or issues to refute the case disclosed by the respondent.”

In the February 9, 2009 letter from the CHR Tribunal, #5. SCHEDULE FOR DISCLOSURE the following is noted:  

Pursuant to Rule 6 of the Tribunal’s Rules of Procedure, the Complainants, Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and the Commission, will provide their Statement of Particulars and full disclosure by March 6, 2009 and their expert reports and summary by expert evidence by March 13, 2009.

Subsequent to this letter a further letter was received by myself via email dated March 5, 2009 from the CHRT signed by Guy Gregoire, Director, Registry Operations contained the following:

“Further to the Complainant’s counsel request of March 4, 2009, for an extension of time, and upon considering the Tribunal’s Letter dated February 9, 2009, setting deadlines for disclosures, the Tribunal has instructed the following:

The Complainants, Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights B’nai Brith Canada and the Commission, will now provide their Statement of Particulars and full disclosure by March 11, 2009

The Respondent, Arthur Topham & RadicalPress.com will now provide its Statement of Particulars and full disclosure by March 25, 2009”

As of today, March 23, 2009, I have not received any notice or information from either the legal counsel for the complainants or the legal counsel for the CHRC regarding the disclosure of March 11, 2009.   

As such it is impossible for me to review and respond to said information prior to the deadline of March 25, 2009 set for myself, Arthur Topham. It is also not possible, as a result of this delay to complete my own Statement of Particulars and full Disclosure by the March 25, 2009 deadline.

Based upon this information and the fact that the CHRC and the Complainants have not met their deadlines I am, by formal notice contained in this letter, moving that the complaint against myself, Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com be dismissed immediately.

If there is any further information regarding this matter that you require please let me know as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

 

Arthur Topham pro se
Publisher/Editor
The RadicalPress.com

 

Cc:
Daniel Poulin
Legal Counsel
Litigations Services Division
Canadian Human Rights Commission

 

United Reformed Church Targets Section 13 - Send a Letter today demanding a repeal of Section 13

 

The ECP Centre reports that:

 

 

 

---

Draft letter to MPs concerning Section 13

We were pleased to receive a request for a form letter on Section 13 from a URC (United Reformed Church) congregation in Ontario last week that, if it meets with approval, may get sent to the Justice Minister and other MPs from a healthy percentage of that congregation. We sent them a draft letter to consider using, and I am providing it below for your use as well. The tone of this letter is probably softer than what I might send personally, and it may not be the kind of letter that all of you would want to send, but if it is something that you feel comfortable sending or if it's a letter that you think you can rally support behind at your church, then please use it. If you want our help with an alternative letter that has a different emphasis or tone, then please get back to us to discuss this.

Regarding Section 13, please note the following from an important article by Ezra Levant: "Enforcement of section 13 of the CHRA has been suspended." Near the end of this March 14th blog post, Ezra observes: "The enforcement of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act has been suspended indefinitely by the CHRT. ... But look what hasn't been suspended: the investigations and prosecutions of section 13. And, as I've said a dozen times before, it's the process that's the real punishment. In this case, it was three years from complaint to ruling - three years of bullying someone because they had "wrong" political ideas. The CHRC and the CHRT will continue with that informal punishment, the punishment of abusive process. The law is coming apart at the seams; the law's chief user has been officially exposed as malign; the law's enforcement has been suspended; but the sick, sick HRC system continues to grind on, using our money and abusing our heritage of natural justice."  [Editors Note: This is Ezra Levants take on the Tribunal, but in fact the Tribunal continues on, and currently setting dates for the next Section 13 victim – Arthur Topham]

So, don't give up now. Let's keep pressing the issue with the Justice Minister and other Members of Parliament.

Here's the draft letter you can use if you wish (If you are new to this issue and need more information about Section 13, please email us.):

Dear Minister Nicholson,

Human Rights Commissions in Canada have stirred up a great deal of controversy in recent years. A primary reason for this controversy is that human rights commissions have taken on a role as censor, undermining fundamental and constitutionally protected rights such as the freedom of religion, freedom of conscience and freedom of speech. Additionally, these decisions violate principles of equity. In particular, when a "human rights" case involves a homosexual complaint against a Christian person or institution, the human rights tribunal rules in favour of the homosexual that discrimination did take place, imposing penalties on the Christian. Muslims have also begun to use the human rights commissions in an attempt to censor criticism of Islam.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission comes under your jurisdiction as the federal Justice Minister. As you know, the censorship provision of the Canadian Human Rights Act that complaints exploit when they file complaints with the CHRC is Section 13. Section 13 bans a wide scope of communication of comments claimed by a complainant to be "likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination."

Liberal MP Keith Martin has tabled a Private Member's Motion (M-153), recommending the repeal of Section 13.

Richard Moon, who prepared a report on behalf of the CHRC, has recommended the repeal of Section 13.

The Justice Department, presumably under your direction, has launched an internal review of Section 13.

Many people, represented a variety of vocations, and different views across the political spectrum, have expressed their support for the repeal of Section 13.

None of these people support hateful language, but they recognize that Section 13 goes far beyond prosecuting language that is unacceptable in a free society.

The repeal of Section 13 may not be SUFFICIENT in terms of the reforms necessary for the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Act, but it is a NECESSARY reform - a morally necessary reform. It is also a politically safe amendment.

As a Canadian citizen, committed to the historic Judeo-Christian values of this country; as a Christian who treasures the fundamental freedoms that play such an important part in the preservation of our civilization, I urge you to move immediately to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Yours sincerely,

---

 

 

 

Kingston Police Harass FreeDominion Website: Are Police to become moderators of political message boards? What's next, a license?

Kingston Police Harass FreeDominion Website:

Are Police to become moderators of political message boards? What’s next, a license?

On March 18, 2009, Connie Fournier, the owner of FreeDominion, (a conservative message board), received a phone call from the Kingston Police Service asking why they did not ban a member named Edward Kennedy, for comments he allegedly made about serial plaintiff Richard Warman.

According to a posting by Connie Fournier on FreeDominion, a complaint was filed with the Kingston Police by Richard Warman, who is well known on the internet as a serial plaintiff and former employee with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

At present, Richard Warman has three separate lawsuits against FreeDominion for material that appeared on the message board, that was critical of Mr. Warman and his campaign of “Maximum Disruption”. Warman has filed defamation actions in the Ontario Superior Court and are currently awaiting a trial.

Unlike Mr. Warman, who frequently pretends to be a woman named “lucie” or “Mary duffort” on the Internet, using pseudonyms such as “Pogue Mahone” and “Axetogrind”, Mr. Kennedy is very open and well known in the Kingston community. He is a member of the local Landowner's Association, and frequently posts on FreeDominion using his own name.

As Connie Fournier points out, “The only way Edward Kennedy could be more open about his identity is if he had a google map to his house in his signature line.”

Message Board Owners liable for everything?

Message Boards, interactive content, and comment sections are all currently under attack by the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission.

A message board like FreeDominion is open to all members of the public to discuss current issues in Canada. Message boards provide a useful and interactive method of having political discussions from Canadians coast to coast. Lengthy debates of Canadian government policy are commonplace.

Messages Boards are the ultimate in freedom and allow for the ventilation, refutation and admiration of politically incorrect issues. Sadly, when some can not articulate their beliefs, they resort to calling the nanny state and demand control and censorship of the offending opinions.

Marie Line Gentes is a good example of a person who seeks to silence open debate which might offend privileged minorities. In 2007, Mrs. Gentes filed a ludicrous hate speech complaint against FreeDominion. The complaint was later dropped, but a series of ancillary lawsuits from the comments over the CHRC conduct is still outstanding in the courts.

Are Police the new Message Board Moderators?

With the recent events of the Kingston Police calling FreeDominion to explain why they didn’t ban a user, are the police now assuming the role of a moderator on FreeDominion?

Do other message board have to worry that the political police might phone them also? What will happen if you don’t give an answer the police want to hear?

Will you now be subject to an investigation? Will your door be kicked down, your computers seized and then put on display for the local media? Sadly, such things have already happened in Canada.

These sort of police state tactics lead down a road to criminalization of thought and speech. Will your door be kicked down because some user on your message board posted a comment?

A license to run a message board?

I’m sure the enemies of freedom would love to have every message board operator in Canada register with some political oversight agency, who can approve what comments are posted. Just like the CRTC or the CHRC. A band of political fanatics can spend their days blacking out comments they don’t like or comments that might “offend”.

Freedom of speech is stolen from us by degrees. A little here, a little there. And with the Police questioning FreeDominion, our freedom of speech has been again restricted. It might not seem like much, but it is significant and revolting.

-Marc Lemire

Webmaster, Freedomsite.org

And message board owner, who has been put through a 6 year legal ordeal because of comments written by mostly anonymous people on his message board.

Serial Plaintiff - Richard Warman, skewered in the Mainstream Press

Headlines in Canada's mainstream press on Richard Warman

"Anti-hate campaigner's strategy could have opposite effect: tribunal"

"Crusader rebuked"

"Lawyer cross the line by posting on neo-Nazi website, tribunal rules"

"Rights tribunal backs Warman, with reservation. "Disappointing, disturbing" behaviour "diminish credibility"

"Anti-hate advocate rebuked"

Did Richard Warman's internet postings contribute to further hate? A study of some of the responses to Warman's posts

Did Richard Warman’s internet postings contribute to further hate?  A study of some of the responses to Warman's posts

 

Warman claims “There was no evidence of that having transpired whatsoever”

Responses to Warman’s posts included “kissing jew boots” others refer to a Federal Court judge as “faggoty,” who “executes the orders of the Jews” and a “sack of shit”

 

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/mar15-09_warmans_posts_precipitate_hate.html

 

In a ruling by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on March 14, 2009, Tribunal member Edward Lustig, suggested that Mr. Warman’s internet postings using pseudonyms as “Axetogrind” and “Pogue Mahone.” – “could have precipitated further hate messages in response.”  (See Para 63 of ruling).  Lustig went on to characterize Warman’s participation on racial websites as “disappointing and disturbing”.

In an interview with Don Butler, published in the Calgary Herald on March 15, 2009, Warman, is quoted as saying that his posts do not precipitate hate and that was “pure supposition. There was no evidence of that having transpired whatsoever.”

So, whose right?   Was it the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal member Edward Lustig, or is it Richard Warman?  Do Richard Warman’s postings on the Internet precipitate further hate messages in response?

“no evidence … whatsoever”?

Here are just a few of Richard Warman’s posts, and the replies.  You decide if Warman’s postings “could have precipitated further hate messages in response.”

  

Posting Number 1

Richard Warman posted: FEDERAL COURT OF CANADA Date 20051004 Docket T-1309-05 Ottawa, Ontario, October 4th, 2005 IN THE MATTER OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL RE: RICHARD WARMAN and TOMASZ WINNICKI and THE CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION […  Warmans posts the entire ruling]

And the response: What a faggoty look that Commissar has. Here is the man who executes the orders of the Jews to deprive Canadians of their right to free expression. What a loathsome, contemptible swine. Thomas may be silenced, but we will speak for him. You are a sack of shit Yves. That's "merde" to yous.   [The “Yves”, referred to above is The Honourable Yves de Montigny, justice of the Federal Court of Canada]

.

Posting Number 2

Richard Warman posted: PM Hale hasn't even finished his fight, but already we've seen many 'leader's' in the Church run for the exit. With friends like these... www.onepeoplesproject.com/lampman.pdf We should all keep our fingers crossed for PM Hale on the 15th.

And the response: Talk about kissing Jew Boots! To her credit though, it sounded like she is young and the parents had a lot to do with her re-canting... she'll be back!

  .

Posting Number 3

Richard Warman posted:   I didn't see it, but Symanski is pretty short so it might have been one of the commies' kids who were there...

And the response: Which one are you, JEW?

   .

Posting Number 4

Richard Warman posted:    Hey Disciple and Brighton BNP, what's wrong with Bragg saying we shouldn't believe everything our country tells us to? What's wrong with him saying what he thinks? He may be a socialist, but what are you guys, some kind of fascists? And besides, who doesn't think Holst's the Planets kicks ass?  ..[next post]..  And you Spandau Ballet, what's wrong with being a Cosmonaut? At least they blow up with less frequency than some people's astronauts. Stupid Yanks.

And the responses: 1:  Who the fuck are You? And yes, I am a Fascist. Thank You for your concern.   2:  What's up, Red filth? Don't be insulting people here or you'll get it ten-fold. Now, go put Billy the queer Red on your CD player and STFU.   3: Whats wrong with fascism? I am a white nationalist, and have much respect for Benito's Fascism, and Adolfs National Socialism. I have been called a Fascist more times than I can remember. I wear my beliefs like a badge of honour. Biily Bragg should hurry up and fuckin die!     4: Yep, I'll always lend a hand to help a deserving piece of human garbage. Now, where did assgrinder scurry off to?

.

Posting Number 5

Richard Warman posted: exactly when will white cops understand that they should stand by THEIR race?!

And the response: Selling Cd's, well there's the crime of the century! You have Blacks selling crac in almost every bar in Toronto and our tax dollars are going to pay cops to monitor private parties and concerts.

   

So,   did Richard Warman’s postings  “precipitated further hate messages in response.”

 

You decide…..

 

 

 

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

http://www.freedomsite.org