No decision as web hate speech case ends
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 15 December 2011 02:26
No decision as web hate speech case ends

Joseph Brean <> Dec 13, 2011 –
10:51 PM ET
[image: Matthew Sherwood for National Post]

Matthew Sherwood for* National Post*

Richard Warman, left, has successfully fought a number of cases using
Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. A case involving Marc Lemire,
right, has put the hate law in jeopardy.

- Comments<>
- Email <>
- Twitter<,fullcomment&via=nationalpost>
- inShare*0*

A federal court review of Canada’s Internet hate speech law ended without
a decision Wednesday, with the judge hinting he might have been persuaded
to consider overturning the law, rather than stick to the narrow legal
issues put forth by the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Mr. Justice Richard Mosley also had harsh words for the federal government,
which withdrew from the case — a constitutional review of Section 13 of the
Canadian Human Rights Act, within the hate speech prosecution of
Freedomsite webmaster Marc Lemire by activist lawyer Richard Warman.

The government’s absence is “unusual and regrettable,” the judge said.

Section 13 “is federal legislation. The Attorney General should be here.
The Attorney General should take a position, as it appears he did at the
[Canadian Human Rights] Tribunal.”


Undercover work debated in hate

Once epic hate speech case whimpers to unforeseen

Rob Nicholson, the Justice Minister, does take a position. The problem is
that it is exactly the opposite position he took in 2008, when Mr. Lemire’s
case was before the tribunal, and the Conservatives held a vulnerable
parliamentary minority. Then, he intervened to support Section 13. Now,
with a majority, Mr. Nicholson has urged Parliament to back a private
member’s bill that could repeal it next year.

Passed by Parliament in 1977 to combat telephone hate lines, and expanded
to the Internet in 2001, Section 13 bans repeated messages that are likely
to expose protected groups to hatred or contempt.

In the age of the Internet, it has been used almost exclusively by Mr.
Warman, a former CHRC employee who has seen 15 hate speech cases through to
a conclusion, usually with a financial penalty, a cease and desist order,
and occasionally payments to himself for his efforts.

Judge Mosley said he is tempted to wait for the Supreme Court of Canada’s
decision in the similar case of William Whatcott, which will re-analyze
Canada’s main legal precedent on hatred. But that could be months away and
he might decide on Section 13’s constitutionality before then.

The CHRT found Mr. Lemire had violated Section 13 by posting a racist,
homophobic article called AIDS Secrets, written by someone else, which he
removed as soon as he was told of the complaint. That willingness to
resolve the complaint, however, coupled with the CHRC and Mr. Warman’s
refusal to agree to mediation, led Athanasios Hadjis, a tribunal member, to
conclude in 2009 Section 13 was no longer a reasonable limit on freedom of
expression, as the Supreme Court decided in 1990.

Once remedial and conciliatory, the law had become punitive, he decided. He
made no order against Mr. Lemire, and cast Section 13 into limbo.

Margot Blight, the CHRC’s lawyer, argued the commission’s actions alone
cannot invalidate a law and the judge must confine himself to the narrow
issues raised in her request for judicial review. These focus on whether
Mr. Hadjis should have upheld the basic law, and simply “read out,” or
ignored, the penalty provisions.

Barbara Kulaszka, Mr. Lemire’s lawyer, said the judge can and should
reconsider all of Section 13. She argued Mr. Hadjis could have reached the
same conclusion on different grounds, namely that expanding the law to
include Internet has drastically changed the constitutional questions, as
the Supreme Court understood them in 1990. She said recorded telephone
messages simply do not compare to the participatory style of the web.

Section 13 is a “truly despicable law, enforced in a despicable way,” with
federal bureaucrats acting in the manner of Crown prosecutors, she added.

“If it wasn’t for Richard Warman, Section 13 would basically be dead,
because Canadians love the Internet, the back and forth… the freedom of
speech it represents.”

Ms. Kulaszka compared Section 13, and its supposed 100% conviction rate, to
Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, which did not sit well with Judge Mosley.

“Let’s not get carried away with hyperbole. Some comparisons are
offensive,” he said. “Counsel should know this and restrain yourself.”
National Post*
*[email protected]*
Undercover work debated in hate hearing
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 15 December 2011 02:25
Undercover work debated in hate hearing
[image: Richard Warman posed as a supporter on neo-Nazis' websites to
"[obtain] information."]

Aaron Lynett, National Post Files

Richard Warman posed as a supporter on neo-Nazis' websites to "[obtain]

- Twitter<,fullcomment&via=nationalpost>
- Email<>
- inShare*0*

Joseph Brean, *National Post* · Dec. 13, 2011 | *Last Updated: Dec. 13,
2011 3:09 AM ET*

Richard Warman, the serial hate-speech complainant whose case against
webmaster Marc Lemire will be heard in Federal Court Tuesday on a
constitutional appeal, is known by many false names.

The grandest is Canada's Hatefinder-General, a mocking epithet coined by
celebrity human rights victim and columnist Mark Steyn. The most improbable
is Mary Dufford, as whom he corresponded with Eldon Warman, no relation, a
radical anti-Semitic "de-tax" activist, seeking to confirm his receipt of
legal documents.

AxeToGrind, as whom Mr. Warman posted 33 messages on the white supremacist
Vanguard News Network between 2004 and 2005, seems to speak for itself.
Pogue Mahone, his handle for 93 posts on the white power site Stormfront,
means "kiss my arse" in Gaelic.

But the longest-lasting alias is Lucy, or Lucie, in honour of Lucie Aubrac,
who died in 2007, and was a hero of the French Resistance against the Nazis.

It is a curious historical nod for the lawyer and thricefailed Green Party
candidate whose pursuit of hate-speech cases against neo-Nazis and other
hatemongers involved posing as a supporter on their message boards,
praising their leaders, and even signing off with "88," a coded reference
to "Heil Hitler."

This unsupervised freelance undercover work by Mr. Warman - who worked for
the Canadian Human Rights Commission from 2002 to 2004, and has
successfully pursued 15 hate-speech cases, often with the CHRC arguing the
case on his behalf, and with his help - was a key point in the public
outcry against Section 13, the Internet hate speech section of the Canadian
Human Rights Act.

The majority Conservative government has vowed to repeal the law as an
affront to free speech, even as the Supreme Court of Canada deliberates on
a separate case that could see Section 13's legal foundation struck down.

At Tuesday's hearing in Toronto to decide whether Section 13 is
constitutional, the CHRC is expected to argue that its own practices in
fighting hate on the Internet are irrelevant to the question of Section
13's constitutionality. Evidence presented throughout the Lemire case
revealed those practices to be heavily influenced by Mr. Warman, who once
urged the CHRC to "hold off on informing" Mr. Lemire about the expansion of
the investigation against him "until the police take a good look" at some
new allegations. No criminal charges were ever filed.

Details of the extent of the Lucie pseudonym are included in records of a
separate libel suit Mr. Warman brought against bloggers. The National Post
also was sued over the alleged libel, but issued a retrac-tion and apology,
and settled the lawsuit.

In a forensic analysis of the hard drive of a laptop belonging to Mr.
Warman, the word Aubrack turned up 1,460 times, largely from email records
of an address in that name.

The analysis also turned up "n-gger" and "c--t" 4,062 and 259 times
respectively, which René Hamel of Digital Wyzdom Forensic Inc. reported was
"consistent with Mr. Warman's lengthy human rights work collecting evidence
of hate group activity."

"I signed up and posted to the neo-Nazi website forums and as another means of collecting intelligence about the
neo-Nazi and white supremacist movements and information about the
identities of individuals in Canada that it was my intention to file
federal human rights complaints against," Mr. Warman said in an affidavit
last year as part of the libel suit. "Purporting to be interested in, or a
supporter of, the beliefs of a closed group is a standard practice for
obtaining information that would otherwise be unavailable. The vast
majority of these postings are entirely banal...."

To explain why he made comments about two neo-Nazis who do not fit the
typical mould - one was not white, the other disabled - he said in his
affidavit that "contemporary neo-Nazi groups have often splintered or
excluded individuals as a result of arcane suspicions about the racial
lineage of members or leaders. It has thus been a useful technique to sow
doubt about such matters...."

In upholding one of his hate complaints, Edward Peter Lustig, chairman of
the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, also said Mr. Warman's hateposing
"diminishes his credibility" and "could have precipitated further hate

Mr. Warman has even been accused of hate speech himself: once when the
respondent in Tuesday's case, Marc Lemire, sought to add Mr. Warman as a
respondent to his own complaint, on the theory that Mr. Warman had
anonymously written a comment on his message board; and later when Alex
Kulbashian, whom Mr. Warman won a hate speech complaint against, complained
he had anonymously violated Section 13 on Stormfront and VNN. That
complaint was dismissed as vexatious.

Mr. Warman denies writing anything on Mr. Lemire's Freedomsite. Neither the
analysis by Digital Wyzdom, nor a subsequent one, turned up any evidence
that Mr. Warman had written the message at the heart of the libel suit.

"Mr. Lemire and his direct associates had always been cautious enough never
to spread the allegation outside of the CHRT hearing. Indeed, one of Mr.
Lemire's closest associates indicated in an Internet posting that they had
legal advice not to do so (presumably knowing they would be sued for
libel)," Mr. Warman said in his affidavit.

Mr. Warman did not attend much of the tribunal against Mr. Lemire, but he
is expected to make submissions Tuesday in support of Section 13.

[email protected]
Hear Paul Fromm -- The Fighting Side of Me: Truth Instead of Political Correctitude
Written by Paul Fromm
Thursday, 15 December 2011 02:21
Hear Paul Fromm -- The Fighting Side of Me: Truth Instead of Political

December 6, 2011
[image: Terry Tremaine]<>

*Paul Fromm:*

- … denounces the Crown for prosecuting Terry Tremaine for “hate” and
seeking yet another delay in a hearing challenging their long delay in this
- … praises Gatineau, Quebec for its guidelines for immigrants — no
bribes, honour killings, or sexual abuse of children;
- … wonders how an Indian reserve (Attawapiskat) can get over
$90,000,000 for its 1,850 people in five years and still be living in dire
poverty with some people living in tents and unheated shacks;
- … explains the origin of Sec. 13 of Canada’s Human Rights Act. It
started as censorship of telephone answering machines and then graduated to
Internet censorship;
- … outlines the Canadian Association for Free Expession’s submissions —
“hate” law based on scientific bunk — arguments at next week’s Marc Lemire
Appeal in Toronto.

* **
Page 286 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog