Penniless Victim of Richard Warman Fined Gagged & Fined $4,000 but Warman to Get Nothing
OTTAWA. February 2, 2007. Saskatchewan math and computer instructor Terry Tremaine (mathdoktor99 on Stormfront) was found guilty of a discriminatory practice today for posting critical comments about Jews and Negroes on STORMFRONT, a U.S. White nationalist website and discussion forum. This was the result of another complaint by Richard Warman, who is waging a personal political vendetta which he terms “maximum disruption” against those holding political views to the right of his. Mr. Tremaine was slapped with what amounts to a political gag order – an order  to cease and desist posting on the Internet “material of the type that

was found to violate section 13(1) in the present case, or any other messages of a substantially similar content, that are likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” [para 169.1] who members of privileged groups – race, religion, sex. sexual orientation, etc. Should he re-post such material or similar material, he could be charged with contempt of court and jailed. Fellow Warman victim Tom Winnicki was sentenced to nine months in prison for violating a similar cease and desist order. He served over three months of the sentence. The conviction has since been overturned on appeal.
            In addition, Tribunal Member (judge) Michel Doucet fined the penniless Tremaine and impossible fine. “Terry Tremaine shall pay a penalty in the amount of $4,000 … within 120 days.” [para. 169.2]
                        In considering a fine for posting dissident material likely to expose the privileged to “hatred or contempt”, the Tribunal is supposed to take into account  the “extent and gravity of the discriminatory practice;  the wilfulness or intent of the person who engaged in the discriminatory practice; .. and  the person’s ability to pay the penalty.” [para 161] Doucet concluded”  “On the positive side for the Respondent, there was no information that he had engaged in

any prior discriminatory practices before he started posting on the “Stormfront” website in 2004.” [para. 164]
            However, “the Respondent’s wilfulness and intent in engaging in the discriminatory practice, is selfevident from the vicious tone of the messages themselves. His reaffirmation at the hearing that he stood by all his postings, his refusal to utter any remorse and the fact that he has not shown any indication that he has any intent of stopping.” [para. 166]  The expectation that Mr. Tremaine, who has become a committed National Socialist after years of world travel and study, should feel remorse for his views is truly Orwellian. One wonders what is next in the totalitarian world of “human rights” – political “re-education” camps?
 “The Respondent gave evidence regarding his financial situation. He testified that he did not own a car or a house. He has lost his job at the University of Saskatchewan. He testified that he is presently working 20 hours a week at a minimum wage job, clearing about $600 a month.” [para. 167] That would give him an annual income of $7,200!. According to Statistics Canada, the poverty line – or Low Income Cut-off, in bureaucratese – for a single person in the city the size of the one in which Mr. Trmaine lives was $16,048! Mr. Tremaine says, that from time to time he has had to use food banks. With an annual income over 50 per cent below the poverty line, Mr. Tremaine was still slapped with a fine that would consume 55 per cent of his annual income!
The ghoulish decision took no note of the fact that Mr. Tremaine was fired from a well paying job at the University of Saskatchewan because of pressure brought to bear by Mr. Warman who, after filing his complaint, wrote the university threatening exposure and publicity if action were not taken against the dissident math instructor. “The evidence showed The Respondent was served with the complaint on April 8, 2005. On April 11, 2005 and again on July 23, 2005, the Complainant wrote to the President of the University of Saskatchewan, the Respondent’s employer at the time, providing information regarding the Respondent’s activities.” [para. 46]
One small victory is that Richard Warman’s demand for compensation for being a victim of Mr. Tremaine’s posting was turned down. The Ottawa censor  and champion Sec. 13.1 complainer will get nothing. “The Complainant, for its [sic]  part, did not present, during the hearing, any evidence which could establish that he was a victim of the discriminatory practice of the Respondent.  … The Tribunal therefore concludes that the Complainant’s claim to compensation under
paragraph 54(1)(b) is unfounded.” [para. 159-160]

              The decision takes Canada further down the sorry path of political repression. The Tribunal rejected all the arguments put forth for the defence by Paul Fromm. Mr. Fromm had argued that STORMFRONT was essentially  a meeting place of people with similar ideological ideas and that the threads therein were conversations among like-minded people. STORMFRONT is clearly labeled as a “White Nationalist” forum. In rejecting this argument, Doucet wrote: “Nor is it necessary to show that anyone was so victimized. Unlike the other sections in the Act dealing with discrimination, s. 13(1) provides for liability where there is no proven or provable discriminatory impact.” [para. 110] Thus, there need be no proven impact. Just to criticize protected special minorities in strong terms  is enough to violate the political censorship act.
            So arrogant have Tribunals become that they no longer see the need for guidance in the weighing of the impact or meaning or context of controversial postings. “How is the likelihood of exposure to harm to be determined? In Citron v. Zundel (No. 4) (2002), 41 C.H.R.R. D/274, the Tribunal stated that the most persuasive evidence was the language used in the messages themselves. There is no need for expert evidence on this matter.” [para. 114] It just seems that Tribunal members who must, by law, have “a special sensitivity” to group rights, as opposed to individual rights, such as freedom of speech, will just know whether a message will expose the privileged groups to hatred or contempt. “The fact that no expert evidence was called is not in itself fatal to the complainant’s claim.” [para. 134]
Mr. Fromm “also expressed the opinion that common sense would suggest that since the postings were made on a website where like-minded people communicated amongst themselves then they were not exposing the targeted groups to hatred or contempt. He also argued that the messages were not likely to expose members of the targeted groups to hatred and contempt since anyone surfing the Internet would have had fair warning of the content of the messages by the nature of the banners on the home page of the sites. Therefore, people had a choice whether to read the messages or not. Again, the Tribunal cannot accept this argument. Although, it might be true to conclude that an individual who posts or reads the posting on these sites might be considered an adherent to the opinion they espouse and consequently might already possess feelings of hate and contempt for minority groups, it is conceivable that these feelings might be inflamed further by these messages. In any event, we should remember that the preconceived feelings of the individual who post or reads such posting is not in issue in the interpretation of s. 13. The question is whether the matter communicated is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt. The fact that the banners provided some vague indication of the content of the websites does not put the messages beyond reach of s 13(1). “ [para. 127-128]
            Thankfully, Member Doucet makes it quite clear that Sec. 13.1 is all about political censorship and restricting ideas. “Freedom to express one’s idea ceases to be freedom of expression or opinion when it is used to stand in the way of the promotion of equality. Freedom of expression ceases to be a fundamental

characteristic of democratic values when it becomes a vehicle for the promotion of hate. “ [para. 97] Once again, multiculturalism has cost us many precious freedoms, including freedom of speech and the right to dissent.
What will Mr. Tremaine do? He hasn’t decided, he told CAFÉ the day after the decision was announced. He may seek judicial review (appeal) but that would cost money the poverty strapped ex-professor doesn’t have.  “I’ll worry about the fine later,” he said. As for the cease and desist gag order, the quiet mathematicians said: “If going to jail would call attention to the peril we are in, well ….” 


The Orwellian Sec. 13.1 which clearly seeks to outlaw or gag right-of-centre dissent on the Internet must be repealed or ruled unconstitutional. That’s why the Marc Lemire Internet case and constitutional challenge now heading into its second week is so important.
Michel Doucet in his ruling in the Terry Tremaine case makes it clear that censoring the Internet is what it’s all about. “Internet has had a profound impact on modern society. It has made accessible to all information which in the past was only available to a few. It has also allowed individuals to exchange ideas and to discuss important issues but it has also raised serious concerns about the content found on many sites. Issues have arisen regarding the preservation of legitimate free speech, on the one hand, and the need to control the proliferation of ‘hate sites’, on the other hand. Cyberspace cannot and should not be seen as a frontier society where everything is allowed and where the constraints which limit discourse in the real world have no place.
The argumentation for repression in the Tremaine decision echoed other Sec. 13.1 rulings. It was filled with the most appalling and erroneous sociological claptrap – the cultural communism of taught by the Frankfurt School and going back to the Cohen Report. We have the experts to blow this sociology to bits. However, we need your help to help Marc Lemire challenge this evil law and to help Terry Tremaine and other victims of Richard Warman and the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

 Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge

  Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law and protect Freedom of Speech in Canada !

  Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order or VISA  to:


Canadian Association for Free Expression,

P.O. Box 332,

Rexdale, ON

M9W 5L3