A lawsuit has been served against our Canadian "sister" site, Free Dominion.

Free Dominion ^ | 11-23-07 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

[backhoe]

Its purpose is to silence free speech.

And, to shut down discussion of any and all subjects which offend the perpetually aggrieved, professional whiners & moaners.

 

The skull behind the Smiley Face of "political correctness" is revealed-- and bear in mind, the Legal Jackal, Richard Warman, behind all this is getting rich, using the law to cudgel people in to silence-- but the threat, to free speech, is real:

 

 The Free Dominion Eight - Which FDers made Warman's lawsuit?... [ 1, 2 ]

Connie Fournier wrote:

Oh, yeah, he wants $150,000 in damages, but he is willing to settle this for the bargain price of $10,900.

I can't think of any words that are contemptuous enough to use in response to that.

Backhoe says:

What a sorry, conniving, thieving little bastard.

Abusing the might and majesty of the law to extort money from innocent people.

And, to silence them.

All under the aegis of "rights..."

At least with a common street criminal, you know you are dealing with a crook- he is nothing more than a silk-shirted thief.

Connie, you let us know what you need- me and Miss Emily are far from rich, but we'll scrape the floorboards, and I can always bump the fundraisers with drivel and doggerel and musings from the swamps of Georgia...

Get the meanest, most aggressive lawyer you can find.

 

The above story is a subset of this:

 Richard Warman attacks free speech, Free Dominion BREAKING

 

Be sure to read it all...

...use the links.

This affects all of us.

 

If Richard Warman, Hyena in a $1,000 suit, can silence one site- he can silence another.

 

****UPDATE****

More information has come up, here:

Court Papers from Richard Warman [ 1, 2, 3 ]

[backhoe]

Calling all researchers! -- By Ezra Levant
One of the strangest things about Richard Warman’s threatened lawsuit against me is his complaint that I dare to call him litigious and a censor. It’s strange because it’s so obviously a fair comment, based on the facts of his track record. But the really weird part is that he doesn’t see the irony in it. I mean, demanding that I censor my comment that he’s a censor? Or threatening that he’ll sue me because I say he sues a lot? It’s absurd, and I wonder if there’s anyone in his circle of friends who will tap him on the shoulder and tell him that. I doubt it.

 

 A reader of my blog sent me a copy of the B.C. Civil Liberties Association’s 2003 Annual Report, which has a staggering story of, well there’s no other way to say it, Warman’s “censorship” and “litigiousness”.

Scroll down to page 12 for the whole story.

 

 I’m grateful to the reader who sent me that BCCLA report – research tips are always welcome. So I’ve thought of another research challenge for readers skilled at Google and the Wayback Machine and who have some time to help: Let's document every occasion that Warman has either filed a suit against someone or threatened to do so.

It will be useful to my case, because it will demonstrate just how censorious and litigious Warman really is, and that my comments about him were legally fair. I've got a ton of examples already, but I'm sure there are many more. Send me your research by e-mail, to ezra@ezralevant.com and be sure to include any relevant Internet links, or actual .pdf's or other copies of his threats and suits.

Thanks for your help!


http://ezralevant.com/

[backhoe]

Rights commissions biggest clowns in anti-free-speech circus...

 

A fresh look at free speech

[backhoe]

Kinsella sues FD - and Warman Strikes Again!--We just got two notices of intent to sue. One from Lucy over the Cools thing, and another one - a joint one - from Lucy Woman and Woman Kinsella.

I will scan and post later. I've got to go watch Survivor.

[backhoe]

Well, this is distressing- trying to find any page on out sister site ( .ca, .com, .com.pa ) fetched up this:

This Page Not Found.

[backhoe]

Folks, the fight against censorship affects us all... what you are seeing in Canada will eventually head South.

"Hate Crimes Prevention Laws," Sharia, McCain-Feingold, PC "correctness"-- it doesn't matter what the source is, the forces who want to dictate what you can say, and then, even think about, are on the march.

Look carefully at this:

Well, this is distressing- trying to find any page on out sister site ( .ca, .com, .com.pa ) fetched up this:

This Page Not Found.

If you don't want your favorite site to join "the Silent Keys," like Free Dominion has become, you had beter get busy, and contribute something to the fight.

It's coming...

[MHGinTN]

Absolutely! PC will abort free speech, if we allow it to. Canada is a pussy state now. Are we going to let the Barrymania lead us in the same direction?... And make no mistake, he is as much a commis as has ever threatened the US.

[backhoe]

Absolutely! PC will abort free speech, if we allow it to. Canada is a pussy state now. Are we going to let the Barrymania lead us in the same direction?... And make no mistake, he is as much a commis as has ever threatened the US.

I'm on the same page you are- the New Messiah will lead us into a "changeiness" and "hopeiness" that few people can imagine, and fewer will like when we get there.

I've got the links and transcript for his "plan" to unilaterally disarm America, and "hope" the World will then love us and "restore out standing..."

---

The “Lay America’s Throat Open” Strategy

Published by Gaius under Politics, Video

It speaks for itself:

 

Obama is willing to essentially disarm the United States or so cripple its defenses that I am left without adequate words to describe how this makes me feel. All I can say at this point is that Obama may have just laid his throat open for Hillary Clinton. Maybe, just maybe, she just got her miracle. But she has to pounce - now.  

(Video via Ace.) 

8 responses so far 

"He just lost the election."

From Powerline,

I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems…

...I will not weaponize space…

...I will slow development of future combat systems…

...and I will institute a “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending…

...I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons…

...and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons…

...I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material…

...and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert…

...and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals…

[backhoe]

Free dominion will be offline, due to software upgrades and fixes, until this evening. No need to panic- yet...

[backhoe]

Free Dominion off-line during upgrade

[backhoe]

Just found this- related, and of interest:

---

Monday, February 25

Marc Lemire and Pundita continue their discussion of Section 13 issues

Police, forensic experts and Crown prosecutors were so confident -- so smug -- that they built their case backwards, manipulating and creating evidence to prove the guilt of a suspect who could not possibly be innocent. But he was. Immediately after Morin's exoneration, the then-Deputy Attorney General of the Province of Ontario, speaking on behalf of the Attorney General, issued a statement:

"The minister is deeply committed to maintaining the public's faith in the system, and to ensuring that the ministry takes whatever steps are necessary that such a situation does not reoccur. To accomplish this ... a public airing into the justice system's handling of Mr. Morin's case is required."

There are elements to the administration of Section 13 cases that remind me of the most infamous miscarriage of justice in Canadian history, which is the criminal case against Guy Paul Morin.

Before readers familiar with the Morin case send me an outraged letter, I would ask them to study Marc Lemire's attempt to obtain evidence that would clear him of an accusation by the complainant in a Section 13 case, and the court's rejection of his request for a subpoena. Then they can reference Footnote 5 in this post and start following the links.

The Lemire request does not relate to a matter of national security or a protected witness in a criminal case. So on what grounds are Canada's courts and human rights commissions able to hide behind 'the public interest' to prevent Lemire from bringing forth evidence that suggests a human rights commission manufactured evidence against him?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the basic principle the same in the Morin and Lemire cases? In both cases, isn't there a willful miscarriage of justice? No? Then explain the difference; I'm all ears.

Now that I have that off my chest, this post continues my email discussions with Marc Lemire, which came in the wake of his criticism of comments I made in an earlier Pundita post, and which was our first contact. For background see Marc Lemire gives Pundita a tour of the Section 13 Maze.

Readers who want to learn the details of Marc's case should visit his Freedom Site website.

"Marc, Is it fair to say that probably no Canadian knows more about Section 13 than you?"

"Pundita, I am not a lawyer. I am a computer professional. I have studied the law [relating to Section 13] and read most of the decisions. Made reports on it. Understand and document how the law has been abused. But there are many others far more knowledgeable than myself. Most notably, my courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka."

"Marc, I recall it was your lawyer whose line of questioning prompted Dean Stacey [lead investigator for the federal Canada Human Rights Commission - "CHRC"] to state in testimony that he considered freedom of speech to be an American concept.

One of the crucial points you bring out is that it's not just Section 13 that's the problem. I noticed this first while studying the Taylor Supreme Court case. But from your discussion it's obvious that one can't understand how Section 13 works out in practice without also studying Section 40(5)(b) of the Human Rights Act. [1]

So my question is whether Section 40(5)(b) is in clear contradiction to other parts of the Human Rights Act."

"Pundita, Section 40 seems to be written for public interest-type suits. Where for instance a union goes after Bell Canada.[2] The union itself is not a vulnerable group. But they are allowed to proceed.

Section 40 is clearly open to abuse, as people with a political agenda can use that in conjunction with Section 13 to attack and silence people even when the material at issue has nothing to do with the person laying the complaint.

Second to Section 13, the worst section is 27:

The CHRC shall “…try by persuasion, publicity or any other means that it considers appropriate to discourage and reduce discriminatory practices” Section 27(h) - Canadian Human Rights Act.

The CHRC has interpreted this to mean they can do anything they choose. This includes sending threatening letters to ISPs in other countries (that didn't even involve Canadians)! At one point we hear the CHRC has written 200-300 letters to ISPs [in the effort] to have websites shut down.

Section 13 is an oddity in the Canadian Human Rights Act. The rest of the Act covers actual actions or perceived actions, such as refusal to hire or rent. A majority of such cases are mediated, and only a tiny percentage go to a tribunal. And of those most are settled prior to a hearing. Keep in mind the CHRA is only remedial legislation. It is not meant to punish or to assign "moral blame-worthiness".

Contrast that with Section 13 cases. Most such cases are sent to a [human rights] tribunal. Hardly any are mediated. Of the 100 cases I reviewed, I think that over 80% of cases were referred to a tribunal.

Section 13 is being used to punish people. Consider that in my case the material under consideration was removed PRIOR to my learning about the complaint. But five years later [the CHRC still] couldn't care less.

There are quite a few Section 13 cases relating to published material that had not been available on the Internet for years, but the writers were still hauled before a tribunal. The material was gone, thus the case should have ended. Punishment, not 'remedy,' can be the ONLY conclusion drawn about the CHRC actions in such cases."

"Marc, Do you make publicly available the testimony of all the experts you've called as witnesses?"

"Pundita, Yes; all my witnesses' expert reports are online. Dr Donald Downs gave great testimony. He is an expert in freedom of speech and widely published. [3]

I am a young father of two and not well off, so I'd like to point out that the expert witnesses I called testified for little to no money. Unlike the two experts called by the government, who each collected at least $25,000 for their testimony."

"Marc, Are you a neo-Nazi, as Wikipedia describes you? [4] Brief reply, please, that I can fit into a post."

"Pundita, I am a free speech and immigration reform activist, so I have nothing to apologize for. As for the lie of calling me a neo-Nazi, it is a smear tactic used by radical 'speech control / anti-racist' elements.

The CHRC, Richard Warman, the police (after Warman complaints) have poured over every word I have written, since at least 1995. They have not been able to come up with ANYTHING Nazi inspired, etc. Which is why magically [hate message] posts started to appear on a message board I had, which would later form the complaint against me. [5]

Once I alleged what Warman did, the CHRC dropped the Anne Cools hate post [from evidence] and fought desperately for the court not to hear anything about it and to block me from calling any evidence on it.

When I term persons a "thought control censor," I quote things they say to support my claim. For example, Dean Steacy's quote about free speech being an American concept. But notice in the Wikipedia articles that there is not a SINGLE quote to support the claim that I'm a Nazi, fascist, racist, etc.

Actually, I do mention Nazis often on my website -- not in any supportive way, but to correctly label what the CHRC has become.

I even made a spreadsheet with examples to point out where the Nazis and the CHRC are the same. A prime example: both used biased and unfair tribunals where the respondent had NO defence. And 'judges' were appointed for their loyalty for the party or doctrine. In Canada it's called "sensitivity to human rights" and it's a requirement for the tribunal judges.

I have been targeted on Wikipedia since I started bringing out my defence at the [human rights] tribunal. My defence is devastating and targets the evidence, the CHRC, the law itself and even the complainant. I allege the complainant [Richard Warman] has posted a highly inflammatory entry on my message board [in the effort to manufacture evidence] that forms part of the case against me.

I have had to get the owner of Wikipedia to intervene numerous times and wipe out what was written but those intent on using Wikipedia to anonymously defame people slither back within a few days.

Just look at the History tab. (Jimbo Wales is a founder of Wiki.)"

1) Section 40(1) of the Human Rights Act:

"Subject to subsections (5) and (7), any individual or group of individuals having reasonable grounds for believing that a person is engaging or has engaged in a discriminatory practice may file with the Commission a complaint in a form acceptable to the Commission."

40(5)(b) "No complaint in relation to a discriminatory practice may be dealt with by the Commission under this Part unless the act or omission that constitutes the practice [...] occurred in Canada and was a discriminatory practice within the meaning of section 8, 10, 12 or 13 in respect of which no particular individual is identifiable as the victim."

2) Bell Canada is Canada's largest telephone and telecommunications company.

3) The link I provided is to Wikipedia. Because some Wikipedia articles have been edited by opponents of Marc Lemire, I'm taking the cautionary step of publishing the entire Wikipedia article on Donald Downs, as I found it on today's date:

Donald Downs is an American political science professor and known for his work on the First Amendment.Downs has political science degrees from the University of Wisconsin-Madison and a Ph.D. from the University of California - Berkeley. He has taught at the University of Michigan and the University of Notre Dame and currently teaches political science and legal studies at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Downs has written many scholary articles and books on the First Amendment and various legally themed books.Downs is a co-founder of the academic freedom centered group, CAFAR. The group's mission is to protect and advance academic freedom rights on campus and beyond. Key Scholarly Works:

Nazis in Skokie: Freedom, Community and the First Amendment
The New Politics of Pornography
More than Victims: Battered Women, the Syndrome Society, and the Law
Cornell `69: Liberalism and the Crisis of the American University
Restoring Free Speech and Liberty on Campus"

4) From Wikipedia article on Matthew Lauder: "Matthew Lauder is currently the subject of a lawsuit brought by neo-Nazi leader Marc Lemire against himself and the Guelph Multicultural Center for alleged factual inaccuracies in his report."

5) See Freedom Site for documentation. Also, for a quick introduction to this part of the case see the PDF that Ezra Levant has made available concerning the Lemire transcript Vol. 4, Page 769, in which Richard Warman admits that on November 15, 2003 he logged onto the Freedom Site message board as "Lucy," which occurred while he was in the employ of the (federal) Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Lemire has also presented evidence that a hate message against Canadian Senator Anne Cools published on September 5, 2003 on his website under the screen name '90sAREover' came from the same computer as the one used by the Lucy poster.

# posted by Pundita : 2/25/2008 04:00:00 AM

[backhoe]

A Duet of Documents - Warman & Kinsella vs the Good Guys... --Allow me to summarize:

 

[backhoe]

Hypocrisy, thy name is Warren -- For those you who have read the libel notice that was served on us by Warren Kinsella, and the Statement of Claim against us by the man Kinsella has soiled his own reputation defending, the following may come as a surprise.

Apparently, it is quite alright to call Mark Steyn a 'bigot' and Maclean's Magazine a Nazi Echo Chamber...if your name is Warren Kinsella.

But, God help anyone who turns the rhetoric around on those two.

 

Bernard Klatt Refutes "Nazi" Smear on THE RIGHT SI...

[backhoe]

 

Attacking freedom of speech

 

Mocking Ontraio's Politically correct oppression

[backhoe]

Lemire wins right to cross-examine Steacy re FD...and MORE --Shockwaves are rattling through the befuddled Section 13 pre-crime enforcers at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, as a monumental decision was handed down by CHRT (Tribunal) Vice-Chairman Athanasios Hadjis.

With the http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/rulings/20080303-Ruling_on_jadewarr_and_Bell_subpoena.pdf, the entire CHRC spying operating and entrapment will be brought into the open in a hearing room in Ottawa on March 25, 2008.

 

March 25: "Black Tuesday " for CHRC creeps

 

FD Freedom Train stopping at a city near you!

 

The Battle for the Blogosphere - Connie Fournier [ 1, 2 ]

[backhoe]

Richard Warman likes to use the back door

[backhoe]

 

Richard Warman's attempt to block U.S. websites --This guy is a malignancy...in this attempt he tried to implement a system of censorship with no legal or stakeholder oversight.

http://ezralevant.com/2008/03/richard-warmans-attempt-to-blo.html 

"Warman could likely make a pretty good living with the Government of the People's Republic of China. He and they seem to be in lock step."

 

New Features - Thread Kicker and Digg

[backhoe]

British Libel Law – Suppression of Truth in the US and UK?

 

fundraiser for Freedominion legal defense fund Feb 17,2008 [ 1 ... 7, 8, 9 ]

[backhoe]

The Canadian conservative blogosphere is under attack

You need to know about this. The same tool who went after Canadian publisher Ezra Levant over the Mohammed cartoons is also targeting other Canadian conservative bloggers with “defamation” legal threats. He is trying to shut up and shut down the right-leaning blogosphere up north one blog at a time–and then is suing people who call him a censor.

Connie Fournier at No Apologies reports on the crisis:

March 5, 2008 08:53 PM by Michelle Malkin34 Comments

[backhoe]

The new rule on campus --I've been writing a lot lately about free speech. My view on the subject is pretty basic: You have to tolerate the speech you hate in order to guarantee protection for the speech you love. Once you go down the road of ideologically motivated censorship, it never stops: Government hate-speech laws that are designed to shut up neo-Nazis eventually get used to harass legitimate commentators like Mark Steyn.

he new rule on campus: Free speech for Israel-bashers — but censorship for pro-lifers

 

Keith Martin on TVO Tonight Re: His Motion

[backhoe]

Ezra Levant: A political opportunity

 Warman versus the lizard man -- Essentially the zealotry of the "maximum disruption" cult have done more harm to their cause than if they had allowed such loons like Zundle or Icke to garner the public mocking that would widely invalidate their silly theories.