Buy the book from Amazon and Chapters

Free Dominion files its defence against Richard Warman's lawsuit

By Ezra Levant on May 23, 2008 12:22 AM | | |

Connie and Mark Fournier of Free Dominion have now filed their Statement of Defence against Richard Warman's defamation suit. You can see a copy of that defence here.

As readers will recall, Warman, the former Canadian Human Rights Commission "hate speech" investigator, has sued the Fourniers, as well as Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals, Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury, the National Post and its editor Jonathan Kay, and me for our criticims of his tactics, especially his habit of posting bigoted comments online, posing as a neo-Nazi. You can see Warman's lawsuit here, and my analysis of it here. The National Post and Kay have already filed their defence, which I posted and discussed here.

The Free Dominion defence is a fascinating read. It's obviously a document written for the court of law, but it's also a powerful weapon in the court of public opinion. It's quite readable -- not too leaden with legalese -- and it tells a hell of a story. As I predicted when Warman first sued us, we might well be the nominal defendants in this case, but it's Warman who's really going to be on trial.

I don't propose to go through the entire defence here; I really do recommend that you read it. But I will point out a few interesting facts.

Paragraphs 20 to 56 give details of Warman's conduct -- ranging from his habits of posting anti-Semitic material on the Internet, to his conspiracy to assault an opponent (captured on video, here). I knew much of it, but not all -- until I read paragraph 31, for example, I didn't know that Warman had praised Ernst Zundel. That's weird conduct for a Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator. I'll have to make that one of my CHRC Bigoted Comments of the Day.

Perhaps the most fascinating part of the defence, though, deals with the notorious Anne Cools post. Here's a snapshot of that post, in its full Canadian Human Rights Commission glory:

 

Cools post1.JPGParagraphs 57 to 77 of the Statement of Defence contain a lot of details about this bigoted post that I didn't know, or only knew about vaguely. I didn't know that Richard Warman and the CHRC had filed a section 13 "hate speech" complaint against Marc Lemire for this post, but when Lemire brought a motion naming Warman as the secret author of the post and asking the CHRC to have Warman listed as a co-defendant in the complaint, both Warman and the CHRC quickly amended their complaint to exclude the post.

The post is clearly hateful -- it's racist, misogynistic and anti-immigrant. Why on Earth would Warman and the CHRC suddenly omit this one post from their complaint, unless they had something to hide?

I didn't know that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal accepted affidavit evidence from Bernard Klatt, indicating that the Anne Cools post was written by Warman. I didn't know that Klatt was recognized as an expert by the Tribunal. I didn't know that Warman didn't even cross-examine Klatt, or bring expert evidence of his own to refute Klatt.

Even more fascinating is paragraph 65 of the defence. When Lemire subpoenaed the Internet records from Rogers Cable relating to the Anne Cools post,

Instead of supporting the motion, however, the plaintiff vigorously opposed it. The plaintiff's actions were inconsistent with a person who was innocent of writing the message.

And I didn't know that Warman and the CHRC brought a motion

to quash the subpoena to Rogers Cable and for an order that Lemire be prevented from leading any evidence through a Rogers representative, Bernart Klatt, or any other witness

about the Anne Cools post. That's just bizarre. Wouldn't Warman and the CHRC be curious to know who wrote that? Wasn't Lemire -- at his own expense -- doing the CHRC's work for them, hunting the bigoted person who wrote it? As Hamlet's mother would say, "the lady doth protest too much, methinks".

In the end, the Rogers subpoena came too late -- Rogers had deleted their old archives. Until that point, Warman had been actively engaged in the hearings against Lemire. When it was revealed that Rogers didn't have the files, Warman stood up, and left the hearing, never to return again.

Paragraphs 115 to 118 are interesting -- they claim that message boards, which is really what Free Dominion is all about -- are different than normal media, and thus defamation law should be applied to them differently, especially given the interactive nature of such sites, where rebuttals and corrections are made immediately. At paragraph 122, the defendants make the good point that Warman -- who, given his experience as a Stormfront member -- is a very experienced user of online chat groups, and thus could have simply posted a rebuttal on Free Dominion at any time, but chose not to do so.

The whole thing is a really interesting read, and accessible to non-lawyers. I encourage you to look through it.

Four of the seven defendants in this lawsuit have now filed their defences (the National Post and Kay filed a joint defence). Kate, Kathy and me will file ours shortly, though there may be a preliminary motion first.

I'll have more to say about the legal team assembled to fight against Warman's nuisance suit later -- it's pretty exciting. But for now let me point out paragraph 24 of the defence, where it is noted that in all but two of Warman's human rights complaints, the respondents were unrepresented by counsel. In those cases where respondents had counsel -- including Lemire's case -- it's pretty clear that the counsel were severely outgunned. And, of course, the respondents have to pay for their own lawyers; Warman's cases are all prosecuted using government lawyers at taxpayers' expense.

It's been pretty much the same with Warman's defamation nuisance suits, too -- typically turkey shoots against penniless shmoes who can't afford lawyers.

I don't think Warman has ever faced a defamation defence as well-written and comprehensive as this one. I don't think he's ever gone up against lawyers as experienced in defamation as the Post's lawyers. And when all the other defences are in, I'll talk a bit more about the rest of the legal team.

After years of one-sided bullying, a group of people are saying: "stop!" -- something no-one has ever really told Warman before. I think we're going to win.

We do need your help, though. Except for the Post, the rest of us have to dip into our own pockets to fend off this nuisance suit. If you want to help us fight back, please do. Each of us has PayPal buttons for our legal defences. Here's Connie and Mark's; here's Kate's; here's Kathy's, and mine is below. I know I speak for all of us when I say that if you can help us with our lawyers' bills, we'll keep our end of the bargain and fight like hell!

Thanks.

"This organization is not a registered non-profit organization.  Donations to this organization are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes."

UPDATE: My co-defendant, Kathy Shaidle, examines paragraph 42, which I shouldn't have skipped:

42. Under the false identity "Axetogrind," the plaintiff [Richard Warman] posted in 2004 a copy of a confidential letter sent to the CHRC by a young woman, Elizabeth Lampman in settlement of a complaint the plaintiff made against her and in which she expressed her shame and denounced her previous beliefs. The plaintiff posted the letter on the neo-Nazi VNN with the preface "With friends like these..." He did so without any regard for her safety or consequences she might suffer.

Stop to think about that for a moment. If I understand that right, a young woman does the right thing -- she recants her bigoted views and apologizes. (That she does so under the duress of a government prosecution, rather than through a debate, gives it the feeling of a jail-house confession; that's the nature of government censorship.) But it's an incredible story: someone shows contrition and humility, and grasps for enlightenment. She does so in a confidential letter.

Warman takes that letter, and uses it against her, in his online persona of a neo-Nazi.

If Warman and the CHRC really think that neo-Nazi websites are inhabited by people who are dangerous -- people who are violent, not just people who talk tough -- then Warman deliberately placed this woman's safety in jeopardy. Why?

Was it because he was denied the thrill of crushing her, as he had done with so many others, in a full hearing? Was it because he was denied his payday of tax-free money from a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal order? Or was it simply his cruel streak, the streak that manifested itself when he counselled a physical assault on his nemesis, David Icke, the same streak he exhibited when he bragged about hauling his enemies before the CHRC just for "fun"?

That is astounding conduct. It is so deeply malicious, so deeply unethical, so deeply corrupt, it can only be called evil. There is no bona fide collateral purpose to it; there couldn't be; Lampman had already surrendered. It was sheer malice.

This is the man who claims his reputation was undone by us. To which I'd say: what reputation? 

Donate to fight the HRC


"This organization is not a registered non-profit organization.  Donations to this organization are not tax deductible for federal income tax purposes."

Sign up for the mailing list

Name:

Email:

About this Entry

This page contains a single entry by Ezra Levant published on May 23, 2008 12:22 AM.

Vancouver tickets going fast was the previous entry in this blog.

Kenney: HRCs unaccountable, lack due process is the next entry in this blog.

Find recent content on the main index or look in the archives to find all content.

Blogrolls



Search