Wednesday, April 09, 2008

Picking a Strange Hill to Die On

Richard Warman suing several bloggers, but how strong is his case?

In the latest news from the blogosphere, lawyer and alleged human rights profiteer Richard Warman has filed suit against several bloggers.

Claiming defamation and seeking $50,000, Warman is suing the National Post, Ezra Levant, Kathy Shaidle, Kate McMillan, Mark Fournier, his wife Constance Wilkins-Fournier, and

Naturally, numerous bloggers are pleased as punch about it.

Equally naturally, the paintiffs are not so pleased about it (You mean defendants, right, dummy? -ed).

A good deal of the alleged defamation seems to stem from the infamous "Anne Cools" post, wherein he allegedly wrote, under the guise of "90sAreOver":

"“Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools is a Negro, she is also an immigrant! And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt. She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced their bullshit down our throats. Time to go back to when the women nigger imports knew their place… And that place was NOT in public!"
The comments have seemingly been traced back to Warman through the IP address from which they were posted.

Although there is clearly some reasonable doubt as to whether or not it was Warman who was actually using that IP address at the time.

Then again, that doubt may be a little less reasonable. If Warman had no history of doing what it's been suggested he's done, that would be one thing. But that isn't the case.

When himself put before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Warman himself hasn't always stood up to scrutiny, particularly on the topic of his internet dealings. Furthermore, he has done something that closely resembles lying under oath (which is perjury in a proper court of law).

Consider the following, taken from a transcript (via Levant) from a 1 February, 2007 hearing during the course of Levant v. Lemire:

"Kulaszka: Did you ever sign up a user account at the message board?

Warman: No, I don't believe I did.

Chairperson: I want to be clear I understand that. Did he sign up a user account?

Kulaszka: A user account at the message board.

Chairperson: That would enable you to participate in the messaging. Is that what that would do?

Warman: Yes. No, I didn't need to. I could access everything that I needed to as a guest.

Chairperson: So, as a guest, only to view. But you did not sign up in order to add material to it?

Warman: No, I did not."

Yet, it turns out that Warman did, in fact, sign up an account on the website in question, and was eventally forced to admit to it.

Among his other postings as "Lucie" was the following:

""Theres a reason it's called "White" Nationalism and why the founders of NS excluded sexual deviants that are like a Cancer to our movement...""

Charming stuff. But onward, where Warman admits that he, in fact, was "Lucie".

"Kulaszka: If you could go to tab 3, the respondent's binder. Three pages from the back. Do you recognize this user account called "Lucie"?

Warman: Sorry, I stand corrected. Yes, I do. That is an e-mail address that I used.

Kulaszka: When did you use it?

Warman: It indicates on Saturday, November 15th, 2003 at 1:03 pm and on Saturday, November 15th, 2003 at 3:03 pm.

Kulaszka: You made two log-ins?

Warman: That's what it states here."

With this particular episode in mind, the allegations raised over the Anne Cools post is a strange hill for Richard Warman to choose to die on.

If Warman could produce concrete proof that he wasn't responsible for the post in question, that would be one thing. But whatever evidence has led Mark Fournier to believe Warman is the guilty party, along with his past -- confirmed -- episodes in so-called "covert posting", is enough for Levant, Fournier and company to legitimately argue that they believe Warman is responsible.

The legitimacy of such an opinion now established, the only thing Warman's lawsuit could really be about is libel chill -- dredging up fear of a libel suit in order to silence his detractors.

One certainly can't accept Warman's insistence that he didn't on his own say-so. Not based on past experience.

Unless he can conclusively prove that he didn't post under the name 90sAreOver, in which case the opinion that he did so would be clearly disproven. In the meantime, those opinions -- that he did so -- remain legitimate, and those who hold the opinions have the right to express them.


  1. You might want to remove that link, smartass. I've stated numerous times that I object to HRA 13(1) (I posted to this effect over at Scott Tribe's place) and I've got no time whatsoever for Warman's litigious folly.

  2. I must have taken a different interpretation away from your post than you intended.

    I can concede that, and I'll gladly change the link.

  3. Thank you. I'm planning on following up with another post to make my position crystal clear, but have to be careful in choosing my words, as I'm sure you can appreciate.

  4. Think nothing of it.

    I think virtually everyone examining the facts on this particular issue is wary of a libel suit.

    Also, the sources of the facts are less than ideal. I remember reading somewhere that the source on the IP address is apparently a neo-Nazi group. Doesn't exactly fill me with confidence.

    Warman's prior conduct (vis a vis "Lucie"), though, as much so.

  5. In my opinion, Warman is a smug, self-satisfied prick. Demonstrating that was the purpose of my posting the video. Targeting Icke, who is clearly a nutjob of stellar proportions (not that he doesn’t have some legitimate, albeit kooky things to say) really illustrates how far off the mark this guy is in seeing anti-Semitism lurking around every corner. Personally, I think he’s a danger to liberty.

  6. I've actually tried to ignore all the outrage over Warman, but I had noticed a few snippets.

    I really think he's overreaching with this particular lawsuit.

    I also doubt it will smarten Kate McMillan up one iota.

    As for David Icke, the guy is clearly delusional. Paranoid schizophrenic quite possibly.

  7. Hi Patrick

    Two (2) things:

    1. I've said I hope McMillan wins -- I am anything but pleased at the prospect of libel litigation in the blogosphere.

    As for the others, they can take a running jump -- their irresponsibility could potentially do more damage to free speech in the blogosphere than Warman ever could. (And FTR, he's on my shit list too.)

    2. If I'm not mistaken, the "plaintiff" would be Warman. Levant, FD et al are the "respondents" in the suit.

  8. Hah! Right you are. That's kind of embarrassing. Thank god for editing.

  9. IMHO Warman is acting like a certified fascist. Canada is a fascist country now? I bet American, European and Australian bloggers can mock Warman right into a straight jacket. Everyone in Canada must hear about this Warman and the HRC injustice!

    This fellow in the HRC, Richard Warman, sounds like a totally wonderful human being who doesn’t have a huge chip on his shoulder or one evil bone in his whole fair-minded body.

    He doesn’t at all sound like a sick and demented bastard who is angry and bitter because he got his butt massively kicked in those elections years ago.

    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe likes
    human rights commissions

    that violate human rights
    while claiming to protect them

    absurd thought -
    God of the Universe hates
    real freedom of speech

    an American concept
    which is NOT for Canada

    Why Does Canada Allow This?

    All real freedom starts with freedom of speech. If there is no freedom of speech, then there can be no real freedom.



Post your comments, and join the discussion!

Be aware that spam posts and purile nonsense will not be tolerated, although purility within constructive commentary is encouraged.

All comments made by Kevron are deleted without being read. Also, if you begin your comment by saying "I know you'll just delete this", it will be deleted. Guaranteed. So don't be a dumbass.