Breaking News from Canada.

By The Armorer on April 9, 2008 | | Comments (33)

Perhaps some of our Canadian readers, especially those of the Center-sorta-left persuasion, like Alan of GenX@40 will offer up their thoughts?

From Kathy Shaidle via The Flea.

Hello everyone,

I wanted you to be the first to know that some Canadian conservative bloggers are being sued by the fellow who Mark Steyn has called "Canada's most sensitive man" -- serial "human rights" complainant Richard Warman.

The suit names:

• Ezra Levant (famous for the YouTube video of his confrontation with the Canadian Human Rights tribunal after he published the "Mohammed Cartoons")

• FreeDominion.ca (Canada's answer to FreeRepublic.com)

• Kate McMillan of SmallDeadAnimals.com

• Jonathan Kay of the National Post newspaper and its in-house blog

• and me, Kathy Shaidle of FiveFeetOfFury.com


More details at my blog, FiveFeetOfFury.

Richard Warman used to work for the notorious Human Rights Commission, which runs the "kangaroo courts" who've recently charged Mark Steyn with "flagrant Islamophobia".

Richard Warman has brought almost half these cases single-handledly, trying to get websites he doesn't like shut down.

He's also sued libraries for carrying books he doesn't approve of.

PLUS Richard Warman wants to ban international websites he doesn't like from being seen by Canadians.

Sites like yours.

The folks named in his new law suit are the very bloggers who have been most outspoken in their criticism of Warman's methods.

>WE NEED YOUR HELP!

The Canadian Human Rights Commission says "freedom of speech is an American concept" they refuse to recognize.

Some Canadians DO believe in freedom of speech, and take our inspiration from our great American neighbors.

I for one "pledge my life, my fortune, and my sacred honor" to the cause of free speech.

I vow to battle Richard Warman and his leftist supporters whatever it costs.

Thank you in advance for anything you can do to support our cause.

We hope you'll join our battle!

As Ezra Levant notes:

Warman’s not just suing me. He’s suing some of the biggest names in the Canadian blogosphere – from Kate McMillan of Small Dead Animals to Kathy Shaidle of Five Feet of Fury (or, Five Feet of Furry, as the lawsuit says on page 2), to Free Dominion, the largest conservative chat site in Canada. Warman’s goal is breathtaking in its chutzpah: he wants to muzzle the Canadian conservative Internet. It’s not just his goal – it’s the goal of the CHRC itself, and its friends at the Canadian Jewish Congress, who have stated their goal is to “tame” the Internet – or at least those voices they disagree with. It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if the CJC was bankrolling Warman’s lawsuit – they’ve done joint legal work together before, and Warman’s number one defender is on the CJC’s legal committee. The CJC hates conservatives, and this would be a way for them to do damage to the conservative blogosphere without taking the political flak for it.

Share This Article:

Categories:

33 Comments

By kat-missouri on April 9, 2008 11:27 AM
what the helk? Well, there ought to be an outcry, a huge one and some definitive support across the internet. This is BS.
 
By Flea on April 9, 2008 11:30 AM
Thanks for this, John. Freedom of speech is a Canadian value. It looks as though we are going to have to fight for it.
 
By Blazingcatfur on April 9, 2008 11:59 AM
Thanks for the support! As a Canuck I can tell you we will not back down to these fascists.
 
By BillT on April 9, 2008 12:15 PM
Freedom of speech is not only a Canadian value, its principle has been upheld by several Canadian Supreme Court decisions. Do the googling -- I found too many to link, but there's a nice recap of the law here. Warman's take on free speech is like Stallone's take on handgun ownership: It's *my* right -- not yours." Sic 'im, Cousins!
 
By fdcol63 on April 9, 2008 12:30 PM
Tyranny of the minority, indeed. I won't be moving to Canada any time soon.
 
By Mike S on April 9, 2008 12:33 PM
So countersue. Swear our harassment complaints. Bring heat to bear. Don't just talk about it.
 
By S. Weasel on April 9, 2008 12:38 PM
I realize that a full-on resistance is the right way to go here, but I'm a weasel. For those of you under threat, isn't it also worth considering setting up a blog or website on American soil and letting them have both barrels anonymously? Anything this Yank can do to aid and abet... I don't think politicians have any idea how hard it is to silence a voice on the internet.
 
By Cannoneer No. 4 on April 9, 2008 12:56 PM
Insta-lanched. War of Ideas/ Blogospheric Restrictive Measures through Lawfare/ 5GW implications making my head hurt.
 
By RightGirl on April 9, 2008 1:05 PM
John, Now you see why I want to live in your spare room? RG
 
By Justthisguy on April 9, 2008 1:11 PM
Hmm, should we tell Mr. Warman about JPFO? That'll make his head explode. I dunno, RG, but there's still some room down here under the workbench.
 
By King John on April 9, 2008 1:22 PM
Well, that whole "Freedom of Speech" thing, that's an American construct. Naturally, it has no weight in Canada. BTW, has anyone seen my nobles? They wanted me to sign something.
 
By grant on April 9, 2008 1:22 PM
I'm convinced that the CHRC subsists nose to ass with Warman and vice versa. Neither can justify their existence without the other's very real malfeasance. Mutually they wantonly and willfully set out to destroy lives and livelihoods. If their actions were to be thoroughly investigated, multiple charges could and should be laid against most if not all involved in this nightmarish fiasco.
 
By grant on April 9, 2008 1:25 PM
I'm convinced that the CHRC subsists nose to ass with Warman and vice versa. Neither can justify their existence without the other's very real malfeasance. Mutually they wantonly and willfully set out to destroy lives and livelihoods. If their actions were to be thoroughly investigated, multiple charges could and should be laid against most if not all involved in this nightmarish fiasco.
 
By King John on April 9, 2008 1:27 PM
Well, that whole "Freedom of Speech" thing, that's an American construct. Naturally, it has no weight in Canada. BTW, has anyone seen my nobles? They wanted me to sign something.
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 9, 2008 1:43 PM
And, the Great Hall Echo proves to be no respector of boundaries!
 
By Flea on April 9, 2008 2:20 PM
The InstaMan wonders why we don't make counter-claims and file our own nuisance human rights complaints. His brain probably cannot compute the fact the complainant and the investigator are often the same person. The situation is literally too Kafkaesque for an honourable man to grasp at first glance. There is also at least one case of a human rights claim being dismissed because it had been submitted using both sides of the page instead of being single-sided. Problem is the submission was sent by fax... It was either Mark Steyn or Ezra Levant who called it the first two-sided fax in history.
 
By J.P. on April 9, 2008 2:27 PM
don't you mean Richard "fascist" Warman?
 
By ldd on April 9, 2008 2:38 PM
What? re: the fax not allowed on paper written on the back of? Well perhaps if it was not 'clear' and 'readable', even so, wouldn't a quick photocopy with a blank white sheet of paper behind each page have fixed that in a jiffy...and produced a one sided source doc to fax and a copy to boot? Hey KAT from MIS... Long time no see at ITM. ~leap
 
By kat-missouri on April 9, 2008 2:44 PM
Hey. I still read there. Just don't post as often. working, reading and posting here kind of uses up my time a bit. But nice seeing you again!
 
By Blake Kirk on April 9, 2008 2:44 PM
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the complete English text of which may be found here, states in Article 2: 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: a) freedom of conscience and religion; b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and d) freedom of association. [emphasis added] As I read the document, the Charter is as fundamental a document to Canadian law as the Constitution is to the laws of the United States. Which means that plaintiffs in this suit are seeking to deprive Canadians of fundamental rights, which the courts are forbidden from doing. The Canadian courts should dismiss this suit with prejudice, on the grounds that it fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
 
By TBinSTL on April 9, 2008 2:57 PM
Blake- From my brief look at Canadian documents, there are loopholes large enough to drive a skidder(for our north of the border friends) through. You think we've got a problem nailing things down because of our famous "rubber clause".... I still can't figure out if there is any recourse for collecting costs in a successful defense....
 
By Bilbeach on April 9, 2008 3:40 PM
Of course this is serious stuff, but if ANY of this mess screws up the Stanley Cup Playoffs I am coming north of the border and knocking a few heads!
 
By John of Argghhh! on April 9, 2008 3:44 PM
Bilbeach - I think you're safe. There might well be a very polite governmental overthrow should hockey be impacted.
 
By RightGirl on April 9, 2008 4:00 PM
John, I have read your terms of "rescue" and I accept! Small price to pay... RG [Snerk! I'm guessing SWWBO will have something to say...]
 
By McGehee on April 9, 2008 4:37 PM
My trackback attempt failed. Warman can click my name to see what I think of him.
 
By Cris on April 9, 2008 6:04 PM
Why don't you just tell them to F*** off?
 
By Louise on April 9, 2008 6:50 PM
Leap. Kat. Old friends. We live in interesting times.
 
By Leigh Patrick Sullivan on April 9, 2008 7:06 PM
Americans should look upon this mess up here as a warning - covet your freedom of speech. I'm surprised that more blogs weren't named. Perhaps Warman is saving them for the next round - mine included? http://www.themoderateseparatist.com/2008/04/richard-warmans-censorship-sideshow.html
 
By Blazingcatfur on April 9, 2008 7:32 PM
Please liberate our beseiged nation, I beseech you.
 
By kat-missouri on April 9, 2008 9:51 PM
It is wonderful to see you again. Hope to see you around and I'll try to get that way again.
 
By Dave on April 9, 2008 11:01 PM
Richard Warman's not your friend, guy.
 
By McGehee on April 10, 2008 12:22 AM
Richard Warman's not your friend, guy.
Heh. That puts me in mind of the joke "blonde dictionary" definition of an enema. Oops. I think I may have hurt Warman's feelings again.
 
By arctic_front on April 12, 2008 4:54 PM
One very important point that some of the other Canadian commenters' have missed, is that sec. 13.1 of the Human Rights Act is that the 'bar' is set pretty low, much lower than a criminal proceeding as far as burden of proof and court proccedure. As hard as it is to comprehend, TRUTH is not a defense. FACT is not a defense. Once called before the HRC, you are ASSUMED guilty, and, as far as previous cases have gone, (100% conviction) No amount of supporting defensive evidence seems to affect the outcome. If you are brought before the HRC, you are pre-judged GUILTY before the trial or hearing, even starts. Remember, 100% conviction, no appeal. As for Warman, he used to work for the HRC, then resigned to work along side them as a 'professional' plaintiff. He, along with current officers of the HRC have been proven to plant 'hate' messages on targeted websites and then use their own planted posts as 'evidence' of hate, whereby using those 'proofs' to bring those sites to task at the HRC. 100% conviction-rate. Freedom of speech, wot? Please, please help support the bloggers! They are on the front lines of a very important fight we all need to support. Thank you! P.S. All those bloggers have really awesome content, so go pay them a visit!