Connie Fournier wrote:In his original complaint, 35 separate Free Dominion posters were named in the complaint. In this latest hacked up version, he has decided that 12 of them didn't defame him after all, so the number of individuals left in his complaint is 23.
The original suit was mounted as two parts on Nov. 23, 2007 in a thread entitled Court Papers from Richard Warman
. The 'first part'
, the 'second part'
Back in 2007, Mr. Warman was at the top of his game, receiving the 'Saul Hayes Human Rights award' in June, and in July a tongue bath by Don Butler in the Ottawa Citizen
, who described him as "the bête noire of Canada's neo-Nazis"
A year later, things had changed dramatically.
Warman's 'defamation' suit against FreeDominion, launched in November of 2007, sprang from a series to threads which followed the CHRC/Gentes Complaint launched against the site, which astounded the then members of FreeDominion, bringing the activities of CHRC 'hate speech' investigations into sharp focus and much discussion.
Those discussions were typical of discussion board postings then and now, where many folks venture opinions they might not voice aloud, other than to like-minded friends - notwithstanding that 'flame wars' could erupt between posters formerly of like mind on different topics.
It simply never occurred to members herein that when the name Richard Warman was bandied about the site, the man himself would be lurking threads to screen capture comments as evidence for a defamation suit.
It's fair to say that prior to the Warman suit, FreeDominion was not a particularly 'high profile' internet website, and that prior to the CHRC/Gentes Complaint there was little, if any, attention paid to 'hate speech' persecutions in Canada.
That all changed when the Warman suit was launched, and it was the suit itself which drew outside and public attention
to comments made between FreeDominion members about Richard Warman.
The defamation suit against FreeDominion aroused tremendous discussion in cyberspace, alongside growing interest in 'human rights' hate speech persecutions by Provincial and Federal Commissions (or both, as in the case of Macleans).
By March 25, 2008, when one of the CHRC/Warman v. Citizen/Lemire hearings was held up to public examination, there were a significant number of Canadians who were aghast at the means and methods employed in pursuit of 'hatemongerers', so much so that the epithet 'anti-semitic' - once employed to great effect - ceased to be taken seriously.
The hearing itself was an astonishing insight into CHRC 'investigations', and as the layers of subterfuge used by Mr. Warman himself to acquire information for 'hate speech' persecutions was revealed through diligent investigation and careful questioning by Respondent Counsel, his reputation suffered accordingly.
Where once the means employed to 'hunt down' and persecute 'hatemongers' was done out of sight and out of mind, by 2008 every previous case which involved Richard Warman came under sharp scrutiny, largely due to the ability of citizens to crosscheck main stream media offerings with internet resources including the actual transcripts of prior hearings.
Fast forward to 2012, and Mr. Warman should be well enough aware by now that it's hardly defamatory to imply or refer online to fellow Canadians as a 'Nazi', 'Neo-Nazi', Fascist, or any other like expression. As an example, Mr. Warman's personal friend and acolyte Michael J. Murphy
commonly assigns the epithet 'Daily Nazi'
to fellow Canadians with impunity.
I note that the award now asked for is $300,000 per defendant, up substantially from the $150,000 sought in the original suit, when Mr. Warman's reputation was hardly in jeopardy from the outpourings of those he targeted for either 'hate speech' persecution, defamation suit, copyright infringement or any other legal litigation.
If Mr. Warman's reputation suffered the impact he claims from defamation, one would be hard pressed to understand why he would be invited to engage in a recent public debate
with someone as highly regarded as Nathalie Des Rosiers.
Clearly, Mr Warman's personal and professional reputation have not suffered
as a result of postings made on FreeDominion in 2007.
Though Mr. Warman was brought into ridicule and contempt on FreeDominion, who isn't ?
Even our gracious hosts, Connie and Mark, suffer ridicule and contempt herein on occasion, and Mr. Warman had the same access and opportunity as they and every other Canadian to counter those sticks and stones on FreeDominion itself, with far less trouble than a 15,000 word law suit.
Neither did FreeDominion comments expose Mr. Warman to scandal, either personally or by way of his profession as a lawyer. Whatever scandal has accrued to Mr. Warman is as a direct result of his own actions with regard to legal litigation.
It's telling that fellow Officer of the Court Douglas Christie has been 'scandalized' for years in public and press for defending the same sorts that Warman prosecutes through 'human rights' apparatus, yet the latter is referred to as a 'human rights' lawyer and the former as friend of the accused.
The claim of being 'scandalized' falls flat when, even today, Mr. Warman is held up as a guardian of 'human rights' more often than not, and though his livelihood is
threatened by removal of CHRA Sec 13(1), no reasonable person would attribute that action to FreeDominion.
Similarly, no reasonable person would agree that the posts made on FreeDominion in 2007 are worthy of whatever damages that Mr. Warman claims to have suffered - outside the boundaries of this forum - since those posts were made.
Oh, the fawning news editorials are a bit less fulsome, and a hint of criticism creeps into more recent opinion pieces voiced in the press, but that's not due to what was said 4 years ago on FreeDominion so much as what has come to light from other sources since that time - in part due to Mr. Warman's astounding gall in naming 35 posters to an internet discussion forum in a law suit.
What - that suit was supposed to 'fly under the radar' similar to 'hate speech' persecutions ? It was deliberately intended to send a shockwave through cyberspace - and draw as much attention to the postings as possible !
The number of posters named is now down to 23, and the original suit is now amended to $300k per head for those still singled out for defamation decimation litigation. Such amendments are likely intended to provoke discussion herein which can be pointed to as evidence of 'malice'.
Harry Abrams, a colleague of Mr. Warman, mentioned recently on 'Anti-Racist Canada'
, a blogsite closely associated with Mr. Warman, that "neither this anonymous poster or their [FreeDominion] comments are worth all the attention and consideration you are giving them"
The lie there is that anyone who posts to FreeDominion is 'anonymous'. Whoever posts to FreeDominion might very well be singled out for public exposure similarly to the 'John Does' Mr. Warman claims defamed him, and 'Anti-Racist Canada'
will then broadcast those names online
That doesn't mean that one should fear exposure for voicing their opinions herein, as FreeDominion archives give a much deeper understanding of the mindset of members than any comment clipped from an incendiary thread and mounted as a specimen of 'hate speech' in Canada.
BTW Connie, that video you referred to is below.
Note that Mr. Warman comments around the 3:00 mark that cream-pieing is assault, and that he himself "would never encourage someone to... be there Saturday...at the book signing event on Granville...at 1:00 o'clock with a cream pie...henh, henh, henh " David Icke and Richard Warman in Secret Rulers
The video reveals more about the icky Plaintiff than the plaintiff Mr. Icke.