"women n***** imports knew their place" - Warman

[Mark Fournier]

Mark Fournier
Free Dominion
January 18, 2008

"Time to go back to when the women n***** imports knew their place…
And that place was NOT in public!"

- Richard Warman referring to Sen. Anne Cools -

Is Richard Warman a racist bigot, or was he "just following orders" issued by his masters at the Canadian Human Rights Commission when he posted the headlined message above on a Freedomsite forum on September 5, 2003? Whatever the answer, the same CHRC that has ruled Bible verses to be hate speech doesn't seem to consider these words to be a problem.

But they are a big problem, for both Richard Warman and the CHRC, and the rest of what he wrote only makes matters worse.

“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 n***** imports knew their place…
And that place was NOT in public!

It may be mere coincidence that Richard Warman is in fact an Anglo-German, but it is not likely a coincidence at all that the owner of the website where Richard Warman posted this racist screed against Sen. Anne Cools came under attack by the CHRC shortly after Richard Warman began his complaint-less investigation there.

Complaint-less investigations by the CHRC have been in the news lately because information has surfaced concerning CHRC operative Dean Steacy and his official exploits as 'Jadewarr'. But compared to his colleague Richard Warman, Dean Steacy is a piker. Richard Warman enters a forum swinging as '90sAREover'.

In testimony beginning January 29, 2007 Richard Warman admitted under oath in Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing (Case T1073/5405) that he was, in fact, the poster named 'lucy' who had registered on the Freedomsite (and other) forums. What he neglected to add was that 'lucy' was not his first Freedomsite screen name. He failed to mention that his complaint-less investigation of Freedomsite actually began two months before 'lucy' hit the scene, it began when he registered on the Freedomsite under the screen name '90sAREover'.

Another miscalculation by Richard Warman was the technical expertise of the target of this particular setup operation. Marc Lemire is a techie, a networking nerd, so it was not much of a problem for him to find information on both 'lucy' and '90sAREover' in the Freedomsite database.

The table reproduced below shows information found in the Freedomsite database comparing Richard Warman's admitted 'lucy' identity (left column) to information about '90sAREover' (right column). This table infomation was gathered by expert technology witness Bernard Klatt and submitted as evidence to a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on February 8, 2007.

Admitted Richard Warman/lucy info	90sAREover info
IP address = 66.185.84.204	IP address = 66.185.84.204
ISP = Rogers Cable	ISP = Rogers Cable
OS = Windows 98	OS = Windows 98
Browser = Mozilla 4.0 compatible MSIE 6.0	Browser = Mozilla 4.0 compatible MSIE 6.0
ID = lucy (lucyaubrack@yahoo.ca)	ID = 90sAREover (rob_m_simpson@hotmail.com)
setup using anonymous email account	setup using anonymous email account
on obscure message limited-interest board	on obscure message limited-interest board
logged onto message board only twice	logged onto message board only twice
very short usage time (120 min)	very short usage time (14 min)
no optional info supplied	no optional info supplied
created for single purpose	created for single purpose
used Nov. 11, 15, 23, 2003	used Sep. 5, 2003

Mr. Klatt concludes in Paragraph 71 of his affidavit:

"Based on the information provided in this affidavit, in my expert opinion, I concluded that the Freedomsite message board user accounts "90sAREover" and "lucy" are those of Richard Warman and that Richard Warman was the poster of the message headed "Cools don't belong in our Senate" posted September 5, 2003."

There is also no doubt that the CHRC was aware of this internet posting by 90sAREover because it was a part of the original complaint filed by Richard Warman, when referred to tribunal. But this posting is no longer a part of the CHRC complaint against Lemire, the CHRC dropped it from the complaint the day after Mr. Lemire won a decision to subpoena Rogers' internet records.

This posting by 90sAREover would be a slam dunk in a real court of law, so why did the CHRC drop it from the complaint?

This story is far from over because the attacks on Marc Lemire by the CHRC are ongoing and with no end in sight, as are the attacks on many other Canadians by this government agency. This story is also far from being completely told. More ugly twists and turns will be revealed as those at the center of it all give us leave to report the details.

Slowly but surely the truth is coming out.

And it isn't pretty.

[fourhorses]

[Vundo Draxon]

Warman should file a complaint against FD for the use of the N-word in this thread.

[ccrb]

<center> "Time to go back to when the women n***** imports knew their place…
And that place was NOT in public!"

- Richard Warman referring to Sen. Anne Cools - </center>

[Connie Fournier]

Warman should file a complaint against FD for the use of the N-word in this thread.

He probably will.

[ccrb]

Funny how it is. I detected that the Clintons were racist a long time ago. And this "crusader" seems to be as well, judging from that posting.

It seems to me conservatives truly treat folks as folks.. at least those I know. In the US, I keep reminding myself that the republicans (conservatives) are the party of Abraham Lincoln and that the democrats are the party of Robert KKK Byrd and voter intimidation and suppression.

Getting back to Warman, seems to be a closet racist and it's gotten out.

That's what it appears ... anyway

[TomFoolery]

I am interested in understanding what provoked this little "outburst" by the man Warren Kinsella speaks so grandly about. Are they associates ?

And if Warman's comments are argued to have not been sincere - my second question is: Since when did PROFESSIONAL LAWYERS conduct themselves in a manner that puts ends ahead of means? Especially when it involves the Apparatus of the State?

[Smaug]

Are you kidding?

Warman manufactures "evidence" and the HRC knowingly continues to use that "evidence" until they are exposed.

This is far beyond entrapment. It is a crimminal use the levers of state to tyranize people.

Warman and the HRC should be sued for this deceit and the whole lot of them jailed.

[J.B. Stone]

Are you kidding?

Warman manufactures "evidence" and the HRC knowingly continues to use that "evidence" until they are exposed.

This is far beyond entrapment. It is using the levers of state to tyranize people.

Warman and the HRC should be sued for this deceit and the whole lot of them jailed.

Yeah, it's called 'COLLUSION'.

[Smaug]

Yeah, it's called 'COLLUSION'.

I do not know what the iindictment should read for specific charges. But this demands a criminal investigation into the activities of the HRC, and a public enquiry to restore the peoples faith in their judiciary since such a tribunal is widely viewed as a judicial review.




I want blood

[WestViking]

Criminal code:

22. (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.

[Red Green]

Criminal code:

22. (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.

That's a stretch.

But IMHO Warman is the symptom, not the problem. You need to focus on the CHRC rather than the individual.

[WestViking]

Criminal code:

22. (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.

That's a stretch.

But IMHO Warman is the symptom, not the problem. You need to focus on the CHRC rather than the individual.

Is it? What protection did Warman enjoy? The answer is none as the CHRC tries to shield him through use of an escape clause.

Whether Warman was an employee or a complainant, his uttering is just as pertinent as anything else the complaint addressed. Thus Warman can be cited for hate speech.

Now the CHRC process collapses, as the complainant is one of the respondents.

[goldhound]

Criminal code:

22. (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.

That's a stretch.

But IMHO Warman is the symptom, not the problem. You need to focus on the CHRC rather than the individual.

Correct! There are ways to treat symptoms also though
I certainly hope that at least there will be vindication for Mark and Connie, as well as some recourse for their time, worry, and expences!

[Red Green]

Criminal code:

22. (1) Where a person counsels another person to be a party to an offence and that other person is afterwards a party to that offence, the person who counselled is a party to that offence, notwithstanding that the offence was committed in a way different from that which was counselled.

That's a stretch.

But IMHO Warman is the symptom, not the problem. You need to focus on the CHRC rather than the individual.

Is it? What protection did Warman enjoy? The answer is none as the CHRC tries to shield him through use of an escape clause.

Whether Warman was an employee or a complainant, his uttering is just as pertinent as anything else the complaint addressed. Thus Warman can be cited for hate speech.

Now the CHRC process collapses, as the complainant is one of the respondents.

Again, I think the criminal complaint is a stretch, especially trying to tie it back to Warman.

But again, trying to take Warman down is the wrong strategy. Warman and the CHRC need to be wedded so that they cannot be separated in the minds of Canadians. The worst case scenario is that Warman goes away while the CHRC lives to see another day.