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

[fourhorses]

here is a very interesting tidbit, considering what we learned today

Richard Warman's E-Mail with CHRC still Active

As of January 12, 2007, Richard.Warman@CHRC-CCDP.CA was still accepting incoming e-mail and e-mails were not rejected by the CHRC's mail server.

When E-Mail is sent to a mailbox that is not active and receiving e-mail, the CHRC's mail server sends back a response saying the E-Mail account is not valid.

For an example, an E-Mail was sent to "Eddie Taylor" a former lawyer with the CHRC who was fired in 2001 for saying to the Globe and Mail that the CHRC ".. is in need of a complete overhaul and had lost its moral authority." E-Mail sent to Mr. Taylor received the following response:

Reporting-MTA: dns; mailserver.chrc-ccdp.ca
Arrival-Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2007 19:46:48 -0500 (EST)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; eddie.taylor@CHRC-CCDP.CA
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host 172.16.0.29[172.16.0.29] said: 550 No such recipient



UPDATE:

As of June 18, 2007, Mr. Warman's CHRC e-mail address has been set to forward to an external e-mail account. (Perhaps Mr. Warman's Yahoo account?)

The response now from the CHRC's mail server is:

Reporting-MTA: dns; mailserver.chrc-ccdp.ca
Arrival-Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 23:42:57 -0400 (EDT)
Final-Recipient: rfc822; Richard.Warman@CHRC-CCDP.CA
Action: failed
Status: 5.0.0
Diagnostic-Code: X-Postfix; host 172.16.0.29[172.16.0.29] said: 551 Forwarding to remote hosts disabled

http://www.richardwarman.com/chrc.html

This would seem to say that the CHRC began fforwarding Waarman's email to another external email address. Does this mean that the CHRC was giving Warmaan info that was coming into the CHRC (via Warman's internal email) out to someone else (Warman).

If so, why ?
Why would a government investigative agency pass on confidential info ?


.

This whole CHRC thing gets uglier .

[TomFoolery]

Anyone remember this quote from a writer and former citizen of the Soviet Union?

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone?

But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.

Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

This certainly fits the general notion "racketeering" - except this racket is through a different vestige of organized crime - the kind that appears from time to time in GOVERNMENTS.

[DrWright]

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

I seem to remember hearing that the only KKK MP in Canadian history was a liberal.

[Frankie]

This would seem to say that the CHRC began fforwarding Waarman's email to another external email address. Does this mean that the CHRC was giving Warmaan info that was coming into the CHRC (via Warman's internal email) out to someone else (Warman).

If so, why ?
Why would a government investigative agency pass on confidential info ?

The plot's so thick were gonna need a few dozen grinders to get to the bottom of it.

I'd say they've been caught out. What else could explain it?

[Mark Fournier]

The plot's so thick were gonna need a few dozen grinders to get to the bottom of it.

The article at the beginning of this thread was just the introduction to the topic, Frankie.

I've got a lot more and I'll be writing about it soon.

[kowalski]

Bid deal Warman called Cools the N word. Maybe he is planning on different work especially with the Hollywood Writers strike ongoing.

[BlawBlaw]

Question from an American about "hate speech" laws in Canada: Why not just use a US website hosting company and have a US citizen residing in the US as the administrator? Wouldn't that put you completely beyond the reach of the Canadian censors? I can start a website about Canada and say whatever I want about anyone I want. Here in the USA, we can still say almost anything as long as we don't directly threaten or incite violence. Even when threats and violence are involved, the US government has to prove it in a criminal court, not an administrative hearing that the prosecution always wins.
Even more important, most Americans support the right of free speech even when we find that particular speech repugnant. Bush and the neocons are trying to change that, using 9/11 as the tired old excuse, but I don't see them succeeding any time soon.
Thanks,
-Richard

Even if the website is in another country, your ass can get prosecuted in Canada if that is where it is.

[BlawBlaw]

The reference to section 22(1) of the Criminal Code is interesting.

...

I wonder if the case is quite as weak as is being assumed? I suppose we can't know the answer unless the question goes before a court - i.e. a real court, not one of these tribunals.

It is an argument by analogy because human rights "offences" are civil, not criminal. However, once I found out about this I posted that acting as an agent provocateur would likely mean having to break the very law that one was, ostensibly, trying to support when rooting out these fiendish hate speech people by tricking them into saying something hateful by saying hateful things to them! Additionally, it strikes me as a denial of natural justice if they are active members of the commission itself, and if not then they should get nailed as being joint and severally liable for whatever damages flow from their speech.

[cinyc]

The full transcripts of the Lemire CHRC hearing are available <a href="http://www.richardwarman.com/transcripts.html">here</a>. (And is a good read for what Warman has actually ADMITTED posting on Stormfront and other websites).

But on page 771 of his <a href="http://www.richardwarman.com/transcripts/2007-01-Marc_Lemire/2007-02-01_-_CHRT.pdf">February 1, 2007 testimony</a>, Warman specifically DENIES signing on Freedomsite as "90sAREover". That is - he denies making the statement about Senator Cools.

So I'm back to my initial position - the affidavit makes me think there's an awful lot of smoke here. But without knowing more about how Rogers assigns IP addresses and without knowing what's in Rogers' access logs, I just can't be 100% certain that Mr. Warman posted as 90sAREover.

[backhoe]

Whenever I am phoned to take out a subscription
to one of the mainstream newspapers I have a
speech ready. I tell the salesperson exactly what
I think of their birdcage liner. I stress that we
know the paper is biased because of what is omitted
as well as the slant on what they do print.
One way to give your opinion is to cancel the
subscription, although we would miss the sports
section.

I haven't received a newspaper for years. I just go on FD or the internet sites, or the TV or radio

Miss Emily and I have known some really good times...

...and some really hard times.

1999, it was for us- we canceled every subscription, every newspaper, periodical, magazine, and broadsheet, to save money.

Got on the internet- via Juno- a free service provider-- and discovered a whole new world of information. Some good, some bad- but a lot more of it than was ever available via the Dead Tree Media.

Haven't looked back, since then...

( But, to quote Satchel Page?

"Don't look back...
...something might be gaining on ya'... " )

[Maikeru]

I've met many politicians in my lifetime. Without a doubt, Senator Cools is one of the classiest.

Senator Cools visited Vancouver along with then-CPC MP's Art Hanger, Stephen Harper and John Duncan to attend a 'Defend Marriage Trust' dinner with guests of the 'Canadian Alliance for Social Justice and Family Values Association'.

This so-called 'far-right' community group is the stuff of nightmares for folks in Canada who favour same-sex marriage...

[Maikeru]

double post

[Connie Fournier]

So I'm back to my initial position - the affidavit makes me think there's an awful lot of smoke here. But without knowing more about how Rogers assigns IP addresses and without knowing what's in Rogers' access logs, I just can't be 100% certain that Mr. Warman posted as 90sAREover.

If it was just the IP address that they were using as evidence, I would feel the same way. However, if you look at the chart from the first post that I am reposting below, you will see that, aside from the userid, ever feature that the CHRT expert compared between 90sAreOver and Lucy (Warman's admitted id) are a perfect match.

Freedomsite was a small forum. The chances that two people would come in within a short period of time with not only the same IP address, but with identical operating systems, is a huge stretch.

And, it only adds to the weight of the argument when one considers that the IP address in question was a known IP address for Richard Warman because he had been using it to post on other sites as well.

I am using Cogeco cable and I have had the same IP address since we got it. Mark once had the same Shaw cable address for three years. Cable IP addresses tend to only change if you make certain changes to your computer setup, or if you request a new one. That is why banning someone based on their IP address is so effective if the person is using cable.

In light of what CHRT expert believes, the question has to be, "What would a reasonable person believe?"

<center> <table border=1 cellpadding=5><tr><td><center>Admitted Richard Warman/lucy info</center></td><td><center>90sAREover info</center></td></tr> <tr><td>IP address = 66.185.84.204</td><td>IP address = 66.185.84.204</td></tr> <tr><td>ISP = Rogers Cable</td><td>ISP = Rogers Cable</td></tr> <tr><td>OS = Windows 98</td><td>OS = Windows 98</td></tr> <tr><td>Browser = Mozilla 4.0 compatible MSIE 6.0</td><td>Browser = Mozilla 4.0 compatible MSIE 6.0</td></tr> <tr><td>ID = lucy (lucyaubrack@yahoo.ca)</td><td>ID = 90sAREover (rob_m_simpson@hotmail.com)</td></tr> <tr><td>setup using anonymous email account</td><td>setup using anonymous email account</td></tr> <tr><td>on obscure message limited-interest board</td><td>on obscure message limited-interest board</td></tr> <tr><td>logged onto message board only twice</td><td>logged onto message board only twice</td></tr> <tr><td>very short usage time (120 min)</td><td>very short usage time (14 min)</td></tr> <tr><td>no optional info supplied</td><td>no optional info supplied</td></tr> <tr><td>created for single purpose</td><td>created for single purpose</td></tr> <tr><td>used Nov. 11, 15, 23, 2003</td><td>used Sep. 5, 2003</td></tr> </table> </center>

[DrWright]

So I'm back to my initial position - the affidavit makes me think there's an awful lot of smoke here. But without knowing more about how Rogers assigns IP addresses and without knowing what's in Rogers' access logs, I just can't be 100% certain that Mr. Warman posted as 90sAREover.

Cinyc theres a long human rights tribunal stalinist tradition of presumed guilt, why stop for Warman?

2 ip's the same, 2 poop disturbers, good enough for me.

[Edward Kennedy]

The full transcripts of the Lemire CHRC hearing are available <a href="http://www.richardwarman.com/transcripts.html">here</a>. (And is a good read for what Warman has actually ADMITTED posting on Stormfront and other websites).

But on page 771 of his <a href="http://www.richardwarman.com/transcripts/2007-01-Marc_Lemire/2007-02-01_-_CHRT.pdf">February 1, 2007 testimony</a>, Warman specifically DENIES signing on Freedomsite as "90sAREover". That is - he denies making the statement about Senator Cools.

So I'm back to my initial position - the affidavit makes me think there's an awful lot of smoke here. But without knowing more about how Rogers assigns IP addresses and without knowing what's in Rogers' access logs, I just can't be 100% certain that Mr. Warman posted as 90sAREover.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Crybaby's word is not worth the hollow words spoken as denials or the paper it is written on.

Would you expect for example, the words of a thief, a rapist, a murderer to be believable/credible?

So why would anyone who did what he did expect to have any credibility? Only damned fools would believe such a person.