Warman v Fromm decision released

[raz395]

Court Holds Richard Warman Defamed by Postings on the Internet

In a decision released on November 23, 2007, the Honourable Justice Metivier, of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice, held that Paul Fromm and the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. defamed Richard Warman in a number of postings on various Internet websites.

Richard Warman is a lawyer who has filed a number of complaints about hate speech on the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). He has been successful in all of these complaints (ten) that have been decided to-date. The Defendants were responsible for posting a number of articles critical of Mr. Warman on different websites.

Justice Metivier found that the postings were defamatory of Mr. Warman and not protected by the defence of fair comment. She stated:

"I find Mr. Fromm's dominant motive was to attack Mr. Warman personally in retaliation for Mr. Warman's use of legal processes to restrain illegal speech. The motive of malice is seen throughout the evidence, including the context of the publications, the flavours and tone of the intemperate and unnecessarily inflammatory language used, the extent of his e-mail distribution list which Mr. Fromm admitted was in the thousands, and the letters to Mr. Warman's employer, the CHRC."

In assessing damages, Justice Metivier noted the effect of instant and possibly global dissemination of defamatory material over the Internet. She awarded general and aggravated damages totaling $30,000, and ordered Mr. Fromm and CAFE to post full retractions within 10 days to all websites where he had posted the defamatory material.

Richard Warman was represented by Pam MacEachern, a lawyer with Nelligan O'Brien Payne.

Court Decision

http://www.nelligan.ca/e/PDF/Warman_Court_Decision.pdf

**********************************************************

I think all online bloggers, indy media, etc may take notice of this decision. Kinda makes you wonder about what you can and can't say.

[jbg]

Court Decision

http://www.nelligan.ca/e/PDF/Warman_Court_Decision.pdf

**********************************************************

I think all online bloggers, indy media, etc may take notice of this decision. Kinda makes you wonder about what you can and can't say.

I read this pernicious and obnoxious decision.

As a Jew, it would be strange for me to be disagreeing with the Court's decision, but I must. Free societies were not made for or built by or for cowards. Freedom enables a battle of ideas, so that better ideas win and bad ones lose. I do not believe that the Jews need the protection of people such as Richard Warman to avoid another Holocaust. The parellel doctrine of freedom of exercise of religion, and prohibition of a government-supported religion does the job just fine, thank you.

The United States, Canada and Australia were, as of 1600, new worlds largely undeveloped by Europeans. Smallpox and other diseases had already, in the case of the Americas, decimated the native civilizations, destroying their opportunity to develop a civil society, and much the same happened later in Australia. Thus, the arriving Europeans were coming on a "tabula rosa" or "clean slate". No priests, religious officials or monarchs could, as a practical matter, dictate what they did or did not do (when they tried, look to the Boston Tea Party for what happened).

Free people, in most cases pulling together, created previously unknown general prosperity. For the first time, a person's level of comfort was dictated not by birth, but by effort. Most important, except for obvious crimes, no one told them what they could do or say. Jews thrived in this environment, since their education and family dedication gaven them certain obvious advantages.

I sincerely hope that this decision is overturned. Excerpts from the equivalent US decision vouchsafing this kind of speech are posted here (link), the famous case of Times v. Sullivan, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan 376 U.S. 254, 84 S.Ct. 710, (U.S. 1964).

Edited November 25, 2007 by jbg

[buffycat]

Warman has also recently accused Free Dominion

LINK

Now, I am no big supporter of the views set forth on FD, but I am a defender of free speech (unlike Mr. Warman).

This guy is a menace.

I wonder what he would think of ScottSA's posts here wrt Muslims and 'Brown' people - or are they not the 'right' group for his one man complaint crusade?

I googled around for Warman after seeing this (I had sorta forgotten about this guy for that last few years and only really knew about his wrt his tirade against David Icke - a harmless nutter to say the least). Here's something which won't be up for long after this pretty pathetic decision by the judge above:

LINK

excerpt:

• Certain political views are outlawed, as in Soviet Russia. For instance, “the Tribunal adopted the view that messages preaching the forced deportation of non-Whites or their segregation from the White population are likely to expose members of these targeted groups to hatred or contempt by encouraging violence as a ‘proactive means of defence against any who were seen as the enemies of racial purity.’ The basic theme of Message 15’s “Critical Facts” list is that the presence and integration of non-Whites in American society is undesirable. The “Bill of Racial Rights” in Message 16 is even more explicit in its assertion that White people should have ‘the right to retain, and defend their own lands, free from immigration, or habitation by members of other races, including the right to live in all-White neighbourhoods and to send their children to all-White schools, i.e. segregation.” So, apparently, calling for racial segregation on the Internet is now an offence.”

(gosh I've heard the same sentiments voiced here over and over again!! Quick someone get Mr. Warman on the line!! So he can sue MLW too!!)

Hmmm I wonder... by linking this here will Greg now have to answer to Herr Warman and his shiney boots?

Sickening.

Free speech in Canada? Not on your life.

[jbg]

Free speech in Canada? Not on your life.

Remember, Canada is better than most countries in this regard. I myself am close to a pure free speecher.

[Pliny]

I myself am close to a pure free speecher.

Who might that be?

Sorry, that doesn't contribute much to the thread but I couldn't resist that slap to a left-wing nutter like yourself. Oops! Is that offensive? Now I feel this belongs.

[M.Dancer]

I have no problem seeing Fromm and his ilk forced to pay for his smears.....

[Moxie]

Yet another nail in the coffin of Freedom of Expression, welcome to the Nanny Nation of Canada. Lest we offend the easily offended.

[jbg]

Who might that be?

I meant to say that I am close to being a pure free speecher.

Sorry, that doesn't contribute much to the thread but I couldn't resist that slap to a left-wing nutter like yourself. Oops! Is that offensive? Now I feel this belongs.

I believe that Warman is on the side of the bourgeous, seeking to oppress the proletariat, in the never-ending dialectic of exploitation and immiseration of the working class.

Mao Mao Mao Tse Tung!!! Vive le' revolucion!!! Vive le' Quebec Libre!!! Power to the People!!!

[jbg]

I have no problem seeing Fromm and his ilk forced to pay for his smears.....

I do. Free countries are for people prepared to brave the rigors of criticism. Nanny states are for sheeple.

[Moxie]

The Human Rights Commission seems to think "Freedom of Religion" isn't applicable if hurt feelings are involved. Here are few examples of the latest victims of HRC:

Link: http://www.noapologies.ca/2007/11/human-ri...ion-a-grav.html

Snippet: On October 27, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a precedent-setting cease and desist order which forbids Jessica Beaumont from posting certain Bible verses on the Internet. If this 21-year old woman posts the wrong Bible quotation online - even if it is on an American website - she could face up to 5 years in prison.

Five years in prison for quoting Scripture.

Even if you are not a Christian, those words

Another one: http://www.noapologies.ca/2007/11/human-ri...ion-a-grav.html

Snippet: I told him that it seemed to be an abuse of the Human Rights Act for someone to try and use it as an instrument of censorship," Gray recalled. And when I said that, on the phone, there was a pause and then he said, in a somewhat astonished tone: 'But the Human Rights Act is about censorship."

Gray said, "Then it was my turn to be silent on my end, because I found that breathtaking. For the Human Rights Commission's own mediator to acknowledge that censorship was the purpose of their act."

Gray insists the "hate motivation" charge is completely unwarranted.

"I would contend that Christians are the best friends homosexuals have," he said, "because we want to see them delivered from an addiction that will shorten their lives."

Gray said he would prefer to fight the battle in a regular court rather than before the Canadian Human Rights Commission, where the usual rules of evidence don't apply.

The commission says its purpose is to administer the Canadian Human Rights Act and ensure compliance with the Employment Equity Act. "Both laws ensure that the principles of equal opportunity and non-discrimination are followed in all areas of federal jurisdiction," the panel says.

Gray contends that if the accuser Wells truly believes he is motivated by hate, the complaint should be under Section 319 of the Canada's criminal code, which carries with is the possibility of two years in jail.

But Gray said he's "perfectly willing to risk going to jail" to defend the free speech rights of Cana

Is this acceptable? NO, it's time for the HRC to be disbanded. If you feel your rights have been violated sue, or file a complaint with the Labour Board or File a Criminal Complaint with the cops.

[ScottSA]

I wonder what he would think of ScottSA's posts here wrt Muslims and 'Brown' people - or are they not the 'right' group for his one man complaint crusade?

Stop hitting on me. I feel objectified, cheap, and dirty.

[M.Dancer]

I do. Free countries are for people prepared to brave the rigors of criticism. Nanny states are for sheeple.

Libel, slander and defamation are still actionable offensi\ese on or off the net.

[Guest American Woman]

I have no problem seeing Fromm and his ilk forced to pay for his smears.....

Same here. There are limits to what one can say in magazines, newspapers, leaflets, on television, the radio, etc. This is simply extending those limits to the internet. Why someone should be able to say something on the internet that they couldn't get away with in any other media is what's difficult to understand. No one should be "free" to be able to "libel, slander, and defame."

[Pliny]

I meant to say that I am close to being a pure free speecher.

I believe that Warman is on the side of the bourgeous, seeking to oppress the proletariat, in the never-ending dialectic of exploitation and immiseration of the working class.

Mao Mao Mao Tse Tung!!! Vive le' revolucion!!! Vive le' Quebec Libre!!! Power to the People!!!

Now you might be in trouble for saying that about Mr. Warman. He is a warm man. Compassionate and understanding. He just thinks that being an ass and then suing people who call him that is the way to riches and fame. It is all an act, you will not find a more decent human being underneath that facade.

Speaking of facades, your Marxist rant, although containing some of the correct words and even made up words that would be expected in leftist rants, convinces me even more that you are a pretender, ready at any moment to betray the cause and turn into a conservative.

[Pliny]

Same here. There are limits to what one can say in magazines, newspapers, leaflets, on television, the radio, etc. This is simply extending those limits to the internet. Why someone should be able to say something on the internet that they couldn't get away with in any other media is what's difficult to understand. No one should be "free" to be able to "libel, slander, and defame."

This is true. Libel, slander and defamation of character are all impermissible and subject to legal action. Is this what occurred in this case?

[M.Dancer]

This is true. Libel, slander and defamation of character are all impermissible and subject to legal action. Is this what occurred in this case?

Read the OP

[Pliny]

I noticed this was RAZ395's first post. Perhaps he is fishing for a new legal case.

You know, I dislike socialists. I post my dislike for them around the net. Am I ok in doing that or am I not. American woman is a big time socialist, is she going to sue me?

[M.Dancer]

I noticed this was RAZ395's first post. Perhaps he is fishing for a new legal case.

You know, I dislike socialists. I post my dislike for them around the net. Am I ok in doing that or am I not. American woman is a big time socialist, is she going to sue me?

I think you are pretty well free to defame any ideology and pseudonyms....once you start using real names with slander and libel you open your self up.

[jbg]

Libel, slander and defamation are still actionable offensi\ese on or off the net.

I like the US rule, which makes it actionable for private people just minding their business, but not for public figures unless malice is shown. If I print "John Doe, my nextdoor neighbor, gets the newspaper in the morning from outside stark naked" it should be actionable. If I print "Harper is a liar" it should not be, even though that's not true.

[jbg]

Speaking of facades, your Marxist rant, although containing some of the correct words and even made up words that would be expected in leftist rants, convinces me even more that you are a pretender, ready at any moment to betray the cause and turn into a conservative.

I would never betray the proletariat for the bourgeouisie. You support the immiseration of the working class to provide economic rents for the owners of the means of production.

Personally, my heroes are Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez and Justin Trudeau.

[M.Dancer]

I like the US rule, which makes it actionable for private people just minding their business, but not for public figures unless malice is shown. If I print "John Doe, my nextdoor neighbor, gets the newspaper in the morning from outside stark naked" it should be actionable. If I print "Harper is a liar" it should not be, even though that's not true.

Harper wasn't the target...it was a private individual who works to stop neo nazis spreading hate and lies and for his effort he was targetted with a vendetta.

This isn't a free speech issue.

Edited November 27, 2007 by M.Dancer

[Pliny]

I would never betray the proletariat for the bourgeouisie. You support the immiseration of the working class to provide economic rents for the owners of the means of production.

Personally, my heroes are Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez and Justin Trudeau.

[Pliny]

Harper wasn't the target...it was a private individual who works to stop neo nazis spreading hate and lies and for his effort he was targetted with a vendetta.

This isn't a free speech issue.

You're lying, it is too about free speech! I hate you, M. Dancer.

Am I in big trouble now?

I defend free speech and prefer my enemies be known rather than they portray a friendly facade and patronizing smile. If men are restricted in voicing their thoughts their actions become clandestine and society becomes a painted veneer. Perhaps reality is a veneer to you already so there is no effect of such restrictive laws?

[M.Dancer]

You're lying, it is too about free speech! I hate you, M. Dancer.

Am I in big trouble now?

I defend free speech and prefer my enemies be known rather than they portray a friendly facade and patronizing smile. If men are restricted in voicing their thoughts their actions become clandestine and society becomes a painted veneer. Perhaps reality is a veneer to you already so there is no effect of such restrictive laws?

I don't think you get it. Saying you hate me is fine. In fact stand in line. Saying I'm crooked, dishonest or have peculiar sexual proclivities with small mammals and then publish that and distribute that in order to cause me grief with my family or business is not.

And that is what Fromm is guilty of.

[White Doors]

I don't think you get it. Saying you hate me is fine. In fact stand in line. Saying I'm crooked, dishonest or have peculiar sexual proclivities with small mammals and then publish that and distribute that in order to cause me grief with my family or business is not.

And that is what Fromm is guilty of.

tut tut tut tut...

He can say that, if it is true.

It's if it is NOT true - then he could be in trouble.

important distinction there.

And for the record, I have noted your peculiar use of the word 'fabulous' which gives me reason to pause when I ponder your sexual proclivities..