Human Rights Tribunal: Richard Warman's Conduct 'Disappointing and Disturbing'

[Stretch]

'The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal issued a stunning ruling today, calling the conduct of Richard Warman, Canada's most prolific human rights complainant, "disappointing and disturbing".
Tribunal Chair Edward Lustig condemned Warman - who holds himself out as a human rights activist - for his membership in neo-Nazi organizations and ripped into him for his frequent anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi rants. The Tribunal effectively accused Warman himself of breaking the law - pointing out that Warman's online anti-Semitism could quite possibly expose Jews to even more hatred and contempt.
That just happens to be the offence Warman claimed he was trying to enforce. And, in perhaps the most damaging finding, the Tribunal pointed out that Warman at first did not answer questions truthfully - effectively calling him an attempted perjurer.
It is the most incredible ruling I have ever read from a human rights tribunal, and it discredits Warman, his enablers at the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the censorship provision).'
Human Rights Tribunal: Richard Warman’s conduct “disappointing and disturbing” - Ezra Levant​

 

[Stretch]

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Canadian 'Human Rights' Commission investigates Richard Warman for hate speech[/FONT]​

​

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]'Richard Warman, the hate speech complainant who is personally responsible for all but two section 13 censorship prosecutions this decade, is now being investigated by the Canadian Human Rights Commission for hate speech himself. I know. It sounds crazy. Just like it sounded crazy when it was revealed that Warman and the CHRC were members of neo-Nazi organizations. [/FONT]​

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif] [/FONT]​

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Warman is a former CHRC investigator himself; and even after he left the CHRC they continued to pay his expenses to file and prosecute complaint after complaint. All this, despite the fact he's been under investigation for hate speech for three years. At the same time as Warman was a complainant, he was a defendant. [/FONT]​

​

[FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]At the same time as the CHRC was cutting him cheques to cover his expenses, they were probing his conduct.[/FONT] [FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]At the same time as he held himself out to be an anti-hate crimes activist, his own hateful speech was being probed. [/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]Are you dizzy yet?[/FONT][FONT=arial,helvetica,sans-serif]'[/FONT]​

​

Need a character reference, Rich?
​

CHRC investigates Richard Warman for hate speech - Ezra Levant

 

[Colpy]

That's wonderful! I only wish Warman had been charged.....with promoting hate and perjury.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Time to repeal section 13 of the Human Wrongs Act. Time to end this inquisition. Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant testified at a parliamentary hearing and it looks like this dated legislation will be dumped.

CBC News - Arts - Writers call for probe into human rights commission

Writers call for probe into human rights commission

Last Updated: Tuesday, October 6, 2009 | 12:53 AM ET


Two writers appeared before the justice committee on Monday, repeating their call for a repeal of a controversial section of the Human Rights Act, and asking for a probe into the Canadian Human Rights Commission.


Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn are also calling for the elimination of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which allows the commission to investigate allegations of hate speech.


"I think a very practical, doable thing for this committee and for parliament would be to repeal section 13 of the Human Rights Act altogether, to leave any hate speech prosecutions to the Criminal Code with its proper checks and balances, and frankly, to bring in a forensic audit to the Human Rights Commission to examine the allegations that I have made," Levant told the commission.


Levant is alleging that members of the commission belong to neo-Nazi organization, an accusation he made in July in a National Post column.
Some committee members, like New Democrat MP Joe Comartin, seemed incredulous at the accusation.


"I think I like everybody sitting at this table are at some disadvantage, Mr. Levant and Mr. Steyn, in terms of the accusations that you're making against members of the commission and their staff."


Levant offered to give MPs documents to back his accusations and come back to testify once they had read them.


Levant was subject of a complaint under the act for reprinting the provocative Danish Muhammad cartoons in his magazine in 2006. He published the controversial cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad in the now defunct Western Standard, arguing that they were "the central fact in the largest news story of the month."


A complaint was launched by the Canadian Islamic Congress against Steyn for an article he wrote entitled "The Future Belongs to Islam" and posted on the magazine's website in October 2006.


The article, an excerpt of a book authored by Steyn, talks about Islam being a threat to North American institutions and values. It used statistics to show higher birth rates plus immigration mean Muslims will outnumber followers of other religions in Western Europe.


Both complaints were eventually dismissed.


But Levant and Steyn argue that they should not have been investigated in the first place.


Steyn said it is hard defend against a complaint to the human rights commission.


"Truth is no defence so you can make a statement, every aspect of which is factually accurate, and if certain people decide they are going to be offended by it, the factual accuracy of that is irrelevant."


Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh asked why they were recommending the abolition of section 13, instead of amending it.


"So you believe there then should be nothing between absolute free speech and the Criminal Code provisions," he asked.


But Steyn said society can deal with hate speech.


"I prefer social disapproval, activist parents, a school board firing, to a law restricting what individuals can say and think."