Posted 5/23/2008 AM770 CHQR
Much of this may seem like inside baseball if you haven't been following it closely. The lawsuit filed by Richard Warman against the National Post and several bloggers is technically separate from the debate over Human Rights Commissions, but in a way is very closely related to it.
I've written here, here, and here about the lawsuit, which essentially boils down to Richard Warman suing those who accused him of being the author of a racist comment posted on a website, under the psuedonym "90sareover". What makes it relevant is that Warman once worked for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and has since brought forward several so-called Section 13 complaints.
We've also learned more about how people like Warman and others on the Commission have used pseudonyms to visit or even post comments on the kinds of websites that might be subject to a complaint. Does any of this cross the line to "planting evidence"?
What makes it a separate issue is that Warman has denied writing or posting the "90sareover" comment - if that's true, then those who claimed he did may well have to answer for that. Evidence again Warman here and here, while evidence supporting him can be viewed here .
What might be most interesting about this lawsuit, even if it were to work out in Warman's favor, is everything else that will end up on the record in the process.
Ezra Levant (one of the defendant) has posted the statement of defence (here - PDF) from Free Dominion, another of the defendants. There's some very interesting background to the "90sareover" posting, and another interesting revelation that speaks to the issue of tactics:
Under the false identity "Axetogrind," the plaintiff [Richard Warman] posted in 2004 a copy of a confidential letter sent to the CHRC by a young woman, Elizabeth Lampman in settlement of a complaint the plaintiff made against her and in which she expressed her shame and denounced her previous beliefs. The plaintiff posted the letter on the neo-Nazi VNN with the preface "With friends like these..." He did so without any regard for her safety or consequences she might suffer.
More here.
UPDATE: Ezra Levant has an interesting addendum to the Elizabeth Lampman revelation. How did Richard Warman feel about exposing this young woman's mea culpa to what were no doubt angry neo-Nazis? Here's his testimony (PDF):
MS KULASZKA: …I want to put to Mr. Warman that someone in good faith wrote that letter and the next thing she knows you posted it all over the Internet on a site where she recants beliefs that probably many of these people believe in. Did it ever occur to you that this might lead to some problems for her? You're a person who is very concerned about your security. How about her security?
MR. WARMAN: You've asked a bit of a compound question, so the overall answer is no.
MS KULASZKA: You weren't concerned about her security?
MR. WARMAN: No. Again, you asked a compound question, so if you wish to break it down then I'll respond to it. But if you are just continuing with it as a global five-part question, then is answer is no...
MS KULASZKA: Did it ever occur to you that you could put her security in jeopardy?
MR. WARMAN: Sorry, can you refer me --
THE CHAIRPERSON: Page 12.
MR. WARMAN: No, I don't believe it's the type of letter that would do that.
MS KULASZKA: Then you don't believe the people who frequent this forum would ever do anything to jeopardize her security, correct?
MR. WARMAN: That's not what I said.
MS KULASZKA: The truth is, Mr. Warman, you didn't care, correct?
MR. WARMAN: If that's a real question and not a rhetorical, the answer is no.
|
