Original Article: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20090314.WARMAN14/TPStory/National 
HATE COMPLAINT UPHELD
Activist wins rights case but catches flak
KIRK MAKIN

JUSTICE REPORTER

Leading human-rights crusader Richard Warman had his knuckles rapped yesterday by a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal for posting Internet messages intended to incite far-right hate-mongers with the aid of pseudonyms.

The blast was in a ruling that otherwise upheld Mr. Warman's complaint that postings made by Jason Ouwendyk on the website of an organization called the Northern Alliance had promoted hatred against Muslims, Hindus, Jews, gays, the mentally disabled and several other groups.

However, commissioner Edward Peter Lustig went on to state that Mr. Warman - far and away the most active producer of complaints under the Human Rights Act - tarnished his credibility by using false names to plant messages.

"He has been very successful in these cases and has garnered accolades for his work in this regard," the ruling said. "The evidence in this case of his participation on Internet sites similar to the Northern Alliance site is both disappointing and disturbing. It diminishes his credibility."

 

Mr. Warman, a lawyer with the federal government, has not lost one of his approximately two dozen Canadian Human Rights Commission complaints. He has won several monetary awards and many court orders that forced defendants to cease posting objectionable material.

"This is the 15th successful human-rights complaint in a row that I've completed to shut down the peddlers of Internet hate," Mr. Warman said in an interview. "I'm glad to see the tribunal continued its tradition of recognizing the need to address such vicious hatred head on by issuing permanent cease and desist orders."

The tribunal said yesterday that in a typical posting, Mr. Warman reprinted an anti-Semitic posting and added: "Did you know we had an election and the new cabinet hasn't been named yet? We still have scum in government but we have to wait and see which scum goes where."

In his own defence, Mr. Warman had argued that his postings were intended to roust out information about individuals who were promoting hatred - and that they did not cross the line into hate messaging.

However, the tribunal disagreed. It said that Mr. Warman need not have participated on two particular sites - Stormfront and Vanguard - "since there appears to be ample, easily obtained messages on these sites available without his involvement."

The tribunal said that Mr. Warman's actions may well have precipitated even more hate messages being posted in response to his statement. "His explanation for including other hate messages in his postings by mistake seems very weak to me," it said.

Mr. Warman said that the postings Mr. Lustig objected to were written 10 years ago "when there was no road map, so trial and error was inevitable. Constructive criticism about how to improve human-rights work is always welcome, and I read Mr. Lustig's suggestions with interest."