|
Among the many fascinating nuggets in Joseph Brean's epic National Post front-pager is this passage apropos the all but sole beneficiary of the Section 13 "hate message" provision of Canada's Human Rights Code:
They point to Mr. Lemire's accuser, former human rights commission employee Richard Warman, who is also the complainant in more than a dozen other section 13.1 cases -- more by far than any other complainant ever -- and wonder how one man could be so widely aggrieved. They also note his 100% success rate.
Liberal MP Keith Martin, who has put forth a motion to scrap section 13.1, says it seems unfair that "someone could be using the power of the state for their own private initiative. I don't want to use the word pogrom, it would be too strong. One person's private crusade."
Mr. Martin describes the legal test of "likely to expose" as "a hole you could drive a Mack truck through," and said it is being applied by "rogue commissions where a small number of people [are] determining what Canadians can and can't say."
Far from backpedaling on his campaign, Keith Martin is getting tougher and tougher on Section 13. Like most fairminded people, the more he looks into the "human rights" racket the more affronted he is. Richard Warman, the CHRC's serial plaintiff, noted pie inciter and member of Stormfront, can't be happy that the charges leveled at him by bloggers are now being repeated by Members of Parliament in the national press. I wonder if he will sue - or threaten to sue - Dr Martin, as he has sued - or threatened to sue - everyone else who disrespects him.
Dr Martin is quite right, however. Consider, for example, this case:
Richard Warman is a lawyer in Ottawa. On February 2, 2002, Mr. Warman filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission against Fred Kyburz. Mr. Warman's complaint alleged that Mr. Kyburz communicated messages through his Internet web site, messages which expose identifiable groups to hatred or contempt, in violation of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Mr. Warman's complaint was subsequently amended, with leave of the Tribunal, to include the allegation that Mr. Kyburz retaliated against Mr. Warman for having filed his human rights complaint, contrary to section 14.1 of the Act.
By "retaliated", the judge is referring to certain postings at Mr Kyburz's widely unread site following the complaint. Richard Warman was not a member of any of the "identifiable groups", but that's the great thing about the "human rights" racket. You can write something about Jews, Muslims, gays or transsexuals that prompts not a single complaint from a Jew, Muslim, gay or transsexual, but if Mr Warman decides to get upset on their behalf it's a goldmine. In the end, the Tribunal ordered Mr Kyburz to pay Mr Warman $35,000, including $20,000 for "pain and suffering".
"Pain and suffering"? Consider this passage:
Mr. Warman signed up to join the web forum, using a false name, and, as a result, was able to access the information posted there.
Richard Warman, a private citizen not a law enforcement officer empowered to conduct undercover operations, voluntarily becomes a member of a hate website, then gets his former colleagues in the government to investigate the site, and collects 35 grand - tax-free - for his "pain and suffering".
What does this racket have to do with "human rights"?
In free societies who value the integrity of the justice system, it would be Mr Warman and his chums at the CHRC who would be under investigation. You go, Keith!
|
