Human Rights Gestapo

farcical as a "law" against that ever so sacred liberal cow called 'tolerance'.

Ordinarily, so-called "liberals" will beat you mercilessly over the head with

wild claims of "your intolerance" over a host of issues, even when it involves

the intolerance of the abortion of late term foetuses, by crushing their skulls

(more on this below). However this latest article shows a new shift in twisted

Evidently, the fact that three or more adults would enter marriage contracts

smear the relationship with problems already associated with standard marriages,

exclusivity, family life, security and enjoyment of their citizenship". However

the report gives no explanation for how it does that, especially given the fact

It is difficult, in any case, to believe the Liberal government (who commissioned

the report that was paid for by tax payers) really care about the rights of children.

It was, after all, the Liberal party that repeatedly blocked the recommendations of

a house and senate committee report [For the sake of the Children] for years and

The only way polygamy could be illegal, or a violation of anyone's rights, is if it

violates any of the common laws already in force for all contracts. For example,

the Liberal government of BC is violating the rights of motorists by using force to

make them buy insurance from their exclusive company - ICBC. But for adults to

mutually agree on how they wish to arrange their family arrangements is the right

of free people. Abuse is a totally separate issue to that of the number of spouses

Isn't the Liberal party the same party that "legalized" the idea that people of the same

gender can be legally married? Why no concern about the rights of children here?

It seems that only these "neo-liberals" can understand this incoherent maze of

understanding fundamental tenets of common law justice. This is not something any

How do you know you no longer live in a free country? There are many ways... but

one obvious example is the infringement of the right to speak the truth, and oppose

MR. PAUL FROMM: Hello. My name is Paul Fromm. I am the Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.

I am here to share some serious concerns about the role of the Canadian Human Rights Commission in its attack on the Internet.

In a National Post poll last November, 91 per cent of Canadians said that free speech was the freedom that they cherished most.

Indeed, free speech is vital to any democracy. However, powerful forces using taxpayers money are working hard to throttle the Internet.

Bill C-36, Canada's Anti-terrorism Act granted control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. In previous Internet cases, they have ruled in weird or wellian fashion that truth is no defence.

This is a shocking departure from Anglo-Saxon common law which sets truth as the very core of legal proceedings.

Since then this body has made war on political dissent. Home-grown dissidents, many small, poorly funded people expressing their views on their web sites have become the victims of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

One of their key aims, it seems, is further persecution of free thinkers on the Internet.

Richard Warman, a lawyer with the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been attacking the web sites of tax critics and opponents of Israel. He has approached Internet service providers, or ISPs in both Canada and the U.S. seeking to have them pull the plug on web sites he finds offensive.

When called an enemy of free speech on the Northern Alliance web site,Warman sued the Alliance in Small Claims Court.

In other instances, he has written letters to try to get meetings of dissidents like Tom Kennedy, Dave Lindsay and David Icke cancelled.

We are especially concerned by the activities of Mr. Warman. Sometimes acting on behalf of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and sometimes saying he is acting on his own, Warman at times acts like a one-man thought police agency. For instance, on May 5, 2002, he wrote a letter to Reverend David Watson of Central United Church in Weston, Ontario, urging that he cancel a booking by tax protestor Tom Kennedy of Ottawa who is here with me this afternoon.

The meeting was duly cancelled..

Last Saturday in Victoria, B.C.., Warman spoke to a small meeting where he joined a panel of others intent on gagging free expression on the Internet. Asked by a member of the audience about such web sites as the Heritage Front and B.C. White Pride, which Warman hadn't mentioned in his talk, the Ottawa-based censor warned -- they just moved to a U.S. server-- "mark my words, their time is coming". What gives this public servant the right to threaten free expression of political opinions by his fellow Canadians?

A recent access to information request in British Columbia reveals that in 2002 Mr. Warman spoke to numerous libraries across Canada, including those in Vancouver, Victoria, Toronto and Kelowna demanding that they remove copies of a book by British New Age writer David Icke entitled "Children of the Matrix".

Warman disputed some of Icke's criticisms of his censorship activities. We find such book banning efforts reprehensible.

Referring to Mr. Icke during an interview with the British Newspaper The Independent, Mr. Warman demanded, "What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?" We might ask, "Who gives Mr. Warman the right to determine who may or may not speak or post their views on the Internet?"

This prominent and powerful operative for the Canadian Human Rights Commission seems to have a real problem allowing people with views different from his the right to express those views.

We, therefore, question his fitness to play a key role in determining who can and cannot post their views on the Internet.

Canada needs more open and public debate. All shades of political opinions should be heard and debated. There should be no sacred cows.

One of the most open and free media is the Internet.. It is accessible to the average man. Yet, this is the very medium, censors like Richard Warman, are trying to throttle. In particular, we protest the use of taxpayers money to restrict freedom of speech.

There is something sad and demeaning when taxpayers dollars are used to restrict what free men and women may say and write or read.

Freedom of speech in Canada will be a lot safer if the control freaks of the Canadian Human Rights Commission were sent packing and this censorship agency were closed for good.

We say, "Hands off the Internet. Give free speech a chance. Shame on the thought police."

I would like for the rest of the conference this afternoon to introduce you to three people up here. Jason Ouendyke is the Leader of the Northern Alliance. He has had problems with Richard Warman, which he will tell us about briefly. Melissa Guille is the Leader of the Canadian Heritage Alliance in London. Tom Kennedy is a noted Ottawa-based tax opponent, and he, too, has had problems with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

If I could start with Jason, could you just briefly explain your dealings with the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

MR. JASON OUENDYKE: Okay. My name is Jason Ouendyke. I am the spokesperson for the London- based group the Northern Alliance.

We came under fire by Richard Warman recently this summer. After we listed him on our web site, on a page with about 18 other people, as an enemy of free speech -- we firmly believe that he is an enemy of free speech -- he is suing us for libel for having listed him as such.

Now, the reason we listed him as an enemy of free speech is because of his litigious behaviour with people like Mr. Kennedy and Fred Kyburz is out of Alberta and David Icke from England, among others.

So, we did a bit of research on him and we found that he is suing people, trying to take sites down on the Internet and we listed him as an enemy of freedom as a result. He is suing us for $10,000 currently in Ottawa in Small Claims Court. The outcome of that has yet to be determined.

MR. PAUL FROMM: Thank you very much, Jason. So, for posting an opinion, the same sort of opinion that might have appeared in editorial pages in newspapers across this country, Jason and the Northern Alliance, his site has come under attack and people who are just ordinary Canadians find themselves in front of the courts for nothing more serious than expressing their opinion.

This is being done with taxpayers money. I find that reprehensible.

I would like to introduce Tom Kennedy, who probably needs no introduction to Ottawa audiences.

Tom, can you explain your problems with Mr. Warman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

MR. TOM KENNEDY: Thank you, Paul.

My problems with Mr. Warman go back to 1999 when I first met Richard Warman.

As a matter of fact, I invited him to my apartment to view a video about David Icke, before David Icke made his first visit to the Ottawa area.

Richard Warman came into my apartment, sat on my couch to watch the video and the next day I got notice from the school where the meeting was scheduled to be that it would be cancelled because of telephone calls, faxes and emails claiming that David Icke was anti-semitic. That was the beginning of my introduction to Richard Warman. That goes back to 1999.

He has basically been harassing me for the last five years. A couple of more recent things. In April 2002 we cancelled a meeting in Toronto. He tried to cancel a second one, but the people who hosted the meeting didn't buckle under it. I have copies of those letters that I can share with anybody in the media that wants to look at them.

And then those meetings were not only from myself, but for people like Jean-Serge Brisson who was Leader of the Libertarian Party of Canada -- he was one of my co-speakers. A second time was Dave Lindsay.

So not only was he affecting myself, but other people who were doing their service to other Canadians by giving them information.

So, we did an interesting thing in the summer of 2002. Dave Lindsay and myself charged Richard Warman with three counts of slander and libel under Section 301 of the Criminal Code, I believe it was. Those charges went through the Ottawa Courthouse for the appearances. Then eventually the Crown withdrew the charges.

But we even got a mandamus order from a higher judge because the first J.P. didn't think the evidence was sufficient. So Dave Lindsay knew how to put in a mandamus order. We did that. The mandamus order was ruled.

I remember the judge's word, he says, "I am convinced." And he wrote up an order that he should be charged with those three charges.

So I was very curious that after the manouveuring with the crown attorneys and the Ottawa Courthouse, those charges were withdrawn. He wasn't acquitted, they were just, like, withdrawn. There was no solution.

Now, let me go on up to the fall of 2002. In the fall of 2002, Richard Warman issued a -- made a lawsuit against myself as a bookseller, David Icke as the book writer, and about 10 other booksellers across the country regarding the book called "Children of the Matrix".

That is a $1 million lawsuit and that is in the court in Toronto. It is still there in progress.

Now, let me fast forward ahead to March 2003. I got a phone call on Sunday night, March 16, 2003, from Dave Lindsay who lives in Alberta. He said that Fred Kyber had a hearing at the Human Rights Commission the next day. He said Fred Kyber wasn't going to appear, but would I go down and just
observe.

I went to that Human Rights Commission. I sat in that audience for two days. I was the only Canadian citizen sitting in that quasi- court watching what was taking place.

Richard Warman was there with his lawyer, three judges at the panel. I sat in the seat at the back and I made copious notes. Richard Warman knows me. He knew that I was there.

After the tribunal finished, I wrote up a detailed report on that Fred Kyber's complaint. It was about Richard Warman having accused Fred Kyber of having a web site that wasn't favourable and it got closed down. He filed a complaint with the Human Rights Commission and it ended up in the tribunal.

So my two-page report was published by Fred Kyber at his own web site, "Patriots on guard", or his Yahoo group "Patriots on guard", Richard Warman obviously read it there, and shortly after that I received a $10,000 slander and libel lawsuit for Ottawa Small Claims Court accusing me of slandering and libelling him because I wrote the report in the Human Rights Commission.

I just wrote a report exactly what I observed that day. Well, I put in a motion to the Small Claims Court in July of 2003, had a hearing in front of Justice Tierney. My request was that Richard Warman's charge be moved to the Ontario Superior Court because the Small Claims Court limits what we can do.

So Justice Tierney reserved his decision. I heard back about two weeks ago and he did move my Small Claims Court to the Ontario Superior Court.

Hopefully it will get heard at that level, because in the Small Claims Court you cannot even call witnesses. So I made the appeal that I had witnesses to call and I was going to be denied fair justice if they kept it in Small
Claims Court.

So even though it started out there, now it is in the Ontario Superior Court and we will see where it goes from there.

There is no doubt in my mind that Richard Warman has been harassing many, many Canadians who are speaking out. He is definitely an enemy of free speech, and enemy of freedom. I don't know why he is doing this. I cannot understand why he would do it. But he is doing it. And people need to know what he is doing and people need to inform others so that they can be aware and let's find solutions.

Thank you

MR. PAUL FROMM: Thank you very much, Tom.

I would like to just call now on Melissa Gilles of the Canadian Heritage Alliance to ask her organization's position on Internet censorship.

MISS MELISSA GUILLE: Richard Warman of the Human Rights Commission and self-appointed thought police are bringing people to the courts and bringing them up to legal gun point to charge them for dissent. Canadian Heritage Alliance stands behind these people because freedom of speech is a priority in our community. It is a priority. It is part of the diversity of individualism and we need it as a society instead of the control that they are trying to keep over us.

MR. PAUL FROMM: Thank you very much. And if there are any questions in English or in French, I think we can perhaps handle them.

Okay. Thank you.