Good luck with that.
I think they've just automated Blazing Cat Fur and dispsensed with human intervention altogether.
Not that anyone could notice.
Warman previously denied under oath that he'd signed onto a message board as the infamous "Lucy", then recanted when it became clear moments later that he had indeed used that pseudonym. So, did he "lie" then? I suppose it depends on how finely one likes to split hairs.
I don't think it is an overstatement to say that Warman has a, shall we say, flexible definition of the truth. Levant is not the only one "gulling" the credulous.
Get over it, Fergus.
So if Ezra is wrong, why did lucy so desperately want to swap two virtually identical documents? Hmmm? Could it be 'cause the first one had 'Welcome Jadewarr' and a bogus swastica?
Lucy already admitted that he knew that 'Jadewarr' was the log-in name used by his HR thought police buddies.
Plus he already admitted using the 'lucy' pseudonym, right after he denied it. The dark side has zero credibility, y'all.
Ezra has the enthusiastic support of legions of 'freespeechers' because he is courageously trying to restore the right of freedom of expression to all Canadians. Sending him a little cash for his trouble is an incredible bargain.
The 'human rights' commissars and their apologists are on the wrong side of history.
Dawg, I can't imagine why you want to defend Lucy. Freedom Fan above has the basic goods.
The CHRC "investigators" and prime complainant were like high school kids gulling the teacher. They knew they were right and they had a good deal of fun nailing the so-called "neo-Nazis".
Now they have been caught. The story is falling apart. Warman says one thing (under oath) and then he says another (under oath). Ezra has the grace to suggest Warman "misled" the Tribunal. It is not out of the question that Warman, well, lied.
I don't know and neither do you.
But I do know that more than enough shenanigans have been revealed to make a judicial investigation as well as a criminal investigation pretty much obligatory.
Which leads me back to the question of why you are supporting this scumball and his equally nasty friends.
You don't need to Dawg. Even if you agree with the goals of the CHRC you cannot possibly agree that the attainment of those goals should include lying under oath, playing silly bugger with the truth, war driving and doing the agent provocateur thing which so throughly discredited the attempts of Grant Bristow in founding Heritage Front.
Warman and Co have placed the CHRC in the position where, with a little shove here and a little push there, the right can reduce them to both laughingstocks and criminals on s. 13 matters.
Dawg, integrity matters. Slimeballs like Warman or Kinsella don't give a rat's ass for integrity. You do, so get the Hell of this sinking, stinking, ship.
"Get over it, Fergus."
That's it? Well, it's succinct, I'll give you that, but all in all you should have just gone to bed.
Jay:
I believe in fairness, too.
You make several serious charges against Richard Warman and the CHRC: to wit: 1) lying under oath, 2) playing silly bugger with the truth, 3) war driving and 4)doing the agent provocateur thing.
The "wardriving" matter has been put to rest by Buckets. That one is dead, dead, dead. Grave-robbery is uncivilized.
The "lying under oath" charge is based on a transcript in which he was asked a question, and immediately prompted, at which point he delivered the right answer. I've seen witnesses do this sort of thing all the time; indeed, ordinary people do it in ordinary circumstances. Our memories are never perfect, and he didn't try to wriggle out of this but simply corrected himself, without flourishes.
"Playing silly bugger with the truth?" He managed to answer a question honestly, while protecting the identity/ies of an undercover alias used at Stormfront to elicit information. It wasn't up to him as a witness to sit there and speculate, and sabotage the work of the Commission.
Now, as to the agent provocateur thing, I've never been quite sure what to make of it. I think my very first comment on this whole affair was at your place, and I expressed some misgivings about entrapment. But I don't have full knowledge of what was going on: for example, to establish your street cred with the neo-Nazis, a certain amount of down-home racist bonhomie is probably necessary.
If the aim was, as stated during the hearing I attended, simply to elicit identities so that papers could be served for hateful statements already made, that is different, I suggest, than persuading people to make those statements in the first place and then pouncing on them. It's never been at all clear to me that the latter was what Warman and the Commission folks were doing. It wasn't the case, for example, with Jessica Beaumont.
One final comment: you folks have been using what must be millions of words by now to complain about "silencing" by the Commission. Who, precisely, is being silenced?
Freedom Fan:
"Bogus swastika?" I don't think so.
That's it? Well, it's succinct, I'll give you that, but all in all you should have just gone to bed.
What are you, 12?
You make several serious charges against Richard Warman and the CHRC: to wit: 1) lying under oath, 2) playing silly bugger with the truth, 3) war driving and 4)doing the agent provocateur thing.
I know. Why does Jay Currie believe he's above the law?
What was the name of the publication you used to run, Jay?
"What are you, 12?"
And still, after all this time, irony escapes you.
You're good for a laugh, though.
Actually, Dawg, the "wardriving" thing is the charge against Steacey re hacking wifi. Buckets trashed the Lucy posts thing. The wardriving charge, is frankly, almost to silly to need trashing, but I've made a few attempts.
And still, after all this time, irony escapes you.
Yeah, but I'm not pretending to be an adult while making childish remarks.
You should really come to terms with how limited you are, Fergus. It would help you tremendously.
Tell you what, look over all the comments each of us has made to this thread and then plead your case that I am the childish one. Or the limited one, for that matter.
BCL:
Whoops. You are absolutely right. Buckets, I hope, didn't go through all that hard work to be cited incorrectly. Mea culpa.
The wardriving nonsense is, as you say, almost too silly to bother refuting. In fact Marc Lemire's version is even sillier, as we both know. The other claim is that Steacy sat in a cafe near to the woman's house, no doubt with his ponderous assembly of assistive technologies around him, merrily stealing wi-fi in front of the other customers. There are times that I wish Occam's Razor could be converted to a broadsword.
Fergus...I can freely admit when I'm being childish. It's not something I'm particularly concerned about at all.
The limited bit is this:
Warman previously denied under oath that he'd signed onto a message board as the infamous "Lucy", then recanted when it became clear moments later that he had indeed used that pseudonym. So, did he "lie" then? I suppose it depends on how finely one likes to split hairs.
If you dig up the transcript, I'm pretty sure that you'll conclude this never happened in the way you've so creatively described. You can speculate all you want, but you can't assert things without better evidence.
This is what has been tedious about this. People desperate to believe things without proper evidence and making the same, baseless assertions over and over again.
My continued interest in this is only as a result of the fact that I'm interested in seeing how low the conspiracy of neoconservative liars will go (apparently, libel isn't low enough).
I'd like to say I'm surprised by how depraved they've become, but I'm really not. These people have always communicated to manipulate and have relied on the gullible, the credulous, the tribal, and the dishonest to get as far as they have. And that has always been supported by the sheer numbers of morally bankrupt people who are attracted to them.
As Pogge mentions today, "Among the similarities between the Conservatives and the GOP that are becoming increasingly evident is this: no matter how bad you think it is, it always turns out to be worse."
"If you dig up the transcript, I'm pretty sure that you'll conclude this never happened in the way you've so creatively described."
How about this?.
...is, as you say, almost too silly to bother refuting.
May I respectfully suggest both sides agree to stop using that argument? We of the ideological blogosphere may feel that way about this or that, but I think the rest of the country wants to hear everything argued and refuted.
How about this?
Yes, Fergus, thank you. Now, perform the analysis required to demonstrate that the evidence available in that transcript supports the assertion you made above, and I quote: "Warman previously denied under oath that he'd signed onto a message board as the infamous "Lucy."
Go ahead. I'll wait.
We of the ideological blogosphere may feel that way about this or that, but I think the rest of the country wants to hear everything argued and refuted.
And how to you propose to do that without evidence?
Peter:
If you read on, you'll see that I went ahead and refuted it anyway. (The Lemire "theory" has been done to death: I deal with it in this comment and elsewhere.)
Show there is no evidence?
An old law prof of mind once lectured us on how there were three traditional evidentiary bases of legal liability---intent, recklessness and negligence. Silliness, he cautioned us, wouldn't cut it.
Sorry, I stand corrected. Yes, I do. That is an e-mail address that I used.
Guest or "Lucy"? First, a guest,until admitting to be "Lucy" after being caught out.
Let the hair-splitting begin.
you'll see that I went ahead and refuted it anyway.
Well, I suppose you want a pat on the head for that, but frankly I find such an excuse too silly to respond to.
But look, a query. It strikes me (as a high-tech illiterate) that the evidence Warman posted the Cools post is very shaky and almost entirely inferential. Nonetheless he admits to similar type anonymous postings that are meant to entice/entrap and don't reflect his real views. Despite a lot of "gotcha" banter, no one is seriously suggesting they do reflect his real views. So where is this going? On the one hand why do the free-speechers think proving he did the Cools post will help them so much? On the other, why do the CHRC defenders think their case is strengthened by vindicating him of that particular post? And thirdly, why does Warman think the reputation of an undercover cop who admits to secretly opening other peoples' mail is damaged when someone suggests he opened a particular letter he says he didn't?
And fourthly, am I just a naive country boy?
Guest or "Lucy"? First, a guest,until admitting to be "Lucy" after being caught out.
Right...you don't know.
Glad we've cleared that up...for the millionth time.
I know you desperately, tragically, hysterically want me to adopt a common sense understanding of this, but I just won't oblige for the simple reason that...I. Don't. Know.
But if you (or the Conservatives) want to pay me to agree with you, well...make me an offer.
I didn't say you won't use common sense.
But someone apologizing and correcting himself for the record seems straightforward to me. Perhaps I'm simply unable to follow the nuance of his words?
Like I said. You don't know.
I discuss the question of whether Richard Warman's testimony about Lucy constituted a lie, here.
Buckets:
Many thanks once again for your amazing work. I'll try to give it a little more publicity shortly.
Dawg,
After Warman and Steacy had such a great success at CHRC in December of 2006 they shared their entrapment expertise with their allies at Canadian Jewish Congress. One of their customers was Justice Craig Perkins and his minion Chris Sorley lawyer from Aurora, Ontario.
Ezra Levant and his friends in media helped Marc Lemire to expose issue of entrapment turning Warman’s case against Stormfront into a sick joke and turning CHRC into bunch of idiots.
Ezra and his friends could easily repeat that process with Ontario Courts showing that Warman and Steacy helped Chris Sorley and Justice Craig Perkins to set up totally bogus libel case against Michael Sipos by using wireless network on Mike Sipos’ neighbour to set him up.
All it takes in a visit to Newmarket, Ontario Courthouse and obtaining copies of Court File #CV-07-00084005-00SR.
Once this Warman and Steacy connection to Ontario judiciary is exposed Warman will have a chance like a snowball in Hell that he would be able to find a judge in Ontario that would want to hear his libel cases.
What about impersonation and posting hate messages he has admitted to and with the intention of entrapment.
How many aliases does he have and how many hate messages has Richard Warmen posted to Internet "hate groups" over the years?
All of them?
Not to mention why the human rights commission would withdraw his hate messages as evidence and not the defendants?
Too many questions coming from these human rights commissions and not enough answers.
Commenting by HaloScan
