Canadian Association for Free Expression
Box 332,
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-897-7221; FAX: 905-277-3914



March 17, 2004

The Editor,
The Globe and Mail. BY FAX -- For Publication

Dear Sir:

B'nai Brith's Marvin Kurz misses the point in his article "Zundel is no champion of civil rights." (Globe and Mail, March 17, 2004) "Whatever evidence the government has against Mr. Zundel, it has already proven that he is a risk to Canada."

On the contrary, nothing of the sort has been proven. The government's contention by way of a Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) national security certificate is that Mr. Zundel is a "terrorist" and, therefore, a threat to national security. The contention is, on its face, preposterous. As Mr. Kurz snidely remarks Mr. Zundel has never shied away from publicity. His views have been widely circulated in pamphlets, radio and television broadcasts. Access to Information requests filed by Mr. Zundel reveal that he's been under police surveillance since 1960, when the Mounties observed him attending an anti-communist rally in Montreal.

Mr. Zundel is a pacifist. As defined by the CSIS Act, a threat to national security must either resort to serious acts of violence or be doing the will of a foreign power. The CSIS Act makes it quite clear that a threat to national security "does not include protest, lawful advocacy or dissent." Mr. Zundel's historical dissent may be offensive to many, but this fact does not constitute a threat to national security.

Thus, the Crown has resorted to a series of secret hearings. Neither Mr. Zundel nor his defence team knows what the accusations are or who the secret witnesses are. This denial of fundamental justice renders the proceedings a serious human rights violation and a disgraceful farce. To "get" one annoying dissident, Canada is trampling of due process and freedom of speech.

Sincerely yours.



Paul Fromm
Director
__________________

Zundel is no champion of civil rights


By MARVIN KURZ

(Globe and Mail, Wednesday, Mar. 17, 2004)


An old legal maxim holds that hard cases make bad law. Neo-Nazi
propagandist Ernst Zundel has consistently attempted to live that adage.
His numerous challenges of Canadian law, in service of a campaign to
make his Jew-hating legal, have twisted Canadian courts into pretzels.

Throughout his tortured route through the Canadian legal system, Mr.
Zundel has attempted to portray himself as a crusader for freedom.
However, he has shown more of a penchant for self-promotion than virtue.
Notoriously, he once dragged a cross to court, evoking not so subtle
references to the notion that he, like the Christ, was the victim of an
evil Jewish conspiracy.

In recent weeks, The Globe and Mail has taken up Mr. Zundel's cause. In
both an editorial and a feature article by justice reporter Kirk Makin,
The Globe focused on the use of a national security certificate to jail
Mr. Zundel as a potential security threat. The headline of the feature
article: "Ernst Zundel, civil-rights champion?" says it all.

If, as the advertisement says, context is everything, a bit of it is
needed here. Mr. Zundel is a Hitler-loving neo-Nazi who emigrated from
Germany in the 1960s. He spent decades portraying the Jews as the true
criminals of the Holocaust. Expanding on themes found in Mein Kampf, Mr.
Zundel became one of the most notorious and well-connected hate
propagandists in the world.

Successive Ontario attorneys-general refused to charge Mr. Zundel under
the hate-propaganda sections of the Criminal Code, baselessly fearing
that the provisions were unconstitutional. Without ministerial consent,
he could not be charged. Finally, a Holocaust survivor, Sabina Citron,
despaired of a government refusing to use its own laws. She privately
charged Mr. Zundel under an obscure law dealing with the promotion of
false news. Although the government was shamed into taking over the
case, it refused to charge him under the proper hate-propaganda law. Two
successive juries convicted Mr. Zundel before the Supreme Court of
Canada ruled that the false-news law, unlike the hate-propaganda law,
was unconstitutional. Mr. Zundel crowed that our legal system sanctioned
his views.

Mr. Zundel applied for Canadian citizenship in the 1990s. He realized
that any conviction would see him deported to Germany, where he already
had a conviction and was wanted on new hate-propaganda charges. He was
refused Canadian citizenship because the Security and Intelligence
Review Committee found, under existing law, that he was a security
threat. Mr. Zundel's appeals, all of the way to the Supreme Court, were
rejected.

In 1996, both Ms. Citron and the City of Toronto complained to the
Canadian Human Rights Commission about Mr. Zundel's anti-Semitic
website. Mr. Zundel denied ownership of the site. Relying on the
evidence of his own correspondence and the testimony of his ex-wife, a
human-rights tribunal rejected his claims. It ordered him to cease and
desist using his site to promote hatred of Jews. Anticipating this
ruling, Mr. Zundel fled Canada for the United States. When the Americans
threw him out, Canada need not have accepted him back. When it did, he
made a cynical refugee claim. Only then did the government hold him
under a security-certificate procedure.

Whatever evidence the government has against Mr. Zundel, it has already
proven that he is a risk to Canada. He contemptuously abandoned our
country when it finally became clear that his form of hatred would not
be tolerated. He then attempted to hoodwink our system when the
Americans evicted him. He may be entitled to challenge our
security-certificate law, but civil-liberties champion? Give me a break.

Marvin Kurz is national legal counsel of the League for Human Rights of
B'nai Brith Canada.

Dear Free Speech Supporter:

For the past several years, one of Canada's most fanatical opponents of free speech on the Internet, Richard Warman, a lawyer with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, has adopted a new tactic to counter criticism.

He tries to shut down dissident websites by pressuring their ISPs. He's brought human rights complaints against a number of free thinkers, including tax protester Tom Warman and Polish dissident Tom Winnicki. Then, when people like the Northern Alliance or author David Icke protest and criticize him, he slaps them with a libel action.

In October, Warman threatened CAFE and me with a libel suit for calling him an enemy of free speech. He is. We won't retract the truth. He's a public figure, a government operative. He's not immune from criticism. He proclaims about the Internet: "So much has sprung up, the human rights commission hasn't had a chance to do the weeding yet." (London Free Press, September 13, 2003) Yet, Warman, the would-be weeder, whines that pointing out his censorsious behaviour has hurt his reputation. It reminds us of the thief who complains that the man who calls out "stop, thief" is damaging his reputation. Perhaps, if Warman stopped trying to throttle free speech on the Internet, no one would call his a censor or an enemy of free speech.

I'll be posting our Statement of Defence shortly. In brief, what we've said about Warman is true.

What this bullying bureaucrat is trying to do is hobble and silence the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Canada's strongest free speech lobby group.

To be blunt, this fight is going to cost us time and money, both of which are precious. We need your support now for the expenses which we're already incurring.

Our answer to Warman and other would be censors is the answer free men and women of our breed have always given: "No Surrender!"

We need your help as never before. Please send your donation by sending us your VISA number and expiry date by e-mail or by mailing us a cheque to CAFE, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, Canada.

Thank you.


Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION.

C.A.F.E. vs RICHARD WARMAN - 02/04/04

Richard Warman (Plaintiff) and Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. and Paul Fromm (Defendants).

Statement of Claim

The Plaintiff states that this action is commenced under RULE 76 by way of SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE.

TO THE DEFENDANT(S)

A LEGAL PROCEEDING HAS BEEN COMMENCED AGAINST YOU by the plaintiff(s). The claim made against you set out in the following pages.

IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, you or an Ontario lawyer acting for you must prepare a statement of defense in Form 18A prescribed by the Rules of Civil Procedure, serve it on the plaintiff(s) lawyer(s) or, where the plaintiff(s) do(es) not have a lawyer, serve it on the plaintiff(s), and file it, with proof of service, in this court office, WITHIN TWENTY DAYS after this statement of claim is served on you, if you are served in Ontario.

If you are served in another province or territory of Canada or in the United States of America, the period for serving and filing your statement of defense is 40 days. If you are served outside Canada and the United States of America, the period is 60 days.

Instead of serving and filing a statement of defense, you may serve and file a notice of intent to defend in Form 18B prescribed by the Rules of civil Procedure. This will entitle you to 10 or more days within which to serve and file your statement of defense.

IF YOU FAIL TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING, JUDGEMENT MAY BE GIVEN AGAINST YOU IN YOUR ABSENCE AND WITHOUT FURTHER NOTICE TO YOU. IF YOU WISH TO DEFEND THIS PROCEEDING BUT ARE NOT UNABLE TO PAY LEGAL FEES, LEGAL AID MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU BY CONTACTING A LOCAL LEGAL AID OFFICE.

Issued by local registrar - February 2, 2004.

THIS ACTION IS BROUGHT AGAINST YOU UNDER THE SIMPLIFIED PROCEDURE PROVIDED IN RULE 76 OF THE ONTARIO RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 as amended.

CLAIM

1. The Plaintiff claims:


General damages in the amount of $50,000.00;

Aggravated damages in the amount of $50,000.00;

Punitive damages in the amount of $50,000.00;

A complete public retraction of the defamatory comments to be published on the Defendant's website;

Pre-judgement and post-judgment interest in accordance with the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c. C-43, as amended;

Costs of this action in accordance with the Rules of Civil Procedures, R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 as amended,

Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

2. The Plaintiff, Richard Warman ("the Plaintiff"), is a lawyer, works for the Canadian Human Rights commission, and resides in the city of Ottawa, Ontario.

3. The Defendants, the Canadian Association for Free Expression and Paul Fromm ("The Defendants") were and are, at all times relevant, responsible for posting articles defamatory to the plaintiff on different websites. The Defendants are responsible for the repeated sending of defamatory letters via facsimile to the Plaintiff's employer. The Defendants are also responsible for statements made by Defendant Paul Fromm in his role as Director of the Defendant Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. at a press conference on Parliament Hill.

4. The First Posting appeared on the websites:

(i) FREEDOMSITE under the title "RICHARD WARMAN, HIGH PRIEST OF CENSORSHIP, ON RAMPAGE IN LONDON [capitals in original]" (the "First Posting - site A");

(ii) CANADIAN HERITAGE ALLIANCE under the title "We're Coming for You" (the "First Posting - site B").

5. The Second Posting appeared on the website:

(i) FREEDOM SITE under the title 'JEWISH LOBBY BEING REORGANIZED [capitals in original]" (the Second Posting").

6. The third Posting appeared on the website:

(i) CANADIAN HERITAGE ALLIANCE under the title "White Supremacists Sued" (the "Third Posting").

www.canadianheritagealliance.com/channels/news/2003/September/1a.html


7. The Fourth Posting appeared on the website:

FREEDOMSITE under the title "Free speech Supporters to Protest Meeting of Censorship Advocates in Victoria" (the "Fourth Posting").

The Fifth Posting appeared on the website:

(i) FREEDOMSITE under the title "HANDS OFF INTERNET PROTEST A GREAT SUCCESS IN VICTORIA [capitals in original]" (the "Fifth Posting").

9. The sixth Posting appeared on the website:

(i) FREEDOMSITE under the title "TEXT OF CAFE PRESS CONFERENCE ON INTERNET CENSORSHIP [capitals in original]" (the "Sixth Posting")

(ii) This same material was spoken by the Defendant Paul Fromm in his role as Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression Inc. at a press conference held by the Defendants on Parliament Hill on 29 October 2003.

10. The Seventh Posting appeared on the website:

(i) FREEDOMSITE under the title "CAFE complaint against CHRC lawyer Richard Warman" (the "Seventh Posting")

(ii) This same material has been faxed repeatedly to the attention of the Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, first on 12 November 2003 and again on 23 November 2003.

11. The Eighth Posting appeared on the website:

(i) FREEDOMSITE under the title "WARMAN WATCH: MAKE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALS OUT OF WEB DISSIDENTS! [capitals in original]" (the Eighth Posting").

12. The Ninth Posting appeared on the website:

(i) FREEDOMSITE under the title ":WHY SO SHY MR. WARMAN? [capitals in original]" (the "Ninth Posting").

Publication of Material Defamatory to Richard Warman

13. On or about the month of September 2003 until but not limited to the month of January 2004, the Defendants published in Ontario and throughout Canada written words that are defamatory and libelous of the Plaintiff as part of posting on the websites known as Freedomsite and Canadian Heritage Alliance.

14. On 29 October 2003, the Defendants were responsible for the broadcast in Ontario of words that are defamatory and libelous of the Plaintiff as part of a press conference held on Parliament Hill.

15. On 12 November 2003 and 23 November 2003, the Defendants were responsible for the publishing in Ontario of written words that are defamatory and libelous of the Plaintiff by the sending of letters via facsimile to the Plaintiff's employer.

16. The different postings (Fist Posting - site A, First Posting - site B, Second Posting, third Posting, Fourth Posting, Fifth Posting, Sixth Posting, Seventh posting, Eighth Posting and Ninth Posting) (he "Postings") and the letters sent to the Plaintiff's employer contained false statements that discredited the Plaintiff's personal reputation and, more specifically, his professional reputation as a Lawyer.

The First Posting - site A and the First Posting - site B.

17. The Plaintiff complains of the following word, as were posted on the Freedomsite website in an article entitled "RICHARD WARMAN, HIGH PRIEST OF CENSORSHIP, ON RAMPAGE IN LONDON" and as posted on the Canadian Heritage Alliance website in the article entitled "We're Coming For You":

"Well, see your federal tax dollars at work. Lawyer, frequent litigant and investigator for the Canadian Human Rights commission, Richard Warman - a fanatically anti-speech cabal of the politically correct - is on the warpath again."

"His latest victim is Polish immigrant Tomasc Winniki. Perhaps, because English isn't his first language (...)"

"Human Rights persecutor Warman doesn't like being called an enemy of free speech (...) Well, Warman IS an enemy of free speech.

"There you have it: The Human rights Commission and operatives like Warman are to be the political thought police (...)"

"Warman makes a habit of muscling the ISP's who host politically incorrect sites."

"The war on free speech has been escalated by this complaint."

18. The Postings in question contained serous allegations against the Plaintiff, clearly stating, in its plain and ordinary meaning or by virtue of surrounding circumstances which give the words a defamatory meaning inferentially or by innuendo that:

a. The Plaintiff is abusing taxpayer's money;

b. The Plaintiff is a fanatically anti-free speech cabal of the politically correct;

c. The Plaintiff victimizes immigrants because their first language is not English;

d. The Plaintiff is an enemy of free speech;

e. The Plaintiff is a member of the political thought police;

f. The Plaintiff is engaged in a war on free speech.

The Second Posting

19. The Plaintiff complains of the following words, as were posted on the Freedomsite website in an article entitled "Jewish Lobby Being Re-Organized":

"Lobbying by various Jewish groups has led to increased gagging of free speech in Canada." (As referring directly or implicitly to the Plaintiff)

"(...) And turned over control of the Internet to the censors of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, where truth is not a defense. Since then, a number of dissents have been dragged before human rights tribunals, largely through the efforts of CHRC hatchetman Richard Warman".

20. The Posting in question contained serious allegations against the Plaintiff, clearly stating in its plain and ordinary meaning or by virtue of surrounding circumstances which give the words a defamatory meaning inferentially or by innuendo that:

a. The Plaintiff is a censor by virtue of his work at the Canadian Human Rights Commission:

b. The plaintiff is the "hatchetman" of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

The Third Posting

21. The Plaintiff complains of the following words, as were posted on the Canadian Heritage Alliance website in an article entitled "White Supremacists Sued":

"Warman, apparently, objects to being called an enemy of free speech. There is no doubt that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is a mortal enemy of free speech and free thought. It is a form of political police.

"It's strange that Warman, who seems to make a career out of throttling the expression of those whose views he doesn't like, objects to being identified as a enemy of free speech. A similar scare tactic was used by the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the John Micka Internet case in 2001. Micka's website had flayed pedophiles. A homosexual activist named Schnell, who had a webpage with the provocative address of uncutdicks.com, squeaked [sic] with protest when Micka identified him and criticized him online for making the complaint. Initially, the Commission further charged Micka for retaliating against the complainant. In the course of the hearing, this charge was dropped."

"Apparently, here in Absurdistan, we must let the thought police shut us down and not even call attention to the fact or to the names of our oppressors!"

"If you'd like to assist them in the battle against Big Brother's thought police, send your donation (...)"

22. The Posting in question contained serious allegations against the Plaintiff, clearly stating, in its plain and ordinary meaning or by virtue of surrounding circumstances which give the words a defamatory meaning inferentially or by innuendo that:

a. The Plaintiff is a mortal enemy of free speech;

b. The Plaintiff is a member of the political police;

c. The Plaintiff is making a career out of throttling the expression of different views;

d. The Plaintiff is using scare tactics to censor free speech;

e. The Plaintiff is an oppressor;

f. The Plaintiff is a member of Big Brother's thought police.

The Fourth Posting

23. The Plaintiff complains of the following words, as were posted on the Freedomsite website in an article entitled "Free Speech Supporters to Protest Meeting of Censorship Advocates in Victoria":

"(...) However, powerful forces, using taxpayers' money, are working hard to throttle the Internet."

"Sunday a rather nasty group of enemies of free speech is holding a conference here in Victoria. One of their key aims is further persecution of free thinkers on the Internet. Richard Warman, a lawyer with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, has been attacking the websites of tax critics and opponents of Israel."

24. The Posting in question contained serious allegations against the Plaintiff, clearly stating, in its plain and ordinary meaning or by virtue of surrounding circumstances which give the words a defamatory meaning inferentially or by innuendo that:

a. The Plaintiff is a member of a nasty group of enemies of free speech:

b. The Plaintiff is a persecutor of free thinkers on the Internet:

c. The Plaintiff is using taxpayers' money in an attempt to throttle the Internet.

D. The Plaintiff attacks websites of individuals solely on the basis that these individuals criticize taxation or are opponents of Israel.

The Fifth Posting

25. The Plaintiff complains of the following words, as were posted on the Freedomsite website in an article entitled, "HANDS OFF INTERNET PROTEST A GREAT SUCCESS IN VICTORIA":

"On Sunday, October 26, a dozen supporters of the Canadian Association for Free Expression confronted some of Canada's most outspoken censors and would-be thought police outside a Victoria synagogue.

Canadian Association for Free Expression spokesman Paul Fromm explained to the press that freedom of the Internet was the key issue. "These self-appointed thought police and [sic] trying to throttle one of the most democratic media and they're doing it with taxpayers' money." The panelists, he said "are mortal enemies of free speech and are trying to criminalized dissent."

"One of the most open and free media is the Internet. It's accessible to the average man. Yet, this is the very medium censors like Richard Warman is [sic] trying to throttle."

26. The Posting in question contained serious allegations against the Plaintiff, clearly stating, in its plain and ordinary meaning or by virtue of surrounding circumstances which give the words a defamatory meaning inferentially or by innuendo that:

a. The Plaintiff is one of Canada's most outspoken censors;

b. The Plaintiff is a would-be member of the thought police;

c. The Plaintiff is a self-appointed member of the thought police;

d. The Plaintiff is trying to throttle democratic media using taxpayer money to do so;

e. The Plaintiff is a mortal enemy of free speech;

f. The Plaintiff is attempting to criminalize dissent.;

g. The Plaintiff is a censor.

The Sixth Posting

27. The Plaintiff complains of the following words, as were posted on the Freedomstie website in an article entitled 'TEXT OF CAFE PRESS CONFERENCE ON INTERNET CENSORSHIP". These words were also published by the Defendants during a press conference held by the Defendants in the press gallery on Parliament Hill on 29 October 2003.

"Richard Warman, a lawyer with the Canadian Human Rights Commission has been attacking the websites of tax critics and opponents of Israel."

"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."

"Last Saturday in Victoria, B.C., Warman spoke to a small meeting where he joined others intent on gagging free expression 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."

"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 [sic] money to restrict freedom of speech.

"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."

28. The Posting in question contained serious allegations against the Plaintiff, clearly stating, in its plain and ordinary meaning or by virtue of surrounding circumstances which give the words a defamatory meaning inferentially or by innuendo that:

a. The Plaintiff attacks websites based solely on their criticism of taxes or their opposition to the state of Israel;

b. The Plaintiff acts as a one man thought police agency;

c. The Plaintiff is intent on gagging free expression on the Internet;

d. The Plaintiff refuses to allow others with differing opinions the right to express those views;

e. The Plaintiff is a censor;

f. The Plaintiff is using taxpayer money to restrict freedom of speech;

The Plaintiff is a control freak.

The Seventh Posting

29. The Plaintiff complains of the following words, as were posted on the Freedomsite website in an article entitled "CAFE complaint against CHRC lawyer Richard Warman". This same material has been repeatedly faxed to the attention of the Chief Commissioner of the Plaintiff's employer on both 12 and 23 November 2003.

"Mr. Warman seems to be using his position at the Commission to carry on an ideological vendetta against people he disagrees with..."

"However, with Eddie Taylor in the Zundel case and Angela Westmacott in the Micka case, we found the Commission's lawyers or representatives to be profession in their behavior. Mr. Warman is another matter. He [sic] seems to behave as a professional censor and, then, when criticized, slaps his critics with libel actions."

"...Warman filed a Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint against Tadeuz [sic] Winnicki, a Polish immigrant in London, for comments critical of Israel on his website..."

"Warman's comment, cited above, "What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?" And his threats made to get controversial websites suggest that he is using his office to pursue a personal agenda."

"Mr. Warman's behavior strongly suggests he is a driven ideologue which an agenda of denying free speech to groups and persons with whom he disagrees. Furthermore, his response to criticism is to threaten or launch defamation actions.

30. The Posting in question contained serous allegations against the Plaintiff, clearly stating, in its plain and ordinary meaning or by virtue of surrounding circumstances which give the words a defamatory meaning inferentially or by innuendo that:

a. The Plaintiff is violating his oat as a professional civil servant and his professional code of conduct as a lawyer by using his position at the Commission to carry on an ideological vendetta against people he disagrees with:

b. The Plaintiff behaves like a professional censor:

c. The Plaintiff responds to any criticism with libel actions:

d. The Plaintiff filed a federal human rights complaint against Tomasz Winnicki based in part or in whole on comments critical of the state of Israel.

e. The Plaintiff is violating his oath as a professional civil servant and his professional code of conduct as a lawyer by using his office to pursue a personal agenda:

f. The Plaintiff is driven ideologue bent on denying freedom of speech to those he disagrees with.

The Eight Posting

31. The Plaintiff complains of the following words, as were posted on the Freedomsite website in an article entitled "WARMAN WATCH: MAKE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINALS OUR OF WEB DISSIDENTS!"

"Richard Warman, the high priest of Internet censorship at the Canadian Human Rights Commission ..."

"Here Warman illustrates the totalitarian fanaticism that seems to drive him. He envisions international agreements that would criminalize - without a trial? - those spreading "hate" - that is criticism of privileged groups - on the Internet."

"Orwell spoke of the totalitarian's vision of the future in his novel 1984 and said it was that of a boot grinding itself into a human face. That somewhat reminds one of Warman's vision."

32. The Posting in question contained serous allegations against the Plaintiff, clearly stating, in its plain and ordinary meaning or by virtue of surrounding circumstances which give the words a defamatory meaning inferentially or by innuendo that:

a. The Plaintiff is the high priest of Internet censorship at the Canadian Human Rights Commission;

b. The Plaintiff is driven by totalitarian fanaticism;

c. The Plaintiff seeks to criminalize, without trial, criticism of privileged groups via the Internet;

d. The Plaintiff is a totalitarian whose Orwellian vision of the future is best represented by the image of a boot grinding itself into a human face.

The Ninth Posting

33. The Plaintiff complains of the following words, as were posted on the Freedomsite website in an article entitled "WHY SO SHY, MR. WARMAN?"

"Richard Warman is the high priest of media censorship at the Canadian Human Rights commission."

"He is a censor with a mission - purge the Internet of politically incorrect thought."

"As the Canadian Human Rights Commission's lead counsel on Internet persecution Warman has taken aim at patriotic or populist dissent on the Internet (...)

"Richard Warman, as a lawyer for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, must be seen as fair in discharging his public duties. His attendance at this conference, sponsored as it is, by one of the most mortal enemies of free speech on the Internet, raises questions of his fairness. Worse, is he promoting the censorship agenda of a private lobby group?"

"I include some fascinating correspondence involving the usually mouthy Warman which was posted on David Icke's website this week."

34. The Posting in question contained serous allegations against the Plaintiff, clearly stating to the readers of the Canadian Heritage Alliance website and to any reader taking the time to access this website, in its plain and ordinary meaning or by virtue of surrounding circumstances which give the words a defamatory meaning inferentially or by innuendo that:

a. The Plaintiff is the high priest of censorship at the Canadian Human Rights Commission;

b. The Plaintiff's mission is to purge the Internet of politically incorrect thoughts;

c. The Plaintiff is the Canadian Human Rights Commission's lead counsel on Internet persecution;

d. The Plaintiff is unfair in discharging his public duties;

e. The Plaintiff is not exercising his employment in a professional manner;

f. The Plaintiff is an unfair lawyer and an unfair person;

g. The Plaintiff is entertaining relationships with one of the most mortal enemies of free speech on the Internet;

h. The Plaintiff is promoting the censorship agenda of a private lobby group;

i. The Plaintiff is "mouthy".

Defamation

35. The Plaintiff complains of the words set out in the paragraph 17 through 34, that were intended to mean and were understood to mean that:

a. That the Plaintiff's honesty, integrity and professionalism as a lawyer should be questioned;

b. That the Plaintiff has committed acts of criminal misconduct and/or illegal activities;

c. That the Plaintiff is engaged in unscrupulous activities;

d. That the Plaintiff is immoral and corrupt;

e. That the Plaintiff is a censor, or an advocate of censorship;

f. The Plaintiff is a persecutor of free thought;

g. The Plaintiff is taking taxpayers' money to further his own agenda;

h. The Plaintiff is an oppressor;

i. The Plaintiff victimizes immigrants.

Actual Malice

36. The Plaintiff pleads that the Defendants acted maliciously in that:

a. After a notice of libel was sent to the Defendants, they continued to post defamatory materials on different websites:

b. The Defendants have not, as of this date, removed any of the Postings:

c. The Defendants have not, as of this date, retracted the Postings and/or apologized to the Plaintiff for having defamed him.

37. The Plaintiff pleads that as a result of the Posting, his personal and professional reputation have suffered: the Plaintiff has been brought into ridicule, scandal and contempt both personally and by way of his professional as a lawyer, the Plaintiff's livelihood has been threatened: and the Plaintiff has suffered damages.

38. The Plaintiff states that the conduct of the Defendants towards him has been malicious, reckless and reprehensible and in complete and total disregard for his personal and professional reputation and that such conduct warrants the imposition of aggravated and punitive damages.

39. The Plaintiff pleads and relies on the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990, c-L.12.

40. The Plaintiff pleads and relies on the Libel and Slander Act, R.S.O. 1990 c. C-43, as amended, and more specifically on Rule 1.05 of the Ontario Rules of Civil Procedure R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 as amended, to obtain an order from this Honorable Court forcing the Defendants to have the Postings removed from the websites and to post a full retraction with as much clarity and prominence as the defamatory and libelous words spoken and/or written and/or published.

41. The Plaintiff agrees to reduce his claim to $50,000.00 to bring this action within the Simplified Procedure found under rule 76 of the Rules of Civil Procedure R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 194 as amended.

42. The Plaintiff requests that this action be tried in Ottawa, Ontario.