Richard Warman is disreputable
Today my Toronto lawyers served my Statement of Defence in response to Richard Warman’s lawsuit against me and six other defendants. You can see my defence here.
Warman’s lawsuit itself is here, and here are the defences of my co-defendants Connie and Mark Fournier, Kate McMillan and Kathy Shaidle and the National Post and Jonathan Kay. I’m the last to file.
My approach is a bit different than the others -- it's a little more fact-packed. Warman's suit is political, and it's part of what he calls his campaign of "maximum disruption". In other words, it's a nuisance suit. It's part of the "lawfare" being waged against me by the human rights industry in response to my criticisms of it. And that, in turn, began when I decided not to surrender to the two radical Muslim complaints against me at the Alberta Human Rights Commission, for publishing the Danish cartoons of Mohammed back in 2006.
In many ways, the lawsuits filed against me by Richard Warman and Giacomo Vigna, and the one threatened by Warren Kinsella, are distractions from the main fight: radical Islam, and its use of our Western legal tools to censor criticism of Islamic fascism. Those three antagonists certainly don't seem, at first blush, to have anything to do with my publication of the Danish cartoons 900 days ago.
But in another sense, their nuisance suits -- and the Canadian human rights industry from which they emanate -- are the necessary domestic partners in the foreign jihad against Canada. They're what Lenin called the "useful idiots of the West". Warman, Vigna and Kinsella probably don't even agree with radical Islam -- though Kinsella has dabbled in it, by giving advice and help to the anti-Semitic Canadian Islamic Congress. But they are defenders of (and in Warman's case, a leading participant in) Canada's abusive, corrupt human rights system that has been so effectively hijacked by radical Islam.
Of course, many others have hijacked Canada's HRCs, too -- radical jihadists are merely the latest and most dangerous. HRCs have been censoring, fining, gagging and even jailing their critics for 30 years. They are no longer a shield protecting our rights, they're a sword to abuse our rights, especially our freedom of speech and thought.
Read the defence for yourself. Some of the material will be old news to regular readers of this blog; some of it will be new.
My defence refers to many of Warman's bigoted posts that he made as a member of neo-Nazi websites. You can see dozens of those posts here. I also refer to Warman's involvement with the violent ARA. You can see photos of one of the events referred to in my defence here.
There are several ways to fight a defamation claim, and I'm using many of them. Truth, fair comment, etc. are all defences. I've also pointed out that Warman has let hundreds of criticisms similar to mine go unchecked on the Internet and even in mainstream publications like Maclean's, to focus on his prefered targets for "maximum disruption" -- me and other leading conservative bloggers.
But I've also looked at Warman's reputation and said, essentially: you're suing me because I reported that you wrote an anti-Black comment on a website, using a false name? But you've already admitted, under oath, to writing hundreds of anti-Black, anti-Semitic and anti-gay comments on neo-Nazi websites under false names!
I've also pointed out that Warman has issued or threatened literally dozens of defamation lawsuits over the years -- including some since he sued me and my co-defendants. Again, how can you go to court claiming that your reputation was damaged, when you've written -- in your own hand! -- that your reputation has been devastated again and again and again, both before and since, by others?
The answer, of course, is that the lawsuit isn't logical, or serious. It's a nuisance suit. I believe he thought the defendants would each crumble -- the National Post because they already apologized to him, and me and the other bloggers because we're not wealthy. I don't think Warman ever counted on the blogosphere -- and not just the conservative blogosphere, but everyone who cares about freedom of speech -- chipping in to help us with the costs of our defence.
I won't write any more now, because there's plenty of reading in the defence itself. What do you think of it?