Barrel Strength

These are excerpts from the Canadian Human Rights Commission Annual Report of 2007

Warman v. Wilkinson 2007 CHRT 27

In a decision rendered on July 10, 2007, the Tribunal upheld the complaint filed by Mr. Warman against Mr. Wilkinson but dismissed the complaint against the Canadian Nazi Party. The Tribunal found that Mr. Wilkinson communicated messages through a website that were likely to expose individuals to hatred and/or contempt on the basis of religion, sexual orientation, race, colour, national or ethnic origin, or disability. The Tribunal agreed with the Commission that: “the content of the hate messages was both vicious and extreme…not only did the messages attribute numerous and varied criminal acts to the [targeted] groups, described them as corrupt and devious, but some messages went so far as to openly advocate the extermination of Jews, Blacks and other non-whites.” The Tribunal ordered a penalty of $4,000 and a cease and desist order.

In a decision dated February 2, 2007, the Tribunal upheld the complaint filed by Mr. Warman against Mr. Tremaine. The Tribunal rejected the respondent’s arguments that Internet postings were not public and did not expose individuals to hatred because they were posted on a website where like-minded people communicated amongst themselves. The Tribunal found the mere fact of putting postings on the Internet, which is accessible to almost everyone, was sufficient to expose individuals to hatred. The Tribunal found that Mr. Tremaine communicated messages that were likely to expose individuals to hatred or contempt, contrary to section 13, and ordered the respondent to cease the discriminatory practice and to pay a penalty of $4,000.

– In fact, the actual decision of the Tribunal reads:

The Respondent gave evidence regarding his financial situation. He testified that he did not own a car or a house. He has lost his job at the University of Saskatchewan. He testified that he is presently working 20 hours a week at a minimum wage job, clearing about $600 a month. This evidence went unchallenged and the Respondent was not cross-examined on this matter neither by the Commission, nor by the Complainant.

[168] Taking into account the nature, circumstances, gravity and intentional nature of the communication, and taking all the other factors into consideration, I find that a penalty of $4,000, would be reasonable in these circumstances.

In a decision rendered on October 26, 2007, the Tribunal upheld the complaint filed by Mr. Warman against Ms. Beaumont. The Tribunal held that the respondent communicated messages that were likely to expose individuals to hatred or contempt. The Tribunal found that Ms. Beaumont “repeatedly used highly inflammatory and derogatory language with respect to several groups, based on their religion, race, national or ethnic origin, or sexual orientation.” The Tribunal held that section 13 addresses all hateful messages that are communicated on the Internet and rejected the respondent’s arguments that she did not expose individuals to hatred because she used the derogatory language only among her circle of friends and not in front of the targeted group. The Tribunal ordered Ms. Beaumont to pay the sum of $3,000 in special compensation and ordered her to cease the discriminatory practice and to pay a penalty of $1,500.”

The actual decision of the Tribunal said:

“[101] Ms. Beaumont testified that whatever the Tribunal’s decision in this matter, she would not change her views and ideas. However, she also testified that “she would stop going to the Internet” if the Tribunal ordered her to do so.

[102] At the time of the hearing, Ms. Beaumont was no longer residing in British Columbia and had moved back to Calgary. She is 21 years old and is living with her parents. She claimed to be paying rent to her parents although this evidence was not documented. She produced pay stubs showing that she was employed as a salesperson in a retail store earning $10.50/hour.”

In relation to the special compensation, a payment to Richard Warman, complainant, the judge ruled:

[94] In assessing the appropriateness of such an order, the only messages in issue are those that reference Mr. Warman, and not the entirety of the material that has been found to be in breach of s. 13. Ms. Beaumont knew or should have known that the language she was using to attack and ridicule Mr. Warman was likely to expose him to hatred and contempt in conjunction with his identification as a Jew. The reference to “Dead Warman Society”  accompanied by images of swastikas is particularly troubling. Words suggesting that harm should come to another cannot be taken lightly, even if they were made in jest. Others viewing this material on the Internet may not see it as such and take the message more seriously. Mr. Warman also points out that Message 30, for instance, was posted after Ms. Beaumont was served with the human rights complaint. Thus, rather than halting the hate messages, she continued them and began to include references to Mr. Warman by name.

[95] In the circumstances, I therefore order Ms. Beaumont to pay the sum of $3,000 in special compensation, pursuant to s. 54(1)(b) of the Act.

The twentysomething losers living in parental basements on low wages who post these offensive messages should know that the state, the Dominion of Canada, and its informant Mr. Warman, will pursue you zealously. Your IP address will be traced back to your user name and password, thence to your address. You are not safe, you Nazi twerps. And if you insult Mr. Warman, he will be compensated from your pocket - more likely your parents’ pockets - for your rudeness.