There’s Big Money in Fighting Racism & Curbing Free Speech

There’s Big Money in Fighting Racism & Curbing Free Speech

  Egyptian-born, hijab wearing Amira Elghawaby is Canada’s newly minted Special Representative on Combatting Islamophobia. The job comes with a $6.5-million budget — no word on how much the highly critical Elghawaby will pocket. She’s no friend of free speech. She’s been a board member of the anti-free speech Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) — that’s Bernie Farber and Richard Warman, both decades-long advocates of state censorship of speech. She currently works for the Muslim Association of Canada and the National Council of Canadian Muslims. She worked in communications with the taxpayer-funded Canadian Race Relations Foundation. She’s a shrill critic of this country. Terry Glavin in the National Post (February 1, 2023) reports: “As an activist and frequent opinion-pages contributor, Elghawaby has adopted all the respectable standpoints with just the right degree of transgressive élan, rarely too strident or too squishy. She called for removing the Queen as Canada’s head of state and dismissed Canada Day as a festival of ‘Judeo-Christian storytelling.’ She’s been gushing in her praise for Trudeau and backs the Trudeau government’s extremely contentious moves to regulate commentary on the Internet. She’s argued in favour of Muslim prayer rooms in schools [of course, Christian prayers are banned in most public schools], and once blasted the former Conservative government of Stephen Harper as having done more harm to the image of Canadian Muslims than al-Qaida’s atrocities in New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.” As she doesn’t like the Queen and believes Canada Day was concocted by Jews and Christians, one wonders why she doesn’t return to Egypt. She quickly ran into a firestorm of protest from across the political spectrum in Quebec for remarks suggesting that Quebec nationalists are Islamophobes. Interestingly, her appointment was endorsed by the loudly anti-free speech Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

The appointment is a shameless attempt for curry favour with the Moslem vote. What is Islamophobia? Literally, it is a fear of Moslems or the Islamic religion. Many people may have good reason to fear radical Islam or the religion itself which has often been a religion of conquest. Does the government have any role in telling people what to think or feel? Certainly not in a country that values freedom. Islamophobia like “anti-Semitism” — yes we have a Special Representative (the well-connected Irwin Cotler) to combat that too –is a vague term and all too often means any criticism of Moslems or Islam.

If any group needs a special representative, it is Christians. Not only is there barely disguised disdain and hostility from many Canadian governments to Christianity, but 2021 saw a cross-Canada terrorist campaign of arson and vandalism of Christian churches. Writing for True North (August 21, 2021) Cosmin Dzsurdza reported: “Sixty-eight Christian churches in Canada have been vandalized, burned down or desecrated since the announcement last month of the apparent discovery of graves found near a residential school in Kamloops, BC. Since then, three other first nations have announced similar findings of burial sites located near former residential schools. In response to these announcements, far-left radicals have used this opportunity as an excuse to terrorize Catholic and other Christian communities by targeting churches. Twenty-five churches across the country have been lit on fire in the past two months, many of them have been completely destroyed.” Far from appointing a special representative to combat Christophobia, Trudeau said that, while he didn’t support arson and vandalism, he could understand it.

There she is, second from the left, beside the monumentally incompetent fellow Moslem Ahmed Hussen, ex-immigration minister who presided over the Roxham Road invasion, and now is Minister of Housing, Inclusion & Diversity; beside him iis Omar Alghabra, the Saudi Moslem and witless
Transportation Minister who blamed Canadian travellers last summer for airport delays, saying
had forgotten how to unpack their laptops for screening.

Text of the Judgement Dismissing Richard Warman’s Defamation Action Against Journalists Jonathan & Barbara Kay for Saying Canadian Anti-Hate Network Supports Antifa & Warman Uses Lawsuits to Silence Critics

[Richard Warman, a board member of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network sued journalists Jonathan Kay & Barbara Kay, seeking $25,000 & $10,000 for tweets suggesting CAHN assisted violent Antifa and that Warman uses lawsuits to silence critics. Warman lost big time with costs to be decided. It’s fascinating to learn that a grant of $25,000 from the malodorous Southern Poverty Law Centre helped set up CAHN. CAHN has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from theCanadian taxpayer and $500,000 in 2020 from the Bank of Montreal. CAHN has been a loud proponent of censorship. In a taxpayer-funded booklet to combat “hate” in schools, it makes the ludicrous claim that the Red Ensign is a hate symbol. — Paul Fromm]


SC – 20 -156136

Richard Warman


)Andréa Baldy

Jonathan Kay and Barbara Kay

)Asher Honickman

)October 14, 2022
)November 10,



[1] This was a claim for $25,000.00 against Jonathan Kay and
$10,000.00 against Barbara Kay, for defamation and loss of
[2] The alleged defamatory communication relating to Jonathan Kay
was from a hyperlinked article he tweeted on November 12, 2019,
“Ant-hate Southern Poverty Law Center Partner Funds Violent
Canadian Antifa”
[3] On November 12, 2019, Jonathan Kay wrote and/or printed
words alleged to be defamatory including:
November 12, 2019
“really unsettling. Why wd an “anti hate” group like
@antihateca be supporting antifa thugs? Few years back, u
could make a case that many antifa members really opposed rt
wing extremism, but antifa has now just become a hate cult
engaged in street violence”.
“Anti-Hate Southern Poverty Law Center Funds Violent Antifa
It shouldn’t be a big demand for left-wing groups to disavow
Antifa violence and certainly not to partner with the movement
or its supporting organizations.
Exhibit 1, Tab 3

[4] A further communication tweeted by Jonathan Kay January 25,
2020, reads:
“great @c2cjournal piece on the race-hustling at @antihateca,
which scares its donors with exaggerated fearmongering, &
pushes censorship. Also notes CAHN’S de facto support for
antifa, a street gang & dox shop that exudes the same hate
CAHN claims to fight [sic]”.
[5] The alleged defamatory communication relating to Barbara Kay
was from a hyperlinked article she tweeted on November 12,
2019, titled:
“Ant-hate Southern Poverty Law Center Partner Funds Violent
Canadian Antifa”
[6] On November 12, 2019, Barbara Kay wrote and/or printed words
alleged to be defamatory including:
November 12, 2019
“Not a good look for @antihateca in this article.
“Anti-Hate Southern Poverty Law Center Funds Violent Antifa
It shouldn’t be a big demand for left-wing groups to disavow
Antifa violence and certainly not to partner with the movement
or its supporting organizations.

[7] The defendants raise the following defences:
a) The impugned publications are not defamatory of the plaintiff
b) Justification of lesser meanings

c) Fair Comment
d) Qualified Privilege
e) Lack of Malice
f) Lack of Damages
g) Republication
h) s.137.1 of the Courts of Justice Act, R.S.O. 1990, c.C.43

[8] Warman is a lawyer and at the material time, a volunteer board
member of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network (“CAHN”).
[9] Jonathan Kay (“Jonathan”) at the material time was a journalist
with the Twitter handle “@jonkay”, and Barbara Kay (“Barbara”)
was at the material time a columnist at the National Post and had
a Twitter handle “@BarbaraRKay”.
[10] On November 12, 2019, Jonathan communicated the content
referred to, supra, through his Twitter account and the text
included a hyper link:

[11] On January 25, 2020, Jonathan Kay published the tweet referred
to, supra.

[12] On November 12, 2019, Barbara communicated the content
referred to, supra, through her Twitter account and the text
included a hyper link:

[13] Notice of Libel was served on the defendants on November 22,

[14] A) Defamation – were the impugned tweets defamatory.
Did they contain allegations against Warman that would
lower him in the estimation of reasonable people or cause
him to be regarded with hatred, fear, or dislike?
B) Justification – were the words substantially true. What were
the tweets in their natural and ordinary meanings meant or
understood to mean?
C) Fair comment – Did the tweets consist of expressions of
opinion, on matters of public interest. Did the defendants
honestly hold those opinions?
D) Qualified privilege – were the tweets published in good
faith. Did the defendants honestly believe they were fair and
accurate and related to maters of public interest?
E) Malice – did the defendants believe what they published to
be true. Was their belief reasonably held and did they act
reasonably in expressing their views?
F) Damages – If the words were defamatory, did Warman
suffer actual injury or damage to his reputation?
G) Strategic lawsuit against public participation – Do the
Charter or the Courts of Justice Act offer a defence?

Richard Warman
[15] Warman is a lawyer, a Judge Advocate General reservist, and has
been involved with human rights issues with the Canadian Human
Rights Commission, where he was formerly employed, filing 16
successful complaints against neo-Nazis, and white supremacist
groups and individuals over the last 20 years.
[16] Warman is a well-known public speaker on human rights and
anti-racist activism. And a recipient of numerous awards and
honors for his human rights advocacy.
Exhibit 2, Tabs 4-5
[17] In 2018 the Canadian Anti Hate Network (CAHN”) was formed by
three individuals, Bernie Farber, Evan Balgord and Amira Al –
Ghawaby. Their website was active from about July of that year.
[18] The non-profit corporation started with a budget of $25,000 from
the Southern Poverty Law Center (“SPLC”), though there was no
formal alliance between them.
[19] CAHN’S mandate was to educate the public with respect to hate
groups and counter the activities of those hate groups.
[20] Warman joined CAHN’s board in 2018. He provided direction to
the executive director Balgord, the only paid member, helped
obtain funding, and dealt with legal issues as well. His role was
coordinating anti racist and anti-fascist movements.
[21] Numerous articles including ones from the Canadian Jewish News,
the CAHN website, and news articles identify Warman as a CAHN
board member from August 2, 2018, to September 2019.

[22] In 2019 a peace bond was issued under s.810 of the Criminal
Code against Kevin Goudreau, a member of the Canadian Neo –
Nazi movement, for threats against CAHN . The bond named
Warman, as part of CAHN.
Exhibit 1 – Tab 17
[23] Warman’s work was positively received and resulted in medals
for good citizenship; a sovereign volunteer medal; and a Queen’s
diamond medal, and an Ottawa Citizen article asking, “is this the
bravest man in Canada?”
[24] Warman testified that he was on a “hit list” for racists and white
supremacists; was criticized by those opposed to legal controls on
hate speech; and, generally, was opposed by those holding
“libertarian” views.
[25] Warman dealt with them by disabusing them, engaging with them,
ignoring them if possible, or issuing libel actions against them. His
reputation for integrity and honesty is crucial to his work as a
lawyer and advocate for human rights.
[26] Warman admitted he has received no serious threats in the last 5
years and that the impugned tweets haven’t exacerbated the
[27] He still is portrayed positively in mainstream media and has no
knowledge of anyone concluding that he personally funds hate
groups, which he testified he does not do, nor has he encouraged
[28] In cross examination, Warman was referred to a Maclean’s
magazine article by Charlie Gillis regarding s13 of the Canadian
Human Rights Act and Warman’s use of that section, which
required no intent; did not have truth as a defence; and
discouraged legitimate free speech. Warman brought more
complaints to the CHRC than anyone else.

[29] After a Warman sent a libel notice to a library, the British
Columbia Civil Liberties Association got involved resulting
ultimately in the repeal of s13. The National Post, Ottawa Citizen,
Globe and Mail, Law Times and the Canadian Lawyer all did
articles on Warman and his involvement with s13 of the
Canadian Human Rights Act.

2008 Libel action against Jonathan Kay and the National Post
[30] In February 2018, Jonathan published an article on the National
Post website alleging that Warman manufactured his own hate
material, and that there was a phony racism industry in Canada.
Exhibit 1, Tab 9, p 62/113
[31] Warman then commenced a libel action which was settled. The
National Post apologized and retracted the post.
November 12, 2019, Tweets
[32] Neither Warman nor CAHN had any contact with the defendants
before the November 12, 2019, tweets which Warman considered
defamatory in that he believed they conveyed the message that he
personally funded antifa.
[33] Warman admitted in cross examination that he had no knowledge
if the impugned tweets were liked, retweeted, commented on and
admitted the tweets never went “viral”.
[34] Warman did not e-mail Jonathan regarding the November 12,
2019, tweet but instead retained counsel who gave Notice of Libel
to the defendants on November 21, 2019.
Exhibit 1, Tabs 7,8, page 5/113
[35] Warman contacted The Federalist in December 2019 seeking a
retraction since their article was based on an earlier Huffington
Post article wrongly alleging the source of funding for Antifa.
Exhibit 1, Tab 4, page 38

[36] Although Warman received no response to his December 2, 2019,
e-mail, the Federalist did change the article, though not in a
manner satisfactory to Warman. Warman never sent a libel notice
nor commence an action against the Federalist.
Exhibit 8
[37] This action was then commenced in January 2020.

Steven Rogers
[38] Rogers is an expert in digital forensics, gave evidence on behalf of
Warman regarding the impugned tweets, and filed a report dated
January 25, 2020.
Exhibit 1 – Tab 18, pages 37/176
[39] Rogers gave evidence as to the number of followers the
defendants had but was unable to say how many of those
followers saw the tweets and whether those tweets went “viral”.
He gave no evidence that any of the tweets were “pinned”.
Jonathan Kay
[40] Jonathan is a journalist and has written for the Washington Post,
the Wall Street Journal, the National Post, Al Jazeera, and the
Canadian Jewish News. He also worked with the New Yorker,
Harper, and the Walrus.
[41] Kay describes himself as an activist working for social justice
causes, and a public intellectual who rejects all ideological
extremism. His first employment was in Montreal in 1995
working with Irwin Cotler, a former Minister of Justice and
Attorney General of Canada, and a well-known human rights

[42] Jonathan is Jewish, and his father fled the USSR, so he is mindful of
the dangers of extremism from both the left and right wings of the
ideological spectrum.
[43] Jonathan was not aware of Warman except for his activity
commencing litigation or using s13 of the Canadian Human
Rights Act to act against hate groups. He was aware of the 2008
Macleans magazine article entitled “Righteous Crusader or Civil
Rights Menace”
Exhibit 3 – Tab 6
2008 Libel Action
[44] In 2008 Jonathan wrote an article for the National Post describing
the admonishment received by Warman from the Human Right
Tribunal regarding his infiltrating the Northern Alliance by posing
as a neo-Nazi.
Exhibit 1, Tab 9
[45] Jonathan relied on expert testimony from Bernard Klatt, believing
him to be an expert witness, for the article, which testimony was
in part inaccurate. The article was retracted on February 20,
Exhibit 2, Tab 2
[46] Notwithstanding the retraction, Warman still sued the National
Post and Jonathan, seeking an apology which Warman described
as an antidote to defamation. The action was settled before trial.
[47] Jonathan was aware of CAHN, which was led by Bernie Farber,
who Jonathan knew for over twenty years, and who Jonathan
considered a “good egg” . Jonathan was positively disposed both
to Farber and CAHN since Farber was a leader of the Canadian
Jewish Congress and fought racism from both the left and right.

[48] Jonathan was unaware of anyone else but Farber as a part of
CAHN and did not know Warman was with CAHN until he was
served with the libel notice. He was aware of a May 8, 2018, CBC
article profiling CAHN but testified that the article made no
mention of Warman.
Exhibit 6
[49] Jonathan was aware of Antifa and its activities and described its
earlier messaging as “benign”. However, subsequent YouTube
videos taken of antifa demonstration were described by Jonathan
as violent, thuggish, destructive of property and not all about
“peace and love”.

November 12, 2019, tweets
[50] Jonathan referred to a CAHN article by the CEO Balgord dated
September 20, 2017, as an apologist tract for Antifa, describing
the need for “physical disruption” to get their message across.
Exhibit 3, Tab 9

[51] A Quillette article (Jonathan was an editor) about Columbia’s
Journalism dated June 18, 2019, described Antifa as violent and
advocating violence to effect change. The article described what
happened to Andy Ngo, a friend of Jonathan’s, who was a 5’2” gay
Vietnamese conservative journalist covering Antifa activity in
Portland Oregon when he was badly beaten by Antifa members,
described by Jonathan as “thugs”.
Exhibit 5, Tab 32; Exhibit 2, Tab 8
[52] Jonathan described numerous instances where Antifa used
intimidation, violence and generally mimicked fascist group
activities in Portland, Oregon, and Hamilton Ontario and, for
example, screamed at an elderly woman at a town hall event in
October 2019, where they tried to block a speaker, Maxime
Bernier, and called her “Nazi scum” .
Exhibit 5, Tabs 3-6, Tab 31

[53] Jonathan attributed the Federalist article to Bernie Farber and
was disappointed that Farber, whom he had great respect for,
praised “muscular resistance” (balaclavas and pipes) and felt that
CAHN only called out right wing hate mongers. He felt betrayed by
Exhibit 1, Tab 4

[54] Regarding the impugned November 12, 2019, tweet, Jonathan was
upset that instead of ratcheting down the culture war and
divisiveness, Farber was devoting his own voice and CAHN’s to
promoting Antifa, and getting government funding for his efforts,
while few Canadians knew about Antifa’s street violence.
Exhibit 1, Tab 3

[55] Jonathan testified that he “tagged” or sub tweeted CAHN, so they
had notice of the tweet. He was blocked from contacting CAHN
directly. The tweet was about CAHN’s organization and was the
institutional extension of Farber’s stature.
[56] Jonathan had no problem with any private individual supporting
Antifa but institutions like CAHN supporting Antifa give it public
approbation and signals approval – a very valuable currency.
[57] Jonathan had no interest in Warman, said nothing about Warman
in any tweet and had no interest in any issues between the
Federalist , Huffington Post and Warman. He testified that e
thought only of Bernie Farber ad Evan Balgor as being connected
with CAHN.
[58] As to the tweet itself, Jonathan testified it “dropped like a stone”,
there was no image of any likes , retweets, comments , nor was the
tweet “pinned” so it would always be on top of Jonathan’s tweets,
so there was very little dissemination. He deleted the tweet but
doesn’t know whether that was before or after receiving the
Notice of Libel.

January 25, 2020, tweet
[59] Regarding the second impugned tweet, dated Jan 25, 2020,
Jonathan was concerned with what he described as “race
hustling”, and cancel culture pushing censorship.
Exhibit 1, Tab 11
[60] Jonathan contacted a CAHN board member, Professor Perry, who
counted 300 right wing extremist groups in Canada, which
became a media story attracting the attention of the NDP leader
Jagmeet Singh, seeking the names of the groups. The disclosure
was never provided.
Exhibit 3, Tab 24, Tab 15
[61] Jonathan’s concern was that CAHN was stirring up the idea of
apocalyptic threat and calling out right wing but not left wing hate
groups. He referred to CAHN articles describing how to find local
Antifa chapters and referring to an international Antifa defence
Exhibit 4, Tab 3, Exhibit 7
[62] Jonathan testified that Warman had a reputation as a litigation
enthusiast and is now prominent on the CAHN website, so he has
suffered no diminution in reputation .
[63] Jonathan did not offer an apology regarding his tweets because
none referred to Warman; CAHN was and is still a partisan
organization; and, finally, in 2008 when Jonathan and the National
Post did retract the impugned article, Warman still sued anyway.
Barbara Kay
[64] Barbara testified that she was a journalist for over 22 years and
had a lifelong interest in writing about human rights, cancel
culture and antisemitism.

[65] Barbara is a self-described “classic liberal” championing
individual (as opposed to state’s) rights, due process, freedom of
speech, and conscience, and is most concerned with left wing as
opposed to right wing antisemitism, since right wing antisemitism
has no institutional support.
[66] Her concerns are with universities exercising “cancel culture” and
repressing free speech.
[67] Barbara had a positive impression of Bernie Farber until he got
“woke” and, as the voice of the Jewish community, was ignoring
left wing antisemitism.

Knowledge of Warman and CAHN
[68] Barbara was only aware of Warman’s impersonating fascists and
using s13 of the CHRA and suing “small potatoes” and believed he
was using libel chill to compel respect. She had no knowledge of
any connection with CAHN.
[69] Barbara read the Federalist article and sent her tweet the same
day it was published. She was concerned with Farber’s praising
“muscular resistance” and was unaware that Warman was a CAHN
board member. She thought that Farber was CAHN and CAHN was
November 12, 2019, tweet
[70] Barbara had used that expression “not a good look” many times
before the impugned tweet. Her concern was that an anti-hate
group was endorsing antifa which was not a good look for a
respectable organization.
Exhibit 1, Tab 3
[71] Her testimony was that she believed it was in the public interest
to know about that support, and that CAHN could do better. As a
journalist her duty was “see something, say something”.

[72] Barbara’s testified that she wanted CAHN to fight antisemitism
and wanted their reputation to be good. She believed a
government funded organization should do better and live up to
its name.
[73] As to Warman, Barbara testified that his reputation is flourishing,
and that his “brand” is as a human rights lawyer, not as any
representative of CAHN. She did not contact CAHN regarding the
federalist article or her tweet since she was blocked from
contacting CAHN.

Were the tweets defamatory
[74] The plaintiff submits the impugned tweets lowered Warman’s
reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person given his association
with, and as a board member of, CAHN.
[75] The Kays submit that the tweets did not refer to Warman
personally, only to CAHN, and further submit that they did not
republish the article on the Federalist website which did name
[76] The evidence was that Warman did not run CAHN; was not its
most identifiable or visible member; and was often unable to be a
part of CAHNs activities due to conflicts of interest with his work
with the Judge Advocate General, in cases involving federal parties
and politics and the armed forces.
[77] Warman’s reputation among those following human rights issues
was as a human rights lawyer, not a principal of CAHN. The
evidence was that Bernie Farber and Evan Balgord were much
more publicly seen as the alter ego of CAHN, and neither has sued
the Kays.

[78] The plaintiff has not proven, on a balance of probability, that the
impugned tweets would lead a reasonable person to believe they
referred to Warman. While they could refer to Warman, they did
not actually refer to him and, as found, supra, he was not CAHN’s
alter ego nor was he CAHN’s sole actor, or even its primary actor.
[79] Defamation of CAHN does not constitute defamation of Warman.
Warman has failed to prove, on a balance of probability, that he
was “the face” of CAHN, or it’s alter ego, and although a reference
to CAHN could refer to Warman, that is not sufficient in law to
constitute defamation of Warman.
Foulidis v Ford 2012 ONSC 7189
[80] The Kays evidence was that they both saw Bernie Farber as the
chair of CAHN; the face of CAHN and its most prolific member
because he was the CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress.
[81] They did not have Warman in mind as part of CAHN when they
published their tweets, and their evidence was that they did not
even know Warman was a CAHN board member until served with
Notice of Libel.
[82] Articles published in 2018 on CBC and TVO refer to Farber as the
founder of CAHN and refer to Evan Balgord as a co-founder.
Neither mention Warman. At the time of the impugned tweets,
November 2019, CAHN had more than 15 members. It was not a
minor organization, and its identity was not the same as any
board member.
Exhibit 3, Tab 10; Exhibit 6
[83] Farber’s Wikipedia page refers to Farber running the Canadian
Anti Hate Network with Evan Balgord. There is no mention of
Warman. Warman’s Wikipedia page does not refer to his role as a
CAHN board member.
Exhibit 3, Tab 22, page 227; Exhibit 5, Tab 24

[84] Neither CAHN , Farber, Balgord nor other CAHN board members
sued the Kays, and Warman did not sue the Federalist nor the C2C
Journal, the Canadian publication which published the article
referred to in the 2020 tweet.
[85] Warman admitted in cross exam that a person reading the
impugned tweets may not have associated them with him, and in
fact gave no evidence that anyone reading the tweets believed
they were about him.
[86] Warman did submit that the Federalist article headlined in the
tweet referred to him and was defamatory, but he also testified
that he wrote the Federalist asking them to remove the
allegations about him personally funding violent Antifa groups in
the body of the article (which they apparently did) and did not
seek to have them change the headline nor remove other
allegations referring to CAHN.
Exhibit 8
[87] The headline/sub headline of the tweets criticize CAHN policy but
do not refer to any individual, and any person would therefore
have to read the article itself to understand the tweets or
headline. The ordinary meaning of the tweets and headlines is
that CAHN provides material assistance to Antifa, not that
Warman personally funds violent groups.
[88] The Kays did not republish the Federalist article by simply linking
to it, and Warman’s name appears only in the article, not the
headline or sub headline. This does not constitute a repeat or
republication of the defamatory content.
Crookes v Newton [2011] 3 SCR 269
[89] I find therefore that the plaintiff did not discharge the burden of
proving on a balance of probability that the defendants’ words
referred to him and were defamatory of him.

[90] Even if the impugned tweets were defamatory, which I have found
has not been proven, the Kays have raised defences which would
shift the onus to Warman to prove malice on the part of the Kays,
or either of them.

Fair Comment
[91] The public has an interest in the fight against hate crime in
Canada and the parties involved in that fight, including CAHN and
[92] The Kays both gave evidence of their longstanding activism
regarding human rights and antisemitism and their tweets
comment on the fact that the Federalist and C2C Journal articles
both allege that CAHN supports or assists the Antifa movement.
[93] Warman’s evidence was that he and CAHN were part of the Antifa
movement; Farber has praised their muscular resistance; and
Balgord referred to Antifa’s use of physical disruption.
Exhibit 1, Tab 4; Exhibit 3, Tabs 8, 9
[94] The Kays evidence, which I accept, was that Warman was not the
subject of their tweets – they were unaware that he was a CAHN
board member at the relevant times – and that Farber and CAHN
were the subjects since Farber was well known, particularly
within the Jewish community, and CAHN had influence as a partly
government funded Canadian organization.
[95] I find therefore that it has not been proven, on a balance of
probability, that the opinions which were the subject of the
impugned tweets were dominantly motivated by malice.
[96] I accept the Kays’ evidence that they reasonably believed their
opinions to be accurate, and find that there was insufficient
evidence to establish, on a balance of probability, that there was a
reckless disregard for the truth.

[97] The evidence disclosed that CAHN did in fact assist Antifa and that
the movement has been violent. The Kays submission, which I
accept, is that a human rights network like CAHN arguably
(except in the most extreme circumstances) should not support a
violent movement, and to do so, to most reasonable observers,
would not be a “good look”.

Qualified privilege
[98] The defendants have not proven, on a balance of probability, that
the recipients of the impugned tweets had an interest or duty to
receive them. The test is objective – i.e., it is not whether the Kays
believed the recipients (which include, in the case of tweets, the
world at large) but whether they were necessary to discharge the
duty giving rise to the privilege.
[99] The case cited by the defendants regarding the application of
qualified privilege to tweets, which is under appeal, is not
applicable here. There was no moral nor professional duty on the
Kays as there was in the medical doctor in the Gill decision.
Gill v Maciver, 2022 ONSC 1279

[100] Although there was no evidence led as to reputational damage;
the impugned tweets were “dud” and did not go “viral”; the first
tweet was deleted prior to the Notice of Libel being served; and
there was no publication of the Federalist article which was
considered by Warman to be the most defamatory, general
damages are presumed in a defamation case.

[101] While Warman is well known as a righteous crusader against
white supremacy and right-wing racist hate and has been
recognized and appropriately lauded for his work, he is also a
controversial figure and I accept the evidence of the Kays that he
has used litigation to silence or intimidate those he sees as his
critics, or who oppose his methods of prosecuting hate groups.
[102] I also accept the Kays’ evidence as to why no apology was made
given that Jonathan Kay was still sued after the National Post
retracted its article and apologized for its inaccuracy, in 2008.
[103] Finally, I accept the evidence of the Kays that no apology was
warranted where neither of them referred to Warman in their
tweets and did not in fact even have him in mind when they
published them.
[104] Had Warman succeeded in this action against the Kays, I would
therefore have awarded nominal damages in the amount of
$5,000 against Jonathan Kay and $500 against Barbara Kay
whose tweet was far less recognizable and damaging to Warman.

[105] Having regard to all the above, and in recognizing the importance
of maintaining open debate on matters of public interest, while
being mindful that although freedom of expression is to be
protected, it is not a “get out of jail free card” for those exceeding
reasonable limits, the plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.

[106] If the parties are unable to agree on costs, each party has 10 days
from the release of these reasons to serve and file cost
submissions, not to exceed 3 typed pages excluding a Bill of Costs,
together with copies of any offers made pursuant to Rule 14 of
the Rules of the Small Claims Court, which would impact costs


Dated at Ottawa this 9th day of November 2022.
David Dwoskin
Deputy Judge D. Dwoskin

The Tax-payer Funded Militantly Anti-Free Speech Canadian Anti-Hate Network & Other Sworn Enemies of Free SpeechWant Travis Patron Charged for “Hate” for Expressing Political Opinions


Posted on July 16, 2020



July 16, 2020

Canadian Anti-Hate Network

In June 2019, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network filed a criminal complaint with the RCMP in Saskatchewan for an antisemitic video posted by Travis Patron, leader of the neo-Nazi [false] Canadian Nationalist Party. The RCMP says they launched an investigation. A full year later the RCMP has not made any further statement on the status of that investigation, despite Patron escalating his antisemitic calls to arms. It’s turning into international news.

Given the most recent incidents, CAHN board member Richard Warman filed a renewed criminal complaint with the RCMP and CIJA and the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center followed suit, filing their own complaints.

If you support our work against the neo-Nazi [false] Canadian Nationalist Party, help us out at Thank you!

The video that prompted our June 2019 complaint deals in antisemitic tropes, calls Jews a “parasitic tribe,” and says they need to be dealt with once and for all; any reasonable person would understand the video as a call for deportations and genocide.

At the time Patron claimed it wasn’t about Jews:

“Unless you self-identify with the accusations in the video, then it doesn’t concern you. But if you choose to be offended by it, ask yourself WHY? Is it wrong for Canada to rid itself of a parasitic relationship that has only served to suck us dry? #Zionism #cdnpoli”

Patron has a social media history of supporting “historical revisionism,” a term Holocaust deniers [false — skeptics] use to self-identity, liking posts quoting Hitler, and promoting the writings of Quebec fascist Adrian Arcand, a Hitler supporter who was arrested and interned during WWII.

Despite his barely veiled neo-Nazism, [false] our promise to name their members should they not renounce their support, and the pending investigation, Patron’s Canadian Nationalist Party was ultimately recognized as a federal political party with all the inherent benefits in time for the 2019 election. Unsurprisingly, Patron and his two candidates received almost no votes.

In November 2019, Patron was charged with aggravated assault and assault causing bodily harm for allegedly attacking two women who wouldn’t get in his car. Those charges are pending.

Since then Patron has made nonsense arguments that he isn’t subject to Canadian law and dispensed with any pretense that he isn’t targeting Canadian Jews. He has posted a video giving a Nazi salute, which he calls a Roman salute, and published a flyer with the transcript of the first antisemitic video, adding:

“The people we speak of are not truly ‘Jews.’ They are liars and deceivers attempting to shield themselves from criticism using a false identity. Let us be aware and expose them for what they are: a tribe of parasites.”

Patron has since made other videos in the same vein, and is also dealing biblical antisemitism, including sharing an infamous bible passage saying Jews are of the “synagogue of Satan.”

CAHN believes the evidence is more than sufficient for the RCMP to criminally charge Patron with the wilful promotion of hatred against the Jewish community who have every right to be protected from Patron and the poison of his hate propaganda.

It’s been over a year since the first criminal complaint. How much longer do we have to wait?

FREEDOM ALERT! Taxpayer Funded Canadian Anti- Hate Network Wants Return of Sec. 13 (Internet Censorship/Truthis No Defence)

Taxpayer Funded Canadian Anti- Hate Network Wants Return of Sec. 13

Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was inserted at the last minute, in 1977, on the request of Jewish lobby groups and the then-Deputy Attorney General of Ontario, to “get” one man, John Ross Taylor who was using a telephone answering machine with a recorded message to spread his views. This was in the late 1970s, before today’s Internet technology. Sec. 13 stated: “It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.” These privileged groups included race, religion, sexual orientation or identity. Mr. Taylor and a number of others using telephone answering machines to spread their views were slapped with “cease and desist orders.” These had the force of a court order.

To broadcast the same or “similar” (whatever that is) messages was considered contempt and cold land you in jail. Happy Warrior John Ross Taylor, an honest and guileless man, was twice sentenced to a year in jail, the last time when he was 77 years of age.

By the  late 1990s, the Internet had replaced telephone answer machines. Sabina Citron, a bitter enemy of revisionist publisher Ernst Zundel, made a complaint against him about the Zundelsite, which was located in the U.S. and run by an American citizen, educator and novelist Ingrid Rimland (who would eventually become Mrs. Zundel). This was a hard fought case, which lasted from 1997 to 2002. CAFE was an intervenor. On the censorship side were a number of Jewish groups. The defence argued, inter alia, that the Internet was not “telephonic communication”, as the section was then worded. Bill C-36, an omnibus anti-terrorism law covering many things was brought in as a response to 9/11. It gave control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and clarified that it did cover the Internet.

Along came Richard Warman, an Ottawa lawyer and bitter enemy of free speech — he had earlier tried to get various venues for British author David Icke cancelled. Warman started filing a flurry of human rights complaints against various nationalist bloggers, historical revisionists and others. For a while he was even working for the Canadian Human Rights Commission
, in a way, drumming up business for them.

Most of his victims were poor and few could afford a lawyer. CAFE assisted a number of these victims (Terry Tremaine, Glen Bahr, Jessica Beaumont, Melissa Guille, and others, and intervened in the  Marc Lemire/Freedomsite case.

We witnessed a massacre. Along the way, it was ruled that truth was no defence, intent was no defence. No harm had to be proved. In one case, we proved that, prior to Warman’s complaint, only one person, anti-free speech offence hunter Richard Warman, had ever clicked on the offending comment. The wording of the Section “likely to expose” is very loose. What is “likely”? No evidence had to be presented that anyone actually saw the comments, believed them and started to hate a privileged minority. Hatred may be hard to define, but what about “contempt”? Contempt is a negative feeling toward a person.

As it turned out, ANY strong criticism of a privileged group, even if true or fair comment, could lower a person’s opinion of that group and, therefore, might “expose them to contempt.” We learned that there was no defence to a charge under Sec. 13. The anti-free speech complainants, the vast majority Warman’s, won in every case but one — a record only surpassed in North Korea. The press paid no attention to this bullzosing of freedom. Often, echoing the complainant they had demonized the victims as “neo-nazis” or “racists” or “White supremacists”.

Eventually, others decided to mimic the success of Jewish groups and Warman, who worked closely with them, to silence their critics. A group of Moslems, angry at Mark Steyn for his book on the Islamicization of Europe, which had been exerpted in Maclean’s made a Sec. 13 complaint against Maclean’s. Finally, the press paid attention and they learned that there basically was no defence to a charge and that the vast majority had been brought by one man.

Soon, religious groups began to pay attention. We had warned Real Women back in 1998 that having we their teeth on historical revisionists and immigration critics, the thought control freaks would move on to others — Christians who opposed abortion or the LGBTQ agenda. A groundswell of opposition arose to Sec. 13. A Conservative Party conference called for its repeal. A Conservative backbencher, Brian Storseth, introduced  a private member’s bill repealing Sec. 13, which passed in 2014.

Warman no longer has his favourite toy. The enemies of free speech have smarted ever since. Now, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, on whose board sits Richard Warman and Bernie Farber, former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress and a decades-long advocate of censorship. Sadly this frenetically pro-censorship gropup has lucked into government money. Even worse, this summer they were the beneficiary of a $500,000 grant from the Bank of Montreal. [No, corporate Canada is no friend of free speech.]

Thus free speech supporters should be concerned by the following news from the Canadian Anti-Hate Network.:  “Earlier this month [December] we met with Heritage minister Steven Guilbeault and a number of social justice organizations to discuss legislation surrounding online hate. We argued that reinstating s. 13 is fundamental to successfully dealing with the problem. We were joined by numerous voices in support of these measures — the Mosaic Institute, the National Association of Friendship Centres, the Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice, and others — and we are committed to a coalition to realize a better solution for today.” The problem was views on the Internet dissenting from political correctness.

Anti-Free Speech Campaigner Richard Warman Has A Meltdown Because Law Society Won’t Punish Lawyer Who Advertized in YOUR WARD NEWS


Lawyer who advertised in pro-Nazi newsletter ‘Your Ward News’ cleared by Law Society

Lawyer who lodged complaint in 2016 says result ‘ludicrous both in terms of the delay and outcome’

Lawyer who advertised in pro-Nazi newsletter 'Your Ward News' cleared by Law Society
Richard Warman, human rights lawyer

BY Aidan Macnab 05 Jan 2021

The Law Society of Ontario will take no further action against a lawyer who advertised in the pro-Nazi, Holocaust-denying and misogynist tabloid Your Ward News.

The lawyer, David Faed, participated in a Regulatory Meeting with the Law Society’s Proceedings Authorization Committee in November. The committee announced in December that while placement of the ad was not in the public interest and inconsistent with the professionalism standards under the Rules of Professional Conduct, the regulatory issue had been addressed and no further action would be taken.

In 2019, the editor and publisher of Your Ward News were convicted of wilful promotion of hatred against Jews and Women, contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

Back in 2016, Ottawa-based human rights lawyer Richard Warman brought the complaint against Faed. Warman argued his association with the publication violated a number of sections of the Rules of Professional Conduct, including s. 6.3.1-1: that lawyers have a “special responsibility to respect the requirements of human rights laws” and “honour the obligation not to discriminate.” 

Warman says Faed’s matter should not have taken so long to conclude and that the misconduct was “self-evident.”

“This is ludicrous both in terms of the delay and outcome,” he says. “… Whether a lawyer should advertise in a neo-Nazi tabloid that openly promotes hatred of women and Jews should not have been a difficult question.”

“This investigation by the Law Society of Ontario has been a failure from start to finish… There is no way under the sun, that an investigation of that nature should take four and a half years.” 

Law Times contacted Faed, but he declined to comment for this article.

Your Ward News was operated by editor James Sears and publisher Leroy St. Germaine, who were found guilty of wilful promotion of hatred by Justice Richard Blouin of the Ontario Court of Justice. The publication was found to have contained the glorification of Nazism and Adolph Hitler, Holocaust denial, the demonization of Jewish people and of women and the celebration and promotion of rape. In 2016 Canada Post stopped distributing Your Ward News after Warman filed a complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

At the Regulatory Meeting, Faed told the Law Society he had not read Your Ward News, was unaware of the nature of its content and that he does not share “any hateful views that may have been espoused by the publisher or editor.” The Law Society added that Faed had withdrawn the ad three years ago and was “unlikely to conduct himself similarly in the future.”

But despite Faed’s explanation to the Law Society, Warman says Faed continued advertising into 2017, after Warman had contacted him and explained his concerns with the publication’s content. He adds that Sears and St. Germaine were required under their release conditions to stop publishing – they were arrested in 2017 – so Faed cannot be credited for no longer advertising with them.  

“This idea that somehow of his own good graces, Mr. Faed stopped the advertising in Your Ward News is simply – I don’t believe that’s a credible explanation,” says Warman.

Faed’s ads also included a disclaimer stating: “Independent. I am not involved with the New Constitution Party of Canada,” which Faed believed would “distance himself” from the contents of the publication, said the Law Society.

According to its website, the New Constitution Party of Canada is “an all-inclusive federal party based on Libertarian doctrine, Christian values, and National Socialist ideology.” The party, which is led by Sears, “incorporates the intellect of Dr. Ron Paul, the heart of Chancellor Adolf Hitler, and the soul of Jesus Christ, into one powerful political Chimera that will crush the Marxist beast.”

Sears is representing himself on appeal. He seeks to have his conviction overturned on the basis his former lawyer was incompetent, partly for refusing to call a witness who would have testified that gas chambers were not used against Jews in the Holocaust.

Related stories

04 Jan 2021

Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) Exposed: The Wrath of CAHN by John Klein

Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) Exposed: The Wrath of CAHN by John Klein

The Wrath of CAHN

John Klein January 22, 2020 Canada is among the world’s most tolerant and peaceable countries. The Canadian Anti-Hate Network wants you to believe otherwise, however, working tirelessly to convince Canadians their country is a seething hotbed of (mostly white, right-wing) hate groups. John Klein lays bare the hypocrisy, intolerance and damage done to individuals and free speech rights when a small group of political activists model themselves on a much larger American group and appoint themselves as our country’s figurative judge, jury and executioner.

You can’t tell the haters without a program. 

For decades the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has styled itself as the indispensable guide to what constitutes hatred in the United States. Its signature “Hate Map” has long been cited in the media and by commentators as an objective and reliable reference point for measuring the worrisome growth of hate groups across America. And according to the SPLC, hate is always growing. The latest Hate Map puts the number of active hate groups in the U.S. at 1,020, up by 70 percent since 2000. Another thing that’s seemingly always growing at the SPLC: its bank account. Thanks to its self-declared status as arbiter of American hate, and in conjunction with highly sophisticated fundraising techniques, the group holds an astounding half-billion dollars in assets, making it one of America’s richest non-profit advocacy groups.

Despite such obvious trappings of success, the Alabama-based SPLC has lately found itself on the receiving end of the sort of nasty accusations it typically makes of others. Last year the organization was rocked by several internal accusations of sexual impropriety and racism against co-founder and former chief litigator Morris Dees, who was fired that March. Dees − long the public face of the organization, as well as a member of the Direct Marketing Association’s Hall of Fame for his masterful use of direct mail solicitations − was apparently fond of reminding his black female staffers how much he liked “chocolate”, among other lewd remarks, as well as inappropriate touching; it was recently revealed that decades ago he faced an accusation of molesting his stepdaughter with a sex toy.

“Chocolate” lover: SPLC co-founder Dees was at last fired from the organization.

Beyond the damaging hypocrisy of an anti-hate group being accused of sexist and racist behaviour, the SPLC has also been sued by several organizations and individuals claiming they were maliciously and erroneously targeted as “haters” and, in the case of Muslim reformer and counter-extremist Maajid Nawaz (whom it had labelled an anti-Muslim “extremist”), has had to pay out millions of dollars. This is a remarkable fact, considering the legal hurdle for defamation in the U.S. is nearly insurmountable. 

The reputation of the SPLC’s much-cited Hate Map has also been seriously damaged in other ways. A recent insider’s account in the New Yorker alleges the SPLC’s hate data has been deliberately exaggerated in order to coax donations from “gullible Northern liberals”. And the far-left magazine Current Affairs devastatingly declared that the SPLC “is a scam: It finds as much ‘hate’ as possible in order to make as much money as possible.”

The SPLC’s upside-down world: Counter-extremist Muslim reformer Nawaz was labelled an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

While the reek of hypocrisy was highly inconvenient, the allegations of “hate inflation” undermine the group’s very legitimacy. The confluence of internal crises and external criticisms has prompted nearly every top SPLC official abruptly to leave the group, Twitter to drop the SPLC as one of its hate-monitoring “safety partners” and a U.S. Senator to request the IRS investigate its non-profit status. 

In short, the SPLC’s carefully crafted public image as a virtuous hate-fighter has been shredded. It hardly seems a model to emulate. Yet that’s exactly what the fledgling Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) is doing.

Canada’s SPLC

CAHN began operations in early 2018, billing itself as an “independent, nonprofit organization made up of Canada’s leading experts and researchers on hate groups and hate crimes.” Its mandate, according to CAHN’s website, “is to monitor, research, and counter hate groups by providing education and information on hate groups to the public, media, researchers, courts, law enforcement, and community groups.” And it makes no bones about the inspiration for its domestic anti-hate crusade. In a letter to a House of Commons committee introducing itself to Canadian parliamentarians last April, CAHN claimed to be “modelled after, and supported by, the esteemed Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in the United States.” The letter was delivered several weeks after the no-longer-esteemed Dees was fired for allegations of sexual and racial misconduct.

CAHN claimed to be “modelled after, and supported by, the esteemed Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in the United States.” The letter was delivered to Parliament several weeks after the SPLC’s no-longer-esteemed co-founder Dees was fired for allegations of sexual and racial misconduct. Tweet

CAHN is chaired by Bernie Farber, well-known in Canadian media circles for an earlier career as CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC). Other key members of the organization include executive director Evan Balgord, a former special assistant to Toronto mayor John Tory, controversial “anti-hate” lawyer Richard Warman and Ontario Institute of Technology professor Barbara Perry.

The first necessary step in following the SPLC’s path is to establish CAHN as a useful source of hate information in Canada. CAHN’s principals make themselves readily available to media outlets eager to tell terrifying stories about the proliferation of hate groups in our midst. The CBC and Global News appear to be the most ardent devotees of this service, although a wide range of publications at home and abroad avail themselves of CAHN’s self-proclaimed expertise. In a particularly successful twist on its formula, CAHN board member Amira Elghawaby recently announced on Twitter that the Toronto Star will have her write a “bimonthly” column focused on “exploring human rights”.

The group also makes savvy use of social media for publicity and fundraising, and as a weapon in its anti-hate activities. Ricochet Media, an online portal that bills itself as a crowd-funded public interest journal (but is at least partly Government-of-Canada funded and seems to publish only left-wing content), is another outlet where CAHN’s messages are quoted approvingly and amplified. This breathless article, for example, alleged “levels of extremist activity not seen in generations” and called upon governments to do more than merely monitor and research right-wing extremists. 

Perry makes the stunning claim that approximately 300 hate groups are extant in Canada. If true, this would give Canada a three times higher per capita incidence of hate groups than even the SPLC claims exists in the U.S. Tweet

Having inserted itself into public discussions on hate, the next requirement in SPLC mimicry is to build a case that Canada is a seething hotbed of hatred. CAHN’s website offers a veritable avalanche of revealed hate: neo-Nazi groups are lurking in central Canadian suburbs, hate groups you’ve never heard of are organizing across Atlantic Canada, gender-identity hatred is simmering on the West Coast, anti-Semitism is surging everywhere.

The recent federal election produced an apparent bumper crop of hate in Canada, with CAHN training its steely eyes on everything from Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada to the Yellow Vest movement to an entirely insignificant collection of political no-hopers scattered across the country. As for the total amount of hate in this country, Perry makes the stunning claim that approximately 300 hate groups are extant in Canada. If true, this would give Canada a three times higher per capita incidence of hate groups than even the SPLC claims exists in the U.S. Despite the shock value of her allegations, Perry has not produced the actual list, or any verifiable evidence that such a claim is accurate. In 2015, Perry claimed there were only 100 hate groups in Canada. 

Haters, haters everywhere, from PPC leader Bernier to the Yellow Vests. If this is the best CAHN can do, is there really that much hate in Canada?
Haters, haters everywhere, from PPC leader Bernier to the Yellow Vests. If this is the best CAHN can do, is there really that much hate in Canada?

Arguing hate is in such great supply in this country is quite a feat given that Canada generally tops global surveys on racial tolerance and acceptance of immigration. And despite CAHN’s breathless claims, open expressions of racism in Canada are actually quite rare. Interestingly, visible minorities and non-visible minorities often report experiencing similar rates of discriminatory acts. 

The most recent Statistics Canada survey of police-reported hate crimes happily reveals a substantial year-over-year decline. Some places in Canada reported precisely zero hate crimes in 2018. Belleville, Ontario and Trois Rivières, Quebec were two such cities. Many other places recorded a mere handful. Examples are St. John’s, Newfoundland with one; Lethbridge, Alberta with three; and Abbotsford, B.C. with six. Out of 2.3 million Criminal Code violations that year, there were just 1,798 hate crimes – substantially less than one-tenth of one percent of the total. And the vast majority of these offences were for mischief or graffiti. Actual violence is very, very hard to find. Fewer than 100 instances of hate-motivated assaults were recorded across the entire country in 2018, of which just two were homicides. 

In truth, Canada appears to be a country remarkable for its lack of hate. But you wouldn’t know this from listening to CAHN. In response to the recent happy news that hate crimes fell sharply in 2018, CAHN complained that these new figures “aren’t showing the whole picture.” It then launched a campaign for “better hate crime statistics.” What CAHN really wants, presumably, is bigger hate crime statistics. As American journalist Wilfred Reilly memorably said of the Jussie Smollett hate-crime hoax in Chicago, “the demand for bigots exceeds the supply.” Reilly is African-American. 

Judge, jury and executioner

In addition to claiming hate is always on the rise, CAHN closely follows several other discreditable SPLC tactics. Among these is the practice of “doxing” its enemies. Doxing involves publishing the details and contact information of organizations, businesses and even private individuals deemed to be purveyors of hate. The objective is to expose those it declares to be haters to public opprobrium, or worse. It can get out of hand. 

CAHN has doxed the founder of a far-right podcast who owns a small business in Thunder Bay. It also threatened to publish the names and addresses of members of the Canadian Nationalist Party in an unsuccessful attempt to derail their application for official party status with Elections Canada. And it published the names of hundreds of donors to the quixotic Toronto mayoral campaign of Faith Goldy. “Naming and shaming is part of our mandate,” the group explains on its Twitter account. 

In many cases, the only evidence of hate to be found amongst CAHN’s targets is that they question Ottawa’s sacred twin ideologies of diversity and multiculturalism. But simply calling for illegal immigrants – who have, after all, broken Canada’s laws – to be deported is not itself evidence of hate. Tweet

In one horrifying example of naming-and-shaming’s potential consequences in the United States, Jessica Prol Smith, an editor at the Washington-based Family Research Council, a pro-marriage group opposed to homosexuality, found her life threatened by a gunman. In 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins II shot and wounded a security guard at Smith’s building before being subdued; he later admitted his actions were largely motivated by the SPLC’s designation of Smith’s employer as a hate group. Corkins was charged with domestic terrorism and is serving a 25-year prison sentence. Smith recounted these events last summer in the memorably headlined USA Today article “The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate-based scam that nearly caused me to be murdered.” 

The SPLC and CAHN thus grandly claim for themselves the overlapping roles of investigator, adjudicator and punisher of actions, opinions and ideas they determine to be wrong. Of course, all of these properly belong to government, and all are wisely separated in democratic states. No single organization should ever have such sweeping powers combined, let alone a private group of activists. CAHN’s arrogance in assuming all three brings to mind the ancient Roman poet Juvenal’s famous aphorism: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? After her employer was labelled by the SPLC, Jessica Prol’s life was threatened by a gunman.

Other CAHN tactics borrowed from the SPLC include filing highly-dubious requests to police for criminal hate speech investigations and restraining orders against utterly inconsequential people, such as long-time polemicists Kevin Goudreau and Paul Fromm. Elsewhere, CAHN has successfully pushed Facebook to de-platform its opponents, such as the Soldiers of Odin, a tiny group of nativist bikers who have done charitable work and who dispute the news media’s characterization of them as racist. And it is currently pushing the same for Canada’s chaotic Yellow Vest movement, which embraces a dizzying array of social and economic concerns (and whose sister group in France is led by a native of Martinique). It also convinced Toronto City Council to audit Goldy’s mayoral campaign finances. 

A field guide to spotting hate in Canada: bring your microscope

Often, those targeted by CAHN or the SPLC are not only insignificant and/or obscure, but too weak or disorganized to fight back. One SPLC staffer noted Dees’s favoured approach was to pick opponents who had a “poor education…limited funds, few if any good lawyers…[it] was like shooting fish in a barrel.” During Farber’s time as head of the CJC, former Maclean’s columnist Mark Steyn described him as someone who’d spent most of his career fighting “irrelevant penniless shaven-headed nobodies” as opposed to actual threats to minority rights and society as a whole.

As with the SPLC’s targets, sometimes CAHN’s also push back, however. Canadian Nationalist Party leader Travis Patron some time ago sent a cease-and-desist letter to CAHN’s Balgord, demanding he retract “false” claims that his Canadian Nationalist Party is “Neo-Nazi” and that it is “under investigation for alleged ‘hate speech.’” If Patron’s bank account permits, it will be up to the courts to decide the validity of his case against CAHN. 

Regardless of the legal outcome, Canadian voters don’t appear to be buying what Patron is selling. He received just 166 votes – or 0.4 percent of total ballots – in the Saskatchewan riding of Souris-Moose Mountain in the recent federal election. Patron has demonstrated such little traction with the voting public that it seems pointless to bother getting worked up about anything he says. CAHN’s efforts have likely provided him with far more publicity than his trivial Canadian Nationalist Party could ever have hoped to earn on its own. 

In many cases, the only evidence of hate to be found amongst CAHN’s targets is that they question Ottawa’s sacred twin ideologies of diversity and multiculturalism. But simply calling for illegal immigrants – who have, after all, broken Canada’s laws – to be deported, as Patron has, is not itself evidence of hate. Neither is engaging in a debate over Canada’s annual immigration intake. CAHN’s animosity towards Bernier’s PPC (whose supporters are “terrible people”, according to executive director Balgord) and his pledge to limit immigration to 150,000 people per year is rather hard to fathom. 

Any party committed to admitting 150,000 immigrants per year – about the same as Australia’s annual intake and significantly more than Canada itself welcomed for many years under former prime ministers Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney − cannot logically be considered anti-immigrant, regardless of who chooses to join the party as a result of such a commitment. Most of the world’s countries, in fact, accept almost no immigration at all. Regarding Bernier’s criticism of “extreme multiculturalism”, in his later years Pierre Trudeau also came to lament how official multiculturalism had metastasized into identity politics. Plus, Bernier’s party was recognized by the federal Leaders’ Debates Commission as a serious and legitimate entity deserving a place in the national televised events.

It is certainly not necessary for a reasonable person to agree with the positions taken by Patron, Goldy, the Soldiers of Odin et al − and in many cases their claims are embarrassingly naïve, delusional, aggressive or simply plain wrong − to recognize that democracy works best when a full-range of views can be aired and dismantled as necessary. Censorship is not the answer to bad ideas. Better ideas are. 

CAHN has targeted Faith Goldy, pictured above with her then-Toronto Mayoral campaign team, and the Soldiers of Odin, seen here at a Fraser Valley community clean-up event.

Instead of engaging or debating, the preferred tactic of the aggressive anti-hate movement is to attack. The CAHN website boasts that, “We convinced an Art gallery to Cancel a People’s Party of Canada Event in Winnipeg.” How? Via smear tactics and other ugly de-platforming techniques. But with a large segment of the Canadian population deeply concerned about current immigration policy, wildly throwing around claims of “hate” and neo-Nazism at opponents who merely seek to debate immigration orthodoxies can only coarsen public discourse.

Naming-and-shaming for thee, but not for me

CAHN makes no evident attempt to acknowledge the massive grey area between hotly debated viewpoints and outright hate. Rather, it actively picks sides and ignores the consequences. The group flatly bills itself as a “monitor” of “right-wing extremist groups” (and then just white supremacist groups, apparently). Warman has explained his purpose is to create “maximum disruption” for alt-right organizations. As such, CAHN habitually ignores equally egregious activity by the far-left. In line with the SPLC, CAHN also generally avoids attacking the speech or association rights of Muslim or Sikh extremists, current allies of white liberals. 

CAHN’s Perry as well complains about law enforcement agencies’ tendency to distinguish between hate groups and terrorist groups. To most people, such a distinction might seem clear and reasonable. In the one category are groups holding strong views that many people might find distasteful or even awful, but that don’t incite or engage in violence; in the other are groups planning and/or carrying out attacks. Perry’s preference, however, is to blur the difference between the two – thus conflating the holding of views she considers objectionable with illegal activity aimed at destroying Western society.

When presented with evidence of apparent hate-related activity that appears to meet or exceed the flimsy standards applied against foes such as Patron, but emanating from the other end of the political or religious spectrum, CAHN seems unable to rouse itself off the couch, let alone commit to a full-on anti-hate or doxing campaign. Consider the group’s surprisingly flaccid response to Islamist activist Jawed Anwar’s plans for an Islamic Party of Ontario. 

While admitting Anwar espouses the sort of hardline religious views about gender and homosexuality that CAHN despises when promoted by white Christian polemicists like Patron or former Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership candidate Tanya Granic Allen, it brushes off Anwar as an inconsequential distraction. “There are no indications that [Islamic Party of Ontario] has any support,” reads CAHN’s Facebook page. “To make it out to be a significant threat at present time is fearmongering.” To a principled defender of free speech rights, this statement could seem reasonable on its face. Coming from CAHN, it is remarkable for its hypocrisy. If causing a ruckus about idiosyncratic groups with an insignificant public presence is “fearmongering”, then CAHN is a banner candidate to be Canada’s fearmonger-in-chief. 

CAHN seems equally unconcerned about Canadian branch plant operations of the violent Antifa movement or the overt anti-white prejudice of Black Lives Matter (BLM). Both organizations are examples of alt-left extremism, no different in principle from the alt-right groups CAHN seeks to put out of business, and often far worse in practise. Antifa members are frequently found assaulting their opponents in messy counter-demonstrations, while BLM prefers civil disobedience that often seems to go just slightly too far, at times resulting in serious physical injuries, including to police officers

The Antifa and BLM movements are somehow exempt from investigation and scrutiny by CAHN.

In this area, CAHN’s approach is unlike the SPLC’s, which regularly denounces the violence of these groups (although still keeping them off its extremist list). The CAHN website actively encourages citizens to partner with Antifa in staging counter-demonstrations (which the SPLC specifically advises against). Balgord has also defended its tactics in print despite the movement being accused of domestic terrorism by the Obama Administration. And with no hint of irony, Balgord explicitly defends Antifa thugs’ preference for facemasks as a necessary precaution since it “protects themselves from doxing” − the very tactic favoured by CAHN against its opponents. 

Given such tendentiousness, Farber and his cohorts’ attempt to position CAHN as a reliable and objective arbiter of what constitutes hate strains credulity. When combined with CAHN’s behaviour to date, it is difficult to envision anyone who stumbles into the organization’s crosshairs receiving an impartial evaluation.

Section 13 redux

Beyond simply making life difficult for its carefully-curated enemies, CAHN’s broader ambition appears to be establishing itself in the space vacated by the departed but unlamented Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This notoriously stringent law once barred online speech that “may expose” identifiable groups not just to hatred, but mere contempt. It allowed no defences with regards to truth, intent or fair comment on matters of public interest. And not only direct targets but any non-targeted third party could file a complaint, while the federal human rights commission only rarely tried to mediate the complaints. This proved to be a big problem for poor defendants, considering free legal representation was not available. 

Section 13 was thrust into the public eye in 2002 with the arrival of Warman’s novel strategy to proactively use the legislation to shut down voices he disapproved of. While the law was intended for the protection of minority groups, Warman – a white male − was responsible for an impressive 16 complaints, the most of any individual. 

Balgord has defended Antifa’s tactics in print despite the movement being accused of domestic terrorism by the Obama Administration. And with no hint of irony, he explicitly defends Antifa thugs’ preference for facemasks since it “protects themselves from doxing” – a tactic favoured by CAHN against its opponents. Tweet

In some instances, Warman obtained his evidence by provoking extremist statements from obscure online message boards. Sometimes he even posed as a neo-Nazi poster himself, which one tribunal adjudicator later said “diminish[ed] his credibility” and “could have precipitated further hate messages.” Partly because his targets were mostly poor and couldn’t afford legal help, Warman was successful in every case but one. He was awarded tens of thousands of dollars in monetary compensation for the damages he purportedly suffered. As one Huffington Post contributor wryly described Warman: “He’s sacked more peewee quarterbacks than any other NFL linebacker.”

When it became apparent that Section 13 was being used as a bludgeon against free speech in Canada – most notably when three human rights tribunal complaints were launched against Maclean’s columnist Steyn – public opinion finally shifted against it. A 2008 report by University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon identified it as a clear threat to legitimate political discourse and recommended it be removed.

Journalist Steyn torpedoes the listing ship that was Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Now it might be making a comeback.

A year later Warman’s final and only failed Section 13 complaint, against Internet provocateur Marc Lemire, was famously dismissed when a human rights tribunal declined to enforce its provisions because it found they were inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantees of freedom of expression. The section was finally repealed in 2013 by the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. 

Stolen identities 

As an attorney early in his career, SPLC co-founder Dees once represented the Ku Klux Klan and had his bill paid by the White Citizens’ Council in a case involving the beating of a Montgomery, Alabama Freedom Rider (a group of civil rights activists who fought segregation). In 1958 Dees had campaigned for arch-segregationist George Wallace in the Georgia gubernatorial campaign. According to his former law partner, Millard Fuller, Dees’ “overriding purpose…[was] making a pile of money.” He transformed himself into an anti-racism crusader – with the Klan becoming one of his favourite targets – after discovering it offered an alternative route to riches via the miracle of direct mail solicitation. 

CAHN has yet to prove itself as adept at fundraising as the SPLC, which in 2018 generated US$103 million in donations alone. We do know, however, that CAHN boasts of receiving direct funding and support from its big brother south of the border. And in 2018 Toronto-area businessman Mohamad Fakih made a media splash with a donation of $25,000 to CAHN following a successful defamation lawsuit against his online critics. 

But now CAHN is facing its own troubling allegations of profiteering from hate. In February 2019 Elisa Hategan, an anti-racism activist and former member of an early-90s skinhead group called the Heritage Front, teamed up with professor and human rights lawyer Yavar Hameed to file a $200,000 civil claim against CAHN. Farber is also named. The lawsuit alleges CAHN Advisory Committee member Elizabeth Moore (also a former Heritage Front member) “fraudulently appropriated several significant elements of Ms. Hategan’s personal life story in order to boost her own credentials as a former neo-Nazi and did this to monetize a fraudulent narrative.” These stolen elements include Hategan’s experience as a former spokesperson for the Heritage Front and later as a defector who helped prosecutors bring the group down.

Elisa Hategan, posing here with her book Race Traitor, has filed a lawsuit against CAHN for appropriating her story and allegedly hoping to gain from it.

Moore had simply been an unmemorable Heritage Front fellow traveller, says Hategan. But instead, Hategan claims Moore took credit for a film made about Hategan’s experiences: 1998’s White Lies. Her suit alleges that appropriating her “narrative would be an important method of securing greater publicity, speaking engagements and financial opportunities for Moore, as well as publicity, consulting and speaking engagements for Farber.” On top of this, Hategan alleges that Farber and Moore have disparaged her publicly in order to cut her out from employment and advocacy opportunities, maximizing their own in the process. If true, this wouldn’t exactly be behaviour consistent with an organization “committed to increasing public awareness about the scourge of ‘hate’ across Canada.” The civil trial is set to begin in March. 

Theatrical vs. substantive advocacy

While assuming the mantle of hate-fighter sounds like a heroic exercise in defending minority rights and rescuing the oppressed, the crusade embarked upon by the SPLC – with which CAHN, as we’ve seen, openly associates itself – is criticized even by members of the intellectual left as a fraudulent exercise. The far-left Nation magazine has called “anti-hate” advocacy a form of “theatrical” rather than “substantive advocacy.” If advocates were truly concerned about minority uplift, its columnist wrote, they should be fighting more tangible problems like employment and housing discrimination – practising actual poverty law, in other words − instead of simply “fingering militiamen in a potato field in Idaho.”

That the SPLC lost the plot by preferring activities that boosted its fundraising effectiveness over fighting for tangible improvements in its alleged clientele’s lives is not a new idea. As long ago as 1988, a former SPLC staffer admitted to The Progressive that there were “certainly bigger problems facing blacks and the poor” than continuing to tackle a now-toothless Ku Klux Klan. The Klan, said another former staffer, “was such an easy target − easy to beat in court, easy to raise big money on”, and so it dominated the SPLC’s attention. Last year, Current Affairs also argued that the SPLC’s habit of elevating minority rights by targeting inconsequential right-wing groups continues a “politics of spectacle.” 

Even some liberal voices in Canada have expressed concerns about “anti-hate” advocacy and hate speech generally. Former Liberal Party MP Keith Martin, a doctor of mixed-race background, fought hard against hate speech restrictions during his nearly 20 years in Parliament, saying they represented what Canada fought against in the Second World War. Martin noted that while Canadians have a right to be free from slander, they “do not have the right to not be offended.” Laws like Section 13 created a “slippery slope” in that they could be easily politicized and used to simply shut down debate. 

Notable Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt is against such laws for the same reason. The criticism seems particularly apt when applied to organized and powerful groups like the SPLC and CAHN. Refusing to debate or engage with groups or people they don’t like, and choosing instead to malign them in the most alarmist terms possible, is to engage in the politics of spectacle. The same goes for the active use or tacit approval of such ignominious tactics as de-platforming, doxing, Antifa mobbing and piling on spurious legal complaints.

Antifa protester (l) grabs a Canadian flag from a Bernier supporter (r) at a campaign event at Mohawk College’s McIntyre Theatre.

Because hate speech charges are so nebulous and problematic, free speech advocate and author Stefan Braun refers to them as a “packaged idea.” When unpacked, Braun writes, hate speech allegations are often revealed to be based on “many different reasons besides the public good, including fear, political expedience, moral comfort, public approval, or even the ‘bottom line.’” And because it is so far from a clear concept, the Supreme Court has ruled that “hate speech” requires intense and highly fact-dependent inquiry. For this reason, hate-incitement is unique in the Criminal Code in requiring a province’s attorney-general to personally sign off on any charges. 

Policing hate, in other words, is properly regarded as the most complex and delicate aspect of the entire criminal justice system, balancing as it does the Charter’s guarantees of “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression” with the Criminal Code’s protection from incitement of “hatred against any identifiable group.” Given its intricate nature, why would anyone willingly hand over responsibility for policing hate to a private group of activists that shows so little interest in the legal, democratic and social ramifications of the task and openly styles itself after a badly-tarnished American outfit? And why would so many media outlets give such an outfit the credibility it craves by treating it as a reliable and unbiased source of information?

A better and more civil way

Anyone looking to reconcile concerns over hate speech in Canadian discourse with the demands of free expression is advised to reread Moon’s 2008 report on Section 13. Therein, he suggested dealing with problematic public opinions and statements through engagement rather than prohibition and punishment. “We must develop ways other than censorship to respond to expression that stereotypes and defames the members of an identifiable group,” Moon wrote. 

At the very least, before attacking someone in public, branding them “neo-Nazis” or doxing them to reveal their intimate personal details in hopes someone else will make their life miserable, CAHN should first define what it means by the labels it employs. And these labels – hate-mongering, for example – should be applied equally to everyone who expresses such animus, regardless of race, religion or politics. 

Policing hate is properly regarded as the most complex and delicate aspect of the entire criminal justice system. So why would anyone willingly hand such responsibility to a private group of activists that shows so little interest in the legal, democratic and social ramifications of the task and openly styles itself after a badly-tarnished American outfit? Tweet

When a group is identified that meets these equally applied criteria, it should first be asked to clarify or disavow its impugned statements. If a disavowal is forthcoming, this could be put on record to, first, credit the target for its goodwill and, if needed, embarrass the target should it later recant. If not, those opinions could be met by way of a debate (in public, online, etc.) and refuted with more and better-quality speech. As 18th-Century French essayist Joseph Joubert put it, “It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.” In addition to lubricating mutual communication and clearing up potential misunderstandings, both sides might even learn something from one another. 

Were “anti-hate” groups such as CAHN to take such an approach, the public might be better assured the group was properly concerned with the best interests of civil society and free speech. Improved transparency with respect to donors, salaries, and its watch-list of hate groups wouldn’t hurt, either.

John Klein is a business owner in the United States and an advocate for freedom of thought, belief and opinion.

Ontario court imposes peace bond against far-right figure over online threats

Ontario court imposes peace bond against far-right figure over online threats

[Richard Warman is the fair-haired boy of the incestuous Ottawa court system. Today it granted him a peace bond against a controversial person, Kevin Goudreau, whom he’d never met and who had never e-mailed or written to him. “I’m so afraid” is a now common posture of anti-racists who devote themselves to ruining the lives of people whose politics are contrary to theirs. — Paul Fromm]


Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman said he applied to the Ontario Court of Justice for a peace bond on June 3 after police repeatedly declined to lay charges against Kevin Goudreau. Today, the decision whether or not to grant the peace bond will be made.


An Ontario court has imposed a peace bond against a far-right figure, in what is believed to be the first instance in which activists have sought such a peace bond in response to right-wing extremism in Canada.

Justice of the Peace Stephanie Goffin-Boyd on Monday ordered Kevin Goudreau, head of the Canadian National Front, to enter into the peace bond and abide by four conditions for 12 months, including not making violent threats online or otherwise towards Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman, and other board members with the Canadian Anti-Hate Network.

Goudreau is also prohibited from possessing any weapons.

In June, Warman asked the court to issue a peace bond that would order Goudreau, who resides in Peterborough, Ont., to cease making threats online against him. Warman, who a board member with the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, said police had repeatedly declined to lay charges against Goudreau, and so he pursued a peace bond, which is like a restraining order.

The Crown took over the matter for Warman, who served as the only witness at the hearing on Monday.

“I had no expectations, but I am absolutely relieved,” Warman told Global News after the decision was rendered. He said he wished that police had pursued criminal charges, but that the peace bond sets a positive precedent for human rights activists who are targeted online and looking for possible remedies.

After the Christchurch, New Zealand attacks in March, a post was shared on a Facebook page belonging to Goudreau. The post encouraged violence against “priority targets” including the Canadian Anti Hate Network, other anti-racist groups and government agencies.

It also mentioned media outlets including VICE, the National Post and CBC.

Goudreau, who represented himself at court, said at the hearing that the social media posts aren’t his. Goudreau previously told Global News that his website states his group does not “promote, advocate or incite hatred or violence by our members or anyone else.”

The court said there was no evidence to suggest that the social media posts were not Goudreau’s.

Warman, who has monitored far-right and neo-Nazi movements in Canada for decades, told the court that Goudreau’s posts made him fear for his safety.

“It’s not just the potential for Mr. Goudreau … it’s for the fellow neo-Nazis who are actually reading the post. Because we know that there is a long history of violence involved in the neo-Nazi movement in Canada,” Warman told the court. He added that the posts disputed by Goudreau are consistent with other written and video content posted by him over the years.

Goudreau, chairman of the Canadian Nationalist Front (formerly the White Nationalist Front) who has a large swastika tattooed on his chest, was banned from Facebook and Twitter in April as part of a crackdown on extremist content and “organized hate” that followed the New Zealand mosque attack that left 51 people dead. The blog for Goudreau’s group, however, is still online and active.

READ MORE: Facebook bans half-dozen Canadian pages under extremism, hate policy

In a brief cross-examination of Warman, Goudreau asked whether they had ever communicated directly or indirectly. Warman responded that they had not spoken directly or met in person, but that he felt the posts were an indirect form of communication between them — and that the posts were threatening.

“What makes you think that I am any particular danger besides these supposed internet postings?” Goudreau asked Warman.

“Because you’ve engaged in threats of violence, and counselling violence, over the past at least eight years that I’ve seen communications by you posted online, whether in person, through Youtube videos, or through social media postings,” Warman replied.

“If I go to the posting itself, you openly advocate shooting high-value targets, as you describe them, in the wake of a terrorist attack that left 51 people dead. So, if I think that there is the likelihood of copycat violence taking place in the wake of those kinds of attacks and then you go and advocate that specific thing, including shooting me and my colleagues twice in the head to ensure that we’re dead, that makes me reasonably fearful for my safety.”


What Sort of Man Seeks to Have Another Fired, His livelihood Imperilled & He and His Family reduced to Poverty?

What Sort of Man Seeks to Have Another Fired, His livelihood Imperilled & He and His Family reduced to Poverty?

Indeed, what sort of man seeks to have another fired, his livelihood imperilled and  he and his family reduced to poverty? And all because of the victim’s political beliefs at one time expressed on his own time and on his own time. What sort of driven man would do such a thing? Why, a person who describes himself as an Ottawa-based “human rights lawyer”. That would be federal civil servant Richard Warman. Warman seems to find immense time to try to ruin people with whom he disagrees politically.

In the glory days of Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship), Warman filed nearly 30 complaints. He boasts, in his affidavit seeking a peace bond against Kevin Goudreau, who has never contacted him”,” I have successfully brought 16 human rights complaints against online hate … resulting in permanent cease and desist orders.” Also, many of the victims were fined and two — Terry Tremaine and Thomas Winnicki — ended up spending time in prison because of Mr. Warman’s actions. More recently in attacking anti-Cultural Marxist satirical publication YOUR WARD NEWS, Warman, who lives in Ottawa, contacted Child Protective Services in Toronto, according to testimony at a recent trial, to try to get editor Dr. Sears’ son taken away. [An investigation found that Dr. Sears and his wife were loving parents.]

Richard Warman

So, while snowflake Richard Warman whines about being so afraid of his political enemies, he relentlessly seeks to have them destroyed. In a July 16 letter he wrote on behalf of  the Canadian Anti-Hate Network to Hamilton City Council, Warman who works for the federal government (when does he find time to do all this mischief?)  seeks to have Mr. Lemire fired for his political views. Mr. Lemire was the longtime webmaster of the Freedomsite and was the subject of a Warman Sec. 13 complaint which Mr. Lemire partially won.

The letter filled with the false “neo-Nazi” smear, reads as follows: “I am a human rights lawyer in Ottawa and brought the successful human rights complaint against Marc Lemire for online hate (   I have commented in numerous media stories about the recent exposure by Mack Lamoureux of VICE Canada that Marc Lemire is an employee of the City of Hamilton. I note that since the VICE article, various media reports have indicated that Marc Lemire denies any ongoing role in the neo-Nazi[sic] movement, minimizes any prior role despite Federal Court findings to the contrary, and claims that this was all many years in the past and that he is now reformed.

I do not believe this to be true. Marc Lemire openly acknowledges that he is responsible for the website It took me less than 5-minutes to come up with multiple examples of Holocaust denial material from Marc Lemire’s Freedomsite website that remain available as of right now. Marc Lemire continues to publish to the world columns by Holocaust denier Philip Belgrave and others and at the bottom of the columns readers are invited to submit material to the webmaster (Lemire) for publication. The first article is titled “What is Anti-Semitism?” and states that Jews were not exterminated nor were they the principal sufferers in WWII, links to Ernst Zundel’s

Holocaust denial website calling it a “Detoxification Programme to Cure the Politically Correct of the Hollywood version of the Holocaust”, and links to 3 other Holocaust denial websites – URL link below and pdf version attached: ….

I am confident that if I continued my search, I would find further such hate propaganda. Based on the fact that Holocaust denial material remains available on Marc Lemire’s website, I submit to you that he is not fit to be an employee of the City of Hamilton.

It might be noted that, even in Canada, questioning the so-called holocaust is not a crime, and, far from being “hate”, is, in fact pursuit of the truth.

CAFE Calls on Elections Canada to Investigate Bullying & Intimidation Tactics of Canadian Anti-Hate Network Aimed at Registration of a New Populist Party

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820;


Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director


For Immediate Release

CAFE Calls on Elections Canada to Investigate Bullying & Intimidation Tactics of Canadian Anti-Hate Network Aimed at Registration of a New Populist Party

REXDALE, July 15, 2019. Today the Canadian Association for Free Expression is filing a formal complaint with Elections Canada demanding an investigation into bullying and intimidation of voters by a group of anti-racist extremists calling themselves the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. In July 10 Twitter postings, this group has threatened to publicize the names and addresses of persons who sign up as member of the newly formed populist Canadian Nationalist Party, in order to qualify the party for official recognition as a party in the upcoming October federal election.

In their July 10 statement this group of anti-democratic fanatics stated:  “The Canadian Anti-Hate Network will publish the names of 250 members of the neo-Nazi Canadian Nationalist Party if they are successful in becoming a registered political party. We plan to publish these names and their cities of residence as soon as they become public, and will encourage local media to run stories naming neo-Nazi supporters in their communities. … This kind of naming and shaming is part of our mandate of exposing hate groups to make sure communities are well-informed, and to ensure that there are significant, nonviolent social consequences for supporting hate groups.”


“This ugly bullying threat is libellous,” says CAFE Director Paul Fromm. “The Canadian Nationalist Party are traditional Canadians and populists, not National Socialist wannabees. CAHN, who boasts longtime anti-free speech campaigners like Bernie Farber and Richard Warman as board members, seeks  to intimidate citizens from their right to vote as they choose.”


CAFE Calls on Elections Canada to Investigate Bullying & Intimidation Tactics of Canadian Anti-Hate Network Aimed at Registration of a New Populist Party

 “The list of signators  ti register a political party is public ONLY for the purposes of establishing the bona fides of party supporters,” he adds.

In a further tweet, the hitmen of political correctness gleefully anticipate the loss of jobs for people participating in this democratic process. In a July 10 tweet, Canadian Anti-Hate Network Board member Evan Balgord, a former assistant to Toronto’s anti-free speech Mayor John Tory, enthused: “Employer concerns are a natural consequence of supporting a neo-Nazi party. Practically, however, we won’t have the time to research 250 individuals. Local media might. I’d note they can avoid that consequence by emailing Elections Canada and withdrawing their support. – Evan”

Then, as a further to interfere with the secret ballot and the right of citizens to freely choose the party they prefer, the CAHN offers a carrot:  “If any of members of the Canadian Nationalist Party want to avoid being named and facing the social consequences of supporting a neo-Nazi party, they can email Elections Canada at to withdraw their support.”

The threatening tactics of the CAHN are no different than posting goons armed with clubs outside polling stations reminding voters not to vote the “wrong” way, says Mr. Fromm an activist with 48 years experience battling the forces of censorship and speech constraint in Canada.