Richard Warman Picks a Young Woman's Pocket & It's All Perfectly Legal

Richard Warman can add Jessica Beaumont to his list of Canadians whose rights he's violated. He went after a young teenage lady for posting her opinions online, and abused the CHRC/CHRT to do it. Apparently, Warman thinks the opinions of a 19 year old girl(her "offending" posts date back to when she was 18) posting on Internet Forums might lead to WWIII, so he felt compelled to stop her opinions from spreading at all costs.

Richard Warman hates freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Why else would he attack people for communicating their opinions online if that wasn't true?

What irks me is that Richard Warman attacks people, and if they complain about being harassed, he gets awarded thousands of dollars. That is exactly what happened in the Jessica Beaumont Case.

Here is the CHRT Link for Warman vs Beaumont: http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/view_html.asp?doid=874&lg=_e&isruling=0

Below is a Article written by Paul Fromm, the leader of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.

"Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff." Stephen Harper (Prime Minister of Canada) BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)

Freedom of speech took another hard hit today, as 21-year old sale clerk Jessica Beaumont was found guilty of a discriminatory practice under Sec. 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This was yet another complaint by arch complainer and scourge of free speech on the Internet Richard Warman.

Miss Beaumont was slapped with:

• A lifetime “cease and desist order” forbidding her to post “ any matter of the type contained in the messages at issue in this case” that would expose privileged minorities to hatred or contempt. Should she express her views on-line and violate this draconian gag, she could face jail for contempt of court.

• A $3,500 fine to compensate complainant Richard Warman for having (probably erroneously) called him a Jew and some other nasty terms after he had turned her life upside down by filing this complaint. Hadjis ruled: “Section 54(1)(b) of the Act provides that where a victim is specifically identified in the communication that constituted the discriminatory practice, the Tribunal may order the payment of special compensation to the victim, of a sum that is not to exceed $20,000.” Amazingly, complainant Warman is seen as a “victim” because Miss Beaumont called him a Jew, even though he testified in another hearing that he is not. So, for his wounded feelings, Warman gets to collect $3,000 from a struggling young woman just starting out her working career.

• A $1,500 fine for having expressed her opinions on-line.


The decision by Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Vice Chairman Athanasios Hadjis is yet another nail in the coffin of free speech on the Internet for Canadians brave enough to identify themselves by their own names. It marks an unblemished record of convictions. No one, yes no one, in the 39 years of thought control Sec. 13.1 which once applied to telephone answering machines but now covers the Internet has ever been acquitted. This fact, as much as anything, bears out the fact that Sec. 13.1 is nothing but political thought control.

In his ruling, Montreal lawyer Hadjis made it quite clear that it was Miss Beaumont’s honestly held political or religious convictions that did her in:

• Certain political views are outlawed, as in Soviet Russia. For instance, “the Tribunal adopted the view that messages preaching the forced deportation of non-Whites or their segregation from the White population are likely to expose members of these targeted groups to hatred or contempt by encouraging violence as a ‘proactive means of defence against any who were seen as the enemies of racial purity.’ The basic theme of Message 15’s “Critical Facts” list is that the presence and integration of non-Whites in American society is undesirable. The “Bill of Racial Rights” in Message 16 is even more explicit in its assertion that White people should have ‘the right to retain, and defend their own lands, free from immigration, or habitation by members of other races, including the right to live in all-White neighbourhoods and to send their children to all-White schools, i.e. segregation.” So, apparently, calling for racial segregation on the Internet is now an offence.”

* “ Furthermore, Ms. Beaumont’s comments should be taken in context with her other statements. She acknowledged in her evidence that she believes in National Socialism. She described herself in her messages as a “full time” Nazi. Members of the Stormfront.org forum were permitted to attach logos or avatars to their postings, which would appear under their names or pseudonyms in the margin notes. Ms. Beaumont selected as her avatar a cartoon image of a
woman with a swastika in the background. Some of her other messages were accompanied by an avatar comprised of a swastika and a “dead-head” skull and cross-bones, symbols associated with Nazi forces in World War II (see Warman v. Kulbashian, 2006 CHRT 11).

• Expression of certain religious views or beliefs, even if quoting the views of others is now forbidden. “She describes Jews as ‘literally the spawn of Satan himself.’ Ms. Beaumont claimed, during her testimony, that she based this comment on her interpretation of a passage in the Bible, adding that she did not care if Jews would be offended by her ideas. However, irrespective of whether she ‘cares’ or not, s. 13 of the Act dictates that the repeated communication via the Internet of matter that is likely to expose targeted groups to hatred or contempt constitutes a discriminatory practice. Whether the person communicating the matter was in fact its author is immaterial. The mere act of communicating the material or causing its communication attracts liability under the Act.”

Testimony presented indicated that Miss Beaumont was earning $10.50 an hour, a job that, based on a 40 hour week, would gross $1,680 a month. Her fine and hurt feeling compensation to Warman will constitute 67% of her income for the next four months. She has 120 days to pay the price for expressing her thoughts.

In Burma or Myanmar or whatever they’re calling that place today, a tyrannical regime beats and jails peaceful monks for expressing their political views and opposition to the powers that be. In Canada, we’re just a little craftier in suppressing dissent or criticism of powerful groups. We beat up on a young woman who had the interest and fortitude to express her views. No slack is shown for spirited, sometimes forceful, even vulgar or in-your-face expressions on Miss Beaumont’s part. She offended the privileged minorities and insulted the complainer-in-chief and she must be punished. Had Jessica Beaumont been a crack head, party girl with no other interest than her next drug hit, Canada’s corrosive political correctness would have had no interest in her. In fact, the more brain dead and compliant people are, the more they are mere producing and consuming drones, the more this country seems to like them. Above all, if you have any dissenting notions, “shut up!”

The greatest outrage in what has happened is the awarding of $3,000 to Miss Beaumont’s tormenter, Richard Warman. In a less feminized era before so many men became spineless wimps, no man who respected himself would be caught dead putting out his hand to try to take hard earned money from a young woman. It just wouldn’t have been done. Any cad who would do so would be roundly condemned and ostracized by men and women alike. Sadly, in the all out war against ideas and dissent, no such respect or restraint applies. A grown man, a lawyer, a well paid civil servant, doing something or other at the Department of National Defence, last time we heard, has no qualms about trying to pick Miss Beaumont’s slender purse because she called him a few choice names after he complained against her.

Looks like shameful bullying to me, bullying aided and abetted by Athanasios Hadjis and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal process.

The Canadian Human Rights Commission in Internet cases always picks on victims who are White, right of centre, usually young and almost always poor. The persecution of Jessica Beaumont was no different. She was too poor to afford a lawyer. I consented to assist as her agent but advised the Tribunal that she could not get proper representation because of poverty.

Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Support Marc Lemire's Constitutional Challenge to Overturn This Evil Law

Be part of our team and contribute what you can to defeat this horrible law and protect Freedom of Speech in Canada !

• Via Mail: Send Cheque or Money Order to:

Canadian Association for Free Expression,
P.O. Box 332,
Rexdale, ON
M9W 5L3
Canada