justmy3cents wrote:before someone thinks im someone else, my name is P. Kouba and Warman can come sue me . No trap, no BS, just a citizen who will not be silenced , not when our ancestors gave their lives so we can have freedom of speech.
So anyways now you know my name and please dont ban me again or insult me by saying I am Warman.
What IS your agenda/intention...???
You're making people uneasy here in part because you seem to want to play guessing games.
Why not just lay it out...???
Are you a "neo Nazi".....???
18. In Warman v. Kouba, the Tribunal identified a number of ‘hallmarks’ of material that is likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt, based on the emerging body of section 13 jurisprudence. It is explained that these hallmarks are what distinguish them from legitimate speech that is not subject to sanction under s. 13 of the Act. In the decision, it states that these hallmarks involve an “attack on inherent self-worth and dignity of the members of the targeted group.” and also states “To paraphrase the words of Justice Muldoon of the Federal Court, material that bears the hallmarks of a hate message disparages and ridicules other people ‘just for drawing breath, for living’ (Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Canadian Liberty Net,  3 F.C. 155 at para. 56).” The eleven “hallmarks” cited in Warman v. Kouba (2006) are as follows:
a) The targeted group is portrayed as a powerful menace that is taking control of the major institutions in society and depriving others of their livihoods, safety, freedom of speech and general well-being;
b) The messages use “true stories”, news reports, pictures and references from purportedly reputable sources to make negative generalizations about the targeted group;
c) The targeted group is portrayed as preying upon children, the aged, the vulnerable, etc.;
d) The targeted group is blamed for the current problems in society and the world;
e) The targeted group is portrayed as dangerous or violent by nature;
f ) The messages convey the idea that members of the targeted group are devoid of any redeeming qualities and are innately evil;
g) The messages communicate the idea that nothing but the banishment, segregation or eradication of this group of people will save others from the harm being done by this group;
h) The targeted group is de-humanized through comparisons to and associations with animals, vermin, excrement, and other noxious substances;
i) Highly inflammatory and derogatory language is used in the messages to create a tone of extreme hatred and contempt;
j) The messages trivialize or celebrate past persecutions or tradegy involving members of the targeted group;
k) Calls to take violent action against the targeted group.
Why not POST some of the language that got you INTO this mess with Little Dickie Warbaby....???
It appears he argued that you DO "rave on" about minorities or some such transgression. I'd like to hear YOUR explanation, accompanied by some concrete EVIDENCE.
Otherwise, you DO come off as "sneaky".
Precisely WHAT is it that you are dying to say so badly that you have to use FD in the middle of a turmoil as a soap box from which to advertise...???
What's your connection to Lemire...???
I'm not going to spend MY valuable time attempting to discern "where you're coming from"......and, I doubt anyone ELSE here "needs" that diversion.
The ONLY reason I took the time to Google you was to get SOME kind of actual information about you. Public Records generally don't "lie", but you are certainly "free to speak"....just drop the subterfuge.
Also, somewhere buried in THIS text are further references to your language......care to tell us exactly WHAT you said to piss off the powers that be...???
CLOSING SUBMISSIONS OF RICHARD WARMAN Re: CHRC and Marc Lemire ...
In the Tribunal decision of Warman v. Kouba, 2006 CHRT 50, ..... Argues that Francophones are “french scum” and are not real Canadians
(p 15); ...www.stopracism.ca/drupal/node/2692
I didn't want to experience severe eye strain after scanning it for several minutes....not to mention that Warman NAUSEATES me.
Care to delineate, IN DETAIL, your involvement in "Whiteville"....???
Sergeant Camp gave credible testimony about the basis for his conclusion that [b]proud18 and WhiteEuroCanadian were the pseudonyms used by the Respondent.
Identity established by Police infiltration of Stormfront and WCFU meetings.
 Sergeant Camp testified that a number of investigative techniques were used to determine proud18's identity. First, proud18's postings revealed that this individual lived in Edmonton, was organizing rallies in Edmonton and was discussing the establishment of a Whites-only community in Alberta that was to be called "Whiteville". Surveillance was conducted on the rallies and meetings that proud18 had helped to organize. One such rally was held in February 2004, at the Sandman Inn in Edmonton. There, an individual who was identified as "Peter Kouba" spoke about Whiteville and the strategy that would be used to get Whiteville started. Sergeant Camp testified that Peter Kouba's statements during the rally were consistent with the statements that proud18 had made on the stormfront.org discussion forum.
 Sergeant Camp testified that the Police conducted computerized checks on the Motor Vehicle Registry and utilized other information sources such as the CPIC system (Canadian Police Information Centre) to trace proud18's identity. Sergeant Camp testified that through the Motor Vehicle Registry, the Police were able to match a picture with the name "Peter Kouba". They were also able to verify that Peter Kouba was one of the people attending the white supremacist rallies and meetings organized by proud18 and others on the Canadian forum of stormfront.org.
 Sergeant Camp met with Peter Kouba on March 29, 2005. The conversation was wide-ranging and informal. Sergeant Camp stated that he confronted Mr. Kouba with the fact that, as proud18 on stormfront.org, he had said some very hateful and derogatory things about Jewish and Aboriginal people, as well as other minority groups. Sergeant Camp testified that Mr. Kouba responded by saying "yes", but then adding that he made the postings not to promote hatred, but to promote white nationalism. Sergeant Camp stated that during the meeting, Mr. Kouba discussed his involvement in the stormfront.org forum as "proud18".
 Sergeant Camp gave credible testimony about the basis for his conclusion that proud18 and WhiteEuroCanadian were the pseudonyms used by the Respondent. I find Sergeant Camp's testimony with regard to the meeting of March 29, 2005, to be particularly salient. During the meeting, Sergeant Camp referred to proud18's postings on stormfront.org and WhiteEuroCanadian's postings on the WCFU website. Sergeant Camp's evidence was that Mr. Kouba did not deny having made those postings and indeed, attempted to justify them by saying that he made them not for the purpose of promoting hatred, but to promote white nationalism and white pride.http://canadianhumanrightscommission.bl ... me-to.html
Yes or No....???
Your fame and fortune and reputation precede your current messages here, it seems.....
Warman filed THREE Section 13 complaints in Edmonton area. Those are:
1. Glenn Bahr
2. Western Canada for Us [Bahr and Western Canada for Us was ONE
hearing with two named respondents]
3. Peter Kouba
Guess who was the star witness at both Canadian Human Rights Tribunal hearing to uphold Warman's complaints? Sgt. Stephen Camp.
In both the decisions of the CHRT, Sgt. Camp is quoted extensively. See the decisions:
[Bahr and WCFU] and [Peter Kouba]http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/v ... p?t=100752
http://www.richardwarman.com/transcript ... lume_1.pdf
So.....what do you WANT