Warman v. Tremaine

Warman v. Tremaine
Collection
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Date
2007-02-02
Neutral citation
2007 CHRT 2
File number(s)
T1104/8505
Decision-maker(s)
Doucet, Michel
Decision Content
CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL TRIBUNAL CANADIEN DES DROITS DE LA PERSONNE
RICHARD WARMAN
Complainant
- and - CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Commission
- and - TERRY TREMAINE
Respondent
REASONS FOR DECISION
Member: Michel Doucet
2007 CHRT 2 2007/02/02
I. INTRODUCTION
II. PRELIMINARY ISSUES
A. Motion of the Commission to have the Respondent's representative excluded
(i) Background for the motion
(ii) The issues on this preliminary motion
(iii) Analysis
a) Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to prohibit a person from appearing before it as an agent for a party?
b) Should the Tribunal exercise its discretion and prohibit Mr. Fromm from appearing before it?
B. The post-referral evidence
III. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE COMPLAINT
IV. THE SECTION 13 COMPLAINT
A. INTRODUCTION: Hate propoganda and free speech
B. The general purpose of section 13(1) of the Act
C. Did Mr. Tremaine communicate, or cause to be communicated, repeatedly, the messages found on the various websites in issue?
D. Were these messages communicated in whole or in part by means of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of parliament?
E. Is the subject matter of the messages likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that they are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination?
F. Conclusion on the section 13(1) complaint
G. Remedies
(i) Cease and desist order
(ii) Compensation pursuant to paragraph 54(1)(b) of the Act
(iii) An order to pay a penalty under paragraph 54(1)(c)
V. ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION [1] On October 13, 2004, Richard Warman (the Complainant) filed a complaint under section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (the Act) with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (the Commission) against Terry Tremaine (the Respondent). The Complainant alleges that the Respondent has engaged in a discriminatory practice on the ground of religion, national or ethnic origin, race and colour, in a matter related to the usage of a telecommunication undertaking.
[2] The Commission fully participated at the hearing into the complaint and was represented by legal counsel. The Respondent also participated at the hearing.
II. PRELIMINARY ISSUES A. Motion of the Commission to have the Respondent's representative excluded [3] On the first day of the hearing, the Commission filed a motion requesting an order prohibiting Mr. Paul Fromm from appearing before the Tribunal as an agent for a period of at least three years, or in the alternative, an order prohibiting Mr. Fromm from appearing in this proceeding as an agent for the Respondent.
[4] The Commission argued that the Order should be granted because of comments Mr. Fromm made about the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (the Tribunal), and the Canadian judicial system. According to the Commission, these comments are contemptuous. It further argued that the presence of Mr. Fromm before the Tribunal would compromise the integrity, fairness and efficiency of the hearing. The Commission added that Mr. Fromm's participation would hinder rather than facilitate the process.
(i) Background for the motion [5] At a case management conference, held on March 10, 2006, the Respondent informed the Tribunal that he would be representing himself during the proceedings. Then, on May 16, 2006, in his written particulars, he requested permission to have Paul Fromm appear as his representative. He further requested that they both be allowed to cross-examine the Complainant and the witnesses of the Commission and of the Complainant.
[6] The Commission opposed this request on various grounds. It referred to the fact that the Complainant and the Respondent are currently involved in a civil litigation. It also made reference to various postings on the internet by Mr. Fromm in which he strongly criticized the Tribunal, its members, members of the judiciary and the Commission.
[7] According to the Commission's evidence, which was not challenged, Mr. Fromm has made contemptuous comments directed at the Canadian judicial system, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, members of the Tribunal and towards the Commission. He has described the Tribunal as a Soviet style kangaroo court and its decisions as Stalinist lunacy. He has also stated that the Tribunal's decisions in hate speech cases are leading Canada to become a Third World banana republic.
[8] Mr. Fromm has appeared in other cases before the Tribunal as representative of other Respondents.
(ii) The issues on this preliminary motion [9] The issues on this preliminary motion are as follows:
Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to prohibit a person from appearing before it as an agent for a party?
Should the Tribunal exercise its discretion to prohibit Mr. Fromm from appearing before it?
Should the Tribunal exercise its discretion to issue a general order of prohibition against the participation of Mr. Fromm as agent in all Tribunal hearings for three years?
(iii) Analysis a) Does the Tribunal have jurisdiction to prohibit a person from appearing before it as an agent for a party? [10] To support its position, the Commission referred to two decisions, one from the Court of Appeal of New Brunswick, in Thomas v Assn. of New Brunswick Registered Nursing Assistants (2003), 230 D.L.R. 337 and the Tribunal's decision in Filgueira v. Garfield Container Transport Inc., [ 2005] C.H.R.D. No. 31 (QL).
[11] In the Thomas decision, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal states, at paragraph 10:
As stated at the outset, the general rule is that parties appearing before adjudicative tribunals are entitled to representation from an agent of their choosing. But tribunals retain a residual discretion to override this general right, provided the discretion is properly exercised. It is because tribunals are the masters of their own procedure that they retain a right to veto a party's choice of counsel. For this reason, a party to a tribunal proceeding does not have an absolute right to be represented by a person of their choosing, unless the enabling legislation states otherwise.
[12] In Filgueira, the Tribunal followed the New Brunswick Court of Appeal's decision and added that in cases where complex legal issues are raised the participation of a lay person as a representative may only confuse matters further.
[13] Subsection 50(1) of the Act provides:
50. (1) After due notice to the Commission, the Complainant, the person against whom the complaint was made and, at the discretion of the member or panel conducting the inquiry, any other interested party, the member or panel shall inquire into the complaint and shall give all parties to whom notice has been given a full and ample opportunity, in person or through counsel, to appear at the inquiry, present evidence and make representations. (The emphasis is mine.)
50. (1) Le membre instructeur, après avis conforme à la Commission, aux parties et, à son appréciation, à tout intéressé, instruit la plainte pour laquelle il a été désigné; il donne à ceux-ci la possibilité pleine et entière de comparaître et de présenter, en personne ou par l'intermédiaire d'un avocat, des éléments de preuve ainsi que leurs observations.
(Non souligné dans l'originale.)
[14] Section 48.9 of the Act, is also relevant. It provides, inter alia, that the proceedings before the Tribunal are to be conducted as informally and expeditiously as the requirements of natural justice and the rules of procedure allow. Generally speaking, representation by non-lawyers is consistent with this purpose which is to facilitate access to the Tribunal and decrease the need for formalities. This section must however be read in conjunction with section 50 in order to determine who can act for a party in a proceeding before the Tribunal.
[15] Section 50, by recognizing a statutory right to be represented by counsel, eliminates any question whether a party to a proceeding before the Tribunal has the right to retain counsel. What the section does not tell us is whether the right to counsel excludes the right to lay representation. In the French version the word used for counsel is avocat which clearly refers to legal counsel. The French word avocat reinforces and indeed restricts the ordinary meaning of the English term counsel. Taking into consideration the French expression, one could conclude that the word counsel, in the English version, refers to a lawyer.
[16] This conclusion does not mean that a lay-person cannot appear as an agent before the Tribunal. In Re Men's Clothing Manufacturer's Association et al and Arthurs et al (1979), 26 O.R. (2d) 20 (H.C.J.) and again in Thomas v. Association of New Brunswick Registered Nurses Assistants, supra, the courts have recognized that there is a common law right to be represented by an agent, quite distinct from any statutory right to counsel. The fact that the Act expressly allows for legal representation by lawyers does not support the inference that the right to lay representation is not allowed. Section 50 of the Act should not be read as restricting or prohibiting any party from attending the hearing with a representative of his or her choice. In the interest of respecting the purpose of section 48.9, parties should be allowed to be represented by a lay-person, even though that person may not be legally trained or qualified. I agree with the comments of Judge Robertson, of the New Brunswick Court of Appeal, in the Thomas case when he stated, at paragraph 19 of the decision: Accordingly, the courts have generally been reluctant to construe statutory directions providing for representation by counsel to exclude persons who are not lawyers.
[17] Just as section 50 of the Act does not abrogate a party's right to appear with a non-lawyer, neither does any section of the Act abrogate the right of the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to exclude non-jurists. Following the purpose set out in section 48.9, the participation of an agent or representative must be consistent with the proper functioning of the Tribunal and not be an impediment. It is also important to reiterate that an agent appears only with the permission of the Tribunal.
[18] This is the approach which was taken by the Tribunal in Beaudet -Fortin v. Canada Post Corporation, 2004 CHRT 23. In that case the Tribunal allowed the Complainant to be represented by an individual who was not a lawyer. The Tribunal stated that it was reluctant to deny less financially fortunate Complainants the opportunity to be represented by a non-jurist who would generally be more affordable. The Tribunal felt that no prejudice would be caused to the Respondent by allowing a non-jurist to represent the Complainant and that this would not be a hindrance to the proper administration of justice.
[19] In Fry v. Department of National Revenue, interim ruling, Transcript, pp. 23-25, March 9, 1993, the Tribunal allowed a disbarred lawyer to represent a Complainant. The Tribunal ruled that it would limit the individual to presenting evidence that the Canadian Human Rights Commission would not be presenting and to cross-examining witnesses. The individual was not permitted to make representations of fact or law.
[20] Again in Filgueira v. Garfield Container Transport Inc, [2005] C.H.R.D. No. 31, the Tribunal accepted that the Complainant be represented by an agent. The Tribunal added that the Complainant had an obligation to satisfy the Tribunal, if the Tribunal deemed it necessary, that the agent was in a position to facilitate the process.
[21] There are also other examples where the Tribunal allowed non-jurists to represent parties. In the recent case of Warman v. Harrison 2006 CHRT 30, Mr. Harrison, the Respondent in that case, was allowed to be represented by his common law wife, who was not a lawyer.
[22] In summary, a person appearing before the Tribunal possesses the right to be represented by an agent of their choosing. But this right is not absolute. The Tribunal retains a residual discretion to limit participation to those persons the Tribunal believes will facilitate, rather than hinder, the adjudicative process. In exercising that discretion the Tribunal is required to justify its decision. The Tribunal should exclude non-lawyers when it is convinced that their participation is likely to hamper, rather than facilitate, the hearing process. (Thomas v. Association of New Brunswick Registered Nurses Assistants, supra, at para. 25).
[23] The answer to the first question is therefore yes, the Tribunal has jurisdiction to allow or to prohibit a person to act as an agent for a party.
b) Should the Tribunal exercise its discretion and prohibit Mr. Fromm from appearing before it? [24] The Commission suggested three reasons why the Tribunal should exercise its discretion and prohibit Mr. Fromm from appearing before it. First, it suggested that he had clearly demonstrated a blatant disrespect for the law. Secondly, that his participation would hinder, rather than facilitate the adjudication. Finally, it referred to the acrimonious relationship between Mr. Fromm and the Complainant which creates a conflict of interest that would hinder the Tribunal's process.
[25] I will deal first with the second and third reasons given by the Commission. Regarding the third reason, although I agree that the relationship between Mr. Fromm and the Complainant is acrimonious, I fail to see how this could be a justification to exclude Mr. Fromm from appearing as agent for the Respondent. The Tribunal is well capable of dealing with any issues that may arise from the hostile relationship that the parties and their agent might have towards each other. The Tribunal also notes that neither the Commission, nor the Complainant explained exactly what conflict of interest would be created and for whom.
[26] Regarding the second issue, whether the participation of Mr. Fromm would hinder, rather than facilitate the hearing, no evidence was presented to support this allegation. The Tribunal cannot make a decision on insinuations or allegations which are not supported by facts.
[27] Finally, the last reason given by the Commission to support its request for the exclusion of Mr. Fromm is more compelling although it will not be enough to convince the Tribunal to grant the order sought. There is no question, from a review of the evidence presented, that in many of his writings, Mr. Fromm has shown a blatant disrespect for the Tribunal and its members. He has also on many occasions manifested disrespectful views towards the Canadian judiciary. The Tribunal is of the opinion that these matters would be better dealt with in another forum and as long as Mr. Fromm accepts the procedure and authority of the Tribunal and acts in a respectful manner towards it, there is no reason to exclude him from acting as a representative in these proceedings.
[28] The Commission's motion that the Tribunal exercise its discretion to prohibit Mr. Fromm from appearing before it in these proceedings is denied.
[29] Because of this decision there is no need to deal with the third issue in which the Commission is seeking an order preventing Mr. Fromm from appearing before it as a representative for a period of three years. The Tribunal wishes to make one comment on the procedure used by the Commission to bring this motion forward. The Commission failed to notify Mr. Fromm personally of its intention, although the order sought would directly affect him. This omission alone would have been sufficient to reject the motion or to adjourn the hearing with leave to regularize service.
B. The post-referral evidence [30] During the proceedings, the Respondent took objection to the fact that the evidence submitted at the hearing referred to postings which were not included specifically in the complaint. The same issue was raised in Warman v. Winnicki, 2006 CHRT 20. In that decision, the Respondent had not raised any objections to the introduction of post-referral evidence by the Commission during the hearing, but had argued in its final submissions that the Tribunal could not consider this evidence since it essentially constituted the basis for a new complaint.
[31] In Winnicki, the Tribunal rejected this argument. Firstly, the Tribunal referred to the fact that a motion to amend the s. 13(1) complaint had been granted on the basis of the post-referral evidence. In deciding that an amendment to the original complaint was appropriate, the issue whether the new allegations constituted the basis for a new complaint was conclusively determined, therefore it could not be argued that the post-referral evidence relating to those allegations could only be presented in support of a new complaint. In the present case, neither the Commission, nor the Complainant filed a motion to have the complaint amended.
[32] Although no motion was filed or granted, the Tribunal is of the view that the post-referral evidence in this case could be considered. The evidence goes directly to the issue before the Tribunal of whether the Respondent was engaging in an ongoing violation of section 13(1) of the Act. Even if the complaint form does not specifically include the words and ongoing, as was the case in Winnicki and in LeBlanc v. Canada Post Corporation (1992), 18 CHRR D/57, it did contemplate the possibility that additional evidence would be submitted. In his complaint, the Complainant mentions that the two postings which were listed constituted samples of the evidence which would accompany the complaint. In the Leblanc ruling, the Tribunal properly set out that in such a situation, the essential question is whether it would be fair to admit the evidence. If there is no evidence of surprise and the Respondent is aware that this evidence relates to matters such as the one submitted in the complaint, then it would be difficult to argue that the admission of this post-referral evidence will cause him prejudice.
[33] In the present case, there is no evidence that the Respondent was caught by surprise by the introduction of the evidence. The evidence was disclosed to the Respondent prior to the hearing and he admitted that he was the author of these postings. These postings are sufficiently similar to the allegations in the complaint, such that it does not effectively constitute a new or separate complaint. The Tribunal therefore rules that the post-referral evidence was properly admitted.
III. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE COMPLAINT [34] For many years, the Complainant has been monitoring activities of what he describes as White Supremacist and neo-Nazi groups, both in Canada and internationally. By white supremacist, he refers to people or groups who assume that there is some inferiority within the races that are traditionally referred to as non-white or non-Aryan. When he uses the term neo-Nazi, he refers to groups or individuals who share similar beliefs as those of the National-Socialist Regime of Germany during the World War II era.
[35] From 2002 to 2004, the Complainant was employed by the Commission as a Human Rights Officer. His duties would involve the investigation of human rights complaints. He specified that his duties at the Commission were explicitly separate from the investigation he was then conducting on internet hate files. During his cross-examination he admitted that given that he had been employed by the Commission during the relevant time of this complaint, he would probably have been monitoring the activities of the Respondent during this period but he added that it was on his own time.
[36] The Complainant explained that for a number of years he has been monitoring the Canadian postings on a U.S. website called stormfront.org, which he qualified as white supremacist. This website provides forums where people can communicate and exchange ideas about issues relating to white supremacy and neo-Nazi ideology. This website is readily accessible to the public. Anybody that has access to the Internet can log on to this site and read the messages posted, although posting is reserved to members.
[37] The Stormfront website is organised in the form of a pyramid. There is a forum where the user can have access to different categories of subject matter. When the user clicks on one of the subjects, a thread appears allowing the user to read and the members to participate in the discussion about the chosen topic. The nature of the postings and their content vary enormously on these threads.
[38] During his monitoring of this website, the Complainant noticed postings by an individual using the pseudonym mathdoktor99 that began to concern him. He did further research into the nature of that person's postings. Having viewed other postings by the individual using this pseudonym, he said that he was convinced that these were likely to violate section 13 of the Act. He began compiling information with a view to identifying that person and ultimately filing a complaint with the Commission.
[39] An individual who uses a pseudonym to post on Stormfront will also have to provide a profile to the administrator of the website. The profile of the individual identified as mathdoktor99 provided an email address. It also indicated that this person lived in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, and that he was a self-employed programmer/analyst.
[40] The Complainant did a Google search of the e-mail address. This search established that the e-mail address of mathdoktor99 was affiliated with an individual named Terry Tremaine. The Respondent does not deny that he had made these postings under the pseudonym mathdoktor99.
[41] Terry Tremaine holds a Bachelors Degree in Mathematics and Philosophy and a Master's Degree in Science. He also holds a diploma in Computer Programming Analysis. He held for a period of time a part-time position as lecturer in the Department of Mathematics at the University of Saskatchewan and, according to his evidence he has been pursuing a career in information technology as a programmer.
[42] The Respondent testified that he formed the basis of the ideas found in his postings while studying for his Master's degree, in Montreal, in 1982. After obtaining his Master's degree, he took a teaching position in Red Deer, Alberta. It just so happened that the James Keegstra trial was then proceeding in Red Deer. Mr. Keegstra had been charged under the hate crime laws in force at the time. Mr. Tremaine said that he attended the hearing and saw Mr. Keegstra testify. He added that he was very impressed by what he heard. He further added that this got him thinking about what you might call the Jewish problem.
[43] After his experience in Alberta, he began doctoral studies in a Canadian university, which he stopped before completing them to accept a teaching position in the Bahamas. While there, he testified that he developed some fairly negative views towards blacks and black culture. He stayed there for two years, then returned to Canada. He testified: By then I was a racialist. He has also described his political beliefs as those of National-Socialism.
[44] On his return to Canada, he pursued a career in information technology and completed a computer diploma. After having obtained this diploma, he opened up a programming company in Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.
[45] During this period, around 2001, he became interested in what he described as white nationalism. It is also during this period that he found the Stormfront website. For a while, he was just a reader but, after a couple of months, he decided to become a member of the website and started his postings. At the hearing, he testified that he has posted at least 1,900 messages on this site.
[46] The Respondent was served with the complaint on April 8, 2005. On April 11, 2005 and again on July 23, 2005, the Complainant wrote to the President of the University of Saskatchewan, the Respondent's employer at the time, providing information regarding the Respondent's activities. On August 4, 2005, the Vice-Provost of the University wrote back to the Complainant informing him that the matter had been investigated by the Human Resources Division of the University and that the position of the Respondent with the University had been terminated on April 30, 2005.
[47] Following his dismissal from the University, the Respondent moved to the west coast (British Columbia). He said that he then felt frightened and depressed. In September of 2005, he returned to Saskatchewan and admitted himself to the Regina Qu'Appelle psychiatric facility to be treated for depression. While there he wrote, on September 30, 2005, a four page letter to the Commission. In this letter he indicated that his postings on Stormfront were attributable to mental health issues. The letter stated that he ...became delusional and began imagining grand conspiracies behind world events. Part of my delusional thinking was the notion of a `Jewish world conspiracy'. He goes on to add: I emphasize that this was delusional thinking for which I am profoundly ashamed and guilt ridden. Words cannot describe the depth of my shame. I am tormented by it daily. I despise and detest everything I wrote on Stormfront and wish I had never heard of Stormfront. The commission need have no concerns about any future activity on my part on Stormfront or anywhere else.
[48] He continues: Prior to March 2001, I was a normal decent person without any racist or intolerant attitudes. In 2001 I underwent a destructive personality change that I can now only describe as sick and deranged. That eventually led to my posting on Stormfront. He further adds: In the months since I was confronted with the Human Rights complaint against me the shame and remorse has grown within me to the point where it has become unbearable and resulted in a further mental breakdown.
[49] He then expresses his remorse and his hope that he will regain his true moral and decent self and concludes with his ...profoundest regret, shame, and remorse to all members of the Jewish community against whom many of my posts were directed. I truly regret to the utmost all that I wrote on Stormfront, especially as it pertains to the Jewish community.
[50] The Commission never answered this letter and no explanation was given for its failure to do so. The Complainant for his part explained on cross-examination that he could not recall whether he actually saw the letter or whether the Commission had provided him with a summary of its content. He added that he had indicated to the Commission that if the Respondent's letter was sincere that it was of great interest to him. He said that he was essentially willing to negotiate a settlement of the complaint with the precondition that there be a permanent cease and desist order and other appropriate remedies. Nothing resulted from this and there is no evidence of any contact with the Respondent to further discuss the matters raised in the letter.
[51] During his examination, the Respondent emphatically repudiated the content of this letter and never challenged its admissibility. He referred to a retraction that he posted on Stormfront on February 5, 2006. He further stated that, but for some minor modifications, he now stands by everything he wrote on Stormfront. In the course of his cross-examination the Respondent confirmed his state of mind about his posting on Stormfront and his views about Jews and Blacks. He certainly showed no remorse for these statements and, given the opportunity, he stated that he would enthusiastically repeat them.
[52] The question of the identity of the author of the postings which form the basis of this complaint as well as the post-complaint postings was not in dispute; the Respondent admits that all these postings are his. The Respondent was a very prolific and prolix author, who in most of his postings camouflaged his ideas under the disguise of academia, using, in many instances, what he purported to be historical references and facts to support his allegations. His postings essentially fall into one of two categories: those that purport to be quasi scholarly articles, and those that constitute direct communications with other participants. The tone of some of these postings, although they did not in any way follow the strict standards of academic writing, could lend an air of legitimacy to their content for a credulous mind.
[53] The first document submitted in evidence was posted on February 14, 2004, on the Stormfront website. The Respondent was participating in a discussion on a thread entitled A Real Holocaust Coming? He then posted the following: The Jew cannot help being a Jew any more than a rat can help being a rat. He went on to refer to Jews as a parasitic race. He added that no healthy host population can tolerate a parasite feeding on it without eventually rejecting it. Finally, he concluded that no conferences on `anti-Semitism' will help the Jew avoid his long-overdue fate.
[54] Again on February 17, 2004, he made another posting on a thread entitled Re: A view from the inside (for all anti's). In this posting, the Respondent again refers to Jews as a parasitic race that depends on word weaving, crafty financial dealings, and a total lack of ethics toward non-Jews.
[55] In a posting dated February 19, 2004, on a thread entitled Your Awakening?, the Respondent explains how he came to espouse the ideas of the White Nationalist Community. He refers to the fact that in the early nineties, he took a teaching job in a Caribbean country:
I was not a racialist when I moved there but became one while there. Firstly, I discovered that blacks are intellectually inferior to Whites. This was evident everywhere and in all walks of life. I do not mean they were less educated (which they were), I mean they were intellectually inferior at a more fundamental level. In my job I encountered blacks who were well educated on paper but seemed to lack a certain intellectual spark which most, even relatively uneducated whites possess. I also came to see black culture as fundamentally depraved and disgusting. It is only fit for blacks and is certainly not anything a self-respecting white person should associate with or emulate.
[56] Later in the same posting, talking about an unnamed Jewish author, he refers to him as the weasel Jew author. In his conclusion he affirms Hitler was right about the Jews.
[57] On March 23, 2004, on a thread which purported to post the political testament of Adolph Hitler, the Respondent, again referring to Jews, wrote: The hatred for that race of parasitic vermin is growing everywhere.
[58] In another posting, entitled The Greatness of Adolf Hitler, the Respondent wrote on April 9, 2004:
Hitler stood in opposition to international Jewry and Marxism. He regarded Marxism as being the most recent vehicle to secure the long term goal of international Jewry - the destruction of independent nation states. It represented the obliteration of all national and ethnic distinctions and the formation of a worldwide mongrelized proletariat without any ethnic identity or loyalty.
[...]
Hitler's original intention for the Jews was that they be expelled from Europe voluntarily or involuntarily. The original destination mentioned was Madagascar. [...] Once the war began that became impractical. The only options available were to confine them or allow them to roam free. The latter option was deemed inappropriate since they were regarded as potential enemy combatants, much like the Japanese in North America who were also interned. It cannot be denied that some, perhaps many, Jews were killed deliberately. The exact number may never be determined but that number would almost certainly fall short of the six million figures which has been part of post-war anti German propaganda for over sixty years.
[59] Referring to the concentration camps used during the Second World War by the Nazis and, in particular, to the infamous Auschwitz camp, he describes it as a labour camp not a death camp and adds that the gas chambers were used to delouse clothing to prevent the spread of typhus - not for the extermination of human beings. He disputes the figures regarding the number of people who died in these camps: We still do not have objective evidence that six million Jews died. The best available evidence is from the Red Cross which indicates that slightly over 400,000 Jews died in the interment(sic) and labour(sic) camps from all causes...
[60] On another topic, in a thread entitled HIV/AIDS and Indians in Saskatchewan that the Respondent initiated, referring to the propagation of AIDS within the First Nation population of that province, he wrote on May 2, 2004, Now, I don't really care if AIDS wipes out the whole lot of them. It would make our job easier.
[61] On July 5, 2004, on a thread entitled Questions from a black man, the Respondent wrote:
Speaking for myself only I expect this white nation to comprise most of what is now Canada with most of what is now the US. Non-white immigration would be banned. Non-whites living within our borders would be encouraged to leave or submit to voluntary sterilization. Under such a plan our nation would be 100% White within one generation. It could be accomplished without significant bloodshed if non-whites were willing to co-operate in the endeavour. Blacks could be repatriated to Africa. The foreign aid now being doled out to Israel would instead go towards this repatriation plan. Educated Blacks from America could help Africa get back on its feet (if that is possible). Asians would be sent back to their country of origin. If that were impossible then the sterilization plan would kick in. In no case would a Jew be allowed to remain on our territory. They would be allowed to leave peacefully with whatever goods they could put in a suitcase.
[62] In responding to a post entitled My feelings on Jews, the Respondent wrote on September 11, 2004:
You did not mention their [referring to the Jews] compulsive deceitfulness. Hitler called them the Masters of the Lie and he was right on that. You did not mention their parasitic nature. They despise real work and live only to get money and do not really care how. You did not mention that they gravitate towards all that is disgusting and depraved. You can see this from their art.
4) You did not mention their involvement in organised crime, drugs, and white slavery.
5) You did not mention their subversion of all our institutions (mass media, academic, financial, political, judicial, law enforcement) and their subsequent redirection towards Jewish goals.
6) You did not mention the cancer of Zionism.
Etc. Etc...
[63] On a Stormfront thread entitled Did you Know that one million Germans were murdered...after the war, the Respondent contributed this posting on September 12, 2004:
The more a person researches the events surrounding WWII (before, during and after) the more one is led to the conclusion that the real holocaust was against the German people and instigated by the Jews. The holohoax story attempts to invert that and portay(sic) the juden as victims of the `evil Nazis'. As time passes we are learning more and more the real truth.
[64] On September 18, 2004, in a thread he initiated, The `Sacred' Parasite, he again describes the Jews as parasite. On that same day, he also initiated another thread entitled Hanadi Jaradat. According to the Respondent's posting, Hanadi Jaradat was a Palestinian woman who blew herself up in a restaurant in Haifa, Israel, killing and injuring a number of people. Referring to her action the Respondent wrote:
[...]Her country is occupied by the same parasitic race that controls our formerly White countries. As Dr Pierce used to say: SHE HAD HAD ENOUGH!!. So, she decided to do something about it.
It is nearly one year since Hanadi Jaradat struck a blow against ZOG. I know there are WNs who will criticize me for honouring a muslim in this way but I do not honour her as a muslim or arab, as such, but as a dedicated soldier fighting against ZOG. Nor do I suggest we all strap bombs to ourselves and start blowing up Jews. My only intention is to draw attention to her courage and self-sacrifice (literally) and hope for the day when we have a thousand WN [White Nationalist] equally dedicated to destroying our enemy.
[65] On September 19, 2004, he wrote:
The more the Jews try to stamp out anti-semitism the more it will increase. That is guaranteed. It will increase until the Jews themselves realize thay(sic) are the cause of anti-semitism (which will never happen). Just as a healthy body attempts to identify and repell(sic) foreign destructive organisms so too any healthy society will react to the Jew with revulsion and disgust and will desire to have them expelled. The Jews attempt to undermine this healthy response the same way the AIDS virus interferes with the body's rejection of foreign organisms. But for the Jews that will not work. There are too many people aware. We are like the White blood cells in certain people that are immune to the effects of the AIDS virus.
[66] On that same day, but on another thread, the Respondent posted: As someone (I cannot remember who) once said, when the end of the Jews finally comes they will wish they had the SS there to protect them.
[67] The Respondent also participated in a thread entitled Re: If it took a police state, which purported to discuss the advantages of establishing a white nation. In one of his many and long postings on this thread, dated September 20, 2004, he stated: NS [National Socialist] policy toward Jews was quite restrained. Hitler was a lot nicer to the Jews than they deserved. His original intention was to simply deport them all. However, nobody wanted them (no surprise there). Later on in another posting he stated in part, in answer to a question asked about whether he would be ready to pay the price of a totalitarian police state for an all white nation: In fact, I would not support it unless it were actively engaged in the expulsion of all Jews from our territory. In another posting on the same subject, in which he was referring to the fracture of our multi-racial countries, he suggested that white nationalists should be ready to seize power by whatever means available. He then added Our people will then be in charge of the existing police state apparatus and will begin the process of cleaning up the mess (expelling the Jews, repatriating the other non-whites, etc.)
[68] On January 17, 2005, the Respondent posted the following: The Arabs are NOT the new juden. The juden are the juden!! As Dr. Pierce used to say, once we deal with the Jews everything else will just be mopping up. The last posting put into evidence by the Complainant from the period before the Respondent was served with the complaint on April 8, 2005, was posted on March 23, 2005, and it deals with the subject matter contained in a thread entitled Gambling at the Public Library. In this posting the Respondent makes derogatory remarks about Aboriginal persons.
[69] The next posting put into evidence appears in early February 2006, ten months after the complaint was served and some five months after the letter of apology referred to earlier in this decision. This posting appeared following the Tribunal's decision in Warman v. Kulbashian et al, 2006 CHRT 11, which was issued on January 30, 2006. In this posting, the Respondent, referring to the Tribunal member who rendered the decision, had this to say: Notice that we don't even have White tribunal decision makers but someone who crawled out of some third-world hell hole.
[70] In the next posting, dated February 27, 2006, the Respondent asserts: We must never forget that communism was, is, and always will be Jewish. It is the best example of what would happen to our people if and when the Jews attain the kind of abso