Important UPDATE here. Read first.
***
“Warman is a legend in anti-racism circles. A former member of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, he’s launched countless complaints against right-wing extremists, and won almost all of them. But during proceedings surrounding one of Warman’s 2003-era complaints against freedomsite, the respondents turned the tables. A computer expert named Bernard Klatt did some digging under freedomsite’s back office, and determined that the Cools posting had been made from a computer bearing the IP address 66.185.84.204, the very same address from which Warman had admitted to visiting freedomsite using a different alias.
“Other technical details – such as the operating system and Web browser being used – also provided an exact match to Warman. Based on this evidence, Klatt concluded in a recently publicized affidavit, ‘Richard Warman was the poster of the message headed “Cools don’t belong in our Senate.”‘
“Does this mean Warman is a closet bigot? I doubt it. What seems more likely is that – like other anti-racism activists – Warman simply found himself running out of Aryan Nation types to chase around the Internet. And so, under this theory, he decided to just start typing the stuff up on his own computer – and then added these self-authored “racist” postings to his blunderbuss brief against freedomsite. (As Klatt notes, Warman has been accused of perpetrating the same sort of stunts on other right-wing Web sites.) When you’ve got profitable hate-speech cases to prosecute, why wait for some unemployed conspiracy theorist to start raving against immigrants when you can just manufacture the evidence yourself?
“Bizarre as this episode may be, it is of a piece with a larger trend – symbolized, south of the border, by the shamefully trumped up case against the Duke University lacrosse team. The anti-racism industry, running out of legitimate hatemongers to go after, has gone rogue in its search for attention and relevance.”
PLUS at BlazingCatFur on the CJC’s lame defensiveness:
Why do Farber & Rudner cite the tragic death of Pamela Waechter, but fail to mention that she died at the hands of anti-Israel shooter Naveed Haq, who it should be rightly noted may have been suffering from mental illness? Failure to mention that Haq is Muslim and a Fanatic can’t have been a charitable omission on the part of Farber & Rudner, otherwise why cite this example at all? Why the politically correct chill? The failure to discuss the threat of Islamofascism openly destroys the credibilty of their defense.
