Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Monday, January 28, 2008
Copyright David Icke, 2008. All Rights Reserved.
HEY, 'FREE' CANADA ...
... GET OFF YOUR BLOODY KNEES
Hello all ...
You may have noticed the postings on my website this week about a man called Richard Warman. His attacks on free speech - including my own - in league with government agencies and Jewish organisations like B'nai B'rith, the Anti-Defamation League (whose job is to defame people) and the Canadian Jewish Congress need urgently to be exposed to the wider world.
This is not just a story about Canada - it is the blueprint for the end of free expression that is unfolding across the planet under the guise of Orwellian terms like 'Political Correctness' and 'Hate Speech'.
I first came across Richard Warman, a 'lawyer' working for the Canadian government, when he campaigned with the above organisations to have my public talks in Canada and elsewhere banned because I was a 'racist'. This is invariably the insult hurled at anyone who gets close to the truth. Even people demanding the truth about 9/11 or those questioning the official version of global warming have been dubbed as akin to 'Holocaust Deniers' and if you question any aspect of the official version of the Nazi concentration camps you can now be jailed by the Thought Police.
Ernst Zundel, an elderly pacifist, was illegally abducted from his home in the United States, thrown in a Canadian jail and eventually extradited to Germany to be jailed again for the maximum five years by a kangaroo court masquerading (barely) as the arbiter of 'justice'.
What was Zundel's 'crime'? Differing from the official history of what happened in the Nazi camps. He was, in other words, jailed for this thoughts, his views.
Even his lawyer, Sylvia Stolz, has now been jailed for three-and-a-half years, and banned from practising law for five years, for having the same thoughts and views as her client.
All this in 'free' Germany.
What happens in fascist states is that the verdict and the sentence are agreed before the trial or the evidence. That is what happened with Zundel and that is what happens in the 'justice' and 'human rights' system in Canada, as we shall see.
What we need to understand before all freedom is extinguished is that you don't have to agree with what someone says to defend their right to say it. Indeed, you are defending your right to say and think what you choose because unless everyone has free speech and free thought then no-one does. You can't be free to think and say what you believe if someone is deciding what you can think and say.
That is not freedom of speech or thought - it is the freedom to agree with what the Big Brother state allows you to think and say.
As Voltaire is claimed to have said: 'I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.'
Why? Because your freedom is my freedom.
So what is happening in Canada and elsewhere is an attack on the freedom of everyone and what is happening is truly, truly, staggering in what is claimed - hilariously - to be a 'free society'.
Warman pulls down a David Icke talk poster
Richard Warman was a member of the Canadian Green Party when I first came across him in the 1990s and he went on to be an 'investigator' for the Canadian Government's 'Human Rights' Commission (which is like George Orwell calling his propaganda ministry the 'Ministry of Truth').
Warman would find out where I was speaking and then contact the venue to say that I was an 'anti-Semite' who was going to blame Jews for everything in my presentation. Most of the spineless idiots at these venues - with honourable exceptions - would then ban the event without any further investigation.
You can see him at work trying to stop my talk in Vancouver in a British Channel 4 television documentary from 2001. The link is at the end of this article.
It got so ridiculous at one point that Warman, writing from Canada, almost had me banned from speaking at the little local theatre a few miles from my home in England where I had spoken with no problem many times before.
In the end, the local council insisted on having an 'observer' at the event to ensure that I did not break 'racism laws'. What did she find? Nothing, of course not. But truth is irrelevant - so long as the mud sticks it's job done.
This is what Richard Warman really believes about 'human rights' and free expression. He was asked about his attempts to ban my public events by the London Independent on Sunday magazine. This was his reply:
'He has taken all the conspiracy theories that ever existed and melded them together to create an even greater conspiracy of his own. His writings may be the work of a madman, or of a genuine racist. Either way they are very dangerous ...
... 'If he's unstable then so are his followers, who hang on his every word. What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?'
That's right, a self-styled 'human rights' campaigner actually said: 'What benefit can there be in allowing him to speak?'
This is the mentality we are dealing with here from a Canadian government lawyer who specialises in targeting people who supposedly breach human rights!! You couldn't make it up.
As a result of the campaign against me by Warman, B'nai B'rith, the Anti Defamation League and the Canadian Jewish Congress, I am stopped, searched and questioned without fail every time I pass through a Canadian airport because I am on a computer 'stop' list. What do they find? Nothing. But what happens the next time I go there? The same.
On one occasion I was held for six hours into the night at Ottawa airport and then again the next morning when all I am saying is that we need to love each other, forget our manufactured differences and unite behind freedom for all, no matter what your colour, creed or religion.
In a speech in Toronto on July 6th 2005, Warman described his modus operandi as a technique of 'Maximum Disruption':
'I've come to the conclusion that I can be most effective by using what I like to describe as a 'maximum disruption' approach. ... If I think that they've violated the Canadian Human Rights Act, then I'll look at all of the potential targets and file complaints against them starting on a 'worst offender' basis, although sometimes if I just find people to be particularly annoying this may move them up the list a bit.'
'The "maximum disruption" part comes in because wherever I think it will be most helpful, or even if I just feel it will be the most fun, I strongly believe in hitting the neo-nazis on as many of these fronts as possible either at the same time or one after the other. I say this because it keeps them off-balance and forces them to respond to things that focus their energies on defending themselves ...'
Warman, still an employee of the Canadian government the last I heard, is always strongly supported by B'nai B'rith (Rothschilds), the Anti-Defamation League (Rothschilds) and the Canadian Jewish Congress or 'CJC' (Bronfman family, connected to the Rothschilds).
So much so that the CJC gave him its Saul Hayes Human Rights Award for 'distinguished service to the cause of human rights' (no, that's not a joke) and a report by the Canadian 'Human Rights' Commission said that Warman 'has recently written a detailed report on Internet hate in Canada for the national Jewish group B'nai B'rith's Annual Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents'.
Canadian Jewish Congress: 'Congratulations Richard Warman, you are doing a wonderful job.'
What is the extent of the connection between Warman and B'nai Brith, the Anti-Defamation League and the Canadian Jewish Congress? Can anyone help?
It gets even more outrageous when you consider that Richard Warman has been using aliases, including one called Mary Dufford, to post racist comments on the very websites that he and the Canadian 'Human Rights' Commission then target for being racist.
One rant posted on a forum called Freedomsite on September 5th 2003 can be seen below. Apologies for the language, but we are adults and this is what was posted about a black Canadian Senator called Anne Cools.
'Not only is Canadian Senator Anne Cools a Negro, she is also an immigrant!
And she is also one helluva preachy c*nt.
She does NOT belong in my Canada. My Anglo-Germanic people were here before
there was a Canada and her kind have jumped in, polluted our race, and forced
their bullshit down our throats.
Time to go back to when the women nigger imports knew their place...
And that place was NOT in public!'
This was posted by a user name called '90sAREover' and it was following this that a Warman 'investigation' began into racist postings on the Freedomsite. So who was the poster of this vicious, stomach-turning racism on a site then targeted by Richard Warman for prosecution by the Canadian 'Human Rights' Commission?
Well, well, well.
The owner of the Freedomsite and the target of Warman's subsequent 'investigation' is a man called Marc Lemire, a computer 'nerd' and technical expert who traced the posting to the same computer (IP address = 220.127.116.11) from which was posted another user name called 'Lucy'.
Who was 'Lucy', by his own admission under oath? Richard Warman.
Another computer expert, Bernard Klatt, did his own investigation into the origin of this sick and despicable attack on Anne Cools and this was his verdict in an affidavit submitted as evidence to a Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on February 8th 2007:
'Based on the information provided in this affidavit, in my expert opinion, I concluded that the Freedomsite message board user accounts "90sAREover" and "lucy" are those of Richard Warman and that Richard Warman was the poster of the message headed "Cools don't belong in our Senate" posted September 5, 2003.'
Don't bother pinching yourself, I've tried. It was also admitted by the 'Human Rights' Commission that its 'senior human rights investigator', Dean Steacy, posts on the 'White Pride' Stormfront website using the name 'Jadewarr'. The game is simple: get an anonymous account to post racist comments on a website and then charge the website owners with posting racist comments.
Richard Warman is saying of David Icke at this point in the TV documentary: 'I think we can release the hounds now'.
Canadian author and journalist, Mark Steyn, summed it up very well this week when he wrote:
'As I said previously, this isn't entrapment; it's manufacturing the crime. Mr Warman posted these words on a website and then used them as part of his complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That is Scandal #1.
Furthermore, when the defendant then made plain that he wished to subpoena the records of the ISP to uncover the author of the above post, the Canadian Human Rights Commission mysteriously dropped it from the case. This suggests an explicit collusion between the CHRC investigators and their former colleague, Mr Warman. That is Scandal #2.
For posting these words on the website and then taking said website to the Human Rights Commission, Mr Warman has been substantially enriched by the Canadian state. That is Scandal #3.'
What has happened to Richard Warman as a result of these extraordinary revelations in the 'free' country of Canada where 'everyone is treated equally'? Nothing. As Mark Steyn wrote:
'If this is correct, I don't see how it's possible to regard the Canadian Human Rights Commission as anything other than a racket for one of its former employees. Why should Richard Warman collect five-figure sums from suing websites for "crimes" in which he has himself participated?'
So why is Warman Teflon Man? Why does nothing ever stick or prompt further official investigation?
Warman has been awarded tens of thousands of dollars by the 'Human Rights' Commission that he used to work for and invariably his targets are those without the resources to defend themselves nor pay the fine and money to him without extreme hardship.
Warman brings his cases under something called Section 13 of the Canadian 'Human Rights' Act which is simply a vehicle for blatant censorship. It makes it a 'discriminatory practice' for 'a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate ... any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt ...' This includes areas like race, religion, sex and a long list of others. Who decides what is 'likely'? The government agency.
Read that again and you'll see that this could be applied to almost any criticism or contrary opinion. It is a censorship charter and the Canadian 'Human Rights' Commission has said that the truth of any statement is no defence. The head Internet investigator for the CHRC, Dean Steacy, the Stormfront poster 'Jadewarr', said: 'Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don't give it any value'.
For violating Section 13 (or rather when the 'Human Rights' Commission has decreed that you have) you can be subject to a lifetime ban on your opinions registered with the Federal Court, a fine of up to $50,000 and up to five years in jail.
Now ... are you ready for this ...? Journalist Mark Steyn writes:
'In its entire history, over half of all cases have been brought by a sole "complainant," one Richard Warman. Indeed, Mr. Warman has been a plaintiff on every single Section XIII case before the federal "human rights" star chamber since 2002 — and he's won every one. That would suggest that no man in any free society anywhere on the planet has been so comprehensively deprived of his human rights. Well, no. Mr. Warman doesn't have to demonstrate that he's been deprived of his human rights, only that it's "likely" (i.e. "highly un-") that someone somewhere will be deprived of some right sometime.'
Some more outrageous statistics:
- 100% of cases have white people as respondents
- 98% of cases have poor or working class respondents
- 90.7% of respondents are not represented by lawyers
- So far, $93,000 has been awarded in fines and special compensation since 2003.
- 35 respondents have lifetime speech bans (Cease and Desist) orders and if not followed the victims could face up to 5 years in prison.
- 72.4% of complaints specifically identify 'Jews' as victims.
As the grip tightens on human freedom this censorship is now targeting even mainstream media outlets like Macleans Magazine and what you are reading here is what is planned for everyone all over the world - that's the 'Totalitarian Tiptoe' with regard to Political Correctness. That's the agenda behind it all. It is not about 'protecting minorities', it is about controlling everyone - including the 'minorities'.
It is actually playing 'minorities' off against each other. If a black person says something a gay person doesn't like he can be prosecuted by the Thought Police. But if the gay person says something the black person doesn't like he can be prosecuted by the Thought Police.
It is classic and blatant divide and rule under the guise of 'protecting minorities'.
Another 'modus' of Richard Warman is to launch libel actions against those who defend themselves from his attacks on their character or give their opinion of him and his agenda. He has had one running against me now for nearly six years on the book, Children of the Matrix, which was published seven years ago.
Among the ludicrous alleged 'libels' is that, sit down and take a breath, I called him a 'censor' and an enemy of free speech.
Children of the Matrix was published in 2001 and Warman was at my event in Montreal, Canada (which he had worked so hard to ban) when that book was on sale for the first time. In other words, he read what I wrote about him in the summer of 2001.
So did he contact me or the publisher to make a complaint and discuss it? Oh no. Without contacting me in any way, he began writing to bookstores and distributors telling them that he was taking a libel action against me and if they did not stop handling the book they would be included.
Most of these sad and spineless people allowed themselves to be intimidated and the book lost massive potential sales, for which I shall be seeking compensation. Given that Warman was in the Canadian Green Party at the time, a British Green Party member called Justin Walker contacted him and offered to arrange a meeting with me at which his problem could be discussed and resolved. Warman just scoffed at the idea and dismissed it.
Instead he waited almost a year after he had first read the book before issuing me with a libel writ - just before his deadline for doing so ran out. When he threatened the biggest British book distributor, W H Smith, with being included in the action they looked at his behaviour and described it to me as 'bizarre'.
Six years later the case is still rolling on and in the meantime he has continued to behave with regard to freedom of expression in precisely the way I describe in my book - I mean, see above.
Still, at least a full blown court hearing will reveal to the public and the worldwide Internet community the extraordinary story of Richard Warman and the true identity of '90sAREover' and the Anne Cools posting that Warman has denied on oath was him even though the 'IP' (computer) address is the same as the one he used for 'Lucy'.
Today eyes are now opening ever-wider in Canada to what has been going on and Mark Steyn wrote an excellent article for Macleans Magazine headed 'Why should Richard Warman be the only citizen to have his own personal inquisition?' See the links at the end of this text. In another exposé of Warman's weapon-of-choice, Section 13, Steyn says:
'At this point, the Minister of Justice needs to step in. The administration of Section XIII is a public disgrace. I agree with Pundita that it is, in fact, a criminal act in itself. The Minister should order a judicial inquiry into the systemic corruption of Section XIII. Furthermore, in the interim, Agent Dean Steacy should be removed from all "hate" cases, all current cases suspended, and the judgments in those cases brought by Richard The Anglo-German Warman vacated. The mountain of phoney-baloney "jurisprudence" based on the Warman racket should be tossed in the trash.
In the end, Maclean's and I might prevail over this thug racket. But why should we have to spend significant six-figure sums doing so given the prima facie evidence above? Section XIII is misbegotten in theory and a shakedown racket in practice. It's time to end it.'
I repeat, this is not just about Canada or Macleans Magazine or me. It is about all of us. Different sections of society are being picked off while the rest look the other way because they think it does not affect them. Oh, but it does.
The words of Pastor Martin Niemöller come to mind. He was talking about the emergence of the Nazis in Germany, but it is relevant today across the gathering Orwellian world:
First they came for the Jews and I did not speak out
because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for the Communists and I did not speak out
because I was not a Communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists and I did not speak out
because I was not a trade unionist.
Then they came for me and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Unless we say 'enough!' now, we have seen nothing yet. We have a choice: a line in the sand now or a global fascist dictatorship ruled by the Thought Police.
It's our call and we'd better make it quick.
PLEASE NOTE: These newsletters are copyrighted for subscribers only, but the information included here is so important that on this occasion please feel free to circulate this in the coming days and weeks - along with the TV documentary and other links below - to anyone and everyone you think ought to read or see them.
Let us remove the power to suppress provided by lack of public awareness.
Richard Warman: 'Lucy' and '90sAREover'
No, I don't post on websites that I target.
Er, oh, you can prove it?
Oh yeah, I remember now, I do.
Here is the interchange between Richard Warman and Barbara Kulaszka, the counsel of one of his targets, Marc Lemire, when he was questioned about the screen names 'Lucy' and '90sAREover' at a Canadian Human Rights' Tribunal on February 1st, 2007.
David Icke and Richard Warman
Here is a documentary on David Icke and featuring Warman in 2001 (not all that is said in the reporter's commentary about David Icke is correct).
Who is Richard Warman?
Why should Richard Warman be the only citizen to have his own personal inquisition?
From Macleans Magazine
Richard Warman: 'Human rights' for me but not for thee
By Mark Steyn
Read more ...
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
"WASHINGTON - A study by two nonprofit journalism organizations found thatThe media is using the same kind of false, misinformation, disinformation and lies on a daily basis to further the neo-(con/lib) agenda. From leaving Ron Paul out of opinion polling and results, to lying about Iran's nuclear ambitions vis-a-vis nuclear weapony, the mainstream media take the public for fools and they are lying their collective asses off daily. and top administration officials issued hundreds of false statements about the national security threat from in the two years following the 2001 terrorist attacks. ...
The study counted 935 false statements in the two-year period. It found that in speeches, briefings, interviews and other venues, Bush and administration officials stated unequivocally on at least 532 occasions that Iraq hador was trying to produce or obtain them or had links to or both.
"It is now beyond dispute that Iraq did not possess any weapons of mass destruction or have meaningful ties to al-Qaida," according to Charles Lewis and Mark Reading-Smith of the Fund for Independence in Journalism staff members, writing an overview of the study. "In short, the Bush administration led the nation to war on the basis of erroneous information that it methodically propagated and that culminated in military action against Iraq on March 19, 2003."
Don't let them get away with it.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
After all, after leading the "polls" for most of 2007 and being constantly promoted in the media as the frontrunner and America's Choice and America's Mayor etc etc.... He still cannot beat Ron Paul in the Caucuses and Primaries.
What does that tell you about how the public view the mainstream media?
The media needs to answer this question:
IF Rudy is still considered a front runner and a viable candidate worthy of kind of media attention that is due to a serious candidate, then why can he not beat Ron Paul???? Come on media, if you claim to exclude Ron Paul because he is "fringe", what is your excuse for blanket coverage of the maverick extremist (who wants to pre-emptively nuke Iran) who has even less support from real voters than Ron Paul?
Sunday, January 20, 2008
This is a true AMERICAN HERO.
Spread this far and wide.
Unmentioned by you, and therefore mentioned by me, because you seem to be incapable of following your own rules of reportage and even mentioning in a non-biased way the results of the Caucus. You have failed to do your job, so I am reporting that Romney won the straw poll and Ron Paul came in second ahead of McCain, Huckabee and Rudy. (important note here, Ron Paul has beaten the "supposed" leading candidature of Rudy in every poll bar one. That's REAL votes NOT spammers. The Paul campaign also has raised more funds than Rudy, again from real voters not corporate backers or spammers.) Ron Paul's support is large enough for him to be included in the media in a reasonable light as a front runner. He is now clearly inside the top 4 and rising.
But the MOST important aspect is the fact that in Nevada, Ron Paul has secured far more delegates than Mitt Romney and so has actually won Nevada where it actually counts.
I am sick of seeing the mainstream media news blatantly and deliberately distort and misrepresent results, in both imagery and text, to actively censor reportage of Ron Paul. When Fox and CNN and the BBC and others show the two images those from the top 3 or 3 from the top 4 or 4 from the top 5 candidates omitting one of them from the lineup, they always omit Ron Paul.
Typically there have been pictures of the top 4 showing first, third and fourth but missing out second, because we can not have people actually realising that Ron Paul's message is popular and resonates with the American Ideal? Freedom, liberty, prosperity and the pursuit of happiness?
So where, Justin, is your dedication to your words from November last year when you wrote:
"To me he is a wonderful reminder of the intellectual freedom that persists in American politics in spite of the deadening effect of money. I have written before about the need for those of us with claims to impartiality to treat those the parties regard as fringe candidates seriously; it is not for us to attack or defend, but to report and analyse."
WHERE IS YOUR REPORT OR ANALYSIS OF RON PAUL'S SUCCESS??? He is NOT even a fringe candidate anymore, that label more accurately describes Rudy or Fred Thompson. Paul has secured all-time Record donations and NOT from corporate backers buying the candidate and influence, but all raised from tiny spontaneous donations averaging $100.00??? This is the solution to the party funding crisis in the UK. If the candidate actually supports what the nation wants, and is dedicated, honest and has a record of selfless genuine public service in the mould of Ron Paul, then money comes flooding in.
Justin, you act like a bought and paid for pawn of the CFR corporate elite, not a journalist. Your reportage of this election campaign is third rate rubbish.
YOU (and the other mainstream "propaganda merchants") are the reason why the mainstream is losing massive market share to the blogs. You cannot tell all the truth and have to distort and omit and sometimes blatantly lie to keep with the agenda. We know blatant BS when we see it and we are getting a big dump from you.
All Ron Paul supporters want is fair and honest and accurate reporting, then the message will take care of itself.