Should publicly calling others "anti-Semitic", merely for criticising Israel, be considered Libellous?

66 posts / 0 new
Last post
remind remind's picture

Oh goody, a poll.



How about a quote from an article about him.


"Tribunal Chair Edward Lustig condemned Warman – who holds himself out as a human rights activist – for his membership in neo-Nazi organizations and ripped into him for his frequent anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi rants. The Tribunal effectively accused Warman himself of breaking the law – pointing out that Warman’s online anti-Semitism could quite possibly expose Jews to even more hatred and contempt. That just happens to be the offence Warman claimed he was trying to enforce. And, in perhaps the most damaging finding, the Tribunal pointed out that Warman at first did not answer questions truthfully – effectively calling him an attempted perjurer."

So how do we like him so far.

Diogenes Diogenes's picture

Jaku wrote:

Im sure many here support Warman. I sure do.

LOL - Now that's funny Jaku.

Erik Redburn

That is funny.  Two of the same guys who were threatening with a libel suit and suddenly the tune changes.  It is rather different though, I suppose, as Farber is a well known head of an influential organization which actively works to suppress any criticism of one of the most oppressive regimes to dare call itself a democracy.   Recommending a Nazi sympathizer is a whole new twist to me.


I take it that many here have simply not read of the work Warman has done in  stopping neo-Nazi hate online. I would expect that neo-Nazism and racism would register here as ugly ideologies that must be fought against. ARA and other anti-racist groups like this site have all strongly supported Warman. However if former Heritage Front head Marc Lemire or racist supporter paul Fromm (both have been taken on by Warman) are more to your liking please better explain.


- Either you're for Warman, or you're for the Nazis. Discuss.

- What a gorgeous lure. Glub glub. Are those good to eat? glub glub.

- Poke, poke, prod, prod, bait, bait, provoke, provoke, and start over again.



However if former Heritage Front head Marc Lemire or racist supporter paul Fromm (both have been taken on by Warman) are more to your liking please better explain.



Jaku, if you pull that crap again you're gone, and don't come on all innocent and pretend you don't know exactly what I'm talking about.


Leave it to Unionist to get to the nub of the matter. I am conflicted as to whether this is as black and white as he asks above. I read Jaku's link and there can be little doubt that the folks Mr. Warman has waged a battle against are neo-Nazis (why neo? Nothing really "neo" about Nazis...sidetrack for another time) hateful, spiteful human beings. I certainly support Mr. Warman in his battle and must admit that if people like Ezra Levant hate Warman then I am even more for Warman.

That noted the hate law issue is one we need to pay attention to as well. There needs to be a clean up of section 13 to ensure its viability or the rightwing neanderthals win. Much to discuss here.


Jaku might understand but I'm honestly lost on this one.

remind remind's picture

Personally, I have a hard time with someone forcing 80 year olds out onto the street. Even if they are bigots.

But admittedly perhaps there is reasons I have not considered.

And I agree unionist, what is this polar opposite positioning all the time, when usually reality is somewhere in between.


Cassia, it would appear that jaku supports Mr. Warman, which as far as I'm concerned is his right.  While I despise the people Warman has decided to take on, I do not condone what he does or his tactics, and as a supporter of the larger issue of free speech, I have a hard time with elements of our Human Rights legislation and how it's applied.

Juku then would have it that those who oppose Warman's methods therefore are right-wing extremist Nazi lovers.  This is beyond mere lazy and shallow debating tactics, it is absolutely odious, and babblers should be free to debate this matter honestly without being accused of being Nazis. Further, this particular tactic is not new here, and has been used in the past by others who associate themselves with pro zionist lobby groups.  There is a history of mods giving warnings on this, and even suspending, going back to long before I was a moderator.



Thanks, oldgoat, for putting it in calm moderatorial tones. I guess that's why we pay you a monarch's ransom.

ETA: By the way, I have nothing in particular against Mr. Warman. Anyone who dedicates their time to battling Nazis and white supremacists must have some merit, even if he has used questionable tactics on occasion. My problem is with Section 13 of the CHRA, which has been amply discussed in other threads.




Thanks, oldgoat. I was obviously oblivious to what was going on. Not the first time, probably not the last.


Old Goat, I read Jaku's comment and you have taken really extreme liberties. Nowhere does he make any claim or even insinuate that "those who oppose Warman's methods therefore are right-wing extremist Nazi lovers.". It is really an unfair mischaracterization on your part. If I didn't know you better I would almost think you are looking to ban Jaku. Yet I see no transgression here.


oldgoat gets paid a monarch's ransom??  Hey, that's not fair!

Prophit, tough if you don't like it.  You're not going to derail this thread whining about oldgoat's moderating.  If you don't like it, take it to rabble reactions.  I concur with oldgoat.  As far as I'm concerned, you and Jaku are wearing out your welcome quickly with your usual "skirt-the-line-maligning-the-babblers" routine.  We've been seeing it from you and your buddies for years.  We've just about had it.