From my friend Tremaine in Canada.

I received a document today from the CHRC with an attachment. The attachment was the decision in the case of Warman v. Kouba. The document itself contained the following quote from Richard Warman:

I wish to bring to the attention of Member Doucet the recent decision of the Tribunal in the case of Warman v. Kouba as I believe that it provides an extremely helpful roadmap of how s. 13 cases may be decided in terms of its analysis of hate messaging indicia and their application to individual, case facts. The case is available here:http://www.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/search/files/t1071_5205er22nov06.pdf

Member Doucet is the member presiding over my case. The "analysis of hate messaging indicia" which can serve as a "roadmap of how s. 13 cases may be decided" refers in part to the "Hallmarks of Hate":
These points are taken directly from the pdf file. Readers can comment on them individually if desired.

I will evaluate these "hallmarks of hate", but first let me remind you that because of 1 man and 1 organisation (Richard Warman & B'nai B'rith's precedent setting, a hate message isn't even a hate message anymore. A Hate message is now considered a message that expresses ill will or contempt towards people based on sex, race, sexual orientation etc.

I have put in bold the hallmarks of hate messages.

The Hallmarks of Hate Messages

(a)The targeted group is portrayed as a powerful menace that is taking control of the major institutions and depriving others of their livelihoods, safety, freedom of speech and general well being.

So now you're not allowed to say a a specific group is taking away your freedom of speech? Isn't that proof right there that they are taking away freedom of speech? When Jewish funded Richard Warman sets a precedent that mentioning Jews are taking away your freedom of speech is a "hate message", that proves that in fact they are taking away freedom of speech. We're not allowed to say the truth?

(b) The messages use "true stories", news reports, pictures and references from purportedly reputable sources to make negative generalizations about the targeted group.

What hypocrisy. Quoting the Ottawa citizen is now illegal? Why doesn't Richard Warman go after every single newspaper instead of the person re-posting the news story? Because Warman wants to selectively silence political opinion.

If the newspaper didn't commit an offence, how can the person re-posting it commit an offence for material they didn't create?

(C) The targeted group is portrayed as preying upon children, the aged, the vulnerable, etc.

That means we're not allowed to say homosexuals are more likely than heterosexuals to attack children , even if it's truth. That means we're not allowed to say blacks & Muslims commit rape at a 4 times higher rate than European Canadians, even though it's true. The truth is not allowed in Canada.

(d)The targeted group is blamed for the current problems in society and the world.

That means we are not allowed to say leftist Europeans are committing treason against their own nations. Indians would then be able to be prosecuted every time they blame the Catholic church or the Canadian Government for their problems in Society. This precedent would punish victims from speaking up against their oppressors and exposing them.

(e) The targeted group is portrayed as dangerous or violent by nature.

That is ridiculous. First of all, all humans are violent by nature. But certain "targeted" groups are more violent by nature than others, for example, men. Groups with more testosterone are more violent by nature than others. This CHRT precedent is like saying all groups are peaceful, and there is no biological difference in men, woman, and other races. This ruling means if you mention men are more violent than women because they have more testosterone, that is a "hate message". Truth is no defence.

(g) The messages communicate the idea that nothing but banishment, segregation or eradication of this group of people will save others from harm being done by this group.

This ruling essentially makes the will of 1 person to have the freedom of association as illegal. This would make it illegal for Mennonites/Amish to advocate segregation from non Mennonites/Amish. Expressing segregation is expressing ones own will of association. This precedent would make it illegal for people to have the right of association.

(h) The targeted group is dehumanized through comparisons to and associations with animals, vermin, excrement, and other noxious substances.

This precedent would make it illegal to call women "bitches", and men "pigs".
This precedent will make it illegal for one to express their opinion, free expression and thought and religion. This precedent will make it illegal to express an opinion that Christians are sheep. This precedent would make reciting the Bible illegal, as the Bible correlates targeted groups to animals. Revelations mentions a Beast/Bull, which many Christians believe to be the European Union.

Also consider the Biblical Book of Ezekiel, which describes a future invasion of the middle east by a country from the North, which is likely talking about Russia. In Ezekiel 38, the land of Magog and Gog, believed to be Russia, sends this invading army into the Middle East. According to Ezekiel, God will intervene in this invasion to destroy this army from the North. This also agrees with the idea of the 10-horned beast of Revelation 13 being Russia.
This precedent by Warman would make it illegal to target Russians. Many Christians have interpreted revelations to saying that an Angry Mother Bear(Russia), and could lash out at other countries, and should be closely watched. This Revelation 13:1, 2 passage implies that a Russia-Red China alliance could be forming, a Satanic alliance against the West, created by Satan himself in his own image.

To deny animal comparisons of religious and cultural groups is to deny Religious people the right to free expression.

(i)Highly inflammatory and derogatory language is used in messages to create a tone of extreme hatred and contempt.

Now, this precedent could persecute people for their tone of the message, not their actual message. Using foul language during a political opinion statement about a group is now considering hate, even if the message itself doesn't classify as hate... the "tone" is hate. This is absurd.

(j) The messages trivialize or celebrate past persecution of tragedy involving members of the targeted group.

"trivialize", this would make holocaust revisionism illegal, this would make questioning the holohaox industry as trivialising the persecution of targeted groups.
This precedent would make it illegal for people to recite certain historical events in celebration. It would limit ones opinion of history to a narrow field. This precedent will make it illegal for people to express their opinion of History contrary to the popular belief. The precedent would make it illegal to question history, or talk highly of leaders or actions that you thought had a positive influence. If you celebrate historical military victories over a group, that could be hate. This precedent would make it illegal to celebrate a battle victory over barbaric savages or terrorists because the person making the human rights complaint considers the barbaric terrorists as "freedom fighters". This precedent will limit historical review and opinion. It will make celebrating history illegal. It will pigeon hole all Canadians opinion of history to 1 person or groups narrow view of history. This isn't freedom of thought, opinion, religion.

(k) Calls to take violent action against the targeted group.

This precedent could make it illegal for people or Churches to encourage Canadians to join up in the military to destroy the terrorist Muslims in Afghanistan and protect Canadians freedoms from terrorist Muslims.

Richard Warman is making a mockery of freedom, he's abusing the CHRT. Richard Warman files 70% of all human rights complaints. He's a professional complainer. He's attempted to destroy the lives of people forming political parties, librarians, math teachers, and libertarians who are against taxation. He's trying to pigeon hole a whole the entire country into his concept of what is moral. He has to be stopped, he's using the CHRT to deny poor Canadians the right to free expression, thought, opinion and religious views. The CHRT has to be abolished, the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms has to be changed to re solidify our rights that Canadians deserve.