The internet can be a great thing or it can prove to be a disaster, depending on whether you are on the giving or receiving end.
It’s like a weapon.
For the most part, however, it’s away of getting to the truth of something. In the matter of the CHRC vs. Freespeechers, it’s turning out to be a real asset for the good guys. For instance, when the Bell representative let the Tribunal know that the owner of the IP address used to post on Stormfront as “jadewarr” was Nelly Hechme, the most popular site at 160 Elgin Street on March 25 at 10AM was Google. Before too long, the blogosphere was aflame with all the pertinent details before the MSM finally got around to reporting about Ms. Hechme.
Indeed, in a case that has a wide ranging impact on Canadians, the defense against the CHRC is not merely represented by one lawyer with limited resources, but by a whole army of bloggers who have become legal researchers, assistants, and sleuths. This means, of course, that one little slip-up, one little contradiction by the Star Chamber operatives, and their whole gig could go up in smoke — at least in credibility. The blogosphere has been able to pick away at the CHRC’s credibility for some time now.
Last night, I received an e-mail from Marc Lemire inquiring about whether Dean Steacy had testified about Richard Warman’s knowledge of the identity of “jadewarr”. He had indicated that in the Jessica Beaumont hearing back in December, 2006, Warman had testified that he did not know who logged in under “jadewarr”. Here is a partial transcript of that testimony:
10 MR. FROMM: Can you explain what that
11 is, “Welcome, Jadewarr?
12 MR. WARMAN: It appears to be a name
13 that was logged in under.
14 MR. FROMM: By whom?
15 MR. WARMAN: I’m sorry, I don’t know.16 MR. FROMM: Would that not have to
17 have been you?
18 MR. WARMAN: No, it would not.
(Source: see page 2, line 14-15)
(The sound you hear between Kulaszka’s question and Steacy’s response is the sound of a door opening in the background.)
When Steacy says that Warman knew who “jadewarr” was before the Beaumont hearing, he must be referring to an event that supports this contention. He must be able to point to something that transpired before December 2006 for him to give this testimony. Maybe we’ll find out one day in real court, and then we’ll ask Richard Warman to explain the testimony he gave at the Beaumont hearing.
Now technically, there might not be a contradiction between the two accounts since it is possible that, although Warman might have known who “jadewarr” was at the time, he did not know who actually logged in under that name which was the specific question Fromm had asked above.
In fact, as part of that dialogue between Fromm and Warman just a bit earlier, Warman conspicuously avoids answering the question when Fromm asks him about the specific identity of “jadewarr”:
4 MR. FROMM: Then who is Jadewarr?
5 MR. WARMAN: I’m sorry, it’s not my document.
(Source: see page 1, line 4-5)
Notice that Warman does not specifically answer the question. Why not?