My copy arrived a couple of days ago, and I was impressed because I could actually read it. As Ezra Levant points out, it is so readable, so light on the legalese, that it “tells a hell of a story” — and ordinary people trying to understand an issue like a good story, a digestable narrative.

This Statement of Defense is just that. Here’s Ezra:

Paragraphs 20 to 56 give details of Warman’s [alleged] conduct — ranging from his habits of posting anti-Semitic material on the Internet, to his conspiracy to assault an opponent (captured on video). I knew much of it, but not all — until I read paragraph 31, for example, I didn’t know that Warman had praised Ernst Zundel. That’s weird conduct for a Canadian Human Rights Commission investigator.

Warman’s complaint against us hinges mostly on the “Ann Cools” post. Again, here’s Ezra:

Paragraphs 57 to 77 of the Statement of Defence contain a lot [of] details about this bigoted post that I didn’t know, or only knew about vaguely. I didn’t know that Richard Warman and the CHRC had filed a section 13 “hate speech” complaint against Marc Lemire for this post, but when Lemire brought a motion naming Warman as the secret author of the post and asking the CHRC to have Warman listed as a co-defendant in the complaint, both Warman and the CHRC quickly amended their complaint to exclude the post.

The post is clearly hateful — it’s racist, misogynistic and anti-immigrant. Why on Earth would Warman and the CHRC suddenly omit this one post from their complaint, unless they had something to hide?  

(KEEP READING...)