Jay Currie raises some very important questions – ones everyone ought to demand answers to:
… In other words, the nature of her job meant that she did very much the same sort of thing as her husband except, of course, she was prosecuting actual internet criminals under the Criminal Code. (And good for her say I.)
However, it does raise some interesting and, I suspect, important questions. First, did Mrs. W. have a computer at home for work or simply because she was a wired up kinda gal? Second, did the Warmans trade tips on how best to engage their respective prey? Third, why have none of the defendants in the assorted Cools related defamation cases sought to examine Mrs. W’s computer (assuming, rather plausibly, she had one) to determine if hubby might have been using it as a back up/cut out machine? …
I’m afraid I am nowhere as nice and generous as Jay Currie….
The questions that get raised in MY mind are much more sinister: did Richard Warman subvert his wife’s integrity by his ideas and methods?
After all, he is on record as saying that people who are actively evil, people who commit crimes and are hateful, ought to be treated the same way as his political rivals and/or people whom he simply finds ‘annoying’ – like Connie and Mark Fournier of Free Dominion – and that ‘maximum disruption’ methods ought to be used to make their life a living hell!
Now, this is all bad and tragic when it occurs in the civil courts sphere and downright despicable when it occurs in the ‘Human Rights Commission/Tribunals’ sphere…but people know that these are the ‘softer’ courts.
But – what if Warman has convinced his wife to apply his tactics against people in the criminal courts?
After all, if she loves him, shares a child with him and continues to be married to him, she must – on some level – respect him as a person, with all that he does.
And if she respects him as a person, she must not think his professional conduct is in any way ‘wrong’/'immoral’/'unethical’…
Richard Warman believes it is justifiable to use any methods to persecute and discredit his political opponents, in what he terms ‘maximum disruption’ doctrine.
Mrs. Warman prosecutes pedophiles.
Any accusation of pedophilia, even without a conviction, is enough to ruin peoples’ lives and careers in so many intangible, non-provable and thus non-prosecutable ways…
How can we possibly be sure that his wife is not just another tool in Richard Warman’s arsenal to discredit his political opponents?!?!?
Please, do think about it…