Saturday, May 31, 2008

Archaeology of a smear, part 2: WCOTC comes to Canada (2002)

In 2002 and 2003, the Creativity Movement (as the World Church of the Creator came to now known after losing a trademark dispute to the Church of the Creator in 2003) was growing. The crude racial hatred and incitement of racist violence (examined in the part 1 of this series) had brought exposure in the media and fueled its growth. New chapters were founded and new members recruited, including in Canada.

In September 2002, poster "Demigorgona" announced on the racist website that a new chapter of the WCOC had been founded in Ottawa (to the right; google archive, here*). Contact information was given, followed by the invocation "RaHoWa!", a racist slogal abbreviating "Racial Holy War". At about the same time new chapters were started in Montreal and Alberta.

These Canadian chapters have since folded, and their web-pages have been deleted, but much of their contents can still be retrieved through the Wayback Machine, and many of Demigorgona's writings were cross-posted to racist websites, including Stormfront.

The message proclaimed on these pages was the same as the wider church: "the survival, expansion and advancement of the White Race", with frequent calls for "Racial Holy War".

The Canadian website hosted some of her writings, and many will be happy that that site is gone, since what it advocated is repellant to all decent people. The downside, of course, is educating people about racism is often best achieved by exposing its ugliness. And that there was plenty of ugliness can be seen in the following excerpts of Demigorgona's writing:
  • Keep Hate Alive (via google cache): "I love the white race and I HATE its enemies. It's enemies are all mud races. Whether consciously or unconsciously they are waging a war against us. Survival is the only glory in war. ……"

  • My Blood is True (via Google cache): "Racial Purity. The only way the white race will be able to prevail is to keep our racial bloodlines pure. … The Jew knows this as well. The Jews have known this for centuries! This is why the Jew brought Africans over to North America, why they duped good white men into believing they needed slaves. This is why they pushed freedom and then so called 'civil rights' for negros. This is why they have opened the non-white immigrant floodgates in all white lands. This is why they push their everyone and question nothing drum-beat on us! They want to destroy the one true last bastion of white power; that is, pure blooded white men and women. ……"

  • To Victory White Man (via google cache): "The white man's greatest enemy is the Jew. For thousands of years the Jew has been a parasite on white civilization. They have not been workers in factories or any other type of labour. The Jews have for the most part been the bankers, the factory owners, the ones with the money and the power. Over time, they gained a monopoly over the world's monetary systems. Now they have gained complete control over most of the world's economy. …… The final step is to expel all non-whites, race traitors, and opponents to our cause to a non-white nation of their choice. We should even offer to pay for them to leave and never come back, it would after all be a worthwhile investment into the future of the white race."

  • Ernst Zundel (via google cache): "Ernst Zündel is a true hero in every sense of the word. He's dedicated his life to serving his race and to spreading the truth about the Jews and their so called "Holocaust." ……"
These are only a few of her essays, and her essays only make up a tiny portion of the thousands of racist posts that she made under her pen-names Demigorgona and NordischeDonner, as can be seen from two of her Stormfront user profiles:

She posted elsewhere, too, including the Vanguard News Network, and She had her own page at (no longer active), and even started her own racist site at (via google cache).

To be continued....
    *I have linked to the google-caches of these pages rather than to Stormfront itself. If you want you can click on through.

Wednesday, May 28, 2008

Archaeology of a smear, part 1: the World Church of the Creator

Dr. Dawg notes that it seems that every-one is talking about neo-nazis today. Here's my contribution.

You may never have heard of the World Church of the Creator (WCOTC), which was founded by Ben Klassen, the author of the White Man's Bible (cover to the left). If you have heard of it, you will know that the WCOTC has a long history of racist violence that reached its peak on the July 4th weekend, 1999, when one of its adherents — whom the WCOTC calls 'creators' — Benjamin Nathaniel Smith went on a three-day killing spree in Indiana and Illinois, targeting blacks, orthodox Jews, and Asians. He killed two and wounded nine before committing suicide.

That rampage took place two days after WCOTC "pontifex maximus", Matthew Hale (pictured to the right), had been denied a license to practice law in Illinois on the grounds that he lacked the "requisite moral character" to be a lawyer: his open advocacy of racial hate and racist violence rendered him unsuitable. (Snark about lawyers if you must, but they do have some standards.)

In the aftermath of the spree, Hale admitted that the decision about his law license had probably been behind Smith's attack (here). He also admitted teaching hatred, but justified it on the grounds "If you love something, you must be willing to hate that which threatens it." The white race, according to Hale, is threatened by "mud races". By the end of the year, Hale had named Smith "Creator of the Year" because "he brought more media attention to the Church than any other Creator". He encouraged other adherents "to view Brother Smith's activism as an example to follow" (here).

Some members apparently took this exhortation seriously. In July 2002, two WCOTC-adherents were convicted of plotting to blow up black and Jewish landmarks in Boston. In late 2002, following a court ruling against him in a trademark infringement case, death threats started to circulate on white supremacists sites such as stormfront, and in Jan. 2003, Hale himself was recorded conspiring to murder her with an FBI informant and arrested, tried, and convicted. (He is currently serving a 40 year sentence.) This is all part of a long history of racist violence that the group had shown:
    One member was convicted of killing a black sailor returning from the Persian Gulf war in 1991 in Florida. Two members pleaded guilty to the 1997 beating of a black man and his son in Miami, and last year, also in Florida, four members pleaded guilty to robbing and pistol-whipping a video store owner they believed to be Jewish. Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center said members of the group had also been linked to a plot to bomb a large Los Angeles African Methodist Episcopal church in 1993 and to the bombing of an office of the N.A.A.C.P. in Tacoma, Wash., that year. [source]
You can read more about the group's history of violence here, here, here, here. The violence, unsurprisingly, brought the movement wide exposure, and in the week after Smith's rampage there were profiles in the New York Times, Time Magazine, CNN, and elsewhere. Sometimes (as here) this made the public wary of the group. The exposure also helped attract sympathizers, however, and the following years saw new members and new chapters (here), including in Canada.

To be continued…

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Hanging it up for a while

Bernard Klatt, Richard Warman, Cools, 90sAREoverI'll be travelling on business for a few weeks and so blogging will be minimal.

In the meantime, if you've landed here looking for what I've written about Richard Warman, Bernard Klatt, and the Cools post, there's a lot to read. The more important posts, which summarize many of the others, are the following:Keep well and be careful to eat your vegetables. And remember the Golden Rule of Blogging:
    Blog about others as you'd have them blog about you.
Best regards.


Saturday, May 17, 2008

Jonathan Kay and journalistic standards

On Feb. 18, 2008, National Post columnist Jonathan Kay wrote an on-line piece with the title "Richard Warman and Canada's phony-racism industry", a column that was quickly withdrawn with an apology, and is now the subject of a lawsuit. I will not quote that essay or link to it, since Kay has retracted it and it is now before the courts. Many copies have circulated around the internet, however, and if you really want to read it, a google of the title will take you there.

Kay began his column by laying out Klatt's technical case against Warman: that both he and the Cools poster had the same IP, that their operating system and browser "were an exact match", and that Klatt's "expert" opinion was that they were identical.

Those who have followed my posts about this matter will know the technical weaknesses of that case: the IP was a web-caching proxy shared by hundreds of thousandsthe Cools-poster's computer was actually set-up differently than Warman's; and the "expert" testimony of Bernard Klatt is deeply flawed.

Meanwhile, the lawsuit moves forward, and now Jonathan Kay and the National Post have filed their statement of defense. It is, as you will see if you follow the preceding link, hardly a riveting read. There are, however, a few interesting things there. Consider, for example, Kay's description of his research into the Cools allegations (paragraph 29):
      Jonathan Kay, Richard Warman
Now, the first thing to note is that, as a research effort, this is not very impressive. Kay reviewed section 13.1 of the act (but he surely knew that before); he reviewed decisions involving the Lemire case, presumably some of those listed here (they are not, however, very informative); he attended a single CHRC hearing (which one, one wonders); he reviewed Klatt's affidavit and some previously published articles.

There are some odd choices here. Attending a hearing is praiseworthy, but less efficient than reading the transcripts, which are available on the internet. By contrast, Kay did use the Klatt affidavit, which was not (as far as I know) available on the internet until I posted a copy here,-- but I posted that months after Kay's controversial column. He does not mention making any interviews.

This raises a more important point. Kay's journalistic practices, at least as described here, seem decidedly sub-standard. He reported serious allegations against Warman as established fact when they were not so, and he did this on the basis of an affidavit that he did not understand (if he had understood it, he would have recognized its errors). He did not (apparently) bother reading Klatt's testimony and his subsequent cross-examination, where some serious gaps in his knowledge were exposed. Nor did he (apparently) consult Warman's counter-affidavit, read Warman's testimony on this question, or contact Warman to get his side of the story.

Now, I confess that I know little about journalism as a profession, and perhaps those with more experience than me can comment. But from my limited perspective, there is grounds for concern here. First, Kay got it wrong (that is, the technical evidence does not show that Richard Warman was responsible for the Cools post: quite the opposite). Second, and perhaps more disturbingly, Kay's column and the efforts that he describes in his statement defense, reveal no great concern for factual accuracy, fairness, or balance. This seems to me to be fundamental failure of journalistic standards.

Update.  Mark Bourrie at Ottawawatch has some interesting observations on the lawsuit.

Thursday, May 15, 2008

Kay and the National Post have filed their statement of defence

Jonathan Kay has now filed his statement of defense, which is as follows:
    Read this doc on Scribd: KayDefence

Tuesday, May 06, 2008

Klatt's Clunkers: why Bernard Klatt should be disbelieved (summary thread)

Warren Kinsella, when this whole business broke out, wrote:
    I understand that a number of haters - two in particular - have gleefully relied upon Messrs. Lemire and Klatt as sources to viciously defame a good man.

    Would you regard two notorious supporters of neo-Nazi and white supremacist groups as "experts" in anything? Of course not. Only a hateful fool would do such a thing.
(He adds details about Bernard Klatt's background here.)

Jonathan Kay, having repeated Klattt's allegations, tried to retract them. When challenged by Ezra Levant, he explained:
    I took the post down when a more intelligent colleague of mine gave me some background about who Bernard Klatt is. Whatever Klatt may know about electronic sleuthing and the like, I didn't feel comfortable citing his affidavit as a source, even if all of the technical details in it are correct.
Both are, simply, wrong. The reason to disbelieve Klatt's testimony is not because Klatt is or isn't (or was or wasn't) a neo-Nazi, alà Kinsella. Nor are his politics a reason to disregard his sleuthing skills, alà Kay.   No, the reason to disbelieve Klatt's testimony is because it was patently wrong on so many points and his "sleuthing skills" are decidedly substandard:

Klatt's Clunkers 8: Bernard Klatt comes close

Below and to the right is a long exerpt from Bernard Klatt's testimony of Feb. 8, 2007 (Richard Warman & the CHRC v. Marc Lemire, T1073/5405 vol. 9, pp. 1636-8) .

Bernard KlattIn it, Klatt, who had been summoned to testify as a technology expert, is discussing the phenomenon that we had identified in the last post: that is, in the logs of Sept. 5, 2003, the traffic associated with 90sAREover's visit sometimes appears as and sometimes as Indeed, in the three minutes following his notorious racist denunciation of Senator Anne Cools, the IP changes four times.

Klatt is unable to explain the phenomenon.

There are several troubling aspects of this. First, of course, is the fact that he he's not sure what is going on: one expects better of an "expert". Second, it is troubling that the shifting IPs (which is material to the identification that he's making) is a matter that was raised not by Klatt himself, but the Chair of Tribunal. He makes no allusion to it at all in his discussion of the Cools' post in his affidavit (paragraphs 34-41, here). His answer to the chair, however, reveals that this is something that he'd noticed before: "That one is interesting" (line 21 of p. 1636). Not interesting enough, apparently, that he should actually explain it in his testimony.

Most importantly, however, is that is a bit troubling how close Klatt came to the truth. At p. 1636, lines 22-23, for example, he recognizes that might be a web-cache, which he repeats at p. 1638, lines 3-4, as "very likely". The correct answer, as we have seen, is that both these IPs are web-caches and that the shifting from one to the other is part of Rogers' practice of load balancing.  And the idea that he might suppose that (which had a hostname of was a web-cache, but not guess that (with hostname was also one is a bit baffling. He was so close!

One expects better than "close", however, from an expert. We want them to be right. Mistakes in expert testimony can ruin lives. In this case, the erroneous testimony has damaged the reputation of an innocent man and exposed those who have repeated Klatt's errors to financial harm.

Other posts in the Klatt's clunkers series:

Load-balancing in action: did Richard Warman and 90sAREover really have the same IP?

Below and to the right is an excerpt from the Freedomsite's logs, truncated on three sides to make it easier to read. (You can see an untruncated version here on p. 35.)

Richard Warman, 90sAREover, CoolsThe top two entries (both with "POST") are related to the notorious Cools message: the first confirming the spelling of "nigger"; the second submitting the nasty message that is at the center of the present controversy. The bottom-most is the last entry for 90sAREover in the logs (or at least those that have been released).

The point to note is that 90sAREover did not have just one IP during his brief visit to the freedomsite message board, but two: and, and in the space of three minutes he switches from one to the other at least four times.

I say "at least" four times here because it is important to remember that we are only seeing a portion of what was going on. These two IPs are both Roger's web-caching proxies -- their host names are (respectively) wc09- and, showing the tell-tale wc (which abbreviates web-cache) -- and since they are caches there will have been traffic between them and 90sAREover's computer that is not forwarded to the visited site.

Richard Warman, Cools, 90sAREoverWhat does all this mean? The switching between these two web-caches is another example of load-balancing, a practice by which Rogers shifted traffic among its 42 web-caches to deliver the most efficient service to its subscribers. An attempt to sort out how all of this worked resulted in the string ball to the right (explained here), which traced shifts between proxy-IPs that can be identified in the years 2002-5. Each string in the ball is an example of a load-balancing shift.

This load-balancing provides another wrinkle in argument of identifying 90sAREover. It seems that Rogers' subscribers had what might be called a "home" proxy, which functioned as their default web-cache, and that they would rerouted to a another proxy only when needed, especially (one assumes) at peak hours. But when he made the racist Cools-post, was 90sAREover's "home" proxy and a temporary IP to which he was shifted through load-balancing? Or was his home proxy Or might his "home" have been one of the other web-caches in the series, with the traffic rerouted into 200 and 204?

Monday, May 05, 2008

Klatt's Clunkers 7: Bernard Klatt doesn't understand Rogers web caching

As we have seen, one of the key pieces of evidence in the Cools-post debate has been the IP (which has the host name As I have shown at length in this post, the wc stands for web-cache. A web-caching proxy server keeps copies of web-pages in its storage in order to save bandwidth. This practice, now in Roger's past, is important for the present controversy for two reasons. First, Rogers proxies hid the IPs of the individual computers that they are proxying for, and it was the proxy's IP that was logged at the websites visited. Second, because the proxy is performing this function for tens of thousands of Rogers subscribers at a time, the IP by itself is of little help in tying any one of them to any specific post.

In his testimony, however, Bernard Klatt seems to have missed this important fact. Indeed, when the topic of Rogers web-caching arose, he pleaded ignorance.
    Bernard Klatt, Richard Warman, Cools
Since the IP in question was a such a proxy, and in fact the single most relevant fact to the case, Klatt's admission has the effect of rendering his testimony useless.

Other posts in the Klatt's clunkers series:

Klatt's clunkers 6: Bernard Klatt on Rogers service in BC

Bernard Klatt, the technology "expert" whose bunglings we have been reviewing in this series (for other posts, see the index at the foot of this post), argued before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal that Richard Warman was responsible for the notorious Cools posting.

Bernard KlattBernard KlattAnother mistake can be found in his testimony of February 7, 2007 (T1073/5405, p. 1638-9), which you can see to the right. The problem? Rogers hadn't offered cable service in BC since 2000. The chair's question seems to imply that he knows better and gave Klatt the opportunity to extract himself from an obvious error. Still, Klatt is adamant.

(And in case you might think that this was a temporary slip he repeated the error at p. 1723, lines 3-5.)

Again, this is simply wrong. By the time of Klatt's testimony, Rogers had not been in British Columbia for seven years. Shouldn't an expert know things like this?

Other posts in the Klatt's clunkers series:

Sunday, May 04, 2008

Klatt's clunkers 5: Bernard Klatt doesn't recognize RealPlayer browser

We have already seen how unsatisfactory Bernard Klatt's testimony about the Cools matter has been. One of his most serious mistakes involves the only evidence that we have about 90sAREover: the logs of his post of Sept. 5, 2003. Here is the entry in which "90sAREover" registered his username: 90sAREover [05/Sep/2003:19:49:10 -0500] "POST /~Freedom/login HTTP/1.0" 200 1386 ""
    "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Rogers Hi·Speed Internet; (R1 1.3))"
This log entry includes both the referring IP (in red) and the user-agent string (in blue), which shows that this is in the Combined Log Format, a fact that Klatt missed.

The interpretation of the user-agent also presented Klatt with difficulties. If you surf over to, you can see what your own user agent string is and what it means.

Internet Explorer 6.0
Mozilla It's a Mozilla based browser
4.0 Mozilla Version
compatible Compatibility flag
Indicates that this browser is compatible with a common set of features
MSIE 6.0Name :
MSIE 6.0
Version = 6.0
Windows 98OS-or-CPU :
Windows 98
Rogers Hi-Speed InternetRogers Communications
Internet provider. Partnered with Yahoo! to offer Rogers-Yahoo! Hi-Speed Internet.
R1 1.3Using Real Player as a browser
If at that same site you type in 90AREover's user agent string (blue above), you'll find a table like the one to the right (I've added the blue and truncated it slightly). It gives the items of the string with an explanation for each element. As you can see, R1 1.3 refers to RealOne Player, a free media player that has a built in browser. R1 obviously abbreviates "RealOne"; 1.3 was version 2.0.

If you don't believe me, you can download your own copy from and visit to experiment. Or you can look at the long list of user agent strings in which we find some version of the RealOne Player over at

What did Klatt make of "R1 1.3"? Below and to the right (from pp. 1634-5 of the transcripts of Warman v. Lemire) is Klatt's attempt to explain it.  
Bernard Klatt on R1 1.3It is painfully obvious that he has no clue. The tip-off: statements like "the best explanation I've been able to determine" (lines 9-10), "the best of my ability" (lines 14-15), "the best explanation" (lines 19-20) betray his lack of confidence in his own answer. You never say this about what you know; you only say this when your guessing.  And his guess is a bad one -- embarrassingly bad. Instead of recognizing that this was the RealOne browser, Klatt embarks on a series of accumulated conjectures: Rogers used a 15660 Cisco router, and "R1 1.3" was a firmware release, and the update took place in few weeks between 90sAREover's visit in September and Warman's visits in November. (Or, as we know now, but Klatt seems to have missed, October.)

Clearly he has no clue. What is worse is that he does not even know where to look for the correct answer. He did some "research on the internet", but where this led him is a bit of a mystery, since there seems to be no Cisco product with the designation CXC 15660, and no Cisco firmware update with this number. (Perhaps he has the 15600 CXC in mind?)

Trying to figure out what was his exact error is in any case unlikely to be productive. The more important point is that Klatt has failed to recognize that 90sAREover was using the browser built into the RealOne Player, which invalidates paragraphs 36 and 64 of his sworn affidavit (which you can see here), and (as I have argued here) is exculpatory for Warman.

Other posts in the Klatt's clunkers series:

Saturday, May 03, 2008

Klatt's clunkers 4: Bernard Klatt mistakes the combined log format for the common log format

We have seen that Bernard Klatt is the technology "expert" regularly summoned to defend those accused under section 13. In the Zundel hearing his testimony was dismissed as tendentious and incompetent, and that there are a number of ways in which his testimony in Warman v. Lemire is substandard (see the posts in the Klatt's clunkers series list at the bottom of this paragraph). Here is one of his paragraphs from his affidavit (which can be seen in full here):
    Bernard Klatt
Unfortunately for Klatt, however, this is simply wrong. The Common Log Format has seven elements (see here):
    The Common Log Format (CLF) is a fairly basic form of Web server logging. It tracks seven different elements of the Web transaction. Each request is written to one line, with the different elements of the request separated by spaces (items in quotes or square brackets are considered one item), and items that aren't sent are listed as a hyphen or dash (-):
    1. The remote host: the hostname or IP address of the computer requesting the Web page.
    2. The client user name…
    3. Authenticated user name…
    4. Date…
    5. The Request…
    6. Status…
    7. Bytes: the number of bytes that were sent in the server's response.
    Here's how the log entry might look for this Web page in Common Log Format: - - [08/Feb/2004:05:37:49 -0800] "GET /cs/loganalysistools/a/aaloganalysis.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 2758
As you can see, no user agent data is logged under the Common Log Format. To log that, one must use the Combined Log Format (see here):
    The Combined Log Format uses the common log format but adds two items to the end:
    • Referrer: the URL of the page that linked to the requested document.
    • User-agent: the name and version of the browser or other client software making the request.
    Here's how the log entry might look for this Web page in Combined Log Format: - - [08/Feb/2004:05:37:49 -0800] "GET /cs/loganalysistools/a/aaloganalysis.htm HTTP/1.1" 200 2758 "" "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; YPC 3.0.2)"
Which log format was used in the freedomsite logs that Klatt consulted? Here is one entry:
Since this entry includes the referring url (blue underline), and the user agent string (red underline), it is the Combined Log Format.

Yet another of Klatt's clunkers, then.   There may be those who think that this is a simple quibble. That he is unable to get the basic terms correct, however, is consistent with the concern raised in the final decision of Zundel hearing, where he was criticized for being "unable to answer elementary questions in his field". It should be noted in addition, however, that Klatt's most serious errors in the 90sAREover matter relate to logs such as this. That he can't get the basic terms right is not confidence inspiring.

(The quoted material above have been edited and reformated slightly; for less technical descriptions of log formats, see here and here; more technical, here.)

Other posts in the Klatt's clunkers series:

Friday, May 02, 2008

Klatt's clunkers 3: Bernard Klatt misreads the user agent string

We have seen that for an award-winning "expert", Bernard Klatt makes lots of mistakes. Here's another from Klatt's affidavit in Warman v. Lemire (here, p. 9), paragraph 36:
    Klatt affidavit ¶36 Browser
You can see for yourself, however, that Klatt got this wrong:
As you can see, the user agent string is not "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98)" (as Klatt wrote in his sworn testimony), but "Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows 98; Rogers Hi-Speed Internet; (R1 1.3))".

Other posts in the Klatt's clunkers series:

Klatt's clunkers 2: Bernard Klatt wrong on IE 6 date

As we have already seen, Bernard Klatt is the technology "expert" of choice of Canada's white supremacist movement, appearing most recently in Warman v. Lemire, where his testimony was substandard in several ways. But that was not his first appearance in court and found wanting. In the Zundel hearing of 2002, Klatt was criticized in the tribunal's final report for (among other things) being "unable to answer elementary questions in his field." If you've been following this blog over the last weeks, this won't come as a surprise.

Bernard Klatt, Richard WarmanConsider the transcript to the right. This is part of the cross-examination of his assertion that Richard Warman must be the racist-poster "90sAREover" because they both used Windows 98 and Internet Explorer 6.0. (As it turned out, that was itself wrong, a point to which we'll return.) Klatt wants to argue that IE 6.0 was not widely used: it was, he asserts a "relatively new release at that point" (that is, in Sept. 2003). The implication: that since "90sAREover" and "lucy" were both using it, they were more likely to be identical.

The problem? Internet Explorer 6.0 was released in August, 2001, a full two years before the posts in question. And far from being unusual or cutting-edge by 2003, it was far-and-away the most commonly used browser: 70% of all internet traffic used IE 6.0 in Sept. 2003.

This is, of course, a small mistake, and is less significant in itself than in the fact that it betrays Klatt's desire to throw everything possible at Warman. Still, we expect technology experts to get the basic facts right. And Klatt doesn't. And that's a problem.

Other posts in the Klatt's clunkers series:

Klatt's clunkers 1: Bernard Klatt given an award for tendentious testimony

We have been seeing that the testimony of Bernard Klatt in the Lemire hearing has been substandard in many ways: indeed, the entire notion that "lucy" and "90sAREover" were the same user, which can now be confidently dismissed, was based almost entirely on his error-riddled testimony.

Bernard Klatt Orwell AwardThis all makes the image to the left all the more problematic. In it Klatt is being presented with an award from lawyer Doug Christie -- the same Doug Christie who is famous for having defended holocaust deniers Jim Keegstra and Ernst Zundel. The "Orwell Award" (named apparently without much of a sense of irony) was given to Klatt for his "expert" testimony in several human rights cases, including the Lemire hearing. In all of them Klatt appeared for the defense.

Thankfully, the award has not been noticed by any mainstream venues. The places that it's appeared, however, are themselves noteworthy, being the usual suspects when it comes to hate-propaganda.
That Klatt should be recognized for his testimony is a bit rich. His testimony at the Zundel case (where he argued that webpages should not be included among communications made "telephonically") was criticized in the final decision as under-informed and tendentious:
    [103] … The evidence of Mr. Bernard Klatt was of very limited assistance to us. Mr. Klatt demonstrated an extremely shallow foundation of knowledge in his area of expertise during the course of his testimony. A series of dictionary definitions were put to him, many of which he acknowledged he had not seen before his preparation for this hearing. From the Tribunal's perspective, he seemed unable to provide much information independent of the written materials placed before him by Mr. Christie.

    [104] During cross-examination, Mr. Klatt was frequently argumentative, evasive and unable to answer elementary questions in his field. Most troubling to the Tribunal was the extent to which this witness responded as an advocate for the Respondent and not as an objective, independent expert. Mr. Klatt's responses are replete with references to what "we are arguing", and similar allusions to his shared common cause with the Respondent.
Some of these problems appeared again during Klatt's testimony at the Lemire hearing, as we'll see in coming posts.

Other posts in the Klatt's clunkers series: