Court of Appeals Reserves in Crucial McCorkill Appeal: Key Free Speech & Property Rights on the Line

Court of Appeals Reserves in Crucial McCorkill Appeal: Key Free Speech & Property Rights on the Line
Fredericton, New Brunswick. June 18, 2015. A three judge panel of the New Brunswick Court of Appeals reserved its decision in the McCorkill Will appeal. Panel chairman Judge Kathleen Quigg said: “We are going to try to do it as quickly as possible but it also must be translated (into French). It will take a couple of months.” Experienced court observers predicted a six month wait for the decision.
 
“This case is crucial for freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs and for property rights in Canada,” said Paul Fromm Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression in a statement before the appeal began.
 
The late chemistry professor William McCorkill left the bulk of his estate consisting of old artifacts and rare coins, variously estimated at between $150,000 and a million dollars, to the U.S.-based White nationalist National Alliance. The will was probated in 2013. When the information became public, a Montgomery based censorship group called the Southern Poverty Law Center complained that the bequest would revive Nazism. The SPLC had no standing in Canada, but Ottawa lawyer, copious human rights complainant and loud anti-racist Richard Warman took up the cry and announced the will should be nullified as the bequest was “contrary to public policy.” Isabelle McCorkell *yes, different spelling), the long estranged sister of Robert McCorkill, who had taken no part in the nine year probate proceedings emerged and made an application to nullify the will on the grounds, get this, that it was “contrary to public policy.” Quickly the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith intervened in support of this brazen attack on property rights. The Canadian Association for Free Expression intervened to support the lawyer for the trustee, John Hughes of Moncton, and to support freedom of belief, freedom of speech and property rights, specifically, the right of a testator to direct his estate as he sees fit.
 
The application was heard in January, 2014. In June, 2014, in a surprise decision, Mr. Justice William Grant nullified the bequest on the grounds that it was “contrary to public policy.”
 
The bulk of the work of an appeal is in the written submissions presented to the Court. The actual appeal hearing allows each party to highlight their best arguments and the judges to question and challenge these arguments.
 
CAFE’s lawyer Andy Lodge explained: “We are here today because the Court of First Instance found the National Alliance, the beneficiary of the the gift to be unworthy. This is a ground breaking precedent. There are no conditions in the bequest. Some of the evidence in the affidavits [there was no viva voce testimony] was double hearsay. There was no previous case law to rely on. The goals and objectives of the National Alliance should not be in question.
 
Mr. Lodge was repeatedly interrupted by questions from Judge Alexandre Deschenes.
 
Mr. Lodge continued: “The public policy grounds have generally been a last resort in an effort to invalidate a bequest. There has been much discussion about the activities, communications and character of the National Alliance. the test should be McCorkill.” He gave this bequest with no strings or directions attached. “Giving a bequest to a group some find objectionable is not contrary to public policy. It is difficult to evaluate the character of a beneficiary. This could be a very, very slippery slope, It will shift estate litigation to evaluating beneficiaries. You step away from the conditions, if any, imposed by the testator. How is a court to evaluate how an organization might spend the money. This decision opens that door.”
 
Chairman Justice Quigg wondered: “:Just because it’s new law, just because we have no jurisprudence to rely on doesn’t mean we can’t go forth. There’s legislation against the dissemination of hate propaganda. There could be a link here between the National Alliance and dissemination.”
 
Then joining the battle of behalf of CAFE was Mr. Lodge’s associate Jean-Yves Bernard. “Is it to be against public policy to give a bequest to a group or person of bad character?” he asked. Mr. Justice Grant is creating new law.” The ruling, he added, “creates a problem for estate law, as we must now look at the character of the beneficiaries, their worthiness. It brings ambiguity into estate law.”
 
“These cases would be very rare,” Judge Quigg suggested.
 
The Grant ruling  has created “a sliding scale. It makes estate matters very unpredictable,” Mr. Bernard added. “Untiol now a testator could dispose of property as he saw fit, unless he imposed a codicil that was illegal” — like a New Brunswick will, frequently cited in this case,  where the testator wanted his four horses shot.. The Charter supports freedom of belief and the right to support a belief with a bequest.  Already this case has inspired Spence v BMO using ‘public policy’ to state we should write someone into a will because the testator wrote someone out of the will on racial grounds.”
 
Next, John Hughes of Moncton, lawyer for the Trustee or Executor of the Estate, weighed in to support CAFE. “The International Boundary separates the U.S. from Canada,” he explained. The McCorkill will makes a bequest in New Brunswick but the proceeds go to a beneficiary in the United States.”
 
Frederick Fromm's photo.
CAFE Director Paul Fromm with John Hughes, lawyer for the
Trustee of the McCorkill Estate, Provincial Court of Appeal,
Fredericton, NB., June 18, 2015.
 
 
 
“I labour under a restriction because of a lack of funds due to a Court injunction  freezing the funds of the estate. “This injunction has crippled the ability of the estate to defend itself and has caused the abandonment of one of the Estate’s appeals.”
 
 “The beneficiaries are in the U.S. and this raises the question of ‘public policy.’ Whose public policy? There is no evidence that the National Alliance was ever cjarged or convicted in either Canada or the U.S. The National Alliance in the U.S. is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.” And, he added, former N.A. Chairman Erick Gleibe stated in his affidavit that the organization has no activities in Canada. “How can a Canadian Court deny a bequest to a U.S. citizen or group?” he demanded. “This is extraterritoriality.”
 
He then turned his guns on the mischievous organization behind this raid on the estate. “The outrage of minorities to this bequest is irrelevant. this estate is being sent to the United States. The Southern Poverty Law Centre is the puppet master behind this case. The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith [which has since withdrawn from the appeal] in its submissions made clear references to SPLC’s website.”
 
One of the interveners, he added, “went into a rant against Mr. Fromm and CAFE which I objected to as irrelevant.”  He observed that the SPLC separates its contributors from tens of millions of dollars to enrich itself. The Attorney General has been led down the garden path. The SPLC has enlisted law enforcement agencies and seems to have sold a bill of goods to the new Brunswick Attorney General,” he charged. “And the puppet master role of the SPLC seeks to manipulate the Court of New Brunswick. The Wills Act, Sec. 24(2) of New Brunswick holds that a testator may will his bequest as he sees fit. His failure to note this was an error on Judge Grant’s part,” he argued. “the will, therefore, has legal protection in New Brunswick.”
 
In his decision, Judge Grant “characterized the National Alliance as unreservedly criminal,” Mr. Hughes said. “However, we have a special obligation to our own race, to improve its prospects. It is not racism. There was  no evidence of the National Alliance operating in New Brunswick. Yet, Judge Grant points to the participation of the Attorney General of New Brunswick as an intervener to protect the people of New Brunswick.”
 
Further, Mr. Hughes argued, “there is no evidence of National Alliance Internet dissemination in Canada. Therefore, Judge Grant had to jurisdiction to make the findings he did. Groups that don’t value White survival have criticized the National Alliance.”
 
In response to criticisms of National Alliance founder William Pierce’s fictional writings — The Turner Diaries and Hunter — and ther violence associated with race war in those pages, Mr. Hughes argued: “Where would Hollywood or pulp fiction be without fictional violence. Dr. Pierce’s goal in writing was the preservation of the White Race.”
 
“To render a judgement against a group from another country because of its character is an insult to the U.S.,” he added.
 
“Where do we get the authority our own public policy” to a U.S. group?”  Mr. Justice Deschenes asked.
 
Continuing, Mr. Hughes said: “The Executor has asked me to express the point that. Justice Grant may have been biased” in freezing the assets of the Estate and money due the National Alliance and my accounts. He could have entertained a review of the passing (or unfreezing of the assets) of my accounts, but he postponed it until after this appeal.” The lack of funds had restricted Mr. Hughes ability to act.
 
Next came those arguing against the appeal. Mr. Justice Deschenes observed: “Promoting the White Race is not necessarily detrimental.”
 
Arguing for the Applicant Isabelle McCorkell, Marc-Antoine Chiasson insisted: “Promoting the White Race if it is the majority, is detrimental to minorities.” Admitting that such brazen court intervention to nullify a will as contrary to public policy had little precedent, he said: “To suggest that because it’s a novel idea doesn’t mean the courts shouldn’t intervene. This Court is absolutely able and should intervene. There is evidence that the National Alliance is a White supremacist organization. Public policy is that hate propaganda and hate groups offend public policy. So, therefore a gift to the National Alliance offends public policy. Mr. Chiasson then contended that advocating for “White living space flies fully in the face of  public policy.’
 
“Why can’t Mr. McCorkill make a gift to an organization that is functioning legally in the United States without impediment?” Mr. Justice Deschenes queried,
 
“International boundaries shouldn’t be an impediment to voiding the will,” Mr. Chiasson responded. Also, “I don’t believe fear of opening the floodgates [to more litigation] is sufficient grounds not to act.”
 
“But there is no precedent on this issue,” Mr. Justice Deschenes interjected.
 
Mr. Chiasson admitted: “There is not.” Then, he persisted: “The impact of this gift flies against public policy. The fact that this gift would help fund a hate group flies against public policy. I ask the Court to dismiss the appeal and we seek costs from CAFE.”
 
Arguing for the Attorney General of New Brunswick, Richard Williams admitted: “None of us has been able to find a similar case iin our extensive research, as Mr. Lodge has indicated.. This seems to be the first case of its kind in Canada where a beneficiary’s character is at issue. This is a rare instance. The National Alliance has no redeeming qualities. Even a drug addict is someone’s son.”
 
Almost the last word was left to Mr. Justice Deschenes: “If the National Alliance had been performing illegal acts in the United States, the judge [Grant] and parties would have known about it.”
__________________________________________
 
Please consider making a contribution to help CAFE pay its bills in this crucial appeal defending free speech and property rights.
 

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

 

__   Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE pay off its legal bills in the McCorkill Will Appeal to be heard in New Brunswick this month.

__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.

__  Please renew my subscription for 2015 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#_________________________________________

Expiry date: ______ Signature:_______________________________________________

 

Name:__________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________       _______________________________________________________Email___________________________________

 

Thursday Will Be A Crucial Day for Property Rights & Freedom of Belief

Thursday Will Be A Crucial Day for Property Rights & Freedom of Belief

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

On Thursday, June 18, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal gets a chance to reverse a lower court decision that seriously infringes on property rights and freedom of belief. Last year, a Court of Queen’s Bench  judge found a U.S. group guilty of thought crimes in Canada, even though they had never been charged, evidence presented, defences mounted or arguments heard. He, then, overturned a will and cancelled a bequest to this group.

CAFÉ is carrying the burden in the battle to reverse a particularly dangerous court decision. Last June, Judge Grant of the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench delivered a breathtaking decision overturning a will with a bequest to a U.S. White Nationalist group on the amazing grounds that it was “contrary to public policy.” The appeal, already delayed once, will be heard in Fredericton on June 18 and CAFÉ, which has fought this battle alone,  owes a pot of money in legal fees.

CAFÉ intervened in the McCorkill will case, beginning  in the summer of 2013. Robert McCorkill, a Canadian  chemistry professor who died in 2004, bequeathed his estate to the National Alliance. The will was probated in May, 2013. Then, the mischief-making, free speech hating Southern Poverty Law Centre in Montgomery, Alabama raised a hue and cry. Ottawa lawyer and frequent human rights and hate law complaint filer Richard Warman proclaimed the bequest “contrary to public policy.” Isabelle McCorkell [yes, different spellings], the long estranged sister of Robert McCorkill, suddenly appeared. Like Warman, she lives in Ottawa. And, although saying she had few resources and lived on $1,000 a month, she retained one of Moncton’s priciest law firms. She obtained an injunction and then filed an application to overturn the will. She was joined by the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Studies and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. CAFÉ intervened on behalf of the executor of the estate.

 

The application was heard in January, 2014 in St. John. The decision came down the same week three Mounties were gunned down in Moncton. Mr. Justice Grant put a shotgun blast through freedom of belief and property rights and overturned the will. All parties, except CAFÉ and the lawyer for the executor, insisted that this was a one-off case. It was not a precedent. Not so. As we reported in the Free Speech Monitor (March, 2015), a Negro preacher who objected to one of his daughters having a child by a White man cut her out of his will. That will was recently overturned because the preacher was deemed to be “racist” and to have discriminated and that such discrimination (with his OWN money) was “contrary to public policy.” The sky is now the limit!

CAFÉ has appealed this appalling precedent. This case is vital to free speech in Canada. We desperately need your help NOW! The appeal has thus far cost us over $30,000 and the bills are not all in. We’ve gone way out on a limb because this case is so very important.

I’ve been in this free speech battle for four decades. We have had some important victories but there have also been defeats. On an ongoing basis, we face efforts by the enemies of free speech to impose their beliefs and throttle dissent, usually using the might of Big Governments and the Court. You and I are dedicated to this precious right of freedom of speech. We’ve taken to heart the late Doug Christie frequent warning: “You only have the rights you’re prepared to fight for.”

Please  send CAFÉ your most generous contribution for the McCorkill Will Appeal.

Sincerely yours,

 

Paul Fromm

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

 

__   Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE pay off its legal bills in the McCorkill Will Appeal to be heard in New Brunswick this month.

__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.

__  Please renew my subscription for 2015 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#_________________________________________

Expiry date: ______ Signature:_______________________________________________

 

Name:__________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________       _______________________________________________________Email___________________________________

Lady Michele Renouf – Identitarianism – What it Means – Our Heroes & Our Strengths

Lady Michele Renouf – Identitarianism – What it Means – Our Heroes & Our Strengths

The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Present Lady Michele Renouf’s speech in Vancouver,…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8lDnRFlHaFw
[Click on the photo and click on the url link.]

The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Present Lady Michele Renouf’s speech in Vancouver, Canada, Thursday, June 11, 2015.

Open Letter to the Canadian Senate: Vote “No” on Bill C-51

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

June 3, 3015

Re: Bill C-51: Please Vote No

To the Senate of Canada:

I am writing on behalf of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Canada’s most active free speech group, incorporated as a non-profit educational organization in the Province of Ontario.

I write to urge you, no beg you, to protect civil liberties and freedom of belief by voting against Bill C-51 on Third Reading

Under the Canadian system, the Senate is the chamber of “sober second thought.” Bill C-51 has been rushed through the House of Commons with unseemly haste. Many important people who wished to be witnesses, including the Privacy Commissioner, were denied a hearing.

On March 4, I wrote to Daryl Kramp, Chairman of the House Committee on Public Safety and National Security, requesting permission to appear before the Committee in the matter of C-51. I  didn’t even receive the courtesy of a reply. I called his office and was assured I’d be contacted. i never was. Arrogance and high handedness seem the order of the day,.

Bill C-51 is billed as “anti-terrorist” legislation. It is nothing of the sort. It is a blatant power grab that could make mere dissent on immigration the equivalent of “terrorism” and CSIS agents, with a court order, could disrupt your activities with false information, break-ins, computer hacking, anything except rape, murder of physical harm. If this sounds hyperbolic or alarmist, it isn’t. Four former Prime Ministers,  Joe Clark, John Turner, Brian Mulroney and Jean Chretien have called on the government to withdraw this legislation. So, have more than a hundred law professors and senior academics.

Globe and Mail editorial (February 6, 2016) explained:  “Why does the bill do so much more than fight terrorism? One part of Bill C-51 creates a new definition of an ‘activity that undermines the sovereignty, security or territorial integrity of Canada’ that includes ‘terrorism,’ ‘interference with critical infrastructure’ and ‘interference with the capability of the Government in relation to … the economic or financial stability of Canada.’

But wait. If a person blew up critical infrastructure – a pipeline, for instance – wouldn’t that be terrorism and that is already clearly covered under the CSIS Act? So, what is this other class of security-underminer the bill refers to? A political party that advocates Quebec independence (there goes our ‘territorial integrity’)? Indian activists who disrupt a train line? Environmental activists denounced as radicals by a cabinet minister? These things are on a par with terrorism now?”

The government’s party line, agreed to by all the other parties, is that we need “immigration to grow our economy.” I, for one, have lobbied for 15 years for a five-year moratorium on immigration. Could this be seen as “interference with the capability of the Government in relation to … the economic … stability of Canada?”  Who knows?

The important thing is that C-51 is not needed. The Canadian Security and Intelligence Service, since 1982, has had a clear mandate to investigate potential terrorists. Already two Moslems have been apprehended and charged with trying to derail a New York City to Toronto VIA train; a Canadian couple of Moslem converts are now on trial in Victoria for attempts to plant kettle bombs outside the BC Legislature and become “el-Qaeda Canada.” Arrests of three Ottawa radical Moslems have followed efforts by the trio to join the jihadis in Syria. The present system seems to be working relatively well.

After the terrorist attacks of 9/11, the Liberal Government of the day introduced Bill  C-36. It did little to fight terrorism but gagged the Internet. It turned over censorship of the Internet through the notorious Sec. 13 to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. Richard Warman went on a rampage of complaining. Many free thinkers, immigration critics, WW II skeptics were put through hell. Not a single Moslem extremist or terrorist was ever charged. Fortunately, after years of lobbying and with your help, Sec. 13 was repealed.

Then, there was the totalitarian “national security certificate” which allowed a non-citizen to be deemed a “threat to national security” and, accused with secret evidence and witnesses, deported. Most of these provisions have since been ruled unconstitutional, but not before they were used to incarcerate publisher Ernst Zundel for two years (2003-2005) and deport him to face five years in prison in Germany for doubting the copnventional version of WW II. A lifelong pacifist and a man who scrupulously paid his taxes and obeyed the law to the letter, Mr. Zundel was deemed to be a “terrorist”. The preposterous reasoning by a tainted Federal judge who three times refused to recuse himself for a “reasonable apprehension of bias” (he was the former political boss of CSIS, the source of most of the secret evidence against Mr. Zundel) was this: Ernst Zundel had attended several lectures three decades before by Dr. William Pierce; Pierce wrote The Turner Diaries; Timothy McVeigh read The Turner Diaries; Timothy McVeigh blew up the Murragh Building (allegedly); therefore, Ernst Zundel is a terrorist,

We stand 100 per cent against terrorism. Much more careful immigration screening, including a requirement for “cultural compatibility” would help reduce the numbers of terrorists in our midst. Bill C-51 will do nothing  but bring more police state intrusion into the lives of dissidents who peacefully disagree with government policy. It happened under Bill C-36 and there’s no reason to believe Bill C-51 will be anything different.

I urge you to vote “no” to C-51.

Sincerely yours,

Paul Fromm

Director

URGENT — FINAL PUSH: E-MAIL THESE SENATORS TODAY & URGE THEM TO VOTE AGAINST BILL B-51

URGENT — FINAL PUSH: E-MAIL THESE SENATORS TODAY & URGE THEM TO VOTE AGAINST BILL B-51

 
Under the guise of “national security” and fighting terrorism, Bill C-51 is a police state power grab. It vastly expands the definition of “threat to national security” way beyond the practice of serious acts of violence. CSIS will be able to disrupt by ANY means short of rape, murder or physical harm.
 
Oppose immigration or a pipeline or support the separation of a province from Canada and you might be labelled a “threat to national security” and CSIS can break into your home, sabotage your computer, defame you to your boss.
 
You must ACT now! Many Canadians right, left and centre are speaking up on this issue.
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
 
Frederick Fromm's photo.
 

raynell.andreychuk@sen.parl.gc.ca

raynell.andreychuk@sen.parl.gc.ca

george.baker@sen.parl.gc.ca

denise.batters@sen.parl.gc.ca


diane.bellemare@sen.parl.gc.ca

lynn.beyak@sen.parl.gc.ca

doug.black@sen.parl.gc.ca

boisvp@sen.parl.gc.ca

larry.campbell@sen.parl.gc.ca

claude.carignan@sen.parl.gc.ca

maria.chaput@sen.parl.gc.ca

anne.cools@sen.parl.gc.ca

jane.cordy@sen.parl.gc.ca

jim.cowan@sen.parl.gc.ca

jean-guy.dagenais@sen.parl.gc.ca

dennis.dawson@sen.parl.gc.ca

joseph.day@sen.parl.gc.ca

line.tessier@sen.parl.gc.ca

Percy.Downe@sen.parl.gc.ca

norman.doyle@sen.parl.gc.ca

lillian.dyck@sen.parl.gc.ca

nicole.eaton@sen.parl.gc.ca

art.eggleton@sen.parl.gc.ca


tobias.enverga@sen.parl.gc.ca

suzanne.fortin-duplessis@sen.parl.gc.ca

joan.fraser@sen.parl.gc.ca

linda.frum@sen.parl.gc.ca

george.furey@sen.parl.gc.ca

Irving.Gerstein@sen.parl.gc.ca

stephen.greene@sen.parl.gc.ca

celine.hervieux-payette@sen.parl.gc.ca

Speaker-President@sen.parl.gc.ca


elizabeth.hubley@sen.parl.gc.ca

mobina.jaffer@sen.parl.gc.ca

janis.johnson@sen.parl.gc.ca

serge.joyal@sen.parl.gc.ca

colin.kenny@sen.parl.gc.ca

daniel.lang@sen.parl.gc.ca


marjory.lebreton@sen.parl.gc.ca

carole.smith@sen.parl.gc.ca


michael.macdonald@sen.parl.gc.ca

ghislain.maltais@sen.parl.gc.ca

fabian.manning@sen.parl.gc.ca

elizabeth.marshall@sen.parl.gc.ca

martin@sen.parl.gc.ca

paul.massicotte@sen.parl.gc.ca

elaine.mccoy@sen.parl.gc.ca

thomasjohnson.mcinnis@sen.parl.gc.ca

paul.mcintyre@sen.parl.gc.ca

terry.mercer@sen.parl.gc.ca

pana.merchant@sen.parl.gc.ca

don.meredith@sen.parl.gc.ca

grant.mitchell@sen.parl.gc.ca

percy.mockler@sen.parl.gc.ca

wp.moore@sen.parl.gc.ca

jim.munson@sen.parl.gc.ca

nancy.ruth@sen.parl.gc.ca

richard.neufeld@sen.parl.gc.ca

thanhhai.ngo@sen.parl.gc.ca

kelvin.ogilvie@sen.parl.gc.ca

senator.oh@sen.parl.gc.ca

dennis.patterson@sen.parl.gc.ca

don.plett@sen.parl.gc.ca

rosemay.poirier@sen.parl.gc.ca

nancy.raine@sen.parl.gc.ca

pierrette.ringuette@sen.parl.gc.ca

michel.rivard@sen.parl.gc.ca


bob.runciman@sen.parl.gc.ca

judith.seidman@sen.parl.gc.ca

sibnic@sen.parl.gc.ca

david.smith@sen.parl.gc.ca

larry.smith@sen.parl.gc.ca

carolyn.stewartolsen@sen.parl.gc.ca

scott.tannas@sen.parl.gc.ca

claudette.tardif@sen.parl.gc.ca

david.tkachuk@sen.parl.gc.ca

betty.unger@sen.parl.gc.ca

josee.verner@sen.parl.gc.ca

john.wallace@sen.parl.gc.ca


charlie.watt@sen.parl.gc.ca

claudine.courtois@sen.parl.gc.ca

senatorwhite@sen.parl.gc.ca

 

I’m writing to urge you to vote against the government’s irresponsible Bill C-51. This spying bill will recklessly endanger our rights and our privacy, while making us less safe.
Experts, high-profile public figures, and the Canadian public agree: this bill is reckless, dangerous and ineffective. It must be stopped. And yet, this dangerous legislation has been rammed through Parliament against the wishes of Canadians.
The Senate was envisioned as a chamber of “sober second thought” for Canada. Now is your chance to put this into practice, and stop this extreme legislation before it’s too late.
I’m joining over 225,000 people who have already spoken out at StopC51.ca. As a representative of my province, I expect you to stand with Canadians and vote against Bill C-51.
Bill C-51 is not simply reckless.  It is clearly an abrogation of our historic hard-won rights and freedoms going back to the Magna Carta and beyond.  This Bill is plainly seditious and those responsible for its design and promotion should be investigated for criminal conspiracy designed to sabotage our Constitution, almost certainly in conspiratorial collaboration with foreign interests, which has foundations in precedent going far beyond the specious Charter of Rights and Freedoms which was never subject to proper citizen approval and by being “conditional” places our rights and freedoms at the mercy of arbitrary political ukase.  Its ideological  origins are unmistakably to be found in Bolshevism.
Do your sacred duty to Canada and its incomparable British heritage by protecting the nation  against foreign and domestic intrigue by rejecting Bill C-51 in it entirety.  By so doing you will demonstrate to the citizens of this nation that the Senate does have a vital role in our political process.

FREE SPEECH ON TRIAL: Brian Ruhe interview with Arthur Topham, Publisher of RadicalPress.com

FREE SPEECH ON TRIAL: Brian Ruhe interview with Arthur Topham, Publisher of RadicalPress.com
 
 
May 17th, 2015

 

The 7 – Part Brian Ruhe Youtube Interview with Arthur Topham Publisher of RadicalPress.com is now presented here in chronological order for viewers.
Please do try to share the url to this post with as many folks as you can.
I would like to thank Brian Ruhe for taking the opportunity and time to discuss my court case and related issues. I hope viewers will enjoy these discussions.

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 1 of 7

https://youtu.be/xA5juFE_F2g

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 2 of 7

https://youtu.be/R8jddUc9Z2U

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 3 of 7

https://youtu.be/4tp9hnpU-DM

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 4 of 7

https://youtu.be/zBOor3Gu2E0

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 5 of 7

https://youtu.be/RVbz4FuwVg8

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 6 of 7

https://youtu.be/eY7Ewjv5kCU

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 7 of 7

https://youtu.be/TjBMCf-p4zM

My PayPal account has been suspended thanks to some unknown entity who apparently was posting it on a website that was not kosher enough and I was blamed for breaking their policies!

I have been away from my home since April 30th looking after a very sick brother who is down with a bad case of cancer and requires my help and so I’ve been unable to send materials out to my list.

Anyone who wishes to help out and donate to the cause can find my contact information on the Home Page of my website www.RadicalPress.com

Thanks. Please pass these important videos around to others.

For Peace & Justice for All,

Arthur Topham

Pub/Ed

RadicalPress.com

––––––––––––––

 

Lady Michele Renouf — The Fraud of Feminism

Lady Michele Renouf — The Fraud of Feminism

https://www.youtube.com/watch…

Lady Michele Renouf is a philanthropist, charity fundraiser, socialite, landscape gardener, lecturer in the Fine Arts, Wagnerite, film producer, author, model, actress, ballet dancer & choregographer, public speaker, publicist for the Jewish independent homeland of Birobidzhan, popular guest on current affairs talk shows, anti-Zionist and campaigner on behalf of those persecuted for telling the truth. In short, she is a Renaissance woman who has no truck with Feminism – and in this talk she explains why.

Lady Michele Renouf (Audio) – ‘The Fraud of Feminism’
YOUTUBE.COM
Lady Michele Renouf is a philanthropist, charity fundraiser, socialite, landscape gardener, lecturer in the Fine Arts, Wagnerite, film producer, author, mode…

ALBERTA’S LEFT TURN

Alberta’s Left Turn

 
by Gerry T. Neal
I had not been following the recent provincial election campaign in Alberta. I found it interesting, therefore, when Kevin Michael Grace over at The Ambler predicted an NDP win shortly before the election, but I was not really surprised when this prediction came true. Mr. Grace has frequently demonstrated his acute insight into the myriad of aspects of Canadian politics and the NDP and Alberta are not as odd of a match as many people seem to think. Capitalism and socialism have never really been polar opposites, they are more the opposite sides of a single coin, perhaps the plugged nickel. Both think that the acquisition of money is the purpose for human existence, with the difference between the two being that capitalists think that money should be obtained through the free exchange of goods, services, and labour whereas socialists think it is better for the government to take money from those who already have it and give it to other people. I don’t wish to trivialize this difference – the former, being relatively the more honest of the two, is clearly to be preferred by sane, decent, and normal people over the latter, the preference of crooks, scoundrels, and fools – but the difference pales in comparison to that between the shared assumptions of capitalism and socialism and the truth that there are many things more important in life than making money.

For as long as I can remember I have heard Alberta described as Canada’s “most conservative province” but I have long questioned the accuracy of this designation. It might have been true at one time. In the fall of 1936, Stephen Leacock, the famous Canadian professor, economist, social commentator, and humorist began a lecture tour of the Western provinces and he described his experiences in My Discovery of the West: A Discussion of East and West In Canada, which was published by Thomas Allen in Toronto in 1937. In his ninth chapter, “Monarchy in the West”, Leacock wrote that:

People who know nothing about it always imagine that the West of Canada is far less British than the East. Apart from the Maritime Provinces this is not so. It is even the reverse of truth.

From this he went on to argue that the large number of Americans who had moved up to the Canadian West between 1905 and 1914 made “no great difference as to the British connection and British institutions” because Americans had been British originally, and were reverting to their roots. He put it in these memorable words:

It used to be said that the last shot fired in defence of British institutions in America would be fired by a French-Canadian. It looks now as if there would be one more shot after his. It will be from the gun of an American whose name will be something like John Bull McGregor. His people will have been among the McGregors of Mississippi and the Bulls of the New York police: so he won’t miss what he shoots at.

If Leacock’s assessment of 1936 Alberta was accurate, that those settling the province valued Canada’s British institutions, had not a trace of republicanism, and that the former Americans among them would be the ones to fire that last shot on behalf of the Crown, then it might have been true to say, at that time, that Alberta was the most conservative province in the Dominion. That was then. This is now.

In Canada, a conservative is someone who believes in and supports the traditional British institutions of this country. This was historically true even of conservative French Canadians – and until the 1960s French Canadians were very conservative indeed – for while their primary concern might have been the preservation of their language, Roman Catholicism, and their traditional way of life, they understood that these things had been guaranteed by the Crown since 1774 and that had all of British North America gone over to the American Republic in the Revolution their language, religion, and culture would not have survived. The two best articulations of the political meaning of conservatism in the Canadian context, John Farthing’s Freedom Wears a Crown and John G. Diefenbaker’s These Things We Treasure, the first by a central Canadian who grew up in Ontario and Quebec, the second by a Westerner, who grew up and practiced law in Saskatchewan before entering federal politics, both argued that Canada’s British institutions were the foundation and framework of our traditional rights and freedoms and that the latter stand and fall with the former.

If Alberta were the most conservative province in Canada that would mean that the ideas in the preceding paragraph would be more prevalent in Alberta than anywhere else in the country. Is this the case? Hardly. Indeed, one of the most curious things about many who identify as conservative in the province of Alberta is an inability to put two and two together and come up with four on this matter.

From 1963, when Lester Pearson became Prime Minister until 1984 when Pierre Trudeau stepped down as Prime Minister, the Liberal Party of Canada waged an aggressive war against Canada’s British institutions and traditions. They removed the designation “Royal” from many institutions including the post office and the navy. They insisted that we needed a new flag of our own, even though the Canadian Red Ensign had been declared our country’s flag by Order-In-Council in 1945, three days after the end of the war in which it had been baptized our national flag in the blood of the soldiers who fought under it in our country’s finest hour. It was the Union Jack in the canton that made the old flag objectionable to them. These are just two examples, many more could be provided. At the same time the Liberal Party was attacking Canada’s British heritage and institutions it was also attacking and undermining the basic traditional freedoms of Canadians. 

 
Frederick Fromm's photo.
n the early 1970s they added a law against “hate propaganda” to the Criminal Code, which set a bad precedent for freedom of speech by making certain types of speech illegal on the basis of the thoughts expressed within them. Existing laws governing speech, such as the law against incitement, only made speech illegal when it called upon people to commit violence and break the law. Then, the Liberals passed the Canadian Human Rights Act, an attack on freedom of association patterned on the American Civil Rights Act of the previous decade, which further attacked freedom of speech with its chilling Section 13, designating hate speech as an illegal act of discrimination and defining it so broadly that virtually anything offensive to those protected against discrimination would qualify.
 
Finally, when they repatriated the British North America Act, they tacked onto it a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that under the guise of securing for us the rights and freedoms we already possessed by prescription as subjects of the Crown, nullified those rights and freedoms. (1) These attacks upon traditional and basic prescriptive rights and liberties, producing the oppressive politically correct atmosphere that Albertan “conservatives” rightly object to, were carried out at the same time and by the same people who were ripping apart our British heritage, proving the analysis of traditional Canadian Tories like Farthing and Diefenbaker, that our freedoms stand and fall with our British traditions, institutions, and heritage, to be correct.

Yet, many Albertan “small c conservatives” don’t seem to get this. To the last man they have an intense loathing for Pierre Trudeau and the Liberal Party.  Yet, many of them show little interest in turning to Canada’s British institutions, traditions, and heritage. Indeed, I have known more than a few of them to approach our British heritage with an attitude of contempt scarcely distinguishable from Trudeau’s own. Royalism is the sine qua non of conservatism in Canada, a non-negotiable, and Pierre Trudeau was notorious for, among other things, his disrespect for Her Majesty, yet you will encounter in Alberta, far more than anywhere else in Canada, people who claim to be Trudeau-hating conservatives but who are republicans rather than royalists. Self-identified Albertan “conservatives” tend to be continentalists – sometimes to the point of being annexationists – and free traders, both of which, ironically, are positions that historically belonged to the Liberal Party. It is further ironic that free trade was only embraced by the Conservative Party in the 1980s under the leadership of Brian Mulroney, the Conservative leader most hated in Alberta, whose misgovernment drove traditional Conservative Party voters, not only in Alberta but throughout the West, into the Reform Party of Canada.

This does not sound like a conservative province – more like a belligerently regionalist province with a chip on its shoulder. Localism is an important element of conservative thought, but in a form similar to the Catholic doctrine of subsidiarity, never anti-patriotism.

Where then does Alberta’s “conservative” reputation come from?

Is it the most socially conservative province?

When one thinks of social conservatism – in the sense of opposition to the moral and social disintegration that has taken place in the United States, Canada and the rest of the Western world since World War as manifest in such things as the collapse of social authority, no-fault divorce, birth control, abortion, the sexual revolution, cohabitation without marriage, serial marriages, alternative sexualities, and the like – three voices come to mind as having spoken louder on behalf of social conservatism in Canada than any other – George Grant, William Gairdner, and Ted Byfield. All three were from central Canada.

Yes, that’s right, all three. Ted Byfield, the founder of the Alberta Report which joined Christian social conservatism with a defiant Western and particularly Alberta populism, was born and raised in Toronto, Ontario. That, in itself, does not perhaps say much, especially since moral and social decay, and worse, government brainwashing of the young against traditional norms, has gone further in Ontario, under the premierships of McGuinity and Wynne than anywhere else in the country. Nevertheless, it is in Alberta that the Rev. Stephen Boissoin was dragged before the Human Rights Tribunal – they have one of these odious kangaroo courts in Alberta too – for writing a letter to the editor, criticizing the actions of the politicized homosexual movement.

More substantially, Albertans more than any other Canadians, love American popular culture and oppose any attempt on the part of the national government to protect domestic Canadian culture. While our cultural protectionist policies have been a complete failure, and indeed have done harm rather than good, my point is that there is nothing that has done more to erode traditional social institutions, the authority of parents, teachers, and churches, and moral standards, than Hollywood films, pop and rock music, and television programming. A social conservatism that is wed to an objection, at the theoretical level, to cultural protectionism on the liberal grounds of market freedom, is a social conservatism that has laid down, raised the white flag, and given up.

The other grounds on which some have claimed that Alberta is the most conservative province are those of fiscal and economic conservatism. Fiscal conservatism is the idea that the state should live within its means and not export its costs into the future for posterity to pay. The economic ideas regarded as being conservative in Alberta are actually economic liberalism – free markets, free trade, and low taxes to encourage an entrepreneurial spirit, promoting economic growth that creates jobs and generates wealth. These two ideas are not always compatible. The goal of economic liberalism is constant growth so it always calls for lower taxes, whereas fiscal conservatism recognizes that to meet its goal, of not creating burdens for future generations, taxes may sometimes need to be raised in the present. It has been my impression that for most Albertan conservatives when these two ideas and goals clash, it is economic liberalism that wins out over fiscal conservatism. At any rate, actual economic conservatism is a variation of economic liberalism called economic nationalism, in which the government passes laws and taxes that favour and protect domestic production, thus exporting its costs not to future generations but to foreign companies and countries, as an entrance fee for access to the national market. Needless to say this idea would go over like a ton of bricks in Alberta.

Which brings us back to what I said at the beginning about capitalism and socialism – they are not polar opposites, but two sides of the same coin. That Alberta, the bastion of economic liberalism in Canada, would flip the coin and a give a majority government to the socialist party of high taxes and even higher spending, the very opposite of fiscal conservatism, is less of a shock than it would have been had the province managed to put fiscally conservative economic patriots into power.

The NDP is about more than socialism, of course. It is also about feminism, abortion-on-demand, anti-white racism, climate change alarmism, the Orwellian thought control that is political correctness, and the triumph of the abnormal over the normal and the average over the exceptional. Albertans will find to their horror that it is these latter things, even more than socialism, that they have in store for them under an NDP government.

The NDP is also, however, the most anti-Canadian of parties, when Canada is rightfully understood as the British country, confederated under the Crown in Parliament in 1867, upon a foundation rooted in Loyalism. The NDP wish to complete what the Pearson-Trudeau Liberals started in the 1960s-1980s, and obliterate our British heritage completely, abolishing the upper chamber in Parliament, and severing the country’s ties to the monarchy. Had Alberta truly been the most conservative province in the country, the NDP’s contempt for Canada’s British traditions and institutions would have prevented them from ever giving the NDP a single seat. Many Albertans, however, chose to join what ideas they had that were fiscally or socially conservative, to a very unconservative anti-Canadian, anti-patriotism that is not that far removed from that of the NDP, making this election’s outcome much less of a surprise, although no less of a disaster.

(1) Section 33 effectively nullifies all the rights and freedoms listed in section 2, and sections 7 through 15.