Je Suis Brad — Attend Trial of “Citizen Journalist” — Fort McMurray, Monday, January 19, 2015

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

January 18, 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Je Suis Brad — Attend Trial of “Citizen Journalist” — Fort McMurray, Monday, January 19, 2015

A week ago, many Canadians joined rallies across the country supporting free speech and showing solidarity with the victims of the radical Islamic terrorists who gunned down 12 people at French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

Most Canadians smugly thought free speech as safe in Canada. After all, we have Trudeau’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms with its guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press. Sadly, due to the weasel clauses in the Charter, these rights have been steadily eroded since it took effect in 1982.

A good case in point is inveterate letter writer, Brad Love, a construction worker in Fort McMurray, Alberta. A self taught writer, inveterate reader and opinionated curmudgeon, Mr. Love’s problems began in 2002. Over a 20 year period, he estimates he’d written over 10,000 letters to politicians at all levels, the media and public figures. That year he was charged under Canada’s notorious “hate” law — Section 318 of the Criminal Code — for 20 letters he’s written to politicians and public figures. It must be emphasize that none of these letters contained threats — just his populist opinions. He is critical of foreign aid, immigration and waste of taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Love was sentenced to 18 months in prison — the stiffest sentence ever handed down under the “hate law” — for writing letters. Amnesty International defines a prisoner of conscience or political prisoner as someone punished or jailed for the non-violent expression of his political, religious or cultural views. Yes, Brad Love is a political prisoner and may soon be so again. This situation is a disgrace to Canada.

However, when he was released in 2003, Mr, Love faced a three year parole and increasingly restrictive conditions. At one point, an Ontario judge named Hogg imposed the condition that he could not write to “anyone” without their consent. That condition

In 2012, Mr. Love was convicted of “breach of undertaking” for having sent opinionated information packages to several Toronto Jewish groups, having obtained their oral consent. For this he received 18 months and a further three year gag order. The average sentence for a drug dealing gangbanger for “breach of bail” is 60 days, A non-violent letter writer draws 18 months,

In 2013, Mr. Love was charged in Fort McMurray with “sending scurrilous material through the mail” and “harassment” for repeated communications with the editor of Fort McMurray Today, which advertises that it WANTS its readers’ comments,  and a local representative of OXFAM.

When initially charged, Mr. Love’s bail forbade him to “write by e-mail, text or letter” to any person, presumably not even his gravely ill mother in Ontario. Again, this brutal gag was imposed, not in North Korea or Cuba or Saudi Arabia, but in Alberta, Canada.

Last September, just as Mr. Love was completely his “breach” sentence in Ontario, Albert sent two officers to bring him back in handcuffs and leg irons in a wheelchair to Alberta like some murderer, bank robber or drug lord — all for non-violent communication. What did the three airfares, travel expenses and salaries cost the taxpayers of Alberta?

On Monday, January 19 at 9:30, Mr. Love will go on trial in the Provincial Courthouse (9700 Franklin Ave.) in Fort McMurray.

“Free speech is the issue,” says Paul Fromm Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression which has championed Mr. Love’s struggle since 2003.

“In the education system we both grew up in in Etobicoke, Ontario, we were told that citizenship implied certain duties. A good citizen should inform himself, care, take a stand and voice his opinion. Mr. Love’s outspoken populism may not be everybody’s cup of tea, but by any measure, he is a good citizen, a concerned citizen and should be honoured for his commitment not prosecuted,” Mr. Fromm adds.

–30–

Contact Paul Fromm — 416-428-5308

Brad Love “Citizen Journalist” Opens 37th Year of Alternative Forum

Brad Love “Citizen Journalist” Opens 37th Year of Alternative Forum
 
 

REXDALE, January 14, 2015, Former political prisoner Brad Love kicked off the 37th year of the monthly Alternative Forum in Toronto tonight with a spirited talk about his persecution over the past two decades for writing and calling politicians and media and speaking his mind.

 
“I only care about my people, not Israel or immigrants,” he said, outlining his philosophy.
 
“I spent all day trying to get my father into extended care, after  a hip replacement operation. Harper has spent nearly $800-million on aid to Haiti, but our medical system cannot deliver,” he added. “Our government spends millions on fighting Ebola, but no one here has Ebola. We spend money on gay marches and multiculturalism, but we can’t get my dad into a nursing home. He’s worked all his life here.”
 
Recounting the events of last year, he said: “I spent one year in jail for breach of probation.” He had sent packages of information and commentary to several Toronto Jewish groups, having obtained oral consent on the phone. Nevertheless, he was convicted of “breach of probation” and given a draconian 18 months in jail. His conditions had forbad him to write to “anyone” without their consent. [These conditions were imposed in Ontario, not North Korea.]
 
“The average black crack pusher gets 60 days for a breach. I get 18 months. I am a working guy who works 84 hours a week and no longer even lives in Ontario!”
 
“Nobody in the newspapers would cover my trial. I had to fly back for repeated hearings 10 times — that’s airfare, car rental, legal fees for a minor breach. They brought in major fingerprint experts for this little breach. They should be working on bank robberies, not a non-violent breach,” he argued.
 
“I was kept beyond my release date so that sheriff’s deputies could travel from Alberta to arrest me. I was taken in a wheelchair in shackles through Toronto International; Airport. How I got on a plane with no ID, I don’t know. When we arrived in Alberta, I was taken to Leduc. I had a bail hearing by telephone with  JP. The Crown said I had no roots in Fort McMurray. I’d worked there for 10 years!,” he exclaimed. “The JP then asked me how much money I had on me. I had $961. I had to post $900. There I was five hours away from home. I was released in a town where I knew nobody at 6:00 a.m. With my remaining money, I took a cab to a bank machine to withdraw money to fly back home.”
 
This coming Monday, he explained, “I go on trial in Fort McMurray for writing letters to the editor of the local paper Fort McMurray Today and for having had a n argument with a representative of OXFAM collecting money in a local mall, I had said, why are you digging wells in Africa. The blacks must be standing around laughing at these silly Whites digging them wells, while they stand around idle.” These do gooders, he added, “are the types who';d step over a homeless person in their own city.”
 
Mr. Love noticed [police hanging around his home a few weeks back. “The police presence sends a message” to the neighbours that the letter-writer is a dangerous person.
 
“The local paper says ‘we want to hear your comments.’ I wrote to them, I bombarded the editor for years.”
 
“The judge has said I cannot cross-examine the complainants.” Mr. Love will be representing himself, with the assistance of Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression. Mr. Love is charged with “harassment” and “sending scurrilous material through the mails.”
 
“These charges are 20 months old,” Mr. Love noted. “My right to a speedy trial has been violated.”
 
“When I appear in Court,” he explained, “I am animated as I am here tonight. They always have special deputies sitting there. They are used to Newfies or natives,” who tend to be passive. “The IQ in Fort Mac is room temperature,” he quipped.
 
“The lawyers there are afraid of free speech. One Fort McMurray lawyer said to me, ‘I’m not comfortable with you,’ but they’d eagerly represent a native axe murderer.”
 
Brad Love "Citizen Journalist" Opens 37th Year of Alternative Forum</p>
<p>REXDALE, January 14, 2015, Former political prisoner Brad Love kicked off the 37th year of the monthly Alternative Forum in Toronto tonight with a spirited talk about his persecution over the past two decades for writing and calling politicians and media and speaking his mind.</p>
<p>"I only care about my people, not Israel or immigrants," he said, outlining his philosophy.</p>
<p>"I spent all day trying to get my father into extended care, after  a hip replacement operation. Harper has spent nearly $800-million on aid to Haiti, but our medical system cannot deliver," he added. "Our government spends millions on fighting Ebola, but no one here has Ebola. We spend money on gay marches and multiculturalism, but we can't get my dad into a nursing home. He's worked all his life here."</p>
<p>Recounting the events of last year, he said: "I spent one year in jail for breach of probation." He had sent packages of information and commentary to several Toronto Jewish groups, having obtained oral consent on the phone. Nevertheless, he was convicted of "breach of probation" and given a draconian 18 months in jail. His conditions had forbad him to write to "anyone" without their consent. [These conditions were imposed in Ontario, not North Korea.]</p>
<p>"The average black crack pusher gets 60 days for a breach. I get 18 months. I am a working guy who works 84 hours a week and no longer even lives in Ontario!"</p>
<p>"Nobody in the newspapers would cover my trial. I had to fly back for repeated hearings 10 times -- that's airfare, car rental, legal fees for a minor breach. They brought in major fingerprint experts for this little breach. They should be working on bank robberies, not a non-violent breach," he argued.</p>
<p>"I was kept beyond my release date so that sheriff's deputies could travel from Alberta to arrest me. I was taken in a wheelchair in shackles through Toronto International; Airport. How I got on a plane with no ID, I don't know. When we arrived in Alberta, I was taken to Leduc. I had a bail hearing by telephone with  JP. The Crown said I had no roots in Fort McMurray. I'd worked there for 10 years!," he exclaimed. "The JP then asked me how much money I had on me. I had $961. I had to post $900. There I was five hours away from home. I was released in a town where I knew nobody at 6:00 a.m. With my remaining money, I took a cab to a bank machine to withdraw money to fly back home."</p>
<p>This coming Monday, he explained, "I go on trial in Fort McMurray for writing letters to the editor of the local paper Fort McMurray Today and for having had a n argument with a representative of OXFAM collecting money in a local mall, I had said, why are you digging wells in Africa. The blacks must be standing around laughing at these silly Whites digging them wells, while they stand around idle." These do gooders, he added, "are the types who';d step over a homeless person in their own city."</p>
<p>Mr. Love noticed [police hanging around his home a few weeks back. "The police presence sends a message" to the neighbours that the letter-writer is a dangerous person.</p>
<p>"The local paper says 'we want to hear your comments.' I wrote to them, I bombarded the editor for years."</p>
<p>"The judge has said I cannot cross-examine the complainants." Mr. Love will be representing himself, with the assistance of Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression. Mr. Love is charged with "harassment" and "sending scurrilous material through the mails."</p>
<p>"These charges are 20 months old," Mr. Love noted. "My right to a speedy trial has been violated."</p>
<p>"When I appear in Court," he explained, "I am animated as I am here tonight. They always have special deputies sitting there. They are used to Newfies or natives," who tend to be passive. "The IQ in Fort Mac is room temperature," he quipped.</p>
<p>"The lawyers there are afraid of free speech. One Fort McMurray lawyer said to me, 'I'm not comfortable with you,' but they'd eagerly represent a native axe murderer."</p>
<p>"If yuo write about immigration and black crime, White cops will come and arrest you, White lawyers will prosecute you. Why? If Love is right and cutting immigration would reduce crime, then it could mean our jobs. The police forces could lose 40% of their force. We're the bogeyman. Our own people have sold us out!" he charged.</p>
<p>While in jail in Lindsay, he said, "my mail was held without a court order. I was specially punished. When I was released, they gave me 138 letters that had been held."</p>
<p>"I consider myself a citizen journalist," he explained.</p>
<p>"When I speak to people in Fort McMurray of these matters, they resent me because I remind them of their own cowardice," he concluded. A lively discussion and question-and-answer session followed and those in attendance cheered Mr. Love and wished him every success at next week's trial.

 
“If you write about immigration and black crime, White cops will come and arrest you, White lawyers will prosecute you. Why? If Love is right and cutting immigration would reduce crime, then it could mean our jobs. The police forces could lose 40% of their force. We’re the bogeyman. Our own people have sold us out!” he charged.
While in jail in Lindsay, he said, “my mail was held without a court order. I was specially punished. When I was released, they gave me 138 letters that had been held.”
 
“I consider myself a citizen journalist,” he explained.
 
“When I speak to people in Fort McMurray of these matters, they resent me because I remind them of their own cowardice,” he concluded. A lively discussion and question-and-answer session followed and those in attendance cheered Mr. Love and wished him every success at next week’s trial.

Lessons from the Charlie Hebdo Massacre: Immigrants MUST Be Culturally Compatible

Lessons from the Charlie Hebdo Massacre: Immigrants MUST Be Culturally Compatible
PORT CREDIT. January, 7, 2015. It was not long after I’d finished my stint as co-host of Don Black’s STORMFRONT Radio on the Rense Network today that I received a call from Colin Perkel of the Canadian Press.
 
In light of the massacre by Moslem fanatics of 12 people at the French satiric newspaper Charlie Hebdo, did I think such an attack could happen here in Canada? Yes, it certainly could and likely will. Last October, two Canadians soldiers were killed in Canada in the same week by converts to radical Islam, one of the killers a half Libyan.
 
 
Lessons from the Charlie Hebdo Massacre: Immigrants MUST Be Culturally Compatible</p>
<p>PORT CREDIT. January, 7, 2015. It was not long after I'd finished my stint as co-host of Don Black's STORMFRONT Radio on the Rense Network today that I received a call from Colin Perkel of the Canadian Press.</p>
<p>In light of the massacre by Moslem fanatics of 12 people at the French satiric newspaper Charlie Hebdo, did I think such an attack could happen here in Canada? Yes, it certainly could and likely will. Last October, two Canadians soldiers were killed in Canada in the same week by converts to radical Islam, one of the killers a half Libyan.</p>
<p>"Why do you think so?" I was asked. Canada's lax and idiotic immigration policy has allowed people who do not share our values to enter this country. Canada is now home to over a million Moslems. Many are followers of radical Wahabbism. They hate the West. They hate our freedoms. They want to see us convert to Islam and adopt sharia law. They do not accept religious freedom or free speech. Worse, our policy of multiculturalism says all cultures are equal; that theirs is as good (or better than ours) and they are encouraged to maintain and practise their culture. To protect Canadians, if we are to have immigration at all, we must insist newcomers are culturally compatible. If they are not, they have no place here.  France is paying the horrific price in blood to allowing a culturally hostile fifth column into their land.</p>
<p>"Is this, then, about free speech?" I was asked next. Absolutely. Free speech is vital. Without it, you don't have a participatory democracy. Charlie Hebdo was satirical. It attacked Christians, often in the most vulgar of terms, and Moslems and others. I wouldn't agree with most of what they published, but freedom of expression is vital.</p>
<p>"But, shouldn't there be limits on offending minorities?" he asked. Absolutely not! That's the veto of the heckler or, in this case, the terrorist. These foreigners must accept that they or their beliefs may be criticized. If they cannot accept that and insist on fire bombing or shooting critics (as they did in several attacks on Charlie Hebdo), then they have no place in our country.</p>
<p>Ultimately, this is an immigration issue. The European and, I might add, the Canadian experiment with multiculturalism has been a colossal failure. Last fall, Canada began to reap the whirlwind with the killing of two unarmed Canadian soldiers right here in Canada by radical Moslems. Today, in volleys of targeted gunfire, France did too, with 12 dead and 10 wounded.</p>
<p>Paul Fromm<br />
Director<br />
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE</p>
<p>p.s. Not a word of what I said appeared in Perkel's article on Canadian reactions to the Paris massacre. Why am I not surprised?

“Why do you think so?” I was asked. Canada’s lax and idiotic immigration policy has allowed people who do not share our values to enter this country. Canada is now home to over a million Moslems. Many are followers of radical Wahabbism. They hate the West. They hate our freedoms. They want to see us convert to Islam and adopt sharia law. They do not accept religious freedom or free speech. Worse, our policy of multiculturalism says all cultures are equal; that theirs is as good (or better than ours) and they are encouraged to maintain and practise their culture. To protect Canadians, if we are to have immigration at all, we must insist newcomers are culturally compatible. If they are not, they have no place here.  France is paying the horrific price in blood to allowing a culturally hostile fifth column into their land.
 
“Is this, then, about free speech?” I was asked next. Absolutely. Free speech is vital. Without it, you don’t have a participatory democracy. Charlie Hebdo was satirical. It attacked Christians, often in the most vulgar of terms, and Moslems and others. I wouldn’t agree with most of what they published, but freedom of expression is vital.
 
“But, shouldn’t there be limits on offending minorities?” he asked. Absolutely not! That’s the veto of the heckler or, in this case, the terrorist. These foreigners must accept that they or their beliefs may be criticized. If they cannot accept that and insist on fire bombing or shooting critics (as they did in several attacks on Charlie Hebdo), then they have no place in our country.
 
Ultimately, this is an immigration issue. The European and, I might add, the Canadian experiment with multiculturalism has been a colossal failure. Last fall, Canada began to reap the whirlwind with the killing of two unarmed Canadian soldiers right here in Canada by radical Moslems. Today, in volleys of targeted gunfire, France did too, with 12 dead and 10 wounded.
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE
 
p.s. Not a word of what I said appeared in Perkel’s article on Canadian reactions to the Paris massacre. Why am I not surprised?

 

“Hate speech laws – Repeal them,” St. Mary’s Prof. Says

2015-01-09

“Hate speech laws – Repeal them,” St. Mary’s Prof. Says

One thing we should do to increase our physical safety is repeal our remaining laws against hate speech.

Isn’t that claim outlandish? It might seem obvious that if we want to protect ourselves, we should instead police expression even more vigorously than we do now, so that violent people will be less likely to see or hear something that sets them off.

Well, of course, we know that by giving in to the heckler’s veto, we simply create more hecklers, and more raucous hecklers, at that. So maybe stricter laws against expression isn’t the answer. But how could having no anti-hate laws help us?

I don’t mean to argue here for repealing our laws against the expression of hate on the grounds that they are anti-democratic, or that they deform public discourse, or that they are contrary to the ideal of the moral autonomy of the individual, though I think each of those arguments is sound. I mean to explain how the laws we currently live under, mild though some think them (though Arthur Topham or David Ahenakew would disagree), encourage the offended to take up violence.

Those who lash out physically against people who (they feel) have ridiculed or offended them are lashing out because they believe they have suffered an injustice. My argument is that laws against the expression of hate endanger us because they affirm and encourage that belief.

That is to say, countries that have laws against hate speech proclaim through their laws that some targets of expression are, indeed, victims of injustice. As victims of injustice, they are entitled to restitution through the punishment of their assailants.

The police and the courts don’t always get things right, of course. Someone has defamed you by attacking your religion, and so you complain to the officials, but the officials decide that the speech that offended you didn’t cross the line. But it did, you think; or the line wasn’t properly placed. You believe that you are a victim of injustice, an injustice, moreover, that the state refuses to rectify.

How many times was Charlie Hebdo investigated for violating France’s laws against the expression of hate? At least twice, and both times acquitted. What’s left to do but attack it yourself?

If, on the other hand, Canadians were truly to embrace freedom of expression, and get rid of our laws that censor or suppress expression, we would thereby say to the world that being mocked or ridiculed or subjected to expressions of hate is not to suffer an injustice. That you have been insulted, offended, or upset by something someone said does not make you a victim, and you are not entitled to restitution or compensation.

Repealing our laws against the expression of hate would make us safer by removing from our culture official affirmation of the thought that a person’s hurt feelings merit official concern. Removing that thought would weaken the desire to take the law into one’s own hands when the state refuses to come to one’s aid.

My argument is speculative in that it contains a premise about cause and effect for which I cannot cite adequate evidence. According to that premise, removing laws that imply that one who has been offended or demeaned can thereby be a victim of injustice will result in fewer people thinking they are victims of injustice. If that premise is true, then that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was committed in France by Frenchmen isn’t entirely a coincidence, for France has stronger laws against the expression of hate than most other European countries and enforces them regularly.

But why think that that premise is true? Empirical evidence would be needed to settle the question. All I can say in defence of it right now is that, generally, legal culture affects the mores and attitudes of the individuals who make up a society.

For reasons of safety, then (along with all the other reasons), let us not accommodate even in the slightest demands that people be silenced, no matter what they say or how hurt people are by what they say. That would take offence out of the realm of law and politics, and that would (probably, maybe) lessen the chance that the aggrieved will style themselves victims and their violence justice.

Mark Mercer is Professor of philosophy at Saint Mary’s University, Halifax. He can be reached by e-mail: mark.mercer@smu.ca

WHATCOTT WINS FREE SPEECH TRIAL

WHATCOTT WINS FREE SPEECH TRIAL

 
REGINA. December 22, 2014. Christmas came early for evangelist and activist Bill Whatcott in a Regina courtroom today. He and U.S. activist Peter LaBarbera were acquitted on a charge of “mischief” for having set up a table to hand out literature and discuss traditional Christian teachings about homosexuality and abortion with University of Regina students earlier this year.
 
The Regina Leader-Post (December 22, 2014) reported: “Anti-gay activists Bill Whatcott and Peter LaBarbera were found not guilty of mischief in Regina Provincial Court on Monday.


Whatcott uttered “thank the Lord” after Judge Marylynne Beaton delivered her verdict.

“I’m very happy with the judge’s decision … and of course I believe she’s correct,” Whatcott told reporters.

LaBarbera, who lives in Illinois and heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, was not present, but “I’m sure he’ll be relieved,” said Whatcott.

LaBarbera and Whatcott were charged with mischief on April 14, after distributing flyers and displaying placards with pro-life and anti-gay messages at the University of Regina campus. They were asked to leave, refused and were arrested.

At the time, U of R provost Thomas Chase called the materials “graphic” and “disturbing.”

But “the validity of (their) beliefs are not in issue,” Beaton wrote in her decision.

“I find that the purpose of (their) attending the University of Regina was to communicate information and their actions were passive and non-aggressive,” Beaton wrote. “The university’s response was disproportionate to the peaceful distribution of flyers.”

Whatcott said he plans to return to the U of R in January — “you can count on that, unless I get hit by a car” — with a “flyer special for this occasion.” He aims to visit the University of Calgary campus on Saturday.”

 
Mr. Whatcott commented on his website: “The judgement is 27 pages, I cut and pasted a pertinent section to help you understand Justice Beaton’s reasoning.  Ms Patton is the head of campus security and Dr. Chase is Vice President of the U of R. When the judgment refers to “The Policy” it is talking about the University of Regina’s “Respectful Workplace Policy,” a document the university has been using as its pretext to silence debate on the issue of homosexuality:


Read complete judgment here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Ol-X … sp=sharing

Ms. Patton and Dr. Chase both testified to the effect that the decision to remove Mr. Whatcott was made to prevent students from feeling discriminated against. This is a sufficiently pressing and substantive objective. Freedom of expression is not an unqualified right. As stated again in the Pridgen decision at para. 124:

The University must be able to place reasonable limits on speech on campus in order, for example, to maintain a learning environment
where there is respect and dignity for all.

[68] The means used to prevent students from feeling discriminated against was the removal of Mr. Whatcott and Mr. LaBarbera. I do not accept that the accused’s removal, in order to protect students from the accused’s message, represented a minimal impairment on freedom of expression,” — In this case, the University’s response was disproportionate to the peaceful distribution of flyers and was not reasonable and demonstrably justified.

[69J In summary, I find that the Charter does apply to the University of Regina in this situation. I also find that Mr. Whatcott’s and Mr. LaBarbera’s actions were protected by s. 2(b) of the Charter and that the infringement on this right cannot be permitted under s. 1 of the Charter. Given my findings, Mr. Whatcott and Mr. LaBarbera were acting with legal justification pursuant to s. 429(2) of the Criminal Code.

Colour of Right

[70] The Crown has argued that it would be unreasonable to believe that the right existed, as Mr. Whatcott had been asked to leave by campus security several times over the last few years and was denied space by the University of Regina Student’s Union. He therefore knew that his form of communication was not welcomed at the University.

[71] However, Mr. Whatcott’s testimony left me with no doubt that he believed that he had a right to protest at the University of Regina under s. 2(b) of the Charter. Given that he had been successful before various courts in the past, I have no doubt that this belief was reasonable. His testimony also left me with no doubt that he does not think that the Policy applies to him, or perhaps to anyone. He testified clearly that the Policy is “rubbish” and that several universities, including the University of Regina, have abused their rights to exclude people and so do not have that right. However, if his belief that s. 2(b) of the Charter protects his speech is correct, then the Charter would overrule the Policy. Mr. Whatcott understands this principle.

 

 

While, of course, we agree with this judgement, it is frightening that the university seems unable to distinguish between “discriminatory” behaviour and the expression of an opinion. Neither Mr. Whatcott nor Mr. Barbera were providing goods or services and, thus, in any position to “discriminate.” They were offering opinions and discussing with interested students those opinions. And, by the way, isn’t that what a university is supposed to be — a place where ideas are discussed and debated, not an indoctrination centre for the cultural communist views now so in fashion among the intelligensia?

 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Anti-gay activists LaBarbera, Whatcott found not guilty of mischief

Bill Whatcott and Peter LaBarberaAnti-gay activists Bill Whatcott and Peter LaBarbera demonstrate outside the Regina provincial courthouse ahead of the start of their trial on mischief charges on Oct. 30, 2014.

IHR Christmas Gathering A Huge Success

IHR Christmas Gathering A Huge Success
The Institute for Historical Review’s fifth annual Christmas party was held in the organization’s offices in Orange County, California. Socializing, a potluck supper and four talks filled a pleasant evening of fellowship and friendship.
 
IHR Director Mark Weber led off with a review of the past year. The IHR held nine meetings, including one in Virginia, this year with a roster of distinguished speakers, including Professor Tom Sunic and British lawyer Adrian Davies. The IHR maintains an active website . Mr. Weber has given numerous interviews with the U.S. and international press and has spoken at several meeting in Europe, including an enthusiastic reception at the London Forum.  The IHR has produced a number of important videos and has increased its distribution of books.

Frederick Fromm's photo.
 
Injecting fairness and reasoned historical commentary is the IHR’s role, he said. “If the U.S. judged Israel by the same standards we hold Afghanistan and Serbia to, we’d be sending bombers to Tel Aviv.”
 
Attorney Bill Halsey represented the IHR in the turbulent 1980s and 1990s, when their conferences were under attack by the radical terroristic Jewish Defence League (JDL). Venues were cancelled because of terror threats. The IHR’s offices were bombed and a warehouse filled with revisionist books destroyed, he recalled. The two main JDL culprits died in prison (on other charges), he noted. Mr. Halsey recalled how Congressman John Schmitz , an outspoken conservative on whose campaign he had worked, came to an IHR meeting and vouched for them to a frightened hotel owner, thus saving Frederick Fromm's photo.their conference. “All the IHR has ever tried to do is bring ‘history’ in tune with the facts,” he concluded.
 
Paul Fromm, the Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, discussed the attack on Christmas. This feast, he noted, “is among the most welcoming and inclusive, in the good sense of the word. The vast majority of Americans and Canadians celebrate Christmas, most as a religious event, but many who are not religious celebrate it as a cultural event as well. Yet, most government officials and many conformist businesses avoid the word and feel they must substitute ‘Seasons Greetings’ or ‘Happy Holidays’, as if the word Christmas itself was an obscenity.”
 
The fact is, he added, the word “Christmas” is an obscenity for militant Jews who have led the assault over the past six decades, Mr. Fromm explained. The attack on Christmas is the result of growing Jewish media and cultural influence in the past 70 or so years.
 
Quoting Edmund Connelly’s writings on the subject in Occidental Quarterly (2008), Mr. Fromm said: “While much has been written and reported about this assault, few want to situate the attack on Christmas within a larger set of conflicts between Jews and white Christians. But to understand the hostility toward Christmas in America, one must do just that, as Jewish Townhall.com columnist Burt Prelutsky bluntly did in his 2004 column The Jewish grinch who stole Christmas.
 

The blame for the brisk departure of Christmas observations in so many parts of American life now, Prelutsky argued, can be blamed on “my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront. . . . But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society — it’s been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. “

 
He then referenced work by historian Michael Hoffman III: “Christmas is a problematic time for Orthodox rabbis and their followers since it celebrates the birth of the Jesus they hate. The rabbinic term for Christmas Eve is Nittel Nacht, a night they regard as accursed.  There is a rabbinic tradition of refraining from marital relations on Nittel Nacht. According to Baal Shem Tov, the founder of Hasidic Judaism, to conceive a child on Nittel Nacht will result in the birth of either an apostate or a pimp. 
 
The most prominent rabbinic custom commonly observed on Christmas Eve is to abstain from “Torah” (Talmud) study. There is an anxiety that one’s Talmud study may unwillingly serve as merit for Jesus’ soul, corresponding to the teaching that Talmud study gives respite to the souls of all the wicked. Refraining from Talmud study on Nittel Nacht also serves as a sign of mourning corresponding to the rabbinic belief that Jesus “was a false messiah who deceived Israel, worshipped a brick, practiced the magic he learned in Egypt and was born of a harlot who conceived while she was niddah (menstruating).”
 
There is a Talmudic custom of eating garlic on Nittel Nacht. The reason for this is attributed to the odor of the garlic which is reputed to repel the demonic soul of Jesus, which is supposed to wander on Christmas Eve like Scrooge’s dead partner Marley (cf. the rabbinic text Nitei Gavriel Minhagei Nittel). Another widespread rabbinic custom in Orthodox Judaism is to make toilet paper on Christmas Eve, a practice made popular among Hasidic Judaics by the Chiddushei Harim (cf. Reiach Hasade 1:17).
 
Contrast these grostesque Nittel Nacht mockeries from the lowest septic tank in hell, with the heavenly story of the Holy Family in Bethlehem —  the radiant Virgin and child, humble shepherds, and angels offering glad tidings of peace on earth to men of good will. Frankly, there is no comparison between Talmudic Judaism and true Christianity, and those who attempt to assert that Christianity has ecumenical similarities with the religion of the Talmud, are more deluded than the degraded practitioners of Nittel Nacht themselves.”
 
Again, quoting Edmund Connelly, Mr. Fromm noted: “One could spend a year, from one Christmas to the next, reading about the Gentile-Jewish basis of the War on Christmas. Some accounts are scholarly, while others are more popular. Some overtly point to the religious split as the source of the hostility, while others cautiously skirt around the issue.  Rush Limbaugh’s younger brother David is at pains not to name the source of the powerful anti-Christian bias he sees in our culture. Thus, in his 2003 work Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity, he can open a chapter by writing “In the documented bias against Christians and Christianity in our modern culture, Hollywood and Big Media play very major roles.” But he ignores the highly Jewish nature of the American media in general and Hollywood in particular. In fact, the words “Jews” and “Judaism” do not even appear in his extensive index.
 

The same can be said for Bill O’Reilly — another culture warrior on the good side of the War on Christmas who never mentions the Jewish angle. But I love his poster anyway, even though he doesn’t want to say whom he is really fighting against. This silence is, of course, a wonderful comment on Jewish power in America. Still, by including a chapter such as William Lind’s excellent “Who Stole Our Culture,” it is obvious to even the halfway informed reader what civilizational rival they are discussing.Frederick Fromm's photo.

Lind goes as far as anyone in this book to frame the conflict:

The Frankfurt School was well on the way to creating political correctness. Then suddenly, fate intervened. In 1933, Adolf Hitler and the Nazi Party came to power in Germany, where the Frankfurt School was located. Since the Frankfurt School was Marxist, and the Nazis hated Marxism, and since almost all its members were Jewish, it decided to leave Germany. In 1934, the Frankfurt School, including its leading members from Germany, was re-established in New York City with help from Columbia University. Soon, its focus shifted from destroying traditional Western culture in Germany to doing so in the United States. It would prove all too successful.

Needless to say, this emphasis on the Frankfurt school moves the discussion in the same direction as Kevin MacDonald does in The Culture of Critique, where MacDonald describes the broad range of Jewish movements arrayed against the culture of the West, including Christianity.”

The first wave of the assault on Christmas, occurred from the late 1930s to the 1960s, Mr. Fromm explained. In 1934, at the urging of his wife Israel Itkovitz (better known as Eddie Cantor) wrote Santa Claus is Coming to Town. Jule Steyn, a Jewess from Bethnall Green in London, England, wrote the song Let It Snow, and Ivring Berlin, in the late 1940s, wrote the iconic White Christmas. “Now, there is nothing in and of themselves wrong about these songs. They celebrate the externals of the Christmas time, but neatly avoid the core meaning — the birth of Jesus Christ. By the 1960s, many Christian groups were rightly complaining that Christ had been taken out of Christmas: Jesus, Mary and Joseph had been replaced by Santa, Rudolf the Red Nosed Reindeer and Frosty the Snowman,” he added.

But the attack was heating up, Mr. Fromm explained. Then, quoting Edmund Connelly, he added: “In everyday parlance, this debate is often referred to as the one over ‘A Neutral Public Square,’and it has been going on for a long time.’Happy Holidays’ and ‘Season’s Greetings’  were not always ubiquitous greetings at the end of December. For instance, back in 1952, George S. Kaufman appeared on a popular television show one week before Christmas and was asked what he wanted for the holiday. He replied, “Let’s make this one program on which no one sings ‘Silent Night.’  The response from the audience (largely Gentile, one would presume) was fast and furious: Kaufman was removed from the show.

Fast-forward to 1982 and the popular Saturday Night Live could feature a skit called “Merry Christmas, Dammit!” This skit portrayed the relationship between Donny and Marie Osmond, two non-Jewish sibling pop singers, as incestuous, and the Virgin Mary was described as “that virgin chick” in a jazzed up version of “Silent Night.” Eddie Murphy — in his popular “Gumby” guise — reads children’s story in which Santa tears out the lungs of one of his elves because the elf asked for a sip of Santa’s hot chocolate. He ends the skit by saying “And to everyone out there — a merry Christmas! And to my producer, my director, my manager, and my lawyer — Happy Hanukkah, boys!’ Obviously sensibilities had changed by then, and the people calling the shots were Jews.”

Now, we have a concerted effort to remove “Christmas” while all the while wanting us to spend carloads of shekels to give gifts for the feast that dares not say its name. “Luckily, there’s been a strong push back from Christians and others. I urge you to give cards that say, ‘Merry Christmas.'” Mr. Fromm said.  “I urge you to return with a stern note any ‘Seasons Greetings’ cards from politicians. Finally, when shopping, patronize stores that mention ‘Christmas’ and, where you can, tell the management of stores that insist on ‘Seasons Greetings’ that you won’t buy their cheap imported Chinese junk, if they won’t acknowledge the name of the date the vast majority of us celebrates. You are not being ‘inclusive’,” he added, ” excluding yourself and your beliefs.”

The evening concluded with a provocative slide show by IHR Director, Tom Berrington. “We are in the period of Kali Yuga, in Hindu mythology, an evil time of turmoil and fever,” he warned: “We are never going back  to that golden era of the 1950s of rising living standards and endless opportunity. While there are many forces ranged against our people, we have certain advantages, especially our Faustian creative spirit,” he concluded.

Frederick Fromm's photo.

Whatcott Winds Up Free Speech Tour

Whatcott Winds Up Free Speech Tour

 
EDMONTON. November 16, 2014. Author and evangelist Bill Whatcott wrapped up a weekend speaking tour sponsored by the Canadian Association for Free Expression here today. The tour took Mr. Whatcott to Vancouver and Edmonton. His topic was “The War on Christianity: Can Traditional Christians Still Witness to the Truth in Politically Correct Canada?”
 
The veteran of several dozen arrests for counselling people outside Toronto abortuaries but within the prohibited gag zone or “bubble” zone, Mr. Whatcott reflected on the “double standard” of Canada’s justice system. He recalled one inmate who had received 30 days for numerous counts of shoplifting and Mr. Whatcott getting the same sentence for protesting outside an abortion clinic.
 
He described being jailed in Toronto’s notorious Don Jail. Political  prisoners “were always treated  more harshly.” At one point, he was put in cells with delusional or violent people. At another time, he was denied socks or blankets. When he got free speech supporters to call the prison and protest, the authorities told the prisoners on his range that they were losing their television privileges because of Whatcott. A prisoner punched him in the face. “They were clearly trying to make prison so terrible and dangerous to me that I would stop protesting,” he explained.
 
 
Whatcott Winds Up Free Speech Tour</p>
<p>EDMONTON. November 16, 2014. Author and evangelist Bill Whatcott wrapped up a weekend speaking tour sponsored by the Canadian Association for Free Expression here today. The tour took Mr. Whatcott to Vancouver and Edmonton. His topic was "The War on Christianity: Can Traditional Christians Still Witness to the Truth in Politically Correct Canada?"</p>
<p>The veteran of several dozen arrests for counselling people outside Toronto abortuaries but within the prohibited gag zone or "bubble" zone, Mr. Whatcott reflected on the "double standard" of Canada's justice system. He recalled one inmate who had received 30 days for numerous counts of shoplifting and Mr. Whatcott getting the same sentence for protesting outside an abortion clinic.</p>
<p>He described being jailed in Toronto's notorious Don Jail. Political  prisoners "were always treated  more harshly." At one point, he was put in cells with delusional or violent people. At another time, he was denied socks or blankets. When he got free speech supporters to call the prison and protest, the authorities told the prisoners on his range that they were losing their television privileges because of Whatcott. A prisoner punched him in the face. "They were clearly trying to make prison so terrible and dangerous to me that I would stop protesting," he explained.</p>
<p>At one rally of pro-life supporters at Toronto's Queen's Park in the late 1990s, about 30 members of the violent Anti-racist Action attacked the Christians with baseball bats and clubs with spikes in them. The police fought the goons off and arrested several. However, while peaceful pro-life picketers were repeatedly charged, the charges against the ARA thugs were dropped by Crown Attorney Michael Leshner, a well known homosexual, who was among the first in Ontario to "marry" another man.</p>
<p>Somewhat later, Mr. Whatcott, then working as a nurse, cared for one of the ARA goons who admitted that he knew little about "racism" or "pro-life" but really just like to beat people up and hurt them. The goon was also a regular in the OCAP (Ontario Coalition Against Poverty) rent--a-mob which regularly staged violent protests.</p>
<p>Mr. Whatcott had also been a supporter of Jim Harding, a Lutheran layman charged under Canada's notorious "hate law" -- Sec. 318 of the Criminal Code -- for distributing flyers highly ciritical of Moslems and their being granted a prayer room at Weston Collegiate Institute. Radical Somali Moslems showed up outside the court and threatened Mr. Harding with death. "There is a double strandard," Mr. Whatcott emphasized. "The Somalis were not charged for threatening death but Mr. Harding was charged and eventually convicted for expressing his opinion."</p>
<p>Mr. Whatcott was promoting his new autobiography, Born in a Graveyard: One man's transformation from a violent, drug-addicted criminal into Canada's most outspoken family values activist. The book sold briskly at both meetings.</p>
<p>You can order a copy of   Born in a Graveyard:  {$25 plus $10 postage} from C-FAR Books, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, Canada.

 
 
At one rally of pro-life supporters at Toronto’s Queen’s Park in the late 1990s, about 30 members of the violent Anti-racist Action attacked the Christians with baseball bats and clubs with spikes in them. The police fought the goons off and arrested several. However, while peaceful pro-life picketers were repeatedly charged, the charges against the ARA thugs were dropped by Crown Attorney Michael Leshner, a well known homosexual, who was among the first in Ontario to “marry” another man.
 
Somewhat later, Mr. Whatcott, then working as a nurse, cared for one of the ARA goons who admitted that he knew little about “racism” or “pro-life” but really just like to beat people up and hurt them. The goon was also a regular in the OCAP (Ontario Coalition Against Poverty) rent–a-mob which regularly staged violent protests.
 
Mr. Whatcott had also been a supporter of Jim Harding, a Lutheran layman charged under Canada’s notorious “hate law” — Sec. 318 of the Criminal Code — for distributing flyers highly critical of Moslems and their being granted a prayer room at Weston Collegiate Institute. Radical Somali Moslems showed up outside the court and threatened Mr. Harding with death. “There is a double standard,” Mr. Whatcott emphasized. “The Somalis were not charged for threatening death but Mr. Harding was charged and eventually convicted for expressing his opinion.”
 
Mr. Whatcott was promoting his new autobiography, Born in a Graveyard: One man’s transformation from a violent, drug-addicted criminal into Canada’s most outspoken family values activist. The book sold briskly at both meetings.
 
You can order a copy of   Born in a Graveyard:  {$25 plus $10 postage} from C-FAR Books, P.O. Box 332, Rexdale, ON., M9W 5L3, Canada.
 

Blasting the Persecution of Christopher Sandau

Blasting the Persecution of Christopher Sandau

http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/north-delta-hockey-coach-fired-for-nazi-obsession-on-facebook-1.1496455# 

Tom Zytaruk
The Now Newspaper. 

So let me get this straight. Somebody with a politically incorrect belief system who did not share it with the kids he taught or coached should be fired because a person who holds such beliefs must be regarded as  a poor “role model”. As one parent said, “You can’t be a Nazi and coach kids’ hockey”.

OK then. Can you be a fundamentalist Christian and coach kids’ hockey? For a great many people, fundamentalist Christian beliefs are politically incorrect. Members of the Law Society in this province, for example, recently voted for a policy that would deny graduates of the Trinity College law school accreditation because of principles thought to be, well, “politically incorrect”.

Can you express support for the Conservative Party of Canada on your Facebook page and coach kids’ hockey? After all, many supporters of the Green, Liberal and NDP parties would consider Conservative ideas, particularly social Conservative ideas “politically incorrect”.

But hey wait, you say. Comparing fundamentalist Christians and Conservatives to Nazis is absurd. Nazism is a totalitarian ideology associated with the commission of some of the most horrendous crimes in human history. But guess what? So is Communism. In fact the “body count” of Comrade Stalin or Mao is many times greater than Hitlers’. Funny though, many people with a Communist past in Canada, like former BQ leader Gilles Duceppe for example, were never held accountable by the media for it. In Canada, being a student Marxist has been treated almost like a rite of passage, a forgiveble stage of growing up. Those with a Nazi past, though, were hounded and deported. 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Blasting the Persecution of Christopher Sandau</p>
<p>http://www.thenownewspaper.com/news/north-delta-hockey-coach-fired-for-nazi-obsession-on-facebook-1.1496455#</p>
<p>Tom Zytaruk<br />
The Now Newspaper. </p>
<p>So let me get this straight. Somebody with a politically incorrect belief system who did not share it with the kids he taught or coached should be fired because a person who holds such beliefs must be regarded as  a poor "role model". As one parent said, "You can't be a Nazi and coach kids' hockey".</p>
<p>OK then. Can you be a fundamentalist Christian and coach kids' hockey? For a great many people, fundamentalist Christian beliefs are politically incorrect. Members of the Law Society in this province, for example, recently voted for a policy that would deny graduates of the Trinity College law school accreditation because of principles thought to be, well, "politically incorrect".</p>
<p>Can you express support for the Conservative Party of Canada on your Facebook page and coach kids' hockey? After all, many supporters of the Green, Liberal and NDP parties would consider Conservative ideas, particularly social Conservative ideas "politically incorrect".</p>
<p>But hey wait, you say. Comparing fundamentalist Christians and Conservatives to Nazis is absurd. Nazism is a totalitarian ideology associated with the commission of some of the most horrendous crimes in human history. But guess what? So is Communism. In fact the "body count" of Comrade Stalin or Mao is many times greater than Hitlers'. Funny though, many people with a Communist past in Canada, like former BQ leader Gilles Duceppe for example, were never held accountable by the media for it. In Canada, being a student Marxist has been treated almost like a rite of passage, a forgiveable stage of growing up. Those with a Nazi past, though, were hounded and deported. </p>
<p>Throughout the sixties and seventies and eighties, Leftists and progressives decried the persecution of the "Hollywood Ten" and others, like Pete Seeger, who were blacklisted for their alleged Communist sympathies. (But according to recent revelations by Washington Post journalist and author Diana West, many of these allegations were based on fact.) More than that, at least in Canada, many self-described Communists served on city councils,unions, school boards and taught in schools. Hmm. Interesting. It is also interesting no one on the Left seems to have a problem with a guy getting fired for his far-right beliefs or sympathies or associations.  </p>
<p>That leads me to wonder. If Mr. Sandau made his Facebook page "a shrine for Communism", do you think he would have been fired?  Would he have been fired if he questioned the estimated number, 8 million, of Ukrainians killed in the Holomodor, which has long been established as a Plan to wipe put the kulaks? A great many, if not most members of the Canadian Communist Party at one time publicly denied that the Ukrainian "Holocaust" happened, but no one demanded that they be fired. No one, I seem to remember, ever stated that you can't be a Communist and coach kids' hockey (or teach kids in classrooms, as many of them did). </p>
<p>The double standards and hypocrisy over this issue astounds me. But then again, in Canada, it has become par for the course.</p>
<p>Malcolm Ross---a published anti-semite,  was fired from his teaching job in New Brunswick even though he was well regarded by students as a good Math teacher who never shared political views with them. The School Board, as I recall, made the argument that Ross, given his off-hours views, presented students with a poor role model. I don't recall the Civil Liberties Union rising to his defence. Meanwhile, in BC, the BC Civil Liberties Union defended a  teacher in North Vancouver who was fired by a Catholic School Board when it was learned that he was living common law.  The Board argued that he was a bad role model for Catholic students and that he had violated the values of the school. The BCCLU argued that what this teacher did in his private life was irrelevant to his competence as a teacher. I guess it all depends whose ideological ox is being gored. </p>
<p>In the wake of this story about Mr. Sandau's firing, I am going to have to take a gravol tablet on Remembrance Day, when once again, I will undoubtedly hear someone say "They died so that we could be free". Free? Free to say only things that are deemed to fall within the pale of socially acceptable discourse? Free to repeat only approved history? Is bona fide history only to be written and interpreted by the victors, as Herman Goering cynically said? Apparently. </p>
<p>I had two uncles who fought in the war to rid Europe of Adolph Hitler. One of them didn't come back. I don't believe that either one of them, if they could speak from the grave, who be happy with the kind of country that Canada has become, a place where more and more, people must be worried about what they say. No wonder many have come to regard Canada as a "Soft Totalitarian State".</p>
<p>McCarthyism---from the Right or, as is now the case, from the Left, -- is totally unacceptable. No one should lose his job simply for expressing abhorrent political views. </p>
<p>Tim Murray</p>
<p>PS Please feel free to copy this email to the gutless wonders who serve on the North Delta Minor Hockey Association. No doubt their decision has earned plaudits in every self-righteous bastion of PC groupthink across the land.


Throughout the sixties and seventies and eighties, Leftists and progressives decried the persecution of the “Hollywood Ten” and others, like Pete Seeger, who were blacklisted for their alleged Communist sympathies. (But according to recent revelations by Washington Post journalist and author Diana West, many of these allegations were based on fact.) More than that, at least in Canada, many self-described Communists served on city councils,unions, school boards and taught in schools. Hmm. Interesting. It is also interesting no one on the Left seems to have a problem with a guy getting fired for his far-right beliefs or sympathies or associations.

That leads me to wonder. If Mr. Sandau made his Facebook page “a shrine for Communism”, do you think he would have been fired?  Would he have been fired if he questioned the estimated number, 8 million, of Ukrainians killed in the Holomodor, which has long been established as a Plan to wipe put the kulaks? A great many, if not most members of the Canadian Communist Party at one time publicly denied that the Ukrainian “Holocaust” happened, but no one demanded that they be fired. No one, I seem to remember, ever stated that you can’t be a Communist and coach kids’ hockey (or teach kids in classrooms, as many of them did).

The double standards and hypocrisy over this issue astounds me. But then again, in Canada, it has become par for the course.

Malcolm Ross—a published anti-semite,  was fired from his teaching job in New Brunswick even though he was well regarded by students as a good Math teacher who never shared political views with them. The School Board, as I recall, made the argument that Ross, given his off-hours views, presented students with a poor role model. I don’t recall the Civil Liberties Union rising to his defence. Meanwhile, in BC, the BC Civil Liberties Union defended a  teacher in North Vancouver who was fired by a Catholic School Board when it was learned that he was living common law.  The Board argued that he was a bad role model for Catholic 

Freedom of Speech in Canada? No way! Hockey Coach Fired for Pro-National Socialist Facebook Comments

Freedom of Speech in Canada? No way! Hockey Coach Fired for Pro-National Socialist Facebook Comments

 
Free to hold controversial views? Not in politically correct Canada!
 
Doug Christie often warned: “It doesn’t matter what is written in constitutions or Charters of Rights and Freedoms. You only have those rights you are prepared to fight for.”
 
Freedom of speech and freedom of thought are very much in peril in Canada today. Many people just don’t get it.
 
Christopher-Maximillian Sandau posted some of his historical views on his Facebook page. He expressed doubts about the 6-million claim — an article of faith more sacred in political correctness than the divinity of Christ is for Christians. He felt German World War II villainy is exaggerated.
 
The Langley, BC man’s main love in life is coaching amateur hockey. He never tried to indoctrinate the young hockey players. However, when the contents of his Facebook page became known, the local hockey league promptly dismissed him.
 
So, the man is fired for nothing more than the non-violent expression of his political/historical views on his own time. Some anonymous (of course!) parent even pontificates:  “ You can’t be a Nazi and coach kids hockey.” Well, what if you’re a communist, a homosexual activist, or a Zionist? Mr. Sandau denies being a supporter of National Socialism, but, even if her were, so what?
More than ever, CAFE and free speech supporters have our work cut out for us in convincing Canadians of the sacred importance of freedom of thought and freedom of speech.
A minor hockey coach in British Columbia has been fired for posting pro-Nazi content on his Facebook page, conceding to one local reporter following his dismissal: ‘I get it, it’s a really touchy subject.’ Christopher Maximilian Sandau was formally relieved of his duties on Saturday, after the North Delta Minor Hockey Association discovered his online activities. He was coaching teams with players the age of middle school students.

‘Hockey has been my life,’ Sandau told The Surrey Now, a paper headquartered about an hour’s drive east of Vancouver. ‘My view on the history basically got me canned. A lot of people have no idea about the other side of the story.’

‘The posts contained extreme and objectionable material believed to be incompatible with an important purpose of our minor hockey association: ‘To promote and encourage good citizenship,’ association president Anita Cairney said in a release. ‘The (hockey association) requires that our coaches present themselves as positive role models for our children athletes.’ …

The Surrey Now quoted an unidentified parent: ‘You can’t be a Nazi and coach kids hockey.’

A Facebook page under Sandau’s name was pulled down late Wednesday afternoon. Before it disappeared, it was a curated library of sympathetic Nazi images and commentary. One of the most recent posts had been made on Tuesday, featuring a photograph of an undated Nazi rally under the caption: ‘Not too many speakers get the attendance of over a million people from far and wide…’

‘I was doing a good job and I wasn’t trying to impose my political beliefs or anything on anyone,’ Sandau told CTV. “From the time I stepped onto the parking lot of the arena to the time I left, I was all about hockey and trying to help the kids get better.”

Sandau, a 33-year-old resident of Langley, B.C., told The Surrey Now he considered himself ‘a big history buff,” and claimed of the Holocaust: ‘There is no such plan, there was no idea.’

‘These people died from typhus,’ he told the paper. ‘The Germans were actually doing their best to save these people. These people were not that evil as we’re told.'” (National Post, November 5, 2014)

 

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Christopher Sandau was removed from his role with the North Delta Minor Hockey Association over the weekend.

Screengrab/Twitter/@ChrisMaxSandauChristopher Sandau was removed from his role with the North Delta Minor Hockey Association over the weekend.

British Columbia Lawyers Just Voted to Discriminate Against Christians

ForCanada

 

 
British Columbia Lawyers Just Voted to Discriminate Against Christians

It should be front page news across Canada: British Columbia’s lawyers have just voted to ban any Trinity Western University law school graduate from practicing law in B.C.

Not because these students would be unqualified.

Not because they have done anything unethical.

The opposite, in fact: it’s because Trinity Western students sign a personal conduct pledge to live by Christian values — including to abstain from sex outside a traditional marriage.

Incredibly, this voluntary, personal ethics pledge is the very reason why B.C.’s lawyers are blacklisting Trinity Western students.

It’s shocking. It’s illegal — the Supreme Court of Canada already dealt with this subject, when the B.C. teachers profession tried to blacklist Trinity Western students before. The Supreme Court ruled 8 to 1 in favour of the school.

The benchers of the B.C. law society — that is, the small group of lawyers elected to run the profession — had originally decided to do the right thing, and accredit the university. But a group of anti-Christian bigots forced a province-wide vote on the question. And to the profession’s everlasting shame, a majority of the lawyers who voted, voted for bigotry.

These B.C. lawyers surely know that they’re flouting the Supreme Court’s ruling. But these lawyers don’t care — their own anti-Christian bigotry trumps their belief in the rule of law.

It’s a disgrace.

There are lawyers in B.C. from a variety of religious backgrounds — Muslims, Sikhs, Jews, etc. But only lawyers who follow Christian ethics will be banned.

That’s bigotry. That’s un-Canadian. It cannot stand.

Last night I interviewed Earl Phillips, the executive director of Trinity Western’s law school. He was much more polite than me — maybe that’s his job. But I’m steaming mad.

Here’s the video of our interview

Please watch it, and tell me what you think.

Do you think we should fight back?

We’ve already sent a massive petition to the law society — the largest in B.C. history. But it doesn’t seem to have worked.

I think the next step is to hire a lawyer, to sue the law society, and force them to comply with our Charter of Rights.

We just can’t sit idly by while this discrimination happens right before our very eyes — by the very profession whose mission is to protect our rights.

I’m not ready to announce anything like a lawsuit yet. But I’ll keep you posted.

In the meantime, we’ve got to keep raising the alarm.

This is bigger than just Trinity Western. This is about freedom of religion for our entire country. This is about stopping the foul precedent that these law societies are setting, that anti-Christian discrimination is somehow acceptable.

Yours truly,

Ezra Levant

http://www.forcanada.ca/