Paul Fromm Reports on the Final Submissions on Behalf of YOUR WARD NEWS at the Hearings into the Cancellation of Their Mailing Rights

Paul Fromm Reports on the Final Submissions on Behalf of YOUR WARD NEWS at the Hearings into the Cancellation of Their Mailing Rights

Jan 23, 2018 at THE CANADA POST BOARD OF REVIEW In the matter of Minister Judy Foote’s interim probationary order respecting James Sears, Lawrence (Leroy) St.Germain and YOUR WARD NEWS My Statement to The Board of Review… Link to YOUR WARD NEWS

Political Censorship: Facebook Bans NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC Cover for `Nudity“

Political Censorship: Facebook Bans NATIONAL GEOGRAPHIC Cover for `Nudity“

Was it the tame, though morally disgusting picture of National Geographics cover or the political message that occasioned a Facebook ban on the post below saying it violated their `community standards`?

Facebook is notorious for censorship of White nationalist or conservative posts.

Paul Fromm


Canadian Association for Free Expression

The planned genocide of Europeans through mass alien immigration and race mixing

Image may contain: 2 people, people standing and text

Jewish Free Speech Activist Brings Plight of Alison Chablox & Monika Schaefer to Meeting of Ann Arbor City Council

Jewish Free Speech Activist Brings Plight of Alison Chablox & Monika Schaefer to Meeting of Ann Arbor City Council

Henry Herskovitz is an active Jewish supporter of free speech. Here he addresses the Ann Arbor City Council about free speech martyrs Alison Chabloz and Monika Schaefer.

City Council Meeting from 1/16/18

and fast forward to 00:10:40 to catch the beginning of my talk.g,

I bring to Council’s attention the names of two women, whose stories do not appear in the Ann Arbor News, the New York Times or the Washington Post. They are Alison Chabloz and Monika Schaefer. Alison hails from Great Britain, and Monika is a Canadian citizen. They are united in the fact that both are musicians and both sing satirical verses challenging the truthfulness of Holocaust narratives. Their followings are small, but vociferous and engaged.

Monika Schaefer lives in Jasper, Alberta, and was attending the trial of lawyer Sylvia Stolz in Germany. Stolz is on trial for what the German government falsely labels “Holocaust denial”. During a recess, Monika was apprehended by German authorities and has been held in administrative detention since January 10. The Jewish advocacy group, B’Nai Brith Canada, had filed complaints against Monika with the German government, and appears to be taking credit for her detention there.

Alison Chabloz lives in Derbyshire County, England, and according to the UK Daily mail is accused of calling the gas chambers a ‘hoax’ and has been taken to court “…in what is believed to be the first private prosecution in the UK for anti-Jewish racism.” The private party refers to the Committee Against Anti-Semitism.

Ms. Chabloz hopes to turn the tables: She writes, ” Following previous treatment of me by Derbyshire Constabulary, including six arrests, unwarranted detention and seizure of my property [they are] seemingly … reluctant to carry out any proper investigation into harassment of which I am the victim”.

In regards to knowledge about the Holocaust, Americas appear to lag well behind other western nations. We are not informed about Alison or Monika, nor were we told much during Ernst Zundel’s two trials in Toronto during the 1980’s. We can only speculate as to the reasons for this apparent blackout, but with Council’s permission, I’d like to paraphrase Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller :

First, they came for America’s white nationalists, and I did not speak out – Because I was not a white nationalist.

Then they came for the anti-Israel activists, and I did not speak out – Because I supported Jewish Supremacism in Palestine.

Then they came for they came for the Revisionists, and I did not speak out – Because I was ignorant of Revisionism.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

Thank you

What Would You Do … if you, too, were arrested for free speech?

What Would You Do … if you, too, were arrested for free speech?

Host Kenn Gividen (in Indiana), co-host Charles Edward Lincoln III (in New Orleans) discuss political prisoner Monika Schaefer, a Canadian citizen,  held incommunicado in a German prison with her brother, revisionist videographer Alfred Schaefer (in Bavaria) and Paul Fromm (in Port Credit, Canada) of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.

You can write a card or letter of support to Monika:

Monika Schaefer, Political Prisoner,

Stadelheim Prison

Schwarzenbergstr. 14

81549 München,


And protest to the German Ambassador in your country:


 Mr Werner Wnendt, 

Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany,

1 Waverley Street

Ontario K2P OT8
P.O. Box 379, Postal Station “A”
Ottawa, ON K1N 8V4


Mr. Peter Wittig,

Ambassador of the Federal Republic of Germany,

Embassy of the Federal Republic of Germany

4645 Reservoir Road NW

Washington, DC 20007

Phone (202) 298-4000 • Live Talk Show tonight at 6 pm Eastern This is a…

Britons awake! This trial isn’t about me, it’s about all of us

Britons awake! This trial isn’t about me, it’s about all of us

180111 undefeated

They came from far and wide in defiance of this latest assault on our freedoms. From Lancashire, Liverpool, Scotland and all the way from Canada – thank you Mr Fromm! The media coverage was glorious – mostly down to so many turning up in support, me being handed flowers outside court and general media astonishment at my songs being played in court. And no, I certainly did not sing along – nor did I mouth the words. Where this fake news originated I have no idea – perhaps a reaction to my song Find Me Guilty? In particular, the line:

I’ll sing my way to court in high heels and a frock
Give the press a winning smile from inside the dock!

After the day’s proceedings, – my trial now bizarrely adjourned (again) to March 7th – I fell ill with food poisoning and had to be ushered into a taxi (my high heels thankfully not ruined). A sickly night followed and I’m still not 100%. That’ll teach me not to eat fresh Shetland mussels (one of which clearly wasn’t that fresh) the night before a court hearing.

The next morning, I awoke to a 30-day Facebook ban (for publishing a fake news post, clearly tagged as #fakenews) and 60 emails from YouTube informing that my entire library was now subject to sandboxing restrictions. My channel still exists, but no longer appears in searches either on Google or on YouTube. In any case, over half my videos are banned in the UK in order to comply with some non-existent local law. Clearly, my accusers and their team of trusted flaggers have been very busy. Still, 4.5k views on Facebook of my little Christmas ditty won’t please them.

Asides all the mainstream coverage, there have been several alternative media broadcasts. Two of The Fetch’s recent Inside the Eye Live! shows have featured segments on my case, including last Thursday’s Oy Vey Moment (worth a listen just for the jingle – from about 34 minutes in).  Dennis’ second show features an interview with Ross who came to support me last Wednesday, also well worth a listen, from about 80 minutes in. Ditto regards last night’s Radio Aryan edition of  The Daily Nationalist with Sven Longshanks and Jez Turner.

This coming Thursday, you’ll be able to hear me in conversation with Andrew Carrington Hitchcock on Euro Folk Radio (recorded a few days before last week’s court appearance but a great show nonetheless) and next Monday, I’ll be the featured guest on the Graham Hart show when, if all goes well, you’ll be able to hear one or two of my songs.

Once again, HUGE thanks to those who came in support last Wednesday. As the title of this piece confirms – my trial is not about me, it’s about us all. See you March 7th, same time same place.

If you would like to support Alison, please see the right-hand sidebar where you will find links to PayPal and BitCoin.

Comments, likes and shares are of course also welcome. You can also find Alison on Gab, and on her new Facebook backup account.

They came from far and wide in defiance of this latest assault on our freedoms. From Lancashire, Liverpool, Scotland and all the way from Canada – thank you Mr Fromm! The media coverage was g…
Attachments area



Host claims transgender people have a right not to be offended

Paul Joseph Watson | – JANUARY 17, 2018 187 Comments


A clip in which Professor Jordan B. Peterson explains why his free speech is more important than the risk of a transgender person being offended is going viral.

Peterson was previously embroiled in a controversy as a result of his refusal to comply with Canada’s draconian Bill C-16, which makes it a hate crime to not use someone’s preferred gender pronouns.

The video features Peterson, who is currently doing a series of lectures in London, being interviewed by far-left UK broadcaster Channel 4.

Host Cathy Newman asks the professor, “Why should your right to freedom of speech trump a trans person’s right not to be offended?”

First of all, the idea that someone has a right to not be offended is hilarious. No such right exists.

Peterson’s comeback is brutal.

“Because in order to be able to think, you have to risk being offensive – I mean look at the conversation we’re having right now – you’re certainly willing to risk offending me in the pursuit of truth – why should you have the right to do that?”

“You get my point, you’re doing what you should do,” Peterson continues. “Which is digging a bit to see what the hell’s going on and that is what you should do, but you’re exercising your freedom of speech to certainly risk offending me, and that’s fine, more power to you as far as I’m concerned.”

The host is dumbfounded, stammering, “So you haven’t sat there and….I’m just trying to work that out” before she falls silent and completely loses the ability to speak.

Peterson leans back and takes a sip of water having achieved a simple yet crushing victory.

Respondents to the video expressed their glee.

“They should probably go back to smearing him on their clickbait blogs. Debating him probably wasnt a very smart idea,” commented one.

“Absolutely demolished,” added another.

“This is legendary,” remarked another.

“I don’t think I have ever witnessed an interview that is more catastrophic for the interviewer,” wrote author Douglas Murray.

Channel 4 is obviously not too keen on seeing the clip go viral. It’s completely blocked on Facebook.

IHR Director Mark Weber Banned From Britain

IHR Director Mark Weber Banned From Britain

Theresa May’s 2015 Order Cites Alleged Quotes That a Major Newspaper Now Acknowledges Were Inaccurate or DistortedNews from Institute for Historical Review
January 2018 (Updated)

Weber speaking at the April 2015
‘London Forum’ Meeting

Mark Weber, an American historian and director of the Institute for Historical Review, was banned from Britain in April 2015 by order of Theresa May, who is now the country’s Prime Minister. The decision to ban him was “taken personally” by May while she was serving as Home Secretary, Britain’s Home Office has acknowledged.

As justification for the ban, her order cites three statements allegedly made by Weber, as reported in a sensational article in Britain’s Mail on Sundaynewspaper. After the exclusion order was issued, the paper publicly acknowledged that the first of the three statements attributed to Weber was never made by him, and that a portion of the second statement was likewise not by him.

Moreover, the second and third statements cited in the order are distortions of remarks Weber had made at a “London Forum” meeting on April 11, 2015 – as he explained in a letter to the Home Office of Jan. 9, 2018. (Full text below). That letter is a response to a Home Office letter to Weber of Dec. 22, 2017, and a Home Office file letter of April 29, 2015. (Facsimiles below.)

Theresa May
Home Secretary in 2015, and now Prime Minister

The text of Weber’s address, titled “The Danger and Challenge of Jewish-Zionist Power,” is posted on the IHR website, along with an audio recording. A video of the talk is posted on YouTube.

The “London Forum” gathering, which drew an audience of more than a hundred, received extensive but hostile coverage in major British newspapers, as well as by Jewish news services. Although media reports called the event a gathering of “Holocaust deniers,” in fact not a single one of the speakers at the meeting spoke about the Holocaust, or said anything that could be considered “Holocaust denial.”

London’s Metropolitan Police Force looked into the talks by Weber and the other speakers, and decided that what they said “does not reach the threshold for a criminal investigation,” the London Daily Express reported. The news that Weber and the other speakers “would go unpunished provoked outrage in the Jewish community,” the Express also noted. A spokesman for the “Campaign Against Anti-Semitism” organization, the paper reported, said that the “speakers should have been barred from the UK.”

“The decision to ban me from the UK,” says Weber, “was based on inaccurate, untrue or distorted claims from a sensational and hostile second-hand report. British authorities made no effort to check the accuracy of the statements cited to justify this ‘McCarthyite’ ban.”

“If authorities in, say, Russia or Poland or China, were to ban peaceful UK citizens from entering those countries on the basis of similarly sensational and inaccurate reports,” Weber adds, “British politicians and media commentators would understandably protest and voice their outrage.”

The current government of Prime Minister Theresa May is one of the most ardently pro-Zionist in British history. In a speech on Nov. 4, 2017, for example, she praised and defended the notorious Balfour Declaration of 1917, by which Britain pledged to support the Zionist campaign to establish a “Jewish homeland” in Palestine. That Declaration is widely regarded as a blatant betrayal by Britain of its often-proclaimed devotion to the principles of democracy and self-determination.

In April and May 2015 Weber persistently urged the Mail on Sunday to correct at least the most egregious errors about him in its report on the “London Forum” meeting. After exchanges of e-mail messages by Weber with the paper’s managing editor, John Wellington, and a face-to-face talk with Peter Sheridan, the paper’s correspondent in California, the Mail on Sunday in late May or early June 2015 added a “correction” footnote to its posted report that acknowledged that it had inaccurately attributed at least two quotations to Weber — quotations that were cited in the UK ban against him.

Mark Weber is director of the Institute for Historical Review (IHR), an independent educational and publishing center that works to promote peace, understanding and justice through greater public awareness of the past, and especially socially-politically relevant aspects of modern history. It is recognized by the U.S. Internal Revenue Service as a 501(c)(3) public interest, educational, not-for-profit enterprise. Founded in 1978, the IHR is non-partisan, non-ideological, and non-sectarian. Its offices are in Orange County, southern California.

Mark Weber holds Bachelor’s and Master’s degrees in history. In 1988 he testified for five days in Toronto District Court as a recognized expert on Germany’s World War II Jewish policy.

Weber first learned that he was banned from the UK on Sept. 23, 2017, at the international airport of Madrid, Spain, as he was about to board a flight to London’s Heathrow airport for a lay-over of a few hours before getting a connecting flight to return home to California. He was obliged to pay hundreds of dollars to arrange belated alternative flights back to the US.

After his return home, Weber wrote letters to relevant British agencies, including the Home Office, to learn more about the ban. It was not until January 4, 2018, that he received letters from the Home Office explaining just how and on what basis he had been barred from entering the UK.

The UK government routinely bans visitors “if their presence would not be conducive to the public good.” Although British authorities will not say just who is on its list of “excluded” persons, it is known that Edward Snowden, Martha Stewart, Louis Farrakhan, Pamela Geller, Michael Savage and Geert Wilders are among those who have been banned.

Mark Weber

P.O. Box 2739, Newport Beach, CA 92659 Tel. 714 -593 9725 E-mail: sends e-mail)January 9, 2018

Ref.: W1993505

Home Office
P. O. Box 1922
Croydon, Surrey CR90 9DD
England – UK

Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your recently-received letter of Dec. 22, 2017 (copy enclosed) in response to my letters to the Home Office of October 5 and November 6, 2017. I also appreciate that you enclosed a copy of your letter or notice of April 29, 2015 (copy enclosed), which explains how and on what basis the decision was made to exclude me from the UK.

In your April 2015 letter, three statements attributed to me are cited as reason or grounds for the decision. You then write: “The Home Secretary considers that should you be allowed to enter the UK you would continue to espouse such views. In doing so, you would be committing listed behaviours and would therefore be behaving in a way that is not conducive to the public good.”

My main purpose in writing today is to explain that the decision to exclude me from the UK was based on second-hand information that is, at least in part, inaccurate, untrue or distorted.

The first of the three statements attributed to me in your April 2015 letter is this: “The Holocaust is a religion. Its underpinnings in the realm of historical fact are non-existent – no Hitler order, no plan, no budget, no gas chambers, no autopsies of gassed victims, no bones, no ashes, no skulls, no nothing.”

In fact, I never wrote or uttered those words, and I do not agree with them.

No source, or even a date, is given for this statement. To the best of my knowledge, it was first (inaccurately) attributed to me some years ago by the “Anti-Defamation League,” an influential US-based Jewish-Zionist organization.

The second of the three statements attributed to me in your April 2015 letter is this: “The Jewish connection covers all areas and reaches every level. Most Americans may not even sense this gigantic effort, but there is scarcely a Jew who is not touched by its tentacles. In reality, the Jewish hold on American life is far more dangerous. Why? Jews in America have a strong loyalty to a foreign country – Israel. Secondly, because of the distrustful and sometimes adversarial way in which Jews view the rest of us. This ‘chosen people’ mindset, this ‘Us vs Them’ attitude, is anchored in centuries of Jewish history and heritage.”

As your April 2015 letter makes clear, this statement, as well as the third one you cite, were attributed to me in an item, headlined “Nazi Invasion of London Exposed,” that appeared in the Mail on Sunday of April 18, 2015, which sensationally reported on a talk I gave at a meeting in London one week earlier. As your April 2015 letter notes, this item is posted online at

The first two sentences of the second statement are actually not by me. As I made clear in my London talk, those two sentences were quotations from The Zionist Connection, a detailed study by Jewish-American scholar Alfred M. Lilienthal, issued by Dodd, Mead, a respected New York publisher.

The remainder of that second statement, as well as the third statement attributed to me in your April 2015 letter, are likewise distortions of remarks I made in my address at that London meeting.

The full text of my London talk is posted at:

A video of my April 2015 London address is posted online at:

I was so concerned by the errors and distortions in that Mail on Sunday report, on which you have relied, that in April 2015 I sent an e-mail message to managing editor John Wellington to ask him to correct at least the most blatant errors. I also met in person with Peter Sheridan, the Mail on Sundaycorrespondent in California, to gain his help in correcting errors about me in his paper.

After several exchanges of e-mail communications with both Wellington and Sheridan, and some delay, the Mail on Sunday in late May or early June added a “correction” footnote to its posted report acknowledging that it had inaccurately attributed to me at least two quotations – quotations cited by the Home Office as grounds for its exclusion decision. Of course, that online Mail on Sunday correction was made after the decision had already been made to exclude me from the UK.

Although you mention that there is no “statutory right of appeal against the Home Secretary’s decision,” I urge you to inform the appropriate authorities that the April 2015 decision to exclude me from the UK is based on second-hand information that is, at least in part, inaccurate, untrue or distorted. I further respectfully ask the appropriate authorities to reconsider and rescind the decision to exclude me from the UK.


Mark Weber



We have learned that Monika has been advised that she may be in prison for some months awaiting trial.

Her brother Alfred sent out this update today: “Yesterday we got a phone call from a “Social Worker” in the Stadelheim prison who is responsible for Monika.  She asked if we had received a letter from Monika yet. No, we have received nothing. These things are held back and they like to take their timeI

I just got a call from the Canadian consulate. There is good news and bad news. 

The good news:   Monika is in good spirits, I did not expect anything else. She is not completely alone, she is sharing a cell with another woman, I think this is changing often because she is in “Untersuchungshaft” detention awaiting trial. Her lawyer is the same lawyer that Sylvia Stolz has, a Mr Wolfram Nahrath. . Mr Nahrath want Monika to be taken out of the list of “Holocaust deniers” in this “group” charge. This list has a number of names on it including myself, Gerd Ittner, Henry Haffenmayer, and a few more. I have never seen this charge yet, so I can say nothing more about it. 

Lots of letters and mail is good, it embarrasses them and they get even more panicky.

I can not speculate what they may or may not do. I do know that so far I have stayed out of jail by being ever more brazen and screaming out their bad behavior all over the internet. They are not the monolithic entity that they like to present themselves as. We need to go full offensive with all guns a’blazing.” — Alfred Schaefer

What you can do to help Monika.

Send a letter or car to political prisoner Monika Schaefer. You may also include a few German postage stamps or 5 or 10 Euros for spending money.

Monika Schaefer

Stadelheim Prison

Schwarzenbergstr. 14

81549 München,


Germans Rage As New Hate Speech Law Backfires

Germans Rage As New Hate Speech Law Backfires

by Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge – January 7, 2018

As we reported recently, in what was officially a noble attempt to eliminate online hate speech in social media, and unofficially a devious crackdown on free speech, on January 1, 2018, Germany passed a law that forces websites to censor content deemed illegal under the new law and have it deleted within 24-hours. Ironically, as we observed last week, just hours after the law’s passage it immediately backfired when it claimed its first victim, a German satirical magazine’s Twitter account which “parodied anti-Muslim comment.”

Incidentally, this perfectly predictable if “totally unexpected” outcome is exactly what we, and many others had warned would happen. And now, it is finally dawning on Germany that any time the government gets involved in defining what is allowed and what isn’t – especially when it comes to that most fundamental of liberties, free speech – the result is always a disaster.

According to Germany’s top-selling, and most popular newspaper, Bild, the new German law meant to curtail online hate speech is “stifling free speech and making martyrs out of anti-immigrant politicians whose posts are deleted.”

The law which took effect on Jan. 1 can impose fines of up to 50 million euros ($60 million) on sites that fail to remove hate speech promptly and threatens the profitability  of such social media giants as Twitter and Facebook.

Please spare us the thought police!” read the headline in Wednesday’s Bild above an article that called the law a “sin” against freedom of opinion enshrined in Germany’s constitution, Reuters reported.


While the law requires social media sites to delete or block obviously criminal content within 24 hours, Bild Editor-in-Chief Julian Reichelt said it could be applied against anything and anyone since there was no definition of what was “manifestly unlawful” in most cases.  Intended to prevent radical groups from gaining influence, “it was having precisely the opposite effect,” he warned.  “The law against online hate speech failed on its very first day. It should be abolished immediately,” Reichelt wrote, adding that the law was turning AfD politicians into “opinion martyrs”.

* * *

Two examples where the German law was already applied, included tweets deleted by AfD lawmaker Beatrix von Storch criticising police for tweeting in Arabic, saying they had sought “to appease the barbaric, Muslim, rapist hordes of men”. Police have since asked prosecutors to investigate her for possible incitement to hatred.


There was also deleted tweet by another AfD member of parliament, Jens Maier, called Noah Becker – the son of former tennis champion Boris Becker – a “half-nigger”.

In response to the criticism, Germany’s Justice Minister Heiko Maas defended the law, telling Bild that freedom of opinion did not mean carte blanche to spread criminal content on the internet.

“Calls to murder, threats, insults and incitement of the masses or Auschwitz lies are not an expression of freedom of opinion but rather attacks on the freedom of opinion of others,” he said.

Germany is no stranger to limiting free speech: the country has some of the world’s toughest laws on defamation, incitement to commit crimes and threats of violence, with prison sentences for Holocaust denial or inciting hatred against minorities.  Maas said social networks needed to stick to the law like everyone else, adding: “Those who care about protecting freedom of opinion can’t just look on as criminal incitement and threats inhibit the open exchange of views.”  And so, the government refuses to back down even as the rest of Germany realizes what a profound chilling effect the new law will have on online speech everywhere. Once the lawsuits start flying and the social networks are punished a few hundred million, it will only embolden the critics, who will then lash out again “anything and anyone” because, as the Bild editor correctly noted, “there is no definition of what was manifestly unlawful.” Incidentally, this inexplicably broad definition, one which puts any content creator immediately on the defensive, is precisely what the government intended.