Political Prisoner Brad Love at Work in Fort McMurray 

Free Speech Monitor

Number 215                                               March, 2014


Small Victory: Political Prisoner Brad Love Can Now Write His Lawyer

LINDSAY, Ontario, February 3, 2014. Four court appearances and over two months after the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) charged Canadian political prisoner Brad Love (already in jail for writing letters) with breach of bail conditions for writing a letter to his own lawyer, the Crown withdrew the charge this morning. Mr. Love can now legally write letters. Appearing before Mr. Justice Chester, Crown Attorney Jennifer Broderick withdrew a charge of breach of undertaking (bail) against Mr. Love.

The charge should never have been laid. Last May, Mr. Love was charged with several counts of sending “scurrilous” material through the mail and harassment of several Fort McMurray media people and politicians, He had sent them non-threatening political literature and had phoned them. In hypersensitive, politically correct Canada, recipients of critical or — that empty all pervasive term of negativity — “inappropriate” material, instead of tossing it in the garbage, call the political police. Mr. Love’s initial bail conditions might have been forged in North Korea. Mr. Love, already in prison for  five months awaiting an appeal date for a May, 2012 conviction and draconian sentence of 18 months for breach of probation — sending information packages to four Toronto Jewish groups — was charged by police on November 28 for writing to his own lawyer, Peter Lindsay.


The bail conditions forbad him to “communicate by post, e-mail or text” with anybody. [Yes, such tyranny was imposed in Canada!] With CAFE’s help and legal research, Mr. Love appeared in Court in Fort McMurray, July 11, 2013 and had the bail conditions amended so that he was forbidden to communicate only with the parties involved in the complaint against him — a significant  victory. The Crown, however, despite Mr. Love’s court appearances December 19, January 2 and 20, seemed unable to locate the transcript of the order. Mr. Lindsay finally obtained the transcript of the more reasonable bail conditions and today the Crown withdrew the charge. The scandal is that the Crown studiously ignored and clearly did not adequately investigate Mr. Love’s honest assurances from the beginning that the conditions had been varied. Also, several Ontario Crowns seemed to see no problem in conditions that might even make Kim Jong On blush — no written communication with anyone! This is a minor victory in a 12-year saga of legal harassment of a non-violent dissident whose only “crime” is writing non-violent letters to media or public officials.

 Free Speech Takes A Thumping: McCorkill Will Is “Against Public Policy”

ST. JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK. January 27, 2014. The atmosphere inside Courtroom 13 was more frigid for freedom of thought than the bitter Maritime winter outside the courtroom. This morning lawyers argued that the will of the late Professor Robert McCorkill giving a bequest to the White Nationalist U.S.-based National Alliance be set aside. It was like an Anti-racist Action meeting with slogans of “neo-Nazi” “White supremacist” and “racist” snapping through the air in the Court of Queen’ Bench. There was a lot of “hate” in the air or, at least, how much certain people hate “hate.”

Moncton lawyer Marc-Antoine Chiasson led off the complainant’s case before Judge William T. Grant. He represents the long-estranged sister of the late Robert McCorkill who brought this current action to nullify the bequest. She turned up or was found after being silent during the nine years since her brother’s death, after the militantly anti-free speech U.S.-based Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) found out about the bequest soon after the will was probated in May, 2013. The exceedingly well-funded SPLC, an arch enemy of the National Alliance, went on the warpath to stop the bequest. The only problem for them was that they have no legal standing in Canada. Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman was soon being quoted in the press commenting that the bequest should be nullified because it was contrary to public policy. Isabelle McCorkell [yes, different spelling] emerged and, although she claims to live on $1,000 a month,  hired a pricey Moncton law firm to obtain an ex-parte injunction freezing the assets of the will and then a further application to nullify the bequest. Piling in to support her were the Attorney General of New Brunswick , the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

“This is an unusual case,” Mr. Chiasson noted. And then the smears and name-calling began: “The Court must decide whether it is acceptable or appropriate to leave a bequest to a White supremacist, neo-Nazi organization that wants to rid North America of Jews. We should not be able to interfere with a will on a whim because we don’t like the beneficiary,” he added. [Then, why are we here? I wondered.] However, he added, “there is a certain line that cannot be crossed, but the line has been crossed with the bequest to the National Alliance and we ask this Court to intervene. The Court should intervene in very few cases,” he admitted. However, an exception should be made for “hate propaganda” and “hate groups.”

The three lawyers arguing for the application repeatedly demanded suppression of people and views their clients didn’t like. “Any group that promotes views contrary to the human rights codes is unacceptable,” Mr. Chiasson announced. “The International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination condemns all groups that promote the superiority of a race and the participation in or financing of such groups,” he added. [Did Canada or its Parliament knowingly sign on to such a mental straight jacket?] “Multiculturalism and equality are the linchpins of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” he said. [The Charter, it might be noted, for all its talk of “equality” grants special privileges to favoured minorities.] So, he argued, “we have adopted the view that, in Canada, the propaganda of the National Alliance, the existence of the National Alliance and the financing of the National Alliance is contrary to public policy.” Mr. Chiasson professed himself outraged that the National Alliance believes in “the preservation of the White Race and racial separation.” Reading from the National Alliance’s 2005 Membership Handbook, he quoted the NA’s programme: “We must have White work spaces, White farms, White schools. “
Mr. Chiason equated White self-preservation with White Supremacy. “We just can’t stop ideas at the border due to the power of the Internet,” he complained. Apparently, dissenting in certain historical debates is against the law, at least in Mr. Chiasson’s submissions: “The National Alliance says ‘the holocaust is a myth’. This is hate speech and contrary to public policy.” No evidence had been adduced of homicidal inclinations on the part of the NA, but, Mr. Chiasson concluded: “The sole purpose of the NA is promoting hate and killing non-Whites, its sole objective is to create White living space, and, thus, it offends public policy. The gift is illegal and against public policy and should be voided.”
Next up was Richard Williams of Fredericton, representing the Attorney General of New Brunswick. “|Our only interest in this matter is our belief that the bequest is illegal and contrary to public policy,” he said. A strong voice for repression, he declared: “The theme of the Charter and human rights codes is that racism will not be allowed in this country.” He professed himself upset at the notion of “White living space”, although he made no mention of native land claims or special lands for Indians or Eskimos. He added: “There is no redeeming merit” in the National Alliance. Attempting to answer an argument in CAFE’s brief that nullifying the McCorkill will could launch a flood of similar litigation, he concluded: “I never expect to have a case like this again in my career.”

The final presentation of the morning came on behalf of another intervener, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. Representing B’nai Brith, Catherine Fawcett insisted: “The National Alliance has a presence in Canada and is well known to the League.” Whether the NA has actually committed acts of violence “doesn’t matter. They put out ideas that incite hate. Their membership is restricted to White people who support the objectives of the NA. “In the NA Handbook, they say: “The holocaust story in engineered by Jews or is full of exaggerations.’ This is contrary to Canadian values,” she insisted. Elsewhere, the NA says that “AIDS has taken off undesirables among Whites — homosexuals, intravenous drug users, and those who have sex with non-Whites. That, M’lord, is hate.” In a country that does not have a Second Amendment to protect the right to keep and bear arms, Miss Fawcett was very critical of the NA Handbook urging members to have weapons for the defence of their family or to join the state militia, if necessary. The Handbook recommended a riot gun, a military semi-automatic rifle, a handgun and at least 500 rounds of ammunition. She took great exception to the NA saying: “The Aryan Race has the right to ensure its own survival and it must have a White living space including Europe, North America and the southern tip of Africa.” NA Chairman Erich Gleibe in an affidavit “says the National Alliance has no programmes in Canada, but the effect of the National Alliance message is to corrupt people and turn a small receptive minority against multiculturalism. We can stop printed material at the border and we have ‘anti-hate’ legislation but the Internet can reach so many.” Concluding, she said: “This Court has the power to strike down the testamentary gift to the National Alliance and stop it spreading its message of hate.”. — Paul Fromm


CAFE & Free Speech  Supporters Heard In McCorkill Will Case; Judge Reserves

St. John, New Brunswick. January 28, 2014. Lawyers defending the  right of a man to will his estate to a controversial group had their day in court today.However, before the free speech lawyers defending the bequest were heard, the third of three interveners advocating the nullification of the will addressed the court. Danys Delaquis, representing the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said: “CIJA opposes anti-Semitism, racism and discrimination. There is no room for any Jewish person in the White space the National Alliance seeks to create,” he complained. “If the bequest is not voided it will be detrimental to the Canadian Jewish community,” he added. Mr. Delaquis then issued a warning: “If a barrister or solicitor here in New Brunswick adopted the views of the National Alliance, he would soon be out of work. The role of regulatory bodies is vital to see the values of inclusiveness we hold prevail.” The St. John lawyer seemed to see no irony in recommending the exclusion of dissident opinions from his ideal universe of “inclusiveness.” He urged the Court to take an activist approach: “The courts cannot leave it to the legislature.” There are no redeeming qualities in the National Alliance in regard to Canadian public policy,” he insisted. “The National Alliance excludes an entire people from its White space. This is repugnant and offensive. The public interest must outweigh the wishes of Mr. McCorkill.”




Paul Fromm, CAFÉ Director, and New Brunswick Free Speech Martyr Malcolm Ross


Rising for the defence was John Hughes, a tall stately lawyer from Moncton with a shock of white hair.” “I am acting for the Estate of Robert McCorkill, not the National Alliance,” he explained. “There is no propaganda or hate speech in the will. No one has argued that Robert McCorkill was not capable of making this bequest and the bequest is clear. There is no evidence the National Alliance has violated any U.S. law and it remains a U.S. corporation in good standing. There is no evidence the National Alliance was ever convicted or charged with an offence in either the U.S. or Canada. Is the NA duty bound to obey the law of any country but its own?” he asked. “The  affidavit of the Southern Poverty Law Centre’s Mark Potok’s points to six ‘contact points’ the National Alliance had in Canada in 2003 — Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, London, Ottawa — but none in New Brunswick. Potok admits a name can be included on a ‘hate list’ for merely the mentioning of a P.O. Box. Erich Gleibe, National Chairman of the NA, said in his affidavit that, as of 2013, the NA has no programmes in Canada. There is no evidence,” he added, “that the National Alliance has ever held a meeting in New Brunswick. Without a credible presence in New Brunswick, the NA is subject to the jurisdiction it resides in; namely, West Virginia, where the glorious First Amendment with its guarantee of freedom of speech is the law that governs it, not the laws of Canada. The National Alliance is a peaceable organization that promotes and exchanges ideas and does not cross the line into crime. Therefore, the National Alliance qualifies as a beneficiary under the law governing it — U.S. law.” Referring to the applicant and her allies as “the unruly chorus about the law of public policy,” Mr. Hughes argued: “Courts can make decisions for the restraint of the population under their jurisdiction, like the New Brunswick horses in the Wishart case (the frequently cited case where a provision requiring the shooting of the man’s four horses was overturned by a Court.) The disposition of this will either way will have no effect on the people of New Brunswick. The appropriate decision is for the Court to follow the guidance of Sec. 17 of the Interpretation Act and dismiss this application with costs.”


The final submissions were from Andy Lodge, a well organized litigator from St. John, representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression. “I am not here to defend the National Alliance,” he said. “I have listened for many hours and read through 1,000 pages of legal documentation and I am struck by one point — all the energy and money spent over the past six months, with very little time spent on the actual McCorkill will. There is no legal basis,” Mr. Lodge argued, “to challenge the McCorkill will. It is a valid will, properly constructed and compliant with the Wills Act. No words in this will are contrary to any public policy. This is a very significant point and the real reason this Court should refuse this applicant. Other interveners,” he continued, “are very concerned about the character, written words and behaviour of the National Alliance. That alone is not enough to challenge a will. Make no mistake,” Mr. Lodge warned, “the applicant and the supporting interveners are trying to get this Court to go where no Court has gone before. The applicant is trying to get this Court to evaluate the beneficiary and to find effectively that the National Alliance is not worthy to receive a testamentary gift — the ‘public policy issue.’ Despite legal arguments over the past six months, there is no evidence of any members of the National Alliance being charged with crimes. Otherwise, the representative of the Attorney General of New Brunswick [Mr. Williams] would be downstairs charging the National Alliance. Whether the National Alliance’s values are congruent with the values of Canada should not be the issue. Allowing this applicant to succeed by assailing the character of others should not be permitted,” he concluded.