Video of Canadian Political/Religious Prisoner Just Before His Arrest in Calgary, June 22

 

Video of Canadian Political/Religious Prisoner Just Before His Arrest in Calgary, June 22

See the video of Amy Contrada’s interview with Bill Whatcott in Calgary one hour before he turned himself in to face an indictable hate crime charge for sharing the Gospel and accurate medical information at the 2016 Toronto Homosexual Pride Parade:

http://www.freenorthamerica.ca/viewtopic.php?f=16&…

Alfred Schaefer Defiant and Taken Into Custody at His Own Trial: Report on Day One of the Trial of Alfred and Monika Schaefer

Alfred Schaefer Defiant and Taken Into Custody at His Own Trial: Report on Day One of the Trial of Alfred and Monika Schaefer
 
 
 
 
 

Court case of today, July 2nd Monday, First Day. People clapped as Monika entered. Alfred was already seated or at least in Court and was giving a rather long address that went on quite a long time. The Press seemed to be inside the Court area and took a lot of photos of Monika and Alfred greeting each others. Then the cameras disappeared. We kept on having breaks because of Alfredʼs defiance and refused to recognize the Court as official. He refused to get up for the entrance of the Judges. He used expressions like “Muppet Show” and “Inquisition”. He also stated something to the Judge like, that we should change positions and that you(the Judge ) should be judged by the Volk. 

 
So there was break actually twice because there was also a member of the audience that stated that he could not hear and if they could speak louder or get a microphone. Around this time Monika also asked if they was an open court or not and if it was an open court, then microphones be used so that everyone can hear. (The microphones actually did not appear until 13:05) It must have been requested before 10:00 AM. Alfred has prepared this brief of about 75 pages and so the Judge decided that was too long and if it could be shortened.
 
Lawyer/advisor Sylvia Stolz, Wolfram Nahrath, Mr. Miksch (lawyer for Monika Schaefer), 
lawyer for Alfred Schaefer, Alfred Schaefer, Lady Michele Renouf


 
 
So, there was a 2 hour break, from 10:30 until 12:30. Most members of the audience went to the Court cafeteria and had tea, coffee, that kind of things. (Among the audience was Sylvia Stolz, who has been giving Alfred advice) Basically,  it was Alfred reading this document (which is about 78 pages and in the end got shortened to about 65 pages but either way it was Alfred reading for several hours.) This presentation was like a documentation of quotes. Here are some that I caught. In chronological order: There were several quotes form Professor Karl Schmidt. Gunter Deckert was mentioned, his translation. Hamas, Hezbollah, Israel The Swastika, Communism and Stalinism USS Liberty, and Freemasonry Quotes from newspapers like Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung, Haaretz(Israel) Jewish Telegraph…. World Peace Organization, Basel, Switzerland Ritual Defamation and Anti Semitism Horst Mahler, Shlomo Sand, Talmud, 911 and Larry Silverstein, Frederick Vrba?Robert H.Jackson (Robert Houghwout Jackson was an American attorney and judge who served as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court. He had previously served as United States Solicitor General, and United States Attorney General, and is the only person to have held all three of those offices. Jackson was also notable for his work as the Chief United States Prosecutor at the Nuremberg Trials of Nazi war criminals following World War II….) Kurt Lewin Roosevelt and NATO Nurnberg(probably the Judgement) R Coudenhove-Kalergi like not one but several quotes, Negroiding of the race, to Pan-European Union concepts one ʻRacial exclusiveness” Judea declares War on Germany… Samuel Untermyer (Israel | Transcript of Samuel … The following is a transcript of Samuel Untermeyer’s speech made on WABC, declaring a ‘holy war’ by the Jews against Germany, and appealing to the masses of non-Jewish humanity to boycott German-made imports …) Something about Downing Street? England? Britain? Theodore Kaufman Anyway quotes for the background and from WW1 to WW2 and post….ʼtil recent like 911.
 
Anyway this took several hours. Finally what he and Monika are guilty of; The videos, available on U-Tube and one the Internet, in both English and German. The main charge is Paragraph 130. AND videos made with this collaborators, like Gerd Ittner, Henry Hafenmeyer  and Brian Ruhe And Alfred kept on insisting about the LUGEN(The Lie) and Judea many many times throughout. 
 
The lawyer of Monika Schaefer’s lawyer was happy as the way it went and how the audience reacted with courage with comment and disapprovals. (There were about dozen or so of us.)
 
Alfred Schaefer to be put into custody during trial. Basically, he was  arrested and put into prison like Monika, as soon as the day’s session was over. After the day’s session,  we all got into the car together and we left for his home without him. I could not even wave them goodbye or see them off.
 

Today is:
Monday, July 2nd, 2018
DAY 180 of Monika Schaefer’s loss of freedom
Day 58 of Ursula Haverbeck’s loss of freedom
Day 53 of Gerd Ittner’s loss of freedom
 Day 52  of Jez Turner’s loss of freedom

SCHAEFER TRIAL, MUNICH, DAY #1, July 2, 2018 — Report by Lady Michele Renouf From the Right End of the Horse 

SCHAEFER TRIAL, MUNICH, DAY #1, July 2, 2018 — Report by Lady Michele Renouf

From the Right End of the Horse 

I am here in Munich on the first day of the Schaefer trial (of the Canadian-born Monika and her German-citizenbrother Alfred). Upon my arrival  at the Munich courthouse this morning, my attorney RA Wolfram Nahrath ( who also acts today for Monika Schaefer) warned me not to remain in the courthouse building (much less enter the courtroom ) as likely the same trick will occur upon me as played when the German police seized Monika ( while she attended the attorney Sylvia Stolz trial on January 3, 2018).  This was when the judge interrupted that hearing to have Monika dragged off from the public gallery to the cells (for these past 6 months) to the Munich Prison and likely could be repeated today once court officials spotted me, as he says they certainly would, in the public gallery.  Since February this year, I have been under criminal investigation having been charged with Volksverhetzung para 130/ populace incitement which carries a five years’ custodial penalty following my ad-libbed speech at the Dresden Commemoration.  Wiser our attorney says – but my call – that I leave immediately the risky vicinity to instead make reports from a nearby cafe when they provide me with a full account during the intervals of the day’s proceedings  – as a more useful option especially as I not able to comprehend German language proceedings anyway if witnessing the process behind enemy lines.

I decided to take my attorney’s advice as a more effective option (than uselessly being hauled off to a prison cell ) and so am now sitting with Henry Hafenmeyer as he is not allowed inside the courtroom at this time. Henry awaits being called as a witness for the Prosecution for being considered as the video maker ( though in fact, he was not Monika’s video maker).

Though RA Sylvia Stolz warmly thanked me for coming to show “International affection for the Schaefer siblings” she agrees that my making a report to include this advice as given by my own attorney in fact serves to strengthen the drama of the situation Alfred and his sister Monika are facing in this Alice in Wonderland anti-National Socialist non-Sovereign German legal-land where – ‘first we have the verdict then maybe or maybe not we hear the defendants’ evidence’ – is the nonsensical norm for historical sceptics.

Alfred is set upon screening in the courthouse the full story of his awakening via the videos he has made. I am only anxious that the judge may manage to forbid this exposee by him . The great disadvantage here in Germany is that no transcripts are made of these processes. I shall do my best to give you the proceedings from the horse’s mouth.

Day one began at 09.15. The following was reported to me by Attorney Sylvia Stolz. Before the entrance of the two professional judges and the two lay judges, Alfred was able to hug his handcuffed sister while the Press photographed them and while Alfred gave the Roman salute ( a harmless gesture ludicrously outlawed in still Allied / all- lies occupied Germany. Judge Hofmann and Judge Federl entered with the two lay/Schaffe judges but Alfred refused to stand in any acknowledgment of their authority. To this, the judges declared Alfred’s disdain as an offence to the rules whilst Alfred declared them and the Federal Republic of Germany illegitimate since he adheres to the standing legitimacy of the German Reich.

In the “curiouser and curiouser” world of occupied-German law, the judge declared the defendants would not be allowed anything to drink, and if they insisted, the court proceedings would have be interrupted in recess while they drank water! Alfred instantly demanded a drink which resulted in Monika in handcuffs being temporarily removed from the courtroom. Truly a farcical act of “inquisitional” (as Alfred stated) power-playing to which fittingly Alfred added that the court was but a clownish “Muppet Show”.

Alfred was told if he offended again he would be heavily fined for complaining that the proceedings were inaudible to him and to the public gallery because Judge Hofmann had ordered that the attorneys not press the live microphone buttons. This instruction wilfully denies due public access to hear the proceedings. When Alfred commenced to read his introductory remarks, the judge demanded he give only a summary.  At this, his attorney and Monika’s called for an interruption for two hours in order to draw up a rejection of the sitting judges whom they declared patently prejudicial to the defendant’s right to express his defence in full.  The “Holocaust”-denial laws adhere to those of the Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland wherein these nonsensical trials precede via “first the verdict then the evidence”. No wonder historical Revisionists are called religious heretics since the International Guidelines for Teaching About the Holocaust on page 11 determine that: “Care must be taken not to disprove the deniers’ position with normal debate and rational argument”!

Even in the Allied occupier’s land of Britain, not since  2008 has the BBC permitted another World Service  broadcast under the title” Why Can’t We Question the Holocaust?” In this unique broadcast, when I and Jewish Prof Deborah Lipstadt were invited as the main guests on this hour-long worldwide phone-in radio show, has the public had the normal opportunity to hear some of the Revisionist victories presented instead of the standard Hollywood version of WW2 history.

Ever since the German ex-Constitutional Court Judges Hassimer and Hoffman-Reim called for the repeal of the “Holocaust”-denial laws there have been numerous valiant attempts to enlighten and embolden the law-makers and law-proponents in today’s Germany. Notably these valiant attempts in Germany and Austria were made by the late greats Ernst Zuendel,  Dr Herbert Schaller, RA Rieger, Gerd Honsik, – and Horst Mahler, Sylvia Stolz, Germar Rudolf, Henry Hafenmeyer, Dr Rigolf Hennig, Werner Keweloh, Dr Hans Berger, Gunter Deckert, Herr Froerlich, Ursula Haverbeck, Sven L and Christian H to name but a few.  Today’s opportunity by Alfred and Monika Schaefer may justly capture the tide to call for this anti-debate law to be called into question and repealed.

Alfred Schaefer in person confirmed the report above given to me by Sylvia Stolz. At 12.30 they returned to the court which has since resumed and I await further news from the right end of the horse…

Meanwhile, persons in the public gallery (only about 6-8 which included two supporters from Japan) have recognised some of the Press as Antifa they recall from Pegida demos. There are about 6 in the Press benches, and one from Bild the popular scandal sheet.

 

The Schaefer trial in Munich, afternoon session, Day one, Monday July 2nd, 2018.

The trial resumed at 12.30 following the two hours’ interruption while the attorneys for Monika and Alfred Schaefer filed a demand that the Chairmen of the four judges, Judge Hofmann, be removed from the Process because of his evident bias towards the Defendant Alfred Schaefer.  The Chairmen ruled that the trial would continue under his authority until Wednesday July 4th when the matter would be weighed.

The afternoon’s session commenced with the assistant of the State Prosecutor (who was not named) handed Alfred an arrest warrant that he must spend an open ended period in police custody (not jailed as such) until the Judge decides on the case.

Monika Schaefer achieved her commonsense input when, after she persisted that she and the public gallery could not hear the proceedings, Judge Hofmann finally permitted microphones to operate.  By now the day’s session was already half over!  Alfred gave a four hour well-documented presentation of why the Federal Republic was illegitimate.  The Judge complained at the “broader horizon” of the matters Alfred included.   His 77 page statement was shortened to 65, yet even so, observers said Alfred pulled no punches with his historical and current accusations in support of his appeal for the dismissal of the case brought against him and his sister.  At the end of this, after which the Judge had declared that Alfred must be detained for two days in police custody (as opposed to jail) because of his disdain for the authority of the Court, Sylvia Stolz exclaimed the Process was unbelievable: “This is terror”.  After all, Alfred’s disdain of the court authority was of the essence to his own defence!

When Sylvia then declined to explain to the Judge what she meant by accusing the court rulings as terror, she simply said “I am lost for words”, as were the stunned public gallery who had never before witnessed such surreal events.  By now Attorney Wolfram Nahrath had removed his robe since the Judge had ended the day’s session.  Yet the Judge insisted that Sylvia Stolz had interrupted the proceedings rather than made her outcry allowable after the afternoon session’s end.  Sylvia was then given two days in the cells for contempt of court.  Oddly, the Judge failed to offer her the usual option of a fine.  Some in the public gallery wondered that perhaps no such option was given in order to preclude Sylvia’s percipacious presence during the coming days.

The State Prosecutor refused the request from Attorney Nahrath for the Schaufer siblings to have a few moments to say goodbye.  But the Judge decided by himself to give Monika Schaefer permission to have five minutes with her brother. He instructed the court clerk to note the Protocol that first the public gallery must leave the courtroom, presumably to avoid experiencing empathetically the moving pathos they would witness that may pass between the siblings.

“No surrender”!
Michele Renouf
www.jewishrepublic.com

Birobidjan – capital of the first Jewish homeland option

www.jewishrepublic.com

Sorry, you don”t appear to have frame support. Go here instead – Birobidjan – capital of the first Jewish homeland option

 

Lawyer/advisor Sylvia Stolz, Wolfram Nahrath, Mr. Miksch (lawyer for Monika Schaefer), lawyer for Alfred Schaefer, Alfred Schaefer, Lady Michele Renouf 

STATE OF THE DOMINION – 2018

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

The Canadian Red Ensign

SUNDAY, JULY 1, 2018

State of the Dominion – 2018

Today, on the 151st anniversary of the founding of the Dominion of Canada, let us take a look at the state of the Dominion. We will start on a positive note – contrary to what liberals would like us to believe Canada still is the Dominion of Canada. This is because the Fathers of Confederation gave our country the title of Dominion – as a substitute for their original choice of Kingdom – and the name Canada. This happened decades before the word Dominion became a more general description of self-governing bodies within the Empire as it evolved into the Commonwealth. When the Liberals repatriated the British North America Act in 1982 and renamed it the Constitution Act they did not excise the section and article that titles our country Dominion (II.1) and so we remain the Dominion of Canada. The late, great, Canadian constitutional expert, the Honourable Eugene A. Forsey, was fond of pointing this out as one of the inadvertently positive results of the repatriation process of which he was overall, and quite rightly, critical. Another observation of Forsey’s is worth mentioning at this point – that the BNAA, albeit under a new name and with some bells and whistles added –remains our constitution. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is not itself our constitution but a set of amendments to it. The common liberal notion that Pierre Trudeau gave us a “new constitution” in 1982 is a myth. Last, but not least, among the positives, Queen Elizabeth II does indeed still reign over our country as Head of State. It speaks very poorly of the intelligence of Justin Trudeau’s supporters that one of them chose to deride me for saying this in a recent essay even though it is an easily demonstrated statement of fact. Perhaps this liberal does not understand the difference between “reign” and “rule.”

Now we must turn to the negative side of the leger. Sadly, there is much more to be found here than on the positive side. There has been a growing tendency among true Canadian conservatives, i.e., those who wish to conserve the legacy of Confederation and the Loyalist tradition behind it, since the end of the Second World War to focus on the negative. This tendency stands in marked contrast to the more optimistic tone in the writings of the leading such Canadian conservative man of letters from the era that ended with the War, economist, political scientist, and humourist, Stephen Leacock. This is because the post-War conservatives have had much that is negative to focus on due to the success of a series of “revolutions within the form” that have been perpetrated by the Liberal Party. The first such revolution took place in the 1920s during the premiership of William Lyon Mackenzie King. John Farthing, in his posthumously published (1957) Freedom Wears a Crown, noted how this revolution seriously undermined Parliament’s ability to hold the government accountable leaving the Prime Minister and Cabinet with the near-dictatorial powers with which they have plagued Canada ever since. The book for which George Grant will forever be remembered, his Lament for a Nation, was published in 1965, two-years in to the second “revolution within the form” (1) that took place during the premierships of Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau. Lament was a jeremiad based upon the author’s conviction that the fall of the Diefenbaker premiership two years previously, due to its insistence on not allowing Canadian policy to be dictated by Washington D.C., spelled the failure of the Confederation Project of building a conservative country that could withstand the continental gravity pulling it towards the orbit of American liberalism. Diefenbaker himself sounded the alarm about the radical changes being introduced in the early years of the Pierre Trudeau premiership in his Those Things We Treasure: A Selection of Speeches on Freedom and Defence of Our Parliamentary Heritagepublished in 1972. The same year, historian Donald Creighton’s collection of essays – in many cases originally lectures – Towards the Discovery of Canada, was, if anything, more pessimistic in tone than Lament. Creighton, although the son of a Methodist minister, did not allow Christianity’s optimistic view of history as ultimately culminating in the Kingdom of God to moderate his nationalist pessimism in the way Grant did. Towards the end of the Trudeau premiership and the completion of the second revolution, Winnett Boyd, Kenneth McDonald, and Orville Gaines published a series of books under their BMG label demonstrating how Trudeau’s policies were further subverting Canada’s parliamentary form of government and Common Law rights and freedoms, moving us closer to Soviet Communism, and, in the final book in the series, Doug Collins’ Immigration: The Destruction of English Canada, deliberately engineering radical changes to the demographic makeup of English Canada and in the process unnecessarily importing racial strife that would make it impossible to maintain order without a more authoritarian, if not totalitarian, style of governing.

The fact that all of the above books, with the exception of Grant’s, have been allowed to go out of print and that the leadership of the present Conservative Party shows little to no interest in their contents is itself a good reason for negativity and pessimism among traditional Canadian conservatives.

Today, we are in the midst of the third “revolution within the form”, being carried out under the leadership of the son of the architect of the second, a man operating without the benefit of either brains or a brain trust, even as we continue to be hit with the repercussions of the second revolution. As an example of the latter, consider the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent ruling in the Trinity Western University case. Trinity Western University is a conservative, evangelical, Christian university in British Columbia. It requires, as schools of this nature generally do, that its students agree to a Christian lifestyle covenant for the duration of their study. For some time now TWU has been working towards establishing a law school. While the law societies of most provinces have agreed to accredit the school and admit its graduates to the bar, the law societies of Ontario and BC have refused to do so. They consider TWU’s covenant to be discriminatory towards the alphabet soup gang, apparently holding the position that members of that group are incapable, unlike heterosexual singles who are also required to practice chastity by the same covenant, of refraining from acting upon their desires for the number of years it takes to get a law degree. The law societies’ decision has nothing to do with the quality of the legal education that would be available at the proposed school. What the law societies are doing is, ironically, exactly what they are complaining that TWU is doing – making their religious ethical convictions, in this case “thou shalt not discriminate”, into a standard that excludes others from membership in their community. There is a huge difference, however, in that the law societies are not the same kind of organization as TWU. TWU is a self-confessed, faith-based institution and the right of such institutions to require their members to adhere to the standards of their faith is well-established and time-honoured. The law societies are not institutions of that kind and have no such well-established and time-honoured right. The Supreme Court ought to have ruled in favour of TWU and prior to 1982 would have done so. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms, however, transformed the Court into an agent of moral, social, and cultural revolution, which agrees with the law societies’ efforts to force TWU to abandon either its Christian principles or its efforts to establish a nationally-accredited law school, because it ultimately shares their Cultural Marxist agenda of replacing the Christian principles of the old Canada with the modern, secular, pluralistic ideals of the new.

To many liberals today it would come as news that Canada ever had Christian principles to begin with. Former Liberal Party strategist Warren Kinsella and Mike Harris – the journalist not the 22nd premier of Ontario – are among the liberals that I have seen claim that Canada is a secular country that believes in separation of church and state. This absurd claim confuses the Canadian political tradition with its American counterpart but Kinsella and Harris are hardly the first liberals to be so confused. The Liberal Interpretation of Canadian History – what Donald Creighton mockingly called “the Authorized Version” – has always been based upon the false notion that Canada’s story is a repeat of America’s story – a former colony struggling to gain independence from the British Empire – rather than the truth that the those who built our country deliberately chose not to go down that path but to build our country within the evolving Commonwealth on a foundation of loyalty and continuity. This truth does not sit well with liberals – but then no truth ever has.

It is not just the Supreme Court. Justin Trudeau, who duped the Canadian electorate into voting his party a majority government in 2015, has been another aggressive promoter of the Cultural Marxist agenda. Not that he possesses the intelligence to actually understand the theories of Antonio Gramsci, Georg Lukács, Theodore Adorno, Herbert Marcuse, Jacques Derrida or Michel Foucault. Cultural Marxism seems to be instinctual with him. He has made it a policy, starting this year, that employers receiving grants to hire student workers under the government’s Summer Jobs program must attest to their agreement with Liberal Party ideals including his crackpot notion that women have a right to murder their unborn babies. In other words “orthodox Christians need not apply.” The best that can be said about this is that it is merely an attempt to use the taxpayers’ money to bribe the faithful into giving up their convictions rather than dragging them before Human Rights tribunals and fining them or forcing them to attend the re-education camps euphemistically known as “sensitivity training classes” if they refuse to do so. Don’t make the mistake of thinking that this means that Trudeau is less of a soft-totalitarian than his father. It just means that these other methods of cramming far-left views down Canadians throats are being reserved for new battles, like his war against “transphobia” and “Islamophobia”, rather than ones seen by the Liberals as having been won long ago.

It is, of course, only orthodox believers in the religion of the old Canada that the Liberals intend to press to give up their traditional beliefs. Neo-conservatives have recently called attention to the fact that the Islamic Humanitarian Service of Kitchener, Ontario, whose Sheikh Shafiq Huda was recorded calling for violent action against Israel at a recent al-Quds day march in Toronto, has been approved for a grant under the Summer Jobs program despite its leader’s conduct being as out of sync with the ideals employers are expected to sign on to as the pro-life views of Christians. When the neo-conservatives accuse the Liberal government of hypocrisy, however, they miss the point altogether. The Liberal Party’s Cultural Marxist agenda is one of replacing the old Canada with the new. Christianity, the faith of the old Canada, has to be forced to bow the knee to the idols of the new. Practitioners of other religions do not have to because they are part of the “diversity” that is one of the chief of those idols. In the 2015 election campaign, Trudeau campaigned against the previous neo-conservative government’s use of the expression “barbaric cultural practices.” The practices in question – forced marriages, female genital mutilation, and the like – are in fundamental conflict with the feminism that Trudeau espouses but to call anything that people from other cultures do “barbaric” is to sin against diversity. While Trudeau wastes millions of our tax-dollars on schemes for promoting “gender equality” around the world, at home the only throats he will shove it down are those of orthodox Protestants and Catholics and traditional English and French Canadians. The neo-conservatives, since they share most of the same ideals as the liberals – their objection to “barbaric cultural practices” was based upon the inconsistency of those practices with egalitarian liberalism – are reduced to pointing out the inconsistencies in Liberal practice, having no resources with which to resist and combat the Liberals’ increasingly radical left-wing agenda.

A large part of Canada’s trade has always been with the United States. For decades, however, the old Canada resisted the Liberal Party’s call for free trade with the United States. There were several reasons for that. Confederation took place only a few years after the Republican Party had come to power in the United States and put into place Alexander Hamilton’s “American system” of growing a strong manufacturing base through tariff protectionism and internal infrastructure improvements. Sir John A. MacDonald’s Conservatives knew better than to waste their time trying to negotiate reciprocity with a country that was not interested in it and furthermore recognized that due to the larger population and economy of the United States a free trade arrangement would lead to the subjugation of Canada – economically, culturally, and perhaps eventually politically. Goldwin Smith, the nineteenth century Manchester School free-trader and Liberal intellectual, made no effort to hide the fact that this was exactly what he desired for Canada in his Canada and the Canadian Question(1891). Confederation, Smith maintained, was a mistake – the formation of an unnatural country against the natural north-south trade flow of the continent, an argument which was amply refuted by Harold Innis in The Fur Trade in Canada: An Introduction to Canadian Economic History (1930) and Donald Creighton in The Commercial Empire of the St. Lawrence 1760-1850 (1937). Canada, Smith argued, should apply for entry into the United States. To allow this to happen would go against the very purpose of Confederation – uniting the provinces of British North America into a single country that could resist the expansionism of a United States that was preaching its “Manifest Destiny” to rule all of North America and which had threatened Canada with annexation more than once. The Tories introduced, therefore, their National Policy, which was a similar sort of protectionist nation-building to what the Republicans were engaged in south of the border at the time. In 1891 and again in 1911 Sir Wilfred Laurier sought election with promises of free trade – and both times he was soundly defeated. Sir John A. MacDonald, denouncing the “veiled treason” of reciprocity, defeated him in 1891 despite the collapse of his health that led to his death shortly after the election. In 1911 the poet Rudyard Kipling, in a front page editorial against reciprocity for the Montreal Daily Star that was reprinted across the Dominion wrote: “It is her own soul that Canada risks today. Once that soul is pawned for any consideration, Canada must inevitably conform to the commercial, legal, financial, social, and ethical standards which will be imposed on her by the sheer admitted weight of the United States” and the Canadian voting public evidently agreed. By 1988, however, Canada had already undergone the first two “revolutions within the form” and the objections to free trade were largely forgotten or regarded as having no abiding relevance in the late twentieth century. When the Free Trade Agreement was negotiated between Canada and the United States it was Brian Mulroney, the leader of what had been Sir John A. MacDonald’s party, that did the negotiating and signed the treaty into law. The Liberals were forced into temporarily disavowing their historic pro-free trade position in 1988, but they quickly resumed it when they returned to power led by Jean Chretien in time to oversee the evolution of the Free Trade Agreement into NAFTA. In the decades that followed, as free-trade opponents predicted, Canadian businesses were bought up by American ones and Canadians increasingly came to resemble Americans in the places they worked, shopped, and ate at. Many Canadians, however, seemed to think this was a small price to pay for cheap consumer goods and economic growth – a further indication of the Americanization of our culture feared by the Fathers of Confederation. Twenty-five years after the initial Free Trade Agreement, American-born Diane Francis of the Financial Post revived Goldwin Smith’s arguments with her Merger of the Century: Why Canada and America Should Become One Country, demonstrating that the kind of annexionist thinking that had led the old Canada to fear free trade was not quite dead after all. For the history of the resistance against just such an outcome see David Orchard, The Fight for Canada: Four Centuries of Resistance to American Expansionism. (1993, 1998)

We have just been reminded of another reason why free trade was considered unwise – that we would be that much worse off if free trade were entered into and then rescinded than if we never agreed to it and became dependent upon it to begin with. In 2016, Donald Trump was elected President of the United States on a populist platform that included, among other things, a revival of the Republican Party’s old economic nationalism. Trump vowed to put the interests of his own country ahead of international and global concerns, promising that if he could not renegotiate NAFTA to his liking he would “scrap it.” The attitude Trudeau and his Trade Minister took, in entering into the renegotiation talks, was clearly not that of leaders who cared a fig about the interests and well-being of their country. They insisted on bringing into the talks all sorts of trendy, left-wing, nonsense that had no relevance to trade whatsoever but appealed to Trudeau’s international liberal fan base. Trump, evidently sick of having to put up with this, has begun slapping tariffs on Canada. Things were made much worse when, after the G7 Summit in which the leaders, including Trump, had agreed to a united communication, Trudeau seized the opportunity to gloat, provoking a barrage of insults from the American President and a hardening of his trade policies. In response, the Liberal government has declared that it will impose retaliatory tariffs against the United States, but this is not the same thing as protective tariffs incorporated into a larger National Policy as MacDonald had put in place. It amounts to a trade war being fought against a country with a much larger economy than ours by people who are fundamentally emotionally and intellectually incapable of placing what is best or even good for their own country ahead of their global, international, popularity. That is a recipe for disaster.

The Laurentian political class behind Trudeau has, behind its mask of indignation, been rejoicing over Trump’s verbal assaults on Trudeau because they have been bolstering up his support which had been declining drastically due to his own incompetence and egotism. The greatest fear of said political class, however, is of a populist revolt similar to the one that put Trump in power. That such is possible in Canada was demonstrated at the provincial level in Ontario with the election of Doug Ford’s Progressive Conservatives and the decimation of Wynne’s Grits. The political class has every reason to fear because the arrogance and contempt they have displayed to ordinary Canadians has long exceeded even that with which Hillary Clinton dismissed ordinary Americans as a “basketful of deplorables.” In Canada, as in the United States, the most important issue over which the political class and the average citizen are at odds is immigration. In the 1960s the political classes of every nation within Western civilization adopted liberal views of immigration – that border laws should be lightly enforced, if at all, that immigrants should be accepted in larger numbers than ever before, and that restrictions based on race, religion, and ethnicity were not acceptable. Dissent from these views was condescendingly taken as evidence of irrational racial and cultural prejudices that would have to be eliminated through education. In Canada, the Diefenbaker Conservatives had removed racial and cultural restrictions on admission in the early 1960s, but the Liberals in the late 1960s gave the immigration system a complete overhaul. They introduced the points system of evaluating individual immigrant applications, a fair and ethnically neutral system, that nevertheless contained a large backdoor in the “family reunification” policy that allowed them to operate an ethnically biased policy under the guise of an ethnically neutral one. This policy, which Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau seemed to believe to be the solution to the existing tension between English and French Canada, was to make the country as diverse as possible as fast as possible. This was never a popular policy, as polling has always shown, and they took a particularly heavy-handed approach to dealing with dissent. (2) Laws which severely limited what could be said publicly in criticism of this were added to both the Criminal Code and the Canadian Human Rights Act. Twice, to my knowledge, government agents actually helped found and lead neo-Nazi groups (the Canadian Nazi Party of the 1970s and the Heritage Front of the 1980s and 1990s) for the purpose of creating a public fear of resurgent Nazism that could be used to tar all criticism of unpopular liberal immigration with the Nazi brush. Under Brian Mulroney’s leadership the Conservatives refused to criticize any of this and indeed embraced it all. The result was that by the end of the 1980s anyone who expressed the same restrictionist views of immigration that Conservative Stephen Leacock had expressed in his final book While There is Time (1945), that Liberal leader William Lyon McKenzie King, who led the Dominion in World War II, had held, and that the Rev. J. S. Woodsworth, first leader of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation had defended in the twenty-first and twenty-second chapters of his Strangers Within Our Gates (1909) was suspected of Hitlerist sympathies. Even Preston Manning’s neo-conservative/right-populist Reform Party refused to challenge the Laurentian class’s manufactured and imposed consensus.

Skip ahead to the present day. In the United States, Donald Trump, fighting against the political establishments of both American parties, has been trying to stop the flood of illegal immigrants into the United States across the Rio Grande. Justin Trudeau, however, last year tweeted an open invitation to all those rejected by the United States. Surely it does not require more than a modicum of intelligence to see that those rejected by another country are not the ideal pool from which to draw your own country’s immigrants? That thought appears never to have crossed Trudeau’s mind, however, obsessed as he is with his image as the “compassionate” anti-Trump. This is an image he has been cultivating since the election that brought him to power which happened to coincide with the year in which the plot of Jean Raspail’s 1973 novel The Camp of the Saints came true and Europe was swamped with an invasion of those whose most effective weapon was Europe’s own liberal humanitarianism. Trudeau promised to bring thousands of these over here, which he did upon winning the election, after which he had his picture taken with them, and then promptly forgot about them as they were now the problem of ordinary tax-paying Canadians. After Trudeau’s ill-conceived open invitation tweet Canada suddenly found herself with her own brand new border crisis just like the American one. Trudeau and his Laurentian backers are deceiving themselves if they think the average Canadian is any more pleased with this than the average American.

Our political, academic, and media elite classes, fearing that they have built up a massive reservoir of resentment against their arrogantly imposed consensus which a populist reformer could easily tap into if he were willing to defy all their rules, have been going bananas with a Trump Derangement Syndrome that exceeds that of the American Left. Luckily for them no such reformer has yet appeared on the federal horizon. Unluckily for Canada, even if one were to appear, the best we could hope for would be that he would stop the third revolution dead in its tracks. What we really need is for the previous two revolutions to be rolled back and our country put back on the course set for it by the Fathers of Confederation.

Much as I would like it to, I am not going to be holding my breath waiting for that to happen. So, to avoid ending on a negative note, I will quote the thought with which George Grant ended his Lament fifty three years ago:

Beyond courage, it is also possible to live in the ancient faith, which asserts that changes in the world, even if they be recognized more as a loss than a gain, take place within an eternal order that is not affected by their taking place. Whatever the difficulty of philosophy, the religious man has been told that process is not all. “Tendabantque manus ripae ulterioris amore.” (3)

Happy Dominion Day,
God Save the Queen

(1) I have borrowed this expression from Garet Garrett’s essay “The Revolution Was.” Garrett used it to describe the American New Deal in the 1930s.

(2) Not coincidentally, the men who dreamed up this draconian scheme of silencing their opponents were admirers of the totalitarian police state of the Soviet Union. According to Elizabeth Bentley’s testimony to an American Congressional Subcommittee about the Soviet spy ring she had operated in the United States during the Second World War, Lester Pearson, who was attached to the Canadian embassy in Washington at the time, was one of her informers. This part of his ignoble career is often overlooked because of his toadyish attitude towards the Soviets’ rivals, the Americans, as when he engineered Diefenbaker’s downfall to please Kennedy, but when the man won his Nobel Peace Prize in the 1950s for selling out Britain, whose side Canada had traditionally always taken as a family matter, along with France and Israel, it was to both the United States and the Soviet Union that he had prostituted himself. Pierre Trudeau’s sympathies with Communism were well known. He led the Canadian delegation to a Communist conference in Moscow back during Stalin’s dictatorship, prior to his disastrous entry into Canadian federal politics as editor of the far left Cité Libre he engineered the Marxist revolt against the Roman Catholic Church in Quebec known as the Quiet Revolution for which, for some reason, he was never excommunicated, and while in power federally made no attempt to hide his admiration for Mao and Castro. Since Pearson and Trudeau’s leadership of the Liberal Party took place smack in the middle of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union both men were able to fend off criticism over all of this by writing off anti-Communism as a kind of “American paranoia” as if the old Canada had not been solidly anti-Bolshevik long before the Cold War, and indeed, before the period just prior to the Cold War, when the American President whose policies ensured that the Second World War would end with the Soviet conquest of Eastern Europe, was kissing Stalin’s backside.

(3) The Latin quotation is from the sixth book of Virgil’s Aeneid. The English translation given by Grant in a footnote is “They were holding their arms outstretched in love toward the further shore.”

Free Speech in Mortal Peril in Canada, the U.K. & Germany 

Free Speech in Mortal Peril in Canada, the U.K. & Germany 

https://youtu.be/evAP1qI7Ay4

*Updates on the Alison Chabloz, & Monika & Alfred Schaefer

* Updates on Canadian cases — YOUR WARD NEWS, Bill Whatcott, now charged by the outgoing Pakistani, Moslem AG for “hate” & other

LETTER TO FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER CHRYSTIA FREELAND CALLING FOR CONSULAR MONITORING OF MONIKA SCHAEFER’S FREE SPEECH TRIAL IN MUNICH

LETTER TO FOREIGN AFFAIRS MINISTER CHRYSTIA FREELAND CALLING FOR CONSULAR MONITORING OF MONIKA SCHAEFER’S FREE SPEECH TRIAL IN MUNICH

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820

Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director


June 21, 2018


Honourable Chrystia Freeland, Minister of Foreign Affairs.
House of Commons
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6

Re: MONIKA SCHAEFER, JAILED IN MUNICH

Dear Minister Freeland:

I am writing out of deep concern  about a Canadian now languishing in a German prison and now about to face trial under a law, Sec. 130 of the German Criminal Code having to do with racial incitement.

 

The woman, Monika Schaefer was born in Canada and is a Canadian citizen. On January 3, while visiting her brother and attending a trial in Munich, she was seized and arrested and sent to Stadelheim, a maximum security prison in Munich. She was visited by an official from the Canadian Consulate who offered her some help with matters in Canada but informed her they were only allowed to visit every six months. She remained imprisoned WITHOUT being charged until mid-May. Her trial begins July 3.

 

Several weeks ago her brother Alfred was advised by the Canadian Consul in Munich that, on Ottawa’s orders, there would be no consular observer at her two week trial. This is a matter of free speech and protection of Canadians travelling abroad. Let’s be clear: Ms Schaefer could face five years in prison. The issue before the court is a video she recorded in June, 2016 in which she apologizes to her late mother for haranguing her as a teenager for not having “done something” to stop the killings of Jews in WWII.

 

Actually, if we believe in freedom of speech, her views, like them of not as expressed in her six minute video “Sorry, Mom, I Was Wrong About the Holocaust,” should not matter.

 

The absence an observer from the Consulate sends a distinct message to the German authorities: We are not interested in this woman; do as you please. That is appalling.

 

When I and others have sought to inquire from various government officials about what is being done for Monika Schaefer, we are shuffled aside by the invocation of the Right to Privacy Act.  This is the typical response: “Please know that consular officials are bound by the Privacy Act and cannot release details about consular cases. This also applies to the case of Ms. Schaefer. I can, however, confirm that Canadian officials in Germany are providing consular assistance to her.”

 This is one of the most misused bureaucratic excuses for keeping matters secret. We are not inquiring about Ms Schaefer’s sex life (or lack of it) in prison or about any allergies she might have but about what is being done to assist her.

 

We urge you to reconsider the decision and send an observer to Ms Schaefer’s trial. She is a violinist and has long taken a passionate interest in her community, having four times run in elections for the Green Party, which, I trust will not be held against her.  An observer lets the German authorities know that Canada’s government cares and is concerned about freedom of speech. We had hoped that more active interest on the part of the Canadian Government might have convinced the German authorities to avoid a trial and simplydeport her and send her home to Canada.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Paul Fromm

Director

LETTER FROM POLITICAL PRISONER MONIKA SCHAEFER

LETTER FROM POLITICAL PRISONER MONIKA SCHAEFER
 

Munich

 
June 5, 2018
 
Dear Paul:
 
On May 31st, I received a large pile of mail, most of which was from the month of April, some of it even from March! They really let it accumulate a long time before handing it over to me. But they had delivered the occasional teaser before that, with newer more recent mail, a bit of a psychological trick, surely not on purpose though! They’re not that clever.
 
Amongst that pile were two of your cards from meetings, one postmarked 4th of April (8 weeks’ delivery time) and the other was from an April 23 meetings postmarked the 26th. So that one came through the rush delivery wagon, a mere 5 weeks underway. Thank you so much for those! Also, there were a few of your CAFE NEWSLETTERS in the pile. Sometimes I get them; sometimes I don’t. It depends on who’s working. …
 
Yes, definitely my German is improving and so is my French. I am using my time well here, studying actively to get my French back that I once-upon-a-time was fluent in but lost so much through ‘if you don’t use it, you lose it.” I am also composing a few new tunes. When I am working on that, I completely forget where I am. …
 
I had another hearing, the result of which I am still here, of course. Their written justifications for my continued incarceration were so ridiculous, twisted and turned, that it is obvious that the hearing was just for show. just going through the motions of what is required, but with a preconceived outcome.
 


 
 
 
In a paradoxical way, it frees me up even more to say and do as I please because whatever I say or do, they have predetermined the outcome anyway, What w wonderful sense of freedom that gives me!
 
Well, I think I’ll end on that note.
 
I hope you are receiving my letters. I am numbering them so you can tell if some go missing.
 
Take care, stay healthy. We need you, Paul. Thank you for all you do.
 
Much love, 
 
Monika 
 

m

The Zionist lobby’s erosion of freedom of speech in UK: The case of Alison Chabloz

The Zionist lobby’s erosion of freedom of speech in UK: The case of Alison Chabloz

Alison Chabloz

Gilad Atzmon writes:

The Jewish Chronicle seems dismayed that the singer-songwriter Alison Chabloz has escaped jail time, at least for the time being. But the message conveyed by Ms Chabloz’s conviction is devastating for Britain. This country has, in just a short time, become a crude authoritarian state.

Chabloz was sentenced by District Judge John Zani to 20 weeks imprisonment, suspended for two years, for posting supposedly “grossly offensive songs” on the internet. It seems that music is now deemed a major threat to Britain.

Chabloz was also banned from posting anything on social media for 12 months. I am perplexed. What kind of countries pre-vet social interaction and intellectual exchange? Israel imposes such prohibitions on its Palestinian citizens. Soviet Russia banned certain types of gatherings and publications and, of course, Nazi Germany saw itself qualified to decide what type of texts were healthy for the people, and actively burned books. I guess that Britain is in good company.

Chabloz was further “ordered to complete 180 hours of unpaid work”. This amounts to something in the proximity of 90 Jazz gigs. And Chabloz is required to attend “a 20-day rehabilitation programme”. In 21st century Britain, a singer-songwriter has been sentenced to “re-education” for singing a few tunes that offended some people. 

The initial objective of the Nazi concentration camps was also to “re-educate the people”. Dachau was built to re-educate cosmopolitans and dissenter communists and turn them into German patriots.

I wonder what this particular rehabilitation programme will entail for the revisionist singer? Chabloz was guilty of introducing new lyrics to the Jewish folk song Hva Nagila. Will she now have now to learn to sing the song in Yiddish, or maybe to try to fit her own original “subversive” lyrics to the music of Richard Wagner? Who is going to take care of Chabloz’s education, and what happens if the singer insists on continuing to mock the primacy of Jewish suffering or, far worse, compare Gaza to Auschwitz?

We may have to accept that our big Zionist brother is constantly watching us. If we want to keep out of trouble, we better self-censor our thoughts and learn to accept the new boundaries of our expression.

Satire aside, the Chabloz trial and other recent legal cases suggest to me that Britain is no longer the freedom-loving place in which I settled more than two decades ago. If freedom can be defined as the right to offend, Britain has voluntarily removed itself from the free world. In contemporary Britain, exercising the right to offend evidently leads to conviction and possible imprisonment. And who defines what constitutes an offence? British law fails to do so. Chabloz was disrespectful to some Jewish cult figures, such as Elie Wiesel and Otto Frank (the father of Anne Frank). Would Chabloz be subject to similar legal proceeding if she offended the Queen, the royal family or Winston Churchill? What message is Judge Zani sending to British intellectuals and artists? Since every person, let alone Jews, can be offended by pretty much anything, Britain is now reduced to an Orwellian dystopia. We may have to accept that our big Zionist brother is constantly watching us. If we want to keep out of trouble, we better self-censor our thoughts and learn to accept the new boundaries of our expression.

Democracies are sustained by the belief that their members are qualified to make decisions regarding their own education: they decide what films to watch, what books to read and what clubs to join. Seemingly, this is no longer the case in Britain. Decisions regarding right and wrong thoughts are now taken by “the law”. According to the Jewish Chronicle, Judge Zani told Chabloz that :“The right to freedom of speech is fundamental to a fully-functioning democratic society. But the law has clearly established that this right is a qualified right.”

While many of us believe that freedom of speech is an absolute right, Judge Zani made it clear today that this is not the case or at least not anymore. Freedom of speech in Britain is now “a qualified right”. In other words, the government and the judicial system are allowed to interfere with such right at any time. Just two years ago, the Crown Prosecution Service didn’t think that Chabloz should stand trial. Presumably at the time the CPS didn’t believe that Chabloz’ rights should be qualified or quantified. Two years later there has been a clear change in speech that is prosecuted.

Article 19e of The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, signed by Britain and enacted in 1948, declares: “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.” 

This was the law in 1948. In 2018, freedom and democracy are rights in memory only, for we experience them no more.

More Facebook Censorship: Advertizing of Anti-Planned Parenthood Video Banned

More Facebook Censorship: Advertizing of Anti-Planned Parenthood Video Banned
LA Logo.jpg
Facebook blocked and prevented us from advertising our video exposing Planned Parenthood’s cover-up of child sex abuse for over a WEEK.

phil, I need you to do these few things to help us fight back:

  1. Click the link here to watch the video that was blocked
  2. Share the video with your friends on Facebook and social media
  3. Forward this email to your fellow pro-life friends and encourage them to watch and share the video

phil, social media companies like Facebook and Twitter may be able to block our paid advertising, but they can’t block YOU from sharing these videos with your friends.

It is critically important you share these videos to spread the truth about Planned Parenthood’s exploitation of abuse victims – so more hearts and minds will change to be against the abortion industry.

phil, let’s show pro-lifers won’t be bullied into silence and will always stand up for the most vulnerable – our precious preborn children.

Lila-Rose-circle 1.png

For life,

Lila Rose
President & Founder 
Live Action

P.S. We must raise $50,000 by midnight THIS FRIDAY to make the greatest impact possible with this investigative report and docuseries, and with Facebook suppressing our advertisements, it’s even more critical we reach this goal. Will you join our fight by donating through the link below?

Give now: https://www.liveaction.org/support/expose-planned-parenthood/

Last Gasp in War on Free Speech By Ontario’s Outgoing Lesbian Premier & Her Moslem Pakistani Attorney General

Last Gasp in War on Free Speech By Ontario’s Outgoing Lesbian Premier & Her Moslem Pakistani Attorney General

 
They may be down, but their not yet out. Ontario’s rabidly anti-Christian and anti-free speech Liberals were trounced in the last election and reduced to a 7-MPP rump that doesn’t even qualify for official party status in the legislature. However, they are still in power promoting their pro-LGBTQ, pro-Moslem, anti-free speech agenda. Last year the now-defated Yasir Naqvi, Ontario’s Pakistani, Moslem Attorney General, gave the rarely granted but necessary consent for Sec. 319 “hate law” charges against Kevin J. Johnston, a critic of radical Islamd, and against Dr. James Sears, the editor, and Leroy St. Germaine, the publisher of YOUR WARD NEWS, for their critiques of Jews and extreme feminism. As their parting shot, they have charged Christian evangelist Whatcott for views expressed when he infiltrated the Toronto Gay Pride parade several years ago.
 
A Canada-wide warrant has been issued for his arrest. [Remember, the persecution of Christians does not only occur in formally communist states like Red China or North Korea; it also occurs in regimes ruled by Cultural Marxist].
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Whatcott the subject of a Canada wide warrant

Postby Bill Whatcott » Thu Jun 14, 2018 4:55 pm

Dear Friends,

I found out yesterday I am the subject of a Canada wide arrest warrant issued by Toronto’s 51 Division Police Headquarters. It appears I am facing an indictable charge for “Public Incitement of Hatred.”

Public incitement of hatred
319 (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years

The “crime?” My ministry bringing the Gospel and the truth about homosexuality to Toronto’s homosexual pride parade in 2016. :icon_rolleyes:

To read about this “crime” that has caused the police to hunt me down in 2 provinces, go to my daughter’s home, and some of my friend’s houses searching for me and for which they appear to want to extradite me to Ontario to stand trial go here: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=10526

Anyways, I will be turning myself into the Calgary Police Service Headquarters on Friday, June 22 at 10:00 am.

Calgary Police Service Address: 5111 47 St. N.E. Calgary

My wife and Pastor Art Pawlowski are organizing a protest in front of the police headquarters in defense of religious freedom and freedom of speech. My wife will be speaking about this case at the March for Jesus in Calgary this coming Saturday.

If you wish to join them:

Jadranka Whatcott: 226-591-2014, e-mail: jadrankawhatcott@gmail.com
Pastor Art Pawlowski: 403-607-4434, e-mail: art@streetchurch.ca

In Christ’s Service
Bill Whatcott

“Therefore if the Son makes you free, you shall be free indeed.” John 8:36