Tag Archives: CAFE

CAFE Urges Vancouver City Council Not to Impose Masking Indoors

Posted on by

CAFE Urges Vancouver City Council Not to Impose Masking Indoors

Canadian Association for Free Expression, BC,

Paul Fromm, Director

Dear Member of Council:
In the past eight months, Canadians have seen the most massive intrusion into their freedoms and civil rights in our nation’s history, dwarfing even the War Measures Act.

Travel to some provinces has been banned or restricted; businesses forced to close down; jobs eliminated and the mandating of intrusive,

uncomfortable and largely useless face masks. Remember back to March and April when Teresa Tam, Chief Medical Officer of Health for Canada dismissed masks as not very effective? What has changed? If you’re a smoker, take a strong drag on your cigarette, hold the smoke in your lungs, put on your mask and exhale. The smoke will drift through the mask and up and down and around and over it. If the mask can’t stop the smoke you can see, how will it stop the virus you can’t see?


You are being urged to require that masks be worn indoors at city facilities. The motion  is to be presented October 20 by Councillor Sarah Kirby-Yung.
According to CTV News (October 7, 2020, “Richmond’s medical health officer Dr. Meena Dawar… indicated she favoured other precautions over mandating masks. ‘There is little justification for a mandatory mask policy and I recommend that it not be pursued,” Dr. Dawar wrote, and added buying masks could create ‘additional financial costs for already stretched households,’ as well as create potential barriers for people who cannot wear masks due to certain medical conditions.  ‘In the hierarchy of measures public health has recommended to prevent transmission since the beginning of the pandemic, non-medical mask wearing is one of the lowest.'”” 
I append a statement by many prominent medical men and women that the forced lockdowns and masking are the wrong way to handle the COVID virus.

Paul FrommDirector

Signed by

7192 Medical & Public  Health Scientists 7,192

16066 Medical Practitioners 231838 General Public

The Great Barrington Declaration

The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection. 

Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice. 

Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.

Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza. 

As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e.  the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity. 

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection. 

Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals. 

Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.

On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. Sign the Declaration

Co-signers

Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners

Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA

Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England

Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England

Dr. Helen Colhoun, ,professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, EnglandDr. Sylvia Fogel, autism expert and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA

Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel

Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, IsraelDr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland

Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, EnglandDr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada

Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USADr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA

Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.
Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.

Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, EnglandDr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA

Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England

Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India

Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel

Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, EnglandDr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA

Dr. Karol Sikora MA, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, EnglandDr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand

Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England

Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England

Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland

CAFE Protests Bank of Montreal (BMO) funding of Anti-Free Speech Canadian Anti-Hate Network

Posted on by

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820;

Website http://cafe.nfshost.com

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

Dear Mr. Gammal:
I am a client and shareholder of BMO.


Your decision to give a million dollars to certain Black groups is a concern. Do you give money to groups that promote European pride?


Of most concern, however, is BMO funding the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. This is a militant anti-free speech and anti-democratic group.  It surveilles and smears people on the right side of the political spectrum.

Among other things,


* CAHN Board member Evan Balgorde lobbied Mohawk College in Hamilton Ontario to cancel a debate featuring People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier during last year’s federal election. Masked radicals protested the meeting trying to block attendees and, in one especially disgraceful incident, three maked thugs tried to block a feeble 81-year old woman on a walker from gaining access to the meeting.


*CAHM Board member Bernie Farber has written that far right parties should not be allowed to run in elections — an unusual take on basic democratic rights.


* Last year, CAHM tried to intimidate and interfere with the rights of Canadians to peacefully support the political party of their choice. It published the names and cities of the 250-plus people who registered as members of the  rightist Canadian Nationalist Party  in order for it to obtain certification by elections Canada. This matter is a subject of a complaint to Elections Canada.


Ensuring a client’s financial security involves shrewd and informed judgement, not merely following the fashionable trends of the moment. The decision to squander a million dollars, in part to support a nasty, anti-free speech group in Canada, shakes my confidence in the judgement of the senior management of BMO Financial.
Sincerely yours,
Paul Fromm

Four Hundred People Stress Loss of Freedoms in “END THE LOCKDOWN” Protest at Queen’s Park, Toronto

Posted on by

Four Hundred People Stress Loss of Freedoms in “END THE LOCKDOWN” Protest at Queen’s Park, Toronto


The “END THE LOCKDOWN” protests in Toronto started two weeks ago at Queen’s Park with about 50 people. The premier denounced these concerned citizens as “a bunch of yahoos” who were reckless. Many now wear the term “yahoo” as a badge of honour. A week ago, the protest had swelled to 200. On a frigid, windy May 9 — yes, it must be global warming — there were 400 protesters of all ages in Queen’s Park. CAFE (the Canadian Association for Free Expression’s) contingent, marching under the Red Ensign quadrupled from the week before.
The protesters emphasized several concerns — the lies we’ve been told (3,500-13,000 deaths in Ontario by the end of April — actually fewer than 500); the insane closing of parks and other facilities; the worries about 5G technology and concerns about the danger of vaccines and the terror or compulsory vaccination.
Most of all protesters stressed the outrageous loss of individual rights — freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech. Several repeated an important warning: “Quarantine is when you restrict movement of sick people. Tyranny is when you restrict the movement of people.”
Independent candidate (Brantford-Brant) in last fall’s federal election Les Bory took the following video. It includes interviews with many protesters, including Paul Fromm, Director of CAFE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3FpG4NB9c
There will be another protest next Saturday from noon to 3:00 p.m. and until the lockdown and trampling of our civil rights end.

DIETER KAHL, R.I.P.

Posted on by

DIETER KAHL, R.I.P.

Dieter played at CAFE meetings in Toronto and at Paul Fromm’s annual “too-late-for-Christmas-too-early-for-New-Years” Party for the past 20 years. He’d been playing accordion since his teen years. His iconic Die Gedanken sind Frei (“Thoughts Are Free”) was a standby at CAFE meetings. Dieter Heinrich Kahl was 80. He was born in Bremen, Germany on October 24, 1939. He worked for five years in South Africa and came to Canada in 1969. He was an avid gardener and sportsman and a passionate supporter of free speech.

Marc Lemire No Longer Works for the City of Hamilton

Posted on by

Marc Lemire No Longer Works for the City of Hamilton

Marc is another victim of Cultural Marxist hit squads & cowardly politicians. CBC reported: “Kojo Damptey, interim executive director for the Hamilton Centre for Civic Inclusion, said Lemire’s departure was ‘a minimal step.'”

“Inclusion” but not for different points of view!

[More details will follow.]

Marc Lemire being presented with Freedom Award by Paul Fromm of the

Canadian Association for Free Expression for his long battle for Internet freedom

imperilled by the thought police at the Canadian Human Rights Commission

CAFE CALLS ON MINISTER OF JUSTICE NOT TO REINTRODUCE SEC 13 — INTERNET CENSORSHIP

Posted on by

CAFE CALLS ON MINISTER OF JUSTICE NOT TO REINTRODUCE SEC 13 — INTERNET CENSORSHIP

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820;

Website http://cafe.nfshost.com

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

 

June 21, 2019

 

Hon. David Lametti,

Minister of Justice,

House of Commons,

Ottawa, ON.,

K1A 0A6

 

Dear Minister Lametti:

 

RE: Please Don’t Reintroduce Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code

 

I read in the National Post (June 20, 2019) that  you are considering “very carefully” a recommendation by the Commons Justice Committee to reintroduce the discredited Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which was repealed by Parliament in 2013. Please don’t do it.

 

Sec. 13 made it a discriminatory practice to repeatedly communicate over the Internet material that is “likely to expose to hatred or contempt” a long list of privileged groups.

 

I represented a number of the victims of this section at Tribunals. Our organization the Canadian Association for Free Expression participated in a number of other Tribunals including the very complex Warman v Lemire.

 

In practice, Sec. 13 meant certain groups  were virtually immune from criticism. While hatred is a very strong emotion, contempt is merely the result of  negative commentary. To take  a neutral example, were I to say smokers had bad breath, discoloured teeth, stained fingers, smelled and ran added risks of cancer or strokes, I would not be exposing smokers to hatred. I wouldn’t be asking anyone to hate smokers but I would certainly be creating an unfavourable impression of them, and, thus, exposing them to contempt. Thus, were smokers a privileged groups, I’d risk a conviction under Sec. 13.

 

As time went on, Tribunal rulings held that it was not necessary to prove that anyone actually felt or expressed hatred or contempt as a result of the impugned posting. In the Lemire case, logs showed that only five people had ever even read one impugned post. Surely a case of de minimis! It also emerged that truth was not a defence, sincerely held religious belief was not a defence nor was opinion or commentary.

 

Indeed, there actually were no defences, except, perhaps, that the accused person had not posted the controversial material in question. Thus, until the Lemire case, Sec. 13 had a one hundred per cent conviction rate. This would rival the vile legal system of North Korea!

 

After 2001, when Sec. 13 was amended to specifically include material on the Internet, one individual, Richard Warman, a driven “anti-Nazi” campaigner and sometime employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, made the bulk of the complaints, turning it into an industry and, at times a profitable one too for, should the victim post criticisms of Mr. Warman after he filed a complaint, he would then allege retaliation, which exposed the victim to a punitive fine.

 

Sec. 13 was only used against people seen to be on the “right” of the political spectrum. No person expressing strident opinions against Christians or Europeans was ever prosecuted.

 

Much is made of so-called “hate speech” on the Internet. The Internet is not a free for all. Postings expressing extreme hatred can and have been prosecuted under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. Those who denounce “hate speech” are using a loaded term to demonize views they don’t like. The accusation of “hate speech” tells you little about the content of the impugned material but does tell you that it is material the accuser hates!

 

The Internet allows a much greater range of views and commentary and a more free wheeling debate, especially on such volatile issues as immigration, than usually appears in Canada’s fairly controlled press that tends to limit the range of acceptable opinions. Such freedom and the divergent voices being heard are upsetting to people who would like a much more controlled public discourse.

 

I have seen lives ruined by Sec. 13 — huge fines and life-long “cease and desist orders” that have the force of a Federal Court order. I have seen individuals jailed for nothing more than the non-violent expression of their political views.

 

I urge you to choose freedom. Reject calls for the reintroduction of Sec. 13. Yes, there is some extreme, foolish and insulting material on the Internet. Open discussion and debate tend to isolate and  expose such postings. Canada needs more speech and debate not less. Do not bring back Sec. 13.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

Paul Fromm

Director

 

 

 

 

Canada has really gone bonkers: You Cannot Even Question Transgenderism

Posted on by

Canada has really gone bonkers: You Cannot Even Question Transgenderism

28, 2019 – 11:51 am EST
Court orders Christian to pay $55,000 to trans politician for calling him ‘biological male’
VANCOUVER, March 28, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A B.C. human rights tribunal has ruled that a Christian activist discriminated against a man who claims to be “female” by distributing flyers that referred to the man, who was running for political office at the time, as a “biological male.”
The court ruled for transgender activist “Morgane” Oger, born Ronan Oger, and against Christian activist Bill Whatcott by declaring it’s discriminatory not to accept transgender people as the gender they claim to be.
In a 104-page ruling released Wednesday (read full ruling below), the tribunal further declared there’s no room for any public debate in the matter, according to theVancouver Star.
The tribunal also ordered Whatcott to pay Oger $35,000 in compensation for injury to his “dignity, feelings and self-respect,” and an additional $20,000 to Oger for Whatcott’s alleged improper conduct during and before the hearings, it reported.
Whatcott, 52, described the tribunal hearing as a “kangaroo show trial” and said he’s not surprised by the decision.
“Jesus Christ is still Lord and he will come again, I put my hope into that,” he told LifeSiteNews.
John Carpay, president of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom, which intervened in the case, decried the ruling as harming democracy.
“The Supreme Court of Canada has long held that freedom of expression is the lifeblood of democracy,” Carpay said in a press release.
“Society is full of people with diverse views and the Tribunal’s decision undermines the foundational principles of the free society and jeopardizes the health of Canada’s democracy,” he said.
Oger, who is vice president of the B.C. NDP, launched a discrimination complaint against Whatcott after the Christian activist distributed flyers in Vancouver-False Creek riding in 2017 when Oger was running as MLA for the B.C. NDP.
Whatcott’s flyer asserted Oger “is a biological male who has renamed himself ‘Morgane Oger’ after he embraced a transvestite lifestyle,” and can be found here.
The flyer also stated that “[t]hose who promote falsehoods like the NDP and BC’s major media . . . do so to their eternal peril.”
Oger, who narrowly lost to a former Vancouver mayor, alleged the flyer was discriminatory and exposed him to “hatred and contempt” under Section 7 of British Columbia’s Human Rights Code.
In a December 11 to 14 hearing, the JCCF and the Canadian Association for Free Expression intervened on Whatcott’s behalf, while West Coast LEAF and the B.C. Teachers’ Federation intervened for Oger.
Whatcott’s lawyer, Dr. Charles Lugosi, intended to give evidence that Oger was, in fact, a biological male as a defense.
Tribunal judge Devyn Cousineau, however, ruled “the ‘truth’ of the statements in the flyer is not a defense.”
“Therefore, to the extent that Mr. Whatcott intends to call witnesses to establish the truth of his impugned publications, that evidence is simply not relevant to the legal issue and will not be heard by this Tribunal,” she wrote.
Lugosi also argued Whatcott’s Charter rights of free speech and religion allowed him to express his views. A summary of Lugosi’s legal defense of Whatcott can be found here.
The tribunal, which was composed of lawyers Cousineau, Diana Juricevic, andNorman Trerise, disagreed.
The ruling, penned by Cousineau, declared that even questioning transgenderism is discriminatory.
“[T]he proposition that we should continue to debate and deny the existence of trans people is at the root of the prejudice and stereotypes that continue to oppress them,” wrote Cousineau.
“It rests on the persistent belief, held by people like Mr. Whatcott, that a person’s genitals are the essential determinant of their sex and, therefore, gender. The result of this belief is to necessarily cast transgender people as either ‘deceivers or pretenders’,” she wrote.
Cousineau also censored Whatcott’s original flyer in her ruling.
“Throughout his testimony, Mr. Whatcott refused to recognize Ms. Oger as a woman, or to abide by the Tribunal’s frequent orders not to call her a man,” she wrote in a footnote.
“I will return to this in respect of Ms. Oger’s application for costs, but in the meantime, I have replaced his male pronouns with the correct, female, ones.”
“(It) is really so encouraging … to have the tribunal say you know you can’t argue that you are just commenting on a legitimate public issue because this is not a public issue. There is no debate about whether people are or should be transgender,” Oger’s lawyer, Susanna Allevato Quail, told the Star.
The December tribunal hearing sometimes appeared to be “rancorous,” according to an earlier LifeSiteNews report describing the conduct Cousineau ruled as improper.
“When my lawyer was cross-examining Mr. Oger about his subjective experiences, Oger’s lawyer repeatedly objected to my lawyer’s line of questioning and the Tribunal upheld all of her objections,” Whatcott reported then.
When Cousineau “berated” Lugosi for having “misgendered” Oger five times, Whatcott demanded that the tribunal stop bullying his lawyer and shouted, “The Emperor has no clothes; even Norman accidentally called Roman what he is: a guy.”
In response, Trerise allegedly told Whatcott to shut up, and Juricevic allegedly warned Whatcott that if he had an “outburst” like that again, he would be removed from his own hearing and ordered to pay costs.
Whatcott told LifeSiteNews he’s not sure if he will appeal the decision, nor does he have the money to pay the fine.
He is also facing a Criminal Code hate crime charge for infiltrating Toronto’s homosexual Pride parade in 2016 disguised as a “gay zombie” with five others, to distribute pamphlets warning of the spiritual and physical dangers of sodomy. Whatcott’s next scheduled court appearance on that charge is a judicial pretrial in Toronto on April 10.
However, Whatcott does hope to see Oger on Saturday in Kamloops where Oger is speaking on the “living the transgender lifestyle faithfully” at a Lutheran church.
“I’m going to be there,” he told LifeSiteNews. “I’ve got a thousand flyers to put out.”

RAYCHYL WHYTE IS RAISING MONEY FOR CAFE — SUPPORT HER WALK FOR FREEDOM

Posted on by
RAYCHYL WHYTE IS RAISING MONEY FOR CAFE — SUPPORT HER WALK FOR FREEDOM
 
Raychyl Whyte is raising funds for CAFE on St. Patrick’s day
 
Sunday March 17 will be Raychyl‘s 13th annual 42 km trek from Toronto to Oakville, and she is pleased to raise funds for CAFE again this year. The walk will commence at 9 AM at Toronto City Hall on Sunday March 17 2019, and conclude between 4:15-4:50 PM at Mo’s Restaurant & Tavern in downtown Oakville, 234 Lakeshore Rd. E., where CAFE members are welcome to join in the celebration for a green beer & pub grub, while participants of the walk will be groaning in pain & exhaustion. LOL. 
~ Wear something green. ~
 
RAYCHYL 1.jpg  
 
 
 
Please donate directly to CAFE. 
 
Mail your cheque to:
 
CAFE,
P.O. Box 332,
Rexdale, ON.,
M9W 5L3
CANADA..
 
In the info line mention”RAYCHYL’S WALK”
 
Thanks.