Free Speech Booted in the Groin at Toronto Library Board

Free Speech Booted in the Groin at Toronto Library Board

   TORONTO, December 11, 2017. Free speech took a hefty jackboot in the groin tonight, as the Toronto Library Board unanimously approved a new pace Rental Policy that will allow staff to deny meeting space to events “likely to promote, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor.”

 

   The Board had met in private session before the 6:00 p.m. public meeting. It was clear the fix was in and the decision had already been made. In the short discussion that followed four public delegations, the word “unanimous” was heard several times. Indeed, when Chairman Ron Carinci called the question, not a single member of the 12-person Board stood for free speech.

 

   The new policy will allow staff, especially if one of the anti-free speech groups complains, to decide what will be said at a meeting that hasn’t occurred yet and determine whether hate, contempt or discrimination against any of the long list of privileged people “might” occur and, on the basis, deny the booking. Three opponents of free speech spoke as delegations, including Bernie Farber, formerly CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and Madi Murariu of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

 

    I had driven for an hour and 20 minutes on treacherous roads in the Winter’s first snow storm to arrive late but still on time for my presentation — the outline of which is attached.

    The Toronto Star (December 11, 2107) reported: ” Paul Fromm was visibly upset when the board voted in favour of the restrictions.

‘I’m very disappointed the board has signed up for censorship and shut down views,’ said Fromm, who is director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.

Police were alerted ahead of what turned out to be a peaceful meeting as a ‘precaution, as we always do when there’s a potentially controversial situation,’ said Ana-Maria Critchley, a library spokesperson.”


​Paul Fromm addressing Toronto Library Board

   In the short non-debate, board members did much virtue signalling and several breathlessly proclaimed: “Free speech does not translate into hate speech.” as if they’d dreamed up this non sequitur on their own.

 

   John, a long-time free speech and CAFE supporter noted sadly that libraries used to be in the forefront of the fight against censorship and that the word “hate” has been hijacked and is meaningless. It is used to smear any idea the user does not like.

 

   Bernie Farber, a persistent opponent of free speech for decades, told his “I was a poor little Jewish boy being bullied in Ottawa and found safety in the library” story. He now says he’d feel unsafe in a library that allows people whose views he opposes to meet.

     So, apparently to comfort the snowflake, any meetings that “might” promote “hate” or even “contempt” must be silenced. I tried to point out to the Board that “contempt” really is just negative criticism.

 

   It was clear from the short discussion that the rental policies had been reviewed after intense lobbying from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, which also, incredibly, was consulted in the drafting of the new gag rules. Needless to say, the Canadian Association for Free Expression was not contacted. But then, this was never about freedom; it was really about limiting speech in buildings we all pay for.

 

   One Board member exulted: “The Toronto Public Library will be an oasis from hate and discrimination” and, it might be added, from the free expression of ideas.

   Tonight free speech in Toronto took a hit. Snowflakes and censors, 1; free thinkers, 0! — Paul Fromm

PRESENTATION TO TORONTO LIBRARY BOARD AGAINST PLANS TO IMPOSE POLITICALLY CORRECT RULES TO PREVENT MEETINGS
 
The enemies of free speech, the usual suspects — the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, B’nai Brith, Bernie Farber, Warren Kinsella and the street thugs of the Antifa raised a huge ruckus in July to try to shutdown CAFE’s memorial for free speech lawyer Barbara Kulazska. The Library hung tough. the meeting proceeded without a hitch. However, the Library was clearly spooked and promised to “review” its policies. The review goes to the Library Board tonight.  It is a vile document of cloying political correctness which would let staff deny a booking on the mere suspicion that remarks might expose a group or person to “contempt”; that is, criticism. Here is the presentation I shall giver.
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
 

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W

PH: 416-428-5308 ; FAX: 905-566-4820

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

Presentation to the Toronto Library Board by Frederick Paul Fromm – December 11, 2017

1.  The Toronto Library Board is considering revisions to its  Community and Event Space Rental Policy What concerns us are changes to the Denial of Use Section of the Policy.

“The Purpose section has been revised to add language about the Library’s objectives of providing equitable access to services and maintaining a welcoming supportive environment free from discrimination and harassment. 

 

· The Denial of Use sections 4.4 (a) and 5.4(a) both state much more strongly that room bookings will be denied or cancelled when the Library reasonably believes the purpose of the booking is likely to promote, or would have the effect of promoting, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor. 

 

· Under the same Denial of Use sections 4.4(b) and 5.4(b), violations of the Criminal Code of Canada (including hate propaganda laws) and the Ontario Human Rights Code are specifically referenced as unacceptable.”

 

2. First, the Toronto Public Library is not a private club. It belongs to all citizens and should be open to use, including rental of rooms for meetings, to all citizens, without discrimination, if for no other reason than all taxpayers pay for it.

 

3. It is fair to ask persons renting facilities to be aware that they must obey the law, including the Criminal Code and various bylaws. Thus, for instance, a smokers’ rights group should be able to rent a room for a meeting, but, if they announced, they would stage a smoke-in to dramatize their views, it would make sense to deny the booking.

 

4. People renting Library facilities must be responsible to their own words and actions. Staff should not have to try to guess what their words or actions might be.

 

5. In renting meeting space, the Library is not condoning or supporting any point of view, any more than having a book on the shelves means the library endorses the book’s conclusions. Clearly, the library contains many books with wildly different views on a given subject.

 

6. The revised policy is saddling staff with an impossible task — to decide, in advance, of an event, what will be said at that event and whether words that haven’t yet been uttered  are “likely to promote, or would have the effect of promoting, discrimination, contempt or hatred of any group, hatred for any person on the basis of race, ethnic origin, place of origin, citizenship, colour, ancestry, language, creed (religion), age, sex, gender identity, gender expression, marital status, family status, sexual orientation, disability, political affiliation, membership in a union or staff association, receipt of public assistance, level of literacy or any other similar factor.”

 

* “Promotion of hatred” is a bogeyman. No person or group who has rented Toronto Public Library facilities has, to our knowledge, ever been charged or convicted of “hate”; that is, Section 319 of the Criminal Code. This is a restrictive policy seeking to solve a problem that does not exist.

 

* But, it’s not just “hatred” but contempt that is being prohibited. “Contempt” is a very broad term, meaning dislike of a negative opinion of. It is hard to see how any criticism based on “race, religion, gender orientation or political affiliation or any of the other mentioned grounds” could pass muster. Suppose someone wrote a book entitled Mike Harris 20 Years Later. If the book repeated some of the common criticisms of the time — that Mike Harris balanced the budget on the backs of the poor and squeezed the education system —  and if the author were to speak about his book at a meeting, might is not be likely that the meeting would promote contempt of Mr. Harris because of his political affiliation and, therefore, should be cancelled?

 

* “Contempt” was included in the Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act but was repealed by Parliament in 2013. It is overly broad and basically chills any criticism on a whole range of topics.

 

* One wonders what “any other similar factor” might be.

 

7. This policy could lead to the banning of all sorts of meetings dealing with contentious topics. It is an affront to free speech, especially as it involves subjective “prior restraint” which is a violation of Canadians’ basic right to be considered innocent until proven guilty.

 

7. This policy is a reaction to an organized campaign by censorship minded groups and individuals who protested a memorial to a lawyer who represented controversial clients. these groups took the view that, because they disagreed with Barbara Kulazska’s clients, her friends and admirers should not be allowed to meet to remember her. The Library did the right thing in permitting that memorial to proceed.

 

8. In October, C-FAR Books sought to book a meeting for a talk by Victor Fletcher, editor and publisher of Toronto Street News. We were turned down on October 3 and informed: “  Given the history of the individual and group involved in the booking and the publication being discussed, Library staff believe that the booking could lead to a violation of hate speech legislation.” This decision was unreasonable and outrageous. Neither the individual or group involved in the booking or Mr. Fletcher or Toronto Street News has ever been charged, let alone convicted under Sec. 319. We fear that this censorship is a harbinger of what will happen should the Board adopt this new policy.

 

9. We fear the hecklers’ veto. If an organized lobby makes enough noise in trying to shut down a meeting of people they don’t like, the new policy is so broad that it gives staff the power to shut down any gathering more controversial than the Rosedale Orchid Society.

 

10. The policy contains no independent appeals process against the denial of a room booking. This is especially important as staff decisions may be made only on the basis of accusations or allegations made by groups or individuals seeking to get a meeting cancelled.

 

10. May we suggest a truly inclusive, open door policy. Any person or group, who is a taxpayer,  should be able to rent a meeting room, if available. They are made aware that they are responsible for their own conduct and for obeying all relevant laws. The community should be informed that the library follows a free speech policy. Meetings will not be cancelled because the speakers or topics are controversial.

 

11. The proposed policy will not buy peace but will embolden those who have no tolerance for views critical of their own group or ideology to try to shut down groups or speakers to whom they object.

Report from Pyongyang on the Prairies — Hotels Don’t Honour Bookings; Hotels Discriminate Against Whites; Cops Engineer Banning of Service

Report from Pyongyang on the Prairies — Hotels Don’t Honour Bookings; Hotels Discriminate Against Whites; Cops Engineer Banning of Service

SOMEWHERE IN MANITOBA, November 15, 2017. It’s been a wild day here in Winnipeg. Except for there not being the smell of kimchee in the air, this city is about as free as Pyongyang. It is a story of utterly cowardly hotels, blatant discrimination and, in the background, interference by the political police.

I was supposed to speak to local supporters at the Airport Hilton, My topic was

 Charlottesville Changed Everything

* An elite running scared

* New repression — Motion-103 (Islamophobia) now in committee

* Little rebellions across Canada

You can see the version of this speech I gave in Vancouver a few weeks ago: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EJzN-2486mQ

Before I arrived in Winnipeg, there had been two days of lies and denunciation in large articles in the Winnipeg Free Press, written by a reedy writer in a wool cap, one Ryan Thorpe. I comment on one of his smears at the end of this article. You’ll note the article reveals almost nothing about what I believe but unleashes a torrent of weaponized words — “neo-Nazi”, “White supremacist” etc.

VICTORIA, B.C.: AUGUST 14, 2010 – Paul Fromm, Canada First Immigration Reform Committee director, talks to the media during a protest against the rescue of Tamils, at CFB Esquimalt in Victoria, B.C. August 14, 2010. (ADRIAN LAM, TIMES COLONIST). For City story by Stand Alone

When I arrived in Winnipeg early this afternoon, I hopped the shuttle to the Airport Hilton. I was met at the door by Wade Barkman. He was accompanied by a massively overweight East Indian who wouldn’t identify himself to me. I assume he was some sort of a bodyguard. The two barred the doors; “We are not able to honour your reservation.” [That’s a contract guaranteed by a credit card.]

Why, I asked. I had patronized this hotel on and off for more than 20 years. He agreed I’d been a good guest. Well, why?

“Circumstances,” he said. I told him that was insulting and was no answer As late as Tuesday, the Hilton was hanging tough. Jewish groups — the usual instigators of censorship, were denouncing the hotel for profiting from my presence. Joel Lazer of the Jewish Federation of Winnipeg and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs said: “It is shameful that a local hotel is reportedly providing a platform (and therefore profiting) from Paul Fromm, a notorious white nationalist, to peddle his bigoted agenda.” (Winnipeg Free Press, November 15, 2017) Actually, I had rented a large bedroom suite for a small gathering.

An e-mail from Barkman even references the number of the contract that he was breaking:

#3392768116

Inbox x

Wade Barkman <Wade.Barkman@hilton.com>

to me

Mr. Paul Fromm,

 

Due to circumstances surrounding your scheduled visit to the Hilton Winnipeg airport Suites, we will be unable accept your request for accommodations tonight.  We will begin searching for alternate accommodations and will inform you if we are successful in finding you a hotel room elsewhere.

Local anti racists also promised protests. So, by this morning, the hotel had changed its mind. They were a little more forthcoming with long-time anti-free speech campaigner Helmut Harry Loewen: “We appreciate and acknowledge your concerns regarding Mr. Fromm’s proposed event… Due to safety and security concerns, the reservation has been cancelled and Mr. Fromm will no longer be staying at the hotel,” a spokesman for the hotel company wrote in an email to Helmut-Harry Loewen, a retired University of Winnipeg professor with a specialization in neo-fascism.

JASON HALSTEAD / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS

Canadian white nationalist Frederick Paul Fromm arrives in Winnipeg Wednesday night vowing to speak to supporters despite a local hotel cancelling his reservation.

 “Our goal is to provide quality accommodations for our guests, employees and members of our community visiting our hotel. Racism in any form is not tolerated,” the statement read.

  1. Who might pose a threat to safety or security? Presumably, the antifa. One wonders: Are there no police? Or is the mere threat of a protest enough to tear up a contract? Or worse are the Winnipeg cops actually a political police in cahoots with the antifa and more interested in suppressing politically incorrect thought than maintaining law and order?

Barkman claimed he’d tried to find me another hotel but could not — in hotel alley? He provided a cab and I set off to find another venue.

Not far away, I stopped in at the Main Stay Suites. I booked a suite. I contacted those invitees I could. I never cancel a meeting. I was receiving calls from interested people, some phoneys, some young and sincere. Indeed, I met three excellent new recruits this hectic. day.

I was treated to a fine supper by some good supporters. On the way back, I gave a short interview in person to scribbler, hatchetman — he’s not  reporter — Ryan Thorpe. I got a sneaky satisfaction from forcing him to buy me a double-double before I gave him a few quotations and let his frenetic cameraman wear out his camera snapping  pics. Then, back into my cab and on to the MainStay Suites (250-594-0500).

Then, about 7:45 just as people were beginning to arrive, I received a call from the hotel manager, who, like many cowards in this business, refused to give his full name. I challenged this slimy behaviour. I said: “You know my name. I want to know yours.” He suggested that I might not be using my proper name. I said: “I showed your staff my photo ID.”

Anyway, Jason — that’s the name he gave me — his story was that he was throwing me out because he had been contacted by the police. By this time there were about a dozen antifa protesters in the hotel parking lot. I suggested that he had no right to throw a person who had paid out of a hotel room. I cited the Innkeepers Act. [Can you imagine a sober Indian in a business suit being tossed out of a hotel room because of his politics? But then this is Pyongyang lite, not the True North of sturdy independent thinkers that is quickly fading into the past in this cultural Marxist vomitorium of diversity.]

I insisted that, if I was to be put out into the night, they would have to haul all my luggage, Eventually, a cab was found. Several supporters followed me as I headed to the Canad Hotel. The Filipina on the desk told me she had several types of rooms available. As soon as I showed my ID, she grew pale and asked me what the “P” in my name stood for. I told her, She became flustered. She made a phone call and then told me that having refreshed her screen, she found the hotel was overbooked. I expressed my serious skepticism.

She then broke down and confessed: “We had a call from corporate headquarters and were given a strict order not to let you stay.” I said: “This is blatant discrimination! Is it because I am a Christian? Is it because I am a White male?” She was clearly distressed.

I said:  “You were not born here. How would you feel if someone turned you out because, as you’ve just told me, you were from the Philippines?” She clearly sympathized. “I am only a worker,” she said softly. And of course, it was true. This was not her decision but the  decision of dark forces responding to pressure far greater than could be exerted by the motley crew of anti-racists.

My supporters and I headed out to a decidedly downscale hotel that was not part of a chain and was known to one of my guys. We pulled up to the Assiniboine, an old watering hole. As soon as the desk clerk saw my ID, he summoned the night manager, a bald burly man with earings who looked as if he’d done some bouncing decades ago. “I can’t let you stay. I have a bad gut feeling,” the bouncer said. Here I am a 68-year old man in a suit. Perhaps, given the dingy beer joint appearance of the place, a guy in a suit may have given him “a bad gut feeling.”

I asked his name.   He said it was “Brian.” What’s your last name? I asked, “I don’t have to tell you,” the cowardly bouncer said. The parking lot outside the quiet Assiniboine was almost  empty — few boozers or guests tonight.Odd that such a down-at-heels place would turn down a paying customer.

Clearly, the fix was in and likely from people with the power to make serious threats and that’s not the freakish antifa.

My supporters saw the pattern and found me other accommodations.

Hectic as the day was, I picked up three new supporters because of the publicity, two of whom saw first hand antifa goons and the shameless cowardice of the hospitality industry, which, ironically still e-mailed me several times for my reaction to my stay at the Hilton!

______________________________

This lying report captures only part of the drama.

White nationalist mulls legal action after Winnipeg hotel cancels room reservation

By: Ryan Thorpe
Posted: 11/15/2017 4:36 PM | Last Modified: 11/15/2017 9:49 PM UpdatesComments: 23

Frederick Paul Fromm said his presentation would go on as planned in an undisclosed location.

Facing backlash over news Frederick Paul Fromm would be holding a Wednesday night conference at the Hilton Winnipeg Airport Suites, the hotel issued a statement saying it has cancelled the notorious Canadian white nationalist’s room. [Actually, that’s a bedroom and, a lawyer advises me, utterly illegal discrimination.]

“We appreciate and acknowledge your concerns regarding Mr. Fromm’s proposed event… Due to safety and security concerns, the reservation has been cancelled and Mr. Fromm will no longer be staying at the hotel,” a spokesman for the hotel company wrote in an email to Helmut-Harry Loewen, a retired University of Winnipeg professor with a specialization in neo-fascism.

JASON HALSTEAD / WINNIPEG FREE PRESS

Canadian white nationalist Frederick Paul Fromm arrives in Winnipeg Wednesday night vowing to speak to supporters despite a local hotel cancelling his reservation.

 “Our goal is to provide quality accommodations for our guests, employees and members of our community visiting our hotel. Racism in any form is not tolerated,” the statement read.

Anti-facists soon called off a protest planned for outside the hotel, which was to counter-demonstrate Fromm’s far-right gathering and his presentation of a speech entitled Charlottesville Changes Everything.

“We’re very happy and feel very positive that Hilton made the right decision. Morally and ethically, it was the right call,” said Omar Kinnarath, a local organizer with Fascist Free Treaty 1.

“It’s great and shows that community organizing and community pressure works. We did something together today, the hotel, anti-fascists and all the groups that have been involved in this whole thing.”

Kinnarath went on to thank hotel staff for their patience when fielding calls from concerned community members during the past two days. [In other words, an organized campaign to interfere with the free exchange of ideas.]

Following his arrival in the city Wednesday, Fromm characterized the Hilton’s decision to cancel his booking as a breach of contract. He added he’s “disappointed, but not surprised.”

Fromm said he’s been in contact with a lawyer and is considering legal action against the company.

Citing help from local supporters, Fromm said the presentation would go on as planned and some 20 people were expected to attend. He did not make clear if the meeting would take place at another hotel in the city.

During a press conference Wednesday, Winnipeg Mayor Brian Bowman denounced Fromm’s visit.

“Winnipeg and Winnipeggers are voicing their repulsion with the prospect of Mr. Fromm espousing his hate in the city of Winnipeg. I want to let those Winnipeggers that are expressing their repulsion know that I’m with them and I’d encourage them to continue to express their condemnation… in a lawful manner,” Bowman said.

“Certainly, I find the hate he is promoting in cities across Canada, and now purportedly in Winnipeg, unwelcome and repulsive, and the vast majority of Winnipeggers will share those views as well.” [What an ignoramus this mayor is, denouncing a speech that has not yet been delivered and which he obviously has not heard.]

Fromm is a former educator who was dismissed by the Ontario College of Teachers in the late 1990s for his association with neo-Nazi organizations, although he denounces the term “neo-Nazi” as a misnomer.

He identifies as a white nationalist activist, though he is generally viewed as a white supremacist, and used to host a radio show on the neo-Nazi and white supremacist website Stormfront. [I told the reporter Stormfront is not “neo-Nazi” and that the word is a smear. Note that he offers no evidence that I am “generally viewed as a White supremacist”. I emphatically told him I am NOT a supremacist and do not seek to dominate anyone. I want to preserve the place of the European founder/settler people of North America.]

and has long standing ties with some of North America’s most well-known Ku Klux Klan members, white supremacists and neo-Nazis, including David Duke, Don Andrews, Don Black and the late Ernst Zundel, among others.[An orgy of name calling. I told him that NONE of these men call themselves Nazis, noe- or otherwise. None considers himself a White supremacist and none is a member of the KKK.]

[Thorpe claims to have seen the video of this talk and, yet, you read the column and learn nothing about my views. You do read the weaponized words “neo-Nazi” and “White supremacist” which are vague but signal “bad guy”]

ryan.thorpe.media@mail.com

CAFE Backs Freedom of the Press & Free Speech As YOUR WARD NEWS Hearing Opens in Toronto

CAFE Backs Freedom of the Press & Free Speech As YOUR WARD NEWS Hearing Opens in Toronto

Temporary ban on delivery of controversial newspaper under review

BY NEWS STAFF

POSTED APR 25, 2017 4:48 PM EDT

LAST UPDATED APR 25, 2017 AT 5:04 PM EDT

Procedures have begun for Board of Review hearings over a controversial newspaper that began appearing in mailboxes across Toronto last year.

In June 2016, Canada Post was ordered by the federal government to prohibit delivery of Your Ward News, a publication that sparked allegations of racism, bigotry, anti-Semitism and hate. Judy Foote, the minister responsible for Canada Post, issued the interim prohibitory order under the Canada Post Corporation Act.

James Sears, the publication’s editor-in-chief appealed that order and, as procedure under the Act dictates, Foote appointed a Board of Review consisting of three members to consider whether Canada Post should legally distribute the paper.

Over the last few months, members of the public had the opportunity to make submissions in the hopes of participating in the review.

It has been a divided issue encompassing a debate between proponents of freedom of speech and opponents of alleged hate speech. Here’s what some players on both sides had to say as the proceedings began Tuesday.

 

IN SUPPORT OF DISTRIBUTION:

Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression:

Paul Fromm, director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, on April 25, 2017. CITYNEWS

“This is an incredibly arbitrary and ruthless power all because some politically-correct people didn’t like what’s in Your Ward News. Tough. People should have the right to publish what they want. If people don’t want to read, there’s a garbage can. There’s a blue box. There’s the bottom of the birdcage. What we are seeing is an effort by people who don’t like the content for whatever reason to say, ‘I don’t like it and you can’t read it and you can’t send it out.’ And that’s what this battle is all about…..We used to be a country where we said, ‘Look, I don’t agree with you. But you’ve got a right to your opinion. You’ve got a right to say it. That’s what Your Ward News is.”

 

AGAINST DISTRIBUTION:

Sara Lefton, vice president of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

Sara Lefton, vice president of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, in Toronto on April 25, 2017. CITYNEWS

“This is pure and simple hate. When people are getting Your Ward News in the mail and they’re getting it at their doorstep, they feel unsafe, they feel targeted in their homes. There’s no place for hate like this in Canada, and we need the decision to stand so hate like this will not continue … When there are pieces of clear discrimination and hate speech that are being disseminated en masse to people’s doorsteps there should be no place for that, and that shouldn’t be allowed.”

 

IN SUPPORT OF DISTRIBUTION:

Raychyl Whyte, Board of Review applicant

 

“Someone should still have the right to freedom of speech. I myself know what it is like to have public humiliation, public shame due to libelous comments and presumptions made about me. I know all too well what that is like. However, I still support people’s rights to have their own independent free speech.”

 

AGAINST DISTRIBUTION:

Warren Kinsella, founding member, Standing Together Against Mailing Prejudice

Warren Kinsella talks to CityNews in Toronto on April 25, 2017. CITYNEWS

“For the people that have been victimized by this so-called newspaper, that’s a problem. There’s Holocaust denial, there’s propagation of rape, there’s use of the N-word. There’s racism on every single page. It is the most disgusting thing. I’ve been doing this stuff for 30 years. I’ve never seen a publication like this distributed in Canada as widely as this one is and certainly not one distributed by Canada Post … We need to say Canada Post should not be distributing hatred.”

 

IN SUPPORT OF DISTRIBUTION:

Emilie Taman, co-counsel for James Sears

Emilie Taman, co-counsel for James Sears, is seen during an interview in Toronto on April 25, 2017. CITYNEWS

“It’s not something that I’m necessarily per se excited to be reading about, but I do believe in the constitutional right to free speech, and it’s one that I think is very important to be defended at every opportunity.”

 

AGAINST DISTRIBUTION:

Derek Richmond, Canadian Union of Postal Workers

Derek Richmond, of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, is seen during an interview in Toronto on April 25, 2017. CITYNEWS

“Me, personally, I didn’t deliver [Your Ward News] but many of our letter carriers did. A lot of them are very diverse and had to go through the whole day viewing swastikas, viewing hate, viewing sexist material, rape culture. It really affected a lot of our letter carriers.”

Warman & Jewish Lobby Groups Protest CAFE’S Alison Chabloz Tour

Warman & Jewish Lobby Groups Protest CAFE’S Alison Chabloz Tour

The Canadian Association for Free Expression’s 4-Province, 8-city, 9-meetings, two dinner events tour for English revisionist satirist, song writer and chanteuse is really stirring up the forces of thought control and repression.

In a near hysterical story, the NATIONAL POST‘s Stewart Bell (March 3, 2017) records the anger of various Zionist groups that any opinion but their own might be heard in Canada. Stewart Bell is one of the go-to guys when the Zionist lobby wants a story planted. Note that he did not solicit the opinion of CAFE, the organizer of the tour.

The article begins: “Canadian Jewish groups are asking why the federal government allowed a British woman accused of Holocaust denial into the country to speak at a neo-Nazi event.

The racist group Blood & Honour said on its website that Alison Chabloz would be the “special guest” at a $10-per-person event it was hosting in Calgary on Thursday night.

“B’nai Brith is disappointed that Canadian authorities have allowed notorious British Holocaust denier Alison Chabloz to enter this country, especially when the express purpose of her visit is to propagate her anti-Semitic views.”

.
B’nai Brith Canada said it had notified Calgary Police. The incident comes amid concerns over rising hate crimes, including Holocaust denial posters at the University of Calgary.”

Well, B’nai Brith has no idea what Miss Chabloz will be speaking on. She is telling her story.

Notice, the approach: We don’t like your views; so, you shouldn’t be allowed to speak in Canada.

One of the sad results of the 50-year-long assault on free speech in Canada is the politicization of our police. Why should the police be notified about a speaker? Miss Chabloz arrived in Calgary March 2 and could have had nothing to do with any postering there weeks ago.
And notice the verbal overkill and drama: a poster is not a ‘hate crime.’!

See, what I mean about hysterical?

The article continues: ““This news is particularly unnerving during a week when swastikas were found at York University (in Toronto), and Chabloz is scheduled to speak in Calgary tonight — just days after Calgary‘s Jewish Community Center was evacuated due to bomb threats,” said Avi Benlolo, president and CEO of the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center for Holocaust Studies.”

Again a swastika at York University and a bomb threat to Calgary’s Jewish Community Centre preceded Miss Chabloz’s stay in those cities. There is simply NO connection. A swastika? It may be offensive to some people, but so what? In a diverse society almost anything can offend someone and which group has most pushed the “diversity” agenda?

Oh, yes, right in there seeking to shut down opinions he doesn’t like is Richard Warman: “:Ottawa human rights lawyer Richard Warman, who first raised concerns about her visit, said Chabloz should be removed from Canada if she was not forthright with immigration authorities.” This chronic meddler and complainer is erroneously identified by this sucky hit piece as an “Ottawa human rights lawyer.” Well, Ottawa is correct. In the Orwellian world of the “human rights” industry, freedom of speech is brutally erased from the natural rights of man and replaced by the coddling and protection of the feelings of privileged minorities.

Jewish groups upset ‘notorious British Holocaust denier’ allowed into Canada to attend neo-Nazi event

Stewart Bell | March 2, 2017 | Last Updated: Mar 2 6:16 PM ET
More from Stewart Bell | @StewartBellNP

Alison Chabloz allegedly posted a mocking song about the Holocaust on YouTube last year, prompting a court action. She has denied the allegations.

Handout

Toronto Jewish Lobby Group Enraged at “Evalion’s” Videos

Toronto Jewish Lobby Group Enraged at “Evalion’s” Videos

Ontario teen who called for ‘white’ Canada has laptops seized by CBSA

WATCH ABOVE: GTA teen who called for ‘white’ Canada has laptops seized by CBSA

 A A 

“Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler, Happy Birthday to you,” the voice of a teenager singing to Hitler is jarring.

Then the young woman in the video acknowledges how most people would react.

.I know what you guys are thinking right now, you are going, ‘Like, oh my God, how can you celebrate Hitler’s birthday? Hitler is so evil,’” she says.

That was just one of dozens of videos posted on social media by Veronica Bouchard,  [EVALION] * described by some ** as one of the first female neo-Nazi YouTubers. ***

The Greater Toronto Area woman may also be among the youngest — she just turned 19 this month.

Posting videos under a pseudonym, Bouchard uses racial slurs, calls for a “white” only Canada and blames increasing crime rates on immigrants and refugees.

Bouchard is angry that when returning from Germany, the Canada Border Services Agency detained her at the airport.

She said officers went through her personal diary, then seized her notebooks and laptop.

“They said, ‘We are investigating you for promotion of hate propaganda’ for what they saw I wrote,” said Bouchard.

YouTube shut down Bouchard’s account and has repeatedly pulled her videos off their site, but others have reposted them.

She said even the video where she sings Happy Birthday to Hitler shouldn’t be seen as offensive.

“I did it because it was funny,” she said.

She was asked if she thought it was funny to Jewish people whose families died in the Holocaust.

“I think if they had a sense of humour they would find it funny,” she replied. “I made that video to guide to another video where I talked about Adolf Hitler in a different [way], the German side of the story.”

Berl Nadler, Co-Chair for the Toronto Council of the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs said while Canada isn’t immune to racism, Bouchard’s videos are more disturbing in that they are so “explicit” in their hatred.

“This is Hitlerian Nazi propaganda,” Nadler said “Not only is it ani-semitism, she hates everybody that isn’t her.

Bouchard said she doesn’t hate, she just believes races shouldn’t mix. She said she developed her views by growing up in the multicultural community of Markham.

Nadler’s response was pretty straightforward.

“Get an education, grow up,” he said.

Bouchard argued it’s about freedom of speech and that she should be able to express her opinion, even if it goes against popular opinion.

“We are very different, and that’s OK,” she said. “It shouldn’t be taboo.”

http://globalnews.ca/news/3052556/ontario-teen-who-called-for-white-canada-has-laptops-seized-by-cbsa/

_______________________

Typical of the media’s dishonest journalism;

* “Evalion” was interviewed under her screen name. She did not volunteer nor confirm her identity to the reporter. She is a teenager and has been subject to physical and online threats of violence. The lengthy Global interview has as part of its purpose to “out” her in the interests of outside and hostile powers.

** Evalion does not describe herself as a “neo-Nazi” which is a slur.

** Who are the “some” who makes this dishonest charge?

Alberta Al’s letter to the Jasper Fitzhugh on the smearing of Monika Schaefer and her right to freedom of speech July 22, 2016 by admin 3 Comments ALBERTAALNEWHDR copy From: “Al Romanchuk” romanesq@shaw.ca Subject: The smearing of Monika Schaefer and her right to freedom of speech Date: July 22, 2016 To: editor@fitzhugh.ca Mr. Clarke, Not only was I disappointed in your article allowing the printing of the condemnation of Miss Schaefer by Ken Kuzminski and the two Jewsish organizations, I became downright angry. I am an 80 year old now retired in Kelowna but was once the alderman and Mayor of Grande Prairie where I lived and worked as a lawyer for 15 glorious years. Allowing Mr. Kuzminski to smear and degrade Miss Schaefer, along with the Jewish organizations THE CENTRE FOR ISRAEL & JEWISH AFFAIRS and the EDMONTON JEWISH FEDERATION, for no apparent good reason other than in your OPINION she went too far in her video questioning the so-called Jewish holocaust. I have been an avid free speech advocate all my life. I believe that freedom of speech INCLUDES the right to offend. If people don’t like what I say or write they don’t have to hear me nor read my articles. But here you have allowed self-seeking groups and an individual to perpetuate a lie about Miss Schaefer when all she REALLY did was IN HER OPINION deny the holocaust. And there are many deniers out there. As a lawyer I have been taught to question, question, question and question because you’ll never get an answer without questioning. So I took the liberty of writing to these two Jewish organizations, one of which labelled Miss Schaefer an “ignoramus” and “anti-semite”, and asked them a simple question: SINCE YOU HAVE ASSERTED THE POSITIVE THAT THE GERMANS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE KILLING OF EXACTLY 6 MILLION JEWS DURING WW2, PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH WRITTEN AND SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE OF YOUR ASSERTION BECAUSE IT IS YOU THAT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF. I have yet to receive answers. KuzminskiNDP As for Mr. Kuzminski he ought to be ashamed of himself as President of the Jasper Legion to inflame the public against Miss Schaefer for expressing her opinion. Quite frankly I don’t think that Mr. Kuzminski knows the first thing about the history of the so-called Jewish holocaust of WW2. His bigoted opinion against Miss Schaefer deserves the worst condemnation because as the grand pooh-bear of a prestigious organization he should know better. If he doesn’t believe in free, unfettered speech then he should have the guts, the mettle, to say so. The same goes for every Jewish organization in Canada. I support Miss Schaefer and HER DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to say what she wants in a non-aggressive manner and her video is no exception. Blocking freedom of speech and of the press is nothing short of silencing those of us who believe in the unrestricted right to our freedoms. ALEXANDER S. ROMANCHUK Kelowna, BC Email: romanesq@shaw. ca

Alberta Al’s letter to the Jasper Fitzhugh on the smearing of Monika Schaefer and her right to freedom of speech

July 22, 2016 by 3 Comments

ALBERTAALNEWHDR copy

From: “Al Romanchuk” romanesq@shaw.ca
Subject: The smearing of Monika Schaefer and her right to freedom of speech
Date: July 22, 2016

 

Mr. Clarke,

Not only was I disappointed in your article allowing the printing of the condemnation of Miss Schaefer by Ken Kuzminski and the two Jewsish organizations, I became downright angry.  I am an 80 year old now retired in Kelowna but was once the alderman and Mayor of Grande Prairie where I lived and worked as a lawyer for 15 glorious years.  Allowing Mr. Kuzminski to smear  and degrade Miss Schaefer, along with the Jewish organizations THE CENTRE FOR ISRAEL & JEWISH AFFAIRS and the EDMONTON JEWISH FEDERATION, for no apparent good reason other than in your OPINION she went too far in her video questioning the so-called Jewish holocaust.

I have been an avid free speech advocate all my life.  I believe that freedom of speech INCLUDES the right to offend.  If people don’t like what I say or write they don’t have to hear me nor read my articles.  But here you have allowed self-seeking groups and an individual to perpetuate a lie about Miss Schaefer when all she REALLY did was IN HER OPINION deny the holocaust.  And there are many deniers out there.

As a lawyer I have been taught to question, question, question and question because you’ll never get an answer without questioning.  So I took the liberty of writing to these two Jewish organizations, one of which labelled Miss Schaefer an “ignoramus” and “anti-semite”, and asked them a simple question:  SINCE YOU HAVE ASSERTED THE POSITIVE THAT THE GERMANS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE KILLING OF EXACTLY 6 MILLION JEWS DURING WW2, PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH WRITTEN AND SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE OF YOUR ASSERTION BECAUSE IT IS YOU THAT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.  I have yet to receive answers.

KuzminskiNDP

As for Mr. Kuzminski he ought to be ashamed of himself as President of the Jasper Legion to inflame the public against Miss Schaefer for expressing her opinion.  Quite frankly I don’t think that Mr. Kuzminski knows the first thing about the history of the so-called Jewish holocaust of WW2.  His bigoted opinion against Miss Schaefer deserves the worst condemnation because as the grand pooh-bear of a prestigious organization he should know better.  If he doesn’t believe in free, unfettered speech then he should have the guts, the mettle, to say so.  The same goes for every Jewish organization in Canada.

I support Miss Schaefer and HER DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to say what she wants in a non-aggressive manner and her video is no exception.  Blocking freedom of speech and of the press is nothing short of silencing those of us who believe in the unrestricted right to our freedoms.

ALEXANDER S. ROMANCHUK
Kelowna, BC
Email: romanesq@shaw. ca

Look at Which Organized Group is Seeking to Squelch Free Speech … Again!

 Look at Which Organized Group is Seeking to Squelch Free Speech … Again!

Frederick Fromm's photo.

Jewish Groups Denounce Choice of Antisemite to Headline ‘Freedom to Read Week’ Event in Toronto

FEBRUARY 14, 2016 9:20 PM 35 COMMENTS

Author:

Self-described anti-Zionist author and journalist Max Blumenthal. Photo: Wikipedia.

Two major Jewish groups gently ripped into the Canadian branch of the international organization PEN — which campaigns on behalf of writers persecuted or imprisoned for expressing themselves freely – for inviting a highly controversial author to headline an event it is co-sponsoring, theCanadian Jewish News reported on Sunday.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) and the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center asked PEN why it is headlining the event, to be held on Feb. 24 at the Toronto Reference Library, with self-described “anti-Zionist” Max Blumenthal, whose fringe positions on Israel have earned him the label of antisemite.

Blumenthal, author of The 51 Day War: Ruin and Resistance in Gaza and Goliath: Life and Loathing in Greater Israel, was invited by PEN Canada, in conjunction with Independent Jewish Voices and Another Story Bookshop (as part of “Freedom to Read Week”) to be the star attraction at the event, titled “Embattled Truths: Reporting on Gaza.” His co-panelist will be Toronto Star foreign affairs reporter Olivia Ward.

“We thought this is an odd choice,” CIJA spokesperson Martin Sampson told the CJN. “Why would they do that? Why would they put their reputation at risk by associating with Blumenthal? I think his extreme positions disqualify him for being a rational, reasonable contributor in the discourse about Israel.”

Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Center CEO Avi Benlolo told the CJN: “Max Blumenthal represents the radical left’s extremist belief that Israel is the embodiment of all evil and has no right to exist. His most recent book – [which has been] dubbed the ‘I Hate Israel Handbook’ – supports the mainstreaming of growing antisemitic attitudes by conflating Israel with Nazi Germany. While shunned by conventional media outlets, the book is popular on major antisemitic, neo-Nazi and conspiracy theory websites such as Stormfront and David Duke’s Rense, where his work is used to promote anti-Jewish hate. I’m not sure what PEN is trying to achieve by giving Blumenthal a podium from which to spew his hatred, but if its goal is to contribute to increasing antisemitism in Canada, then I guess they will succeed.”

According to the CJN, PEN spokesperson Brendan de Caires responded by saying that the group’s mandate is to “raise difficult subjects… We are a free speech organization. We embrace an open exchange of ideas.” And “the whole premise of our discussion is that this [Gaza] is a hot topic.”

De Caires added, “We have no stake in the content of what Mr. Blumenthal says. [But] we support his right to say it.”

According to CJN, Toronto Public Library stakeholder relations manager Ana-Maria Critchley said that, in spite of the controversy, the event will be going ahead as planned. “Blumenthal has been invited very clearly not because of his personal views, but to speak on his experience as a journalist,” she said.

Max Blumenthal’s name came to the fore recently, when the latest batch of emails released from the server of Democratic presidential hopeful Hillary Clinton revealed correspondence with her former adviser, Sidney Blumenthal, the author’s father. In these exchanges, Blumenthal senior sent Clinton links to a number of anti-Israel articles written by his son.

Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal

Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal by Eve Mykytyn

November 29, 2015 by  Leave a Comment

Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 4.51.44 PM

Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal
The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham: Part 3
by Eve Mykytyn / November 29th, 2015

On November 12, 2015 Arthur Topham was convicted of inciting hatred against a racial group, the Jewish people. Mr. Topham maintains a website, RadicalPress.com, in which he publishes and comments upon various documents. These documents include The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, various anti-Zionist texts, and a tract entitled Germany Must Perish!, first published in 1941 and then satirized by Mr. Topham as Israel Must Perish!.

Mr. Topham’s defense rested primarily on the theory that his writing was not directed at Jews as a race or religion, but rather at the politics espoused by a number of Jewish people. The best discussion of this topic is by Gilad Atzmon, contained in his book, The Wandering Who?. The basic take away for considering the implications of Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction is that some people conflate Judaism as a religion, an ethnic heritage AND with a political view, not always consistent, that generally favors Israel’s perceived benefit.

Canada has a lobby entitled Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) that lobbies the Canadian government on behalf of Israel. Mr. Rudner, who had lodged various complaints about Mr. Topham in the past and was the Crown’s expert in Mr. Topham’s case, has worked for CIJA or its predecessor for 15 years. So the Crown relied upon the testimony of a man who lobbies for Israel (clearly a political entity) for proof of anti Semitic content and potential harm to Jewish people. His appearance in tiny Quesnel is testimony to the political importance that his organization places on silencing Mr. Topham. (The original witness scheduled to testify, Mr. Farber was a former colleague of Rudner’s, and apparently the two are close enough that Mr. Rudner’s written testimony was an exact duplicate of Mr. Farber’s original.)

Since Mr. Topham was accused of anti-Semitism, let’s look at the term. The quote below is from the Holocaust Encyclopedia, published and maintained by the United States Holocaust Museum so it is probably safe to assume that this is a standard definition.

“The word antisemitism means prejudice against or hatred of Jews. The Holocaust, the state-sponsored persecution and murder of European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945, is history’s most extreme example of antisemitism. In 1879, German journalist Wilhelm Marr originated the term antisemitism, denoting the hatred of Jews, and also hatred of various liberal, cosmopolitan, and international political trends of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often associated with Jews. The trends under attack included equal civil rights, constitutional democracy, free trade, socialism, finance capitalism, and pacifism.”

Interesting that, in the first paragraph of its section on anti-Semitism, the encyclopedia blends together the concepts of ‘hatred of the Jews’ with opposition to various political and social movements generally associated with Jews. This is puzzling. Is it anti-Semitism to oppose socialism or is it anti-Semitic to oppose finance capitalism? While one could oppose both, it would be impossible to espouse either view without rejecting the other. I assume the author did not intend to imply that opposition to socialism, for instance, was it anti-Semitic even if such opposition was from a fellow Jew.

I bring this up because this is precisely what I believe happened in Mr. Topham’s case. Mr. Topham was charged with two counts of inciting hatred over different periods of time. The jury found him guilty on the first count and not guilty on the second. Of course there are many possible explanations for a split verdict (none of which the jury is allowed to discuss even after trial without committing what the judge termed a ‘criminal’ offense). The observers, including myself, tended to believe that the discrepancy in the verdicts was a result of the text Germany Must Perish! and its satirization by Mr. Topham in Israel Must Perish!, a text that appeared on his website during the period for which Mr. Topham was found guilty.

The original text of Germany Must Perish! was written in 1941 by Theodore Kaufman, an American Jewish man. The text was originally self-published, but was apparently advertised and reviewed by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Time magazine. In any case, the publication was well known enough to have been read in Germany and was cited by Hitler and Goebbels as evidence of the bad intention of the Jews. The book is horrendous. Its semi-literate ravings are a ridiculous indictment of the German people and their warlike nature. Kaufman advocates sterilization of the Germans as the only possible remedy. At best, the author is confusing all Germans with Nazis, but that is not what the book says. Mr. Topham’s satire in which he substitutes the words ‘Israel’ for Germany and ‘Zionists’ for Germans helps to make the original text comprehensible. The satire hopefully provides some insight into how these words might have been viewed by Germans in 1941. The proof that the works were effective but the satire was not understood, is that Mr. Topham faced criminal charges for aping Kaufman’s words.

In its case, the Crown made the point that Israel Must Perish! was a horrible text. The Crown argued that the fact that the words were originally written by a Jewish man to indict the Germans did not kosher the text. “Jews,” the Crown said, “could write anti-Semitic things too.” Presumably her next case will be against a Jew for inciting hatred against the Jewish people. Mr. Topham was making a political point. I believe he was trying to convey the idea that Israel and Zionists could seem very much like Germans and Nazism in 1941. It is not necessary to agree with Mr. Topham’s point to understand it.

If I am right and it was this text that caused Mr. Topham’s conviction, then that is an important indictment against Canada’s admirable attempts to limit ‘hate’ speech while allowing freedom of political speech. Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction may well have been the result of a misunderstanding that Mr. Topham was criticizing Israel and Zionism and not Jews as a race. Germany and Israel are political constructs, Germans may not be, but Zionists, or those who support establishment of the state of Israel are, by definition, espousing a political cause. So, Mr. Topham criticized the political cause of the Zionists. Is there a way in which Canada’s laws would allow Mr. Topham’s political views to find an outlet? Perhaps Canada ought to make criticism of Israel legally off limits so that Canadians may adjust their behavior accordingly.

Read Part 1 and 2.
Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.