Infamous white nationalist Paul Fromm wants to address city council on free speech

Andrew Dreschel: Infamous white nationalist Paul Fromm wants to address city council on free speech 

‘I think his track record speaks for itself and it’s not welcome at city hall’

OPINION 02:46 PM by Andrew Dreschel  Hamilton Spectator

 

Paul Fromm

Paul Fromm, an avowed white nationalist and infamous far-right activist, is asking to publicly address councillors over his concerns their proposed hate prevention policies are limiting free speech. – Hand out

After a summer sizzling with hate issues, a new hot potato has landed in city council’s lap.

Paul Fromm, an avowed white nationalist and infamous far-right activist, is asking to publicly address councillors over his concerns their proposed hate prevention policies are limiting free speech.

Councillors will debate Wednesday whether to accept or reject Fromm’s delegation request.

They also have to decide whether to grant delegation status to Lisa Thompson, a member of the Hamilton yellow-vest group, which protests in front of city hall every Saturday.

Fromm, a Hamilton resident, says he was “shocked” by some of the hate prevention initiatives council floated earlier this summer in the wake of the Pride brawl at Gage Park and ongoing yellow-vest demonstrations.

“I don’t think it’s up to city council to play referee on various points of view,” Fromm said in an interview.

“I was shocked I was hearing this in Hamilton, not Havana.”

sto

Fromm’s request lands after months of controversy, which saw: fisticuffs at the Gage Park Pride celebrations between white nationalist/homophobic protesters and Pride supporters/anarchists; criticisms of police response to the clash; the swarming of Mayor Fred Eisenberger’s home by LGBTQ+ activists/anarchists; and a city hall investigation ending with the departure of city IT worker Marc Lemire, who was linked to a former white nationalist group.

Against that background, the dilemma Fromm presents councillors is plain as a red flag.

By allowing him to address the general issues committee, they’ll almost certainly be lambasted for giving a platform to his ultraright agenda. But by rejecting his request, they run the risk of being criticized for suppressing free speech.

The mayor is well aware of how tricky the situation is. After all, he spent a good part of the summer trying to build bridges with the LGBTQ+ community after being accused of responding indifferently to its concerns.

Eisenberger told The Spectator that denying Fromm the five minutes of speaking time allotted to delegates could become a “bigger issue” than having the committee chair simply police his comments to ensure he’s doesn’t say “hateful things.”

But in the end, Eisenberger stated the obvious: the request is open to consideration by council.

Coun. Jason Farr is also cautious. Recognizing council is walking a “fine line,” he expects a “healthy debate.”

For his part, Coun. Sam Merulla bluntly states he won’t support Fromm’s bid because he’s a known white nationalist. He believes council should refuse to listen to him.

“If he wants to appeal it, he has every right to. But I think his track record speaks for itself, and it’s something not welcome at city hall.”

Fromm, 70, is the director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, which bills itself as a political group committed to free speech, immigration reform and “political sanity.”

In 2018, he ran for mayor of Hamilton, racking up 706 votes. In 2007, the Ontario College of Teachers took away his teaching license for unprofessional conduct outside the classroom because he participated in white supremacist events and held beliefs contrary to tolerance and multiculturalism.

He previously supported Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, who was deported back to Germany in 2005 after the courts judged him a security threat.

Fromm denies being a white supremacist but happily agrees he’s a white nationalist.

“As a white nationalist, I do not want to see the European founding/settler people of this country swamped, and that’s what’s happening with mass immigration over the last 40 years.”

Fromm says a lot of provocative things.

He says attempting to prevent hate speech is “like trying to prevent the wind.”

He says hate speech is a “term of abuse” that doesn’t apply until someone has been charged and convicted of it.

And he says if council won’t listen to his concerns, it’s a “sad comment on democracy” but indicative of a time when people are “terrified to open their mouths.”

Whatever council decides to do, the debate may be the torrid capper to this long, hot summer.

Andrew Dreschel’s commentary usually appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. adreschel@thespec.com @AndrewDreschel

905-526-3495

Andrew Dreschel’s commentary usually appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday. adreschel@thespec.com @AndrewDreschel

905-526-3495

Recent articles by Andrew Dreschel

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

 

 

July 22, 2019

 

The Editor,

STONEY CREEK  NEWS,

 

Dear Sir:

 

Your editorial “What is the Greater Good?” (July 18, 2019) deals with the dilemma of what Council should do or can do to curb protests on public property.

 

Actually, there should be no dilemma. The right to protest or to present grievances to the monarch or ruler goes back to Magna Carta. As well, the Charter guarantees freedom of speech, freedom of association or assembly and freedom of religion. A variety of groups, some of whose views some citizens find offensive, have protested recently. That’s their absolute right. Council has busainess even to consider restrictions

 

Despite the views of some snowflakes, we enjoy no right not to be offended. Critics frequently denounce those they dislike with  terms  like” hate speech” and “hate groups” . These weaponized words are a lot of noise without substance. “Wilfully promoting hate” against certain groups is a criminal offence in Canada. It is narrowly construed. To my knowledge, none of the participants on various sides of these protests has ever been charged with or convicted of hate. The accusation of “hate” usually tells us more about the accuser’s emotions than the words criticized. “Hate speech”  means speech the accuser hates.

 

The city does have a legitimate role in ensuring that the protests are peaceful. Police should continue to observe these protests and, where rival factions show up, make certain that the two sides are kept apart — say on opposite sides of the street — so that both can exercize their right to wave their signs or flags and make their views known.

 

 

Council should go back to dealing with important issues like fixing our deplorable roads and leave free speech alone.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Paul Fromm

Director