A Very Worthy Cause: Support Glen Allen’s Lawsuit against the SPLC

Essays

A Very Worthy Cause: Support Glen Allen’s Lawsuit against the SPLC

Chris Rossetti (Editor) · 7

Mark Potok, defendant

by Kevin MacDonald

GLEN ALLEN, an attorney from Baltimore, is doing what I wish I had been able to do a long time ago: sue the SPLC. His case is much stronger and much more sympathy-inducing than mine would have been. Basically, the SPLC got Allen fired from his job with the city of Baltimore where he was in charge of writing appeals in cases where Baltimore lost in the lower courts (“Lawsuit Claims SPLC Abetted Theft, Spread Lies to Destroy Lawyer for ‘Thought Crime’”). All it took was a simple phone call alleging that he has ideas that are unacceptable to the powers that be. In particular, he is accused of having supported William Pierce’s National Alliance in the past. As the notorious Heidi Beirich (a defendant in the case) stated in an interview, she “watched Allen ‘like a hawk’ because he had ‘the worst ideas ever created.’”

Presumably this refers to ideas like identifying with your racial or ethnic group and doing what one can to further its interests, as well as calling attention to groups that are antithetical to ideas of White identity and White interests. It goes without saying that such ideas are perfectly acceptable for every other racial and ethnic group in the U.S except Whites.

Allen’s complaint (here) is a brilliant, exhaustive account of the facts relevant to the case. I strongly recommend delving into it — it’s user friendly, even for a non-attorney. At the outset is a ringing defense of free speech and the First Amendment:

Providence has endowed humanity with the ability to grow and change. Indeed, we have a moral obligation to grow and change as we learn new aspects of reality. At the pinnacle of the means by which we grow and change should be robust dialogue, open debate, an aversion to taboos, and genuine conversation. This is the theory of our remarkable American traditions of free expression, as embodied, among other ways, in the First Amendment. But there are also other approaches to inevitable human discord. One is to draw lines of political or cultural orthodoxy, develop massive surveillance networks and extensive dossiers, and severely punish perceived transgressors who cross those lines, seem to cross them, or even seem to think about crossing them.

Beirich, Potok, and the SPLC, defendants in this case, have chosen this latter approach. Motivated by lucrative fundraising aims and employing fundraising techniques decried across the political spectrum as deceptive, the SPLC’s avowed goal, under the leadership of Beirich, Potok, and others, is to destroy, through public shaming, loss of employment, loss of reputation, and other severe harms, groups and persons the SPLC broadly defines as its political enemies.

Glen Allen, plaintiff in this case, is one of Beirich’s, Potok’s, and the SPLC’s victims. The cause of free expression itself is another, for the SPLC has become one of the most effective forces in the country for stifling honest and robust debate on controversial issues. Beirich, Potok, and the SPLC are entitled to espouse their outlook forcefully. They are not entitled, however, to the following actions, all alleged and supported in this complaint: to receive, pay for, and use stolen documents, including confidential documents and documents protected by attorney client privilege, to tortiously interfere with Allen’s prospective advantage in employment; to defame him by publishing false statements that he was “infiltrating” the City of Baltimore’s Law Department; or to masquerade as a 501c3 public interest law firm dedicated to a tax exempt educational mission, when in reality the SPLC fails the basic requirements for this favored status because of its illegal actions (including numerous instances of mail and wire fraud), multiple violations of canons of professional ethics (including improper disclosure of confidential and privileged documents and failure to train its nonlawyer employees), orchestration of violations of the constitutional rights of the organizations and individuals it targets, and sensationalist supermarket tabloid style one-sided depictions of its victims.

The reality is that Beirich, Potok, and the SPLC have perfected what the scholar Laird Wilcox, speaking of the SPLC, called “ritual defamation”: “a way of harming and isolating people by denying their humanity and trying to convert them into something that deserves to be hated and eliminated. They accuse others of this but utilize their enormous resources to practice it on a mass scale themselves.”

Beirich, Potok, et al. don’t even pretend to engage in honest debate and the free flow of ideas. Atty. Allen quotes Potok: “We see this [as a] political struggle, right? … I mean, we’re not trying to change anybody’s mind. We’re trying to wreck the groups, and we are very clear in our head, … we are trying to destroy them.” And in this case, the attempt to destroy Allen goes far beyond ethical and legal norms — not surprising given the SPLC’s sordid history of using smear tactics and hypocrisy (Section 31) as well as their dedication to fund-raising far beyond what they actually use to further their causes (Section 27).

Of course the attempt “to destroy” people and groups with ideas they don’t like has now spread far beyond the SPLC, including financial firms refusing credit card services, de-platforming on social media sites like Facebook and Twitter, and banning from crowd-funding sites like Patreon. As noted here several times, TOQ and TOO have been subjected to these forms of de-platforming.

At present there is an ever-escalating war against the dissident right. This war is not based on developing clearly articulated arguments designed to persuade reasonable, intelligent people. Instead, our new elite rely on wall-to-wall propaganda spread throughout the media and educational system — propaganda designed to make the traditional White majority accept its fate as a declining, soon-to-be impotent minority. Our new elite is terrified that White people be exposed to these ideas. Terrified that they will stop being ashamed to proudly identify as White and do what they can to prevent the impending disaster to White America. They are terrified because they realize that, beneath all the propaganda raining down from the media and the educational system, the emperor has no clothes — pseudoscience like: there is no biological basis for racial classifications, no biologically based race differences, and no intellectual basis for Whites having legitimate interests in creating a safe and prosperous future for themselves and their progeny.

Please Donate. It’s an Important Cause

Allen’s lawsuit will be an uphill struggle against an organization with hundreds of millions of dollars in assets ($432,000,000 as of 2017) over and above what they have spent on their nefarious activities. Media coverage can be expected to favor the SPLC: it is routinely quoted as a respectable “civil rights organization” in the mainstream media. (In reality, the SPLC can be accurately described as a secular-sounding front for Jewish anti-White activism.) And the lawsuit has the additional burden of navigating a legal system that is now dominated by people sympathetic to its causes. As Laird Wilcox noted, “Anyone attacked by the SPLC is basically up against a contest of resources, from the ability to engage legal counsel, to the access to fairness in media treatment, to the ability to survive the financial destruction of a reputation or a career” (quoted in Allen’s complaint). See Section 27 of Allen’s complaint for the details: “The SPLC’s Dominant Objective Is Lucrative Fundraising.” In Allen’s case, there is a great need for money to finance this lawsuit. Litigation is always costly — Allen estimates it will cost at least $45,000 — a large sum, especially for someone who has lost his source of income. This estimate includes fees for a (rather brave) co-counsel. He is therefore soliciting donations at Breathing Space for Dissent LLC, an organization dedicated to resisting the deplatforming campaign by so many similar sites, such as Patreon, Obviously, this is a very worthy cause. I strongly urge people to donate.

Heidi Beirich, defendant

My Experience with SPLC Harassment

I am well acquainted with SPLC tactics. Despite realizing that I was protected by tenure rules and the First Amendment (given that I was working at a public university), the SPLC engaged in a two-year campaign, from 2006–2008, overtly attempting to get me fired. Even after this campaign, I was never far from her thoughts. In 2013 she penned an outrageous article claiming that I “glorified violence.”

In reality, as Laird Wilcox described their tactics, this was nothing more than “ritual defamation”: “a way of harming and isolating people by denying their humanity and trying to convert them into something that deserves to be hated and eliminated.” It was quite successful in that regard.

Heidi Beirich came to campus in the Fall of 2006 and immediately set to work getting the professors riled up against me. This was quite easily accomplished given the political views of the vast majority of academics these days. I wrote about it early on, in November, 2008, in an article posted at VDARE (“Heidi Does Long Beach: The SPLC vs. Academic Freedom”). The article included an account of Beirich’s ethical lapses — which shouldn’t surprise anyone who has read Allen’s complaint — including misrepresenting my academic qualifications and quoting me out of context. Given that the SPLC’s campaign against me has continued, it’s worth thinking about whether things have improved in the last 10 years. They haven’t.

The fact is that even academics with tenure are terrified of being called racists, anti-Semites or any other pejorative concocted by the left.

This is ironic. Unlike politicians, who must curry favor with the public in order to be reelected, and unlike media figures, who have no job protection, tenured academics should be free from any such fears. Part of the job — and a large part of the rationale for tenure in the first place — is that they are supposed to be willing to take unpopular positions.

That image of academia, however, simply and sadly has no basis in reality. Consider, for example, an article appearing almost two months after the publication of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt’s famous essay on the Israel Lobby and appropriately titled ” A hot paper muzzles Harvard.” [by Eve Fairbanks, The Los Angeles Times, May 14 2006]:

“Instead of a roiling debate, most professors not only agreed to disagree but agreed to pretend publicly that there was no disagreement at all. At Harvard and other schools, the Mearsheimer-Walt paper proved simply too hot to handle — and it revealed an academia deeply split yet lamentably afraid to engage itself on one of the hottest political issues of our time. Call it the academic Cold War: distrustful factions rendered timid by the prospect of mutually assured career destruction.”

It’s not that professors don’t want to sound off on public policy issues. When there is an opportunity to spout righteous leftism, professors leap to the front of the line. A good example: the Duke University rape allegation case. Despite considerable evidence that the charges are spurious, three academic departments, 13 programs, and 88 professors at Duke paid for an ad in the campus newspaper in which they assumed the guilt of the men, and stated that “what happened to this young woman” resulted from “racism and sexism”.

In that case, of course, the professors who went public with their indignation knew they were part of a like-minded community and that there would be much to gain by being on the politically-correct side.

Seen in this context, the reaction to Mearsheimer and Walt makes a lot of sense. As one professor explained: “People might debate it if you gave everyone a get-out-of-jail-free card and promised that afterward everyone would be friends.”

But this campaign to make me into a non-person at CSULB worked wonderfully:

Cold shoulders, forced smiles and hostile stares became a reality. Going into my office to teach my classes and attend committee meetings became an ordeal.

I keep saying to myself: why is this so hard? At the conscious level I was perfectly confident that I could sit down with any of my colleagues and defend my ideas. I know rationally that a lot of the people giving me negative vibes are themselves members of ethnic minority groups — who like the present ethnic spoils system, such as affirmative action and ethnically-influenced foreign policy, just fine.

My theory: Ostracism and hostility from others in one’s face-to-face world trigger guilt feelings. These are automatic responses resulting ultimately from the importance of fitting into a group over evolutionary time. We Westerners are relatively prone to individualism and to feeling guilt (as opposed to shame) for violating group norms. But we certainly don’t lack a sense of wanting to belong and to be accepted. Violating certain taboos carries huge emotional consequences.

This little bit of personal experience is doubtless typical of the forces of self-censorship that maintain the political order of the post-World-War-II West. It’s the concern about the face-to-face consequences of being a non-conformist in the deeply sensitive areas related to race or to Jewish influence.

Beirich’s presence on campus set off a storm of faculty emails, some of which had pretensions of academic wisdom. However, they would never respond to some simple statements of my position, namely:

I am willing to defend the idea that my ethnic identity and ethnic interests are as legitimate as those of the numerous ethnic activists that make a living in academia. Would Mexicans or Chinese be considered moral reprobates if they didn’t like the idea of their people losing political, demographic, and cultural control within their homeland? Should academics like Cornel West or Alan Dershowitz be fired or ostracized because of their obvious and deeply expressed ethnic commitments? What of the many Latino professors who marched in the recent spate of pro-immigration rallies supporting more immigration to the U.S. for the people with whom they identify?

All of these are accepted and indeed approved. However, my relatively low-key expression of ethnic identity as a white European-American concerned about the prospects of his people and culture so easily becomes whipped up into mass hysteria on campus. 

But in the end, as the saying goes, what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger:

This guilt trauma is the result of our evolved psychology and a long history of socialization in post-World-War-II America. It’s a big part of the problem, and people like me have simply got to become better at dealing with it.

So in the end, I’ve come to greet Heidi’s arrival in Long Beach as therapeutic — a painful but necessary challenge that must be overcome first at the psychological level if any progress is to be made on unabashed and unfettered discussion of critical issues like the Third World Invasion of America and the impending death of the West. 

I survived. But the SPLC is continuing to spread its evil. Glen Allen’s lawsuit is an important way to fight back. To start to bring down this behemoth of the left. Please donate.

* * *

Source: Occidental Observer

People’s Party of Candidate Purged For Merely Linking to National Alliance Website

People’s Party of Candidate Purged For Merely Linking to National Alliance Website

The People’s Party of Canada has a lot going for it. It has a strong platform plank on free speech promising not to reintroduce Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, defunding of universities that do not ensure free speech and repeal of Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, except for speech explicitly advocating violence against privileged minorities.

 

And yet, they threw candidate Fawzi Bidawi under the bus. The candidate for Scarborough Centre was purged for merely linking to the White Nationalist National Alliance website in a tweet.

 

Sadly, even the good guys are bad.

A Canadian Political Candidate Was Fired For Tweeting A Link To A Neo-Nazi Website

Fawzi Bidawi’s political career ended before it began.

Colin Leggett2 hours ago

Updated on July 25 @ 12:53 PM

Zwawol | Dreamstime Fawzi Bidawi

The wrong tweet can cause a lot of trouble, especially for people who might be running for public office. That’s what happened to Fawzi Bidawi, the People’s Party of Canada (PPC) candidate running in Scarborough Centre. After posting a tweet that linked to a radical neo-nazi website, Bidawi’s name was taken off the list of candidates.

Bidawi had tweeted about a South African family whose claim for refugee status was rejected based on their submission of “white supremacist hate literature.”

The family claimed that they had been the victims of racially motivated persecution, citing a number of crimes committed against them by black South Africans. However, they could not prove the crimes were committed due to their race.

Bidawi’s tweet regarding the whole situation first questioned whether the government had discriminated against the family because they were afraid “that they will vote right.” Bidawi then included a link to National Vanguard, a website tied to a white supremacist group of the same name.

National Vanguard is a white nationalist, neo-Nazi organization. A candidate for @MaximeBernier’s #PPC is openly sharing links to NV’s (deplorable) website. This is disgusting and totally unacceptable. Will Maxime condemn this tweet and fire @BidawiFawzi? #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/UQVbzQAxMn

— Ryan Jespersen (@ryanjespersen) July 22, 2019

After Bidawi was called out for his tweet, he refused to take it down, writing, “…Presenting a question about a website doesn’t mean is[sic] support the website. They made an argument and I am challenging it’s[sic] validity.”

First of all, presenting a question about a website doesn’t mean is support the website. They made an argument and I am challenging it’s validity. Free and open discussion are important. I fear no topics and favour no groups.

— Fawzi Bidawi (@BidawiFawzi) July 22, 2019 …

 

Bidawi’s name was removed from the list of candidates, and all reference to the PPC was removed from his Twitter account. Still, Bidawi stood by his tweet.

I refused to remove some tweets. I am no longer on the list of Candidates. Let free speech prevail.

— Fawzi Bidawi (@BidawiFawzi) July 23, 2019

The PPC is led by Maxime Bernier, who is currently running for Prime Minister. The party is polling at around three percent.

Free Speech Takes A Thumping As Thought Control Forces Argue McCorkill Will Is “Against Public Policy”

Free Speech Takes A Thumping As Thought Control Forces Argue McCorkill Will Is “Against Public Policy”

ST.JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK. January 27, 2014. “Where is the McCorkill case being heard?” I asked the court officer just before 9:30 this morning here in St. John.

“Courtroom 13,” he answered.

“Is this our lucky day?” I wondered.

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

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

” This is an unusual case,” Mr. Chiasson noted. And then the smears and name-calling began: “The Court must decide whether it is acceptable or appropriate to leave a bequest to a White supremacist, neo-Nazi organization that wants to rid North America of Jews.”

“We should not be able to interfere with a will on a whim because we don’t like the beneficiary,” he added. [Then, why are we here? I wondered.]

However, he added, “there is a certain line that cannot be crossed, but the line has been crossed with the bequest to the National Alliance and we ask this Court to intervene.”

“The Court should intervene in very few cases,” he admitted. However, an exception should be made for “hate propaganda” and “hate groups.” He quote Mr.Justice Cory in the appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals in the Don Andrews “hate law case” back in the 1970s. The judge had said that “hate meant the instilling of detestation in others and does incalculable damage to the Canadian community.”

“Sec. 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code prohibit ‘hate propaganda’ and the promtion of genocide,” he added.

The three lawyers arguing for the application repeatedly demanded suppression of people and views their clients didn’t like. “Any group that promotes views contrary to the human rights codes is unacceptable,” Mr. Chiasson announced. “The International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination condemn all groups that promote the superiority of a race and the participation in or financing of such groups,” he added. [Did Canada or its Parliament knowingly sign on to such a mental straight jacket.]

“Multiculturalism and equality are the linchpins of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” he said. The Charter, it might be noted, for all its talk of “equality” grants special privileges to favoured minorities.

005
Paul Fromm being interviewed by Neville Crabbe of CBC News

So, he argued, “we have adopted the view that, in Canada, the propaganda of the National Alliance, the existence of the National Alliance and the financing of the National Alliance is contrary to public policy.” Mr. Chiasson professed himself outraged that the National Alliance believes in “the preservation of the White Race and racial separation.” Reading from the National Alliance’s 2005 Membership Handbook, he quoted the NA’s programme: “We must have White work spaces, White farms, White schools. … We want an environment where our own nature can express itself. We must root out Semitic and non-Aryan influences.”

Mr. Chiason equated White self-preservation with White Supremacy.

“We just can’t stop ideas at the border due to the power of the Internet,” he complained.

Apparently, dissenting in certain historical debates is against the law, at least in Mr. Chiasson’s submissions: “The National Alliance says ‘the holocaust is a myth’. This is hate speech and contrary to public policy.” He expressed further shock at a comment by the National Alliance: “We have a debt of gratitude to Adolf Hitler who was the greatest man of our era.” [One wonders whether we’d be in Court with a two volume record o fwell over 600 pages of submissions and exhibits if the National Alliance had hailed Joseph Stalin or Mao Tse Tung or even Pol Pot as the greatest man of our era.]

No evidence had been adduced of homicidal inclinations on the part of the NA, but, Mr. Chiasson concluded: “The sole purpose of the NA is promoting hate and killing non-Whites, its sole objective is to create White living space, and, thus, it offends public policy. The gift is illegal and against public policy and should be voided. Mr. McCorkill should be declared intestate and, therefore, my client and her brother would be the beneficiaries of the estate.”

Next up was Richard Williams of Fredericton, representing the Attorney General of New Brunswick. “|Our only interest in this matter is our belief that the bequest is illegal and contrary to public policy,” he said. A strong voice for repression, he declared: “The theme of the Charter and human rights codes is that racism will not be allowed in this country.” He professed himself upset at the notion of “White living space”, although he made no mention of native land claims or special lands for Indians or Eskimos.

He added “there is no redeeming merit” in the National Alliance. Attempting to answer an argument in CAFE’s brief that nullifying the McCorkill will could launch a flood of similar litigation, he concluded: “I never expect to have a case like this again in my career.”

The final presentation of the morning came on behalf of another intervener, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. Representing B’nai Brith, Catherine Fawcett insisted: “The National Alliance has a presence in Canada and is well known to the League.” Whether the NA has actually committed acts of violence “doesn’t matter. They put out ideas that incite hate. Their membership is restricted to White people who support the objectives of the NA. [One wonders whether certain Jewish or Catholic groups might not similarly be restricted to adherents of their faith who support the group’s objectives.]

“What you read in their Handbook,” she charged, “is we will recruit and build infrastructure for final victory. But you must read between the lines. A further danger of the National Alliance is a video game they produced called Ethnic Cleansing,” she added. She didn’t explain what it was about.

“In the NA Handbook, they say: “The holocaust story in engineered by Jews or is full of exaggerations.’ This is contrary to Canadian values,” she insisted.

Elsewhere, the NA says that “AIDS has taken off undesireables among Whites — homosexuals, intravenous drug users, and those who have sex with non-Whites. That, M’lord, is hate.”

In a country that does not have a Second Amendment to protect the right to keep and bear arms, Miss Fawcett was very critical of the NA Handbook urging members to have weapons for the defence of their family or to join the state militia, if necessary. The Handbook recommended a riot gun, a military semi-automatic rifle, a handgun and at least 500 rounds of ammunition.

She took great exception to the NA saying: “The Aryan Race has the right to ensure its own survival and it must have a White living space including Europe, North America and the southern tip of Africa.”

NA Chairman Erich Gleibe in an affidavit “says the National Alliance has no programmes in Canada, but the effect of the National Alliance message is to corrupt people and turn a small receptive minority against multiculturalism. We can stop printed material at the border and we have ‘anti-hate’ legislation but the Internet can reach so many.”

Concluding, she said: “This Court has the power to strike down the testamentary gift to the National Alliance and stop it spreading its message of hate.”

The hearing continues tomorrow. — Paul Fromm

Back to Court Monday to Try to Get Isabelle McCorkell on the Witness Stand

Back to Court Monday to Try to Get Isabelle McCorkell on the Witness Stand

Fredericton, NB. On Monday, John Hughes, lawyer for Fred Streed, executor of the Estate of Robert McCorkill, will appear before the New Brunswick Court of Appeal here to seek Leave to Appeal from a December 17, 2013 decision by Court of Queen’s Bench Justice William T. Grant denying him the right to cross-examine Isabelle McCorkell (yes, different spelling), the sister of the late Robert McCorkell.

Mr. McCorkell who died in St. John in 2004, left a substantial collection of ancient coins and artefacts to the U.S.-based National Alliance. The will received probate in May, 2013. Almost immediately the Southern Poverty Law Center of Montgomery, Alabama denounced the bequest and said it should be stopped. he was echoed by Richard Warman in Ottawa. Soon, after, Isabelle McCorkell who lives in Ottawa and is the long estranged sister of Professor McCorkill, announced she was seeking an injunction to freeze the estate until she could bring an application to have the bequest reversed as it was contrary to the public interest. Miss McCorkell had shown no interest in the estate through the nine long years it too to probate.

The Attorney General of New Brunswick, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs piled in as interveners all singing from the same hymnal: that the bequest should be nullified as the National Alliance was “racist” and “White supremacist” and, therefore, contrary, to the public policy of Canada.

This shocking effort to hijack a testator’s property brought the Canadian Association for Free Expression into the fray in opposition to the effort to erase Professor McCorkill’s clear intent.

Early on, another judge had denied Mr. Hughes and the Estate the chance to cross-examine Miss McCorkell on her affidavit and the apparent contradictions in her position. For instance, she claims to be of very modest means and is unable to put down security for costs, as is customary in New Brunswick with out of-of-province litigants. Yet, she is able to afford one of Moncton’s biggest and priciest law firms that has been very active on her behalf.

The Motion for Leave argues: “It is apparent from these interventions (the NB Attorney General, B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs) supporting the Application (of Isabelle McCorkell) that a degree of co-operation of unknown proportions made possible the Application, and somehow protects the Intended Respondent (Isabelle McCorkell) from the usual costs of litigation.”

The Application was scheduled to be argued in St. John, January 27-28, but Mr. Hughes will be seeking a postponement of the hearing date should he get Leave to Appeal from the Order denying him the right to cross-examine the litigant instigator of this Application. Mr. Hughes is also seeking the quashing of Judge Grant’s Order directing Mr. Streed personally (not the Estate) to pay $3,000 in costs to Miss McCorkell and the three parties supporting her.
________________

Please Help CAFE Defend Free Speech from Those Who Would Submit Beneficiaries to Some Politically Correct Litmus Test

Robert McCorkill died in 2004 and left a substantial collection of ancient coins and artifacts to the White Nationalist National Alliance. The ant-free speech U.S. partisan group called the Southern Poverty Law Centre has vowed to kibosh the bequest. Joining the hitherto silent — for nine years! — sister (who, though claiming straitened circumstances is represented by a pricey Moncton law firm) is the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, all seeking to overturn the will.

CAFE has joined the fray to support the Estate and the principles of free speech and private property. “Subjecting beneficiaries to a politically correct litmus test is a frightening assault on freedom of speech and the right of a person to bequeath his property to whom he pleases. It is a shocking step down the road the state tyranny and the triumph of restrictive cultural Marxism,” warns CAFE Director Paul Fromm.

Time is of the essence. The case is scheduled to go to Court January 27.. WE NEED YOUR HELP!
CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
__ Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s intervention in the McCorkill legacy case.
__ Please renew my subscription for 2014 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
Please charge ______myVISA#______________________________________________________________

Expiry date: __________ Signature:___________________________________________________________
Name:_________________________________________________________________________________
Address:______________________________________________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________

The Enemies of Free Speech & Political Freedom At Work Again in Trying to Nix Bequest to National Alliance

The Enemies of Free Speech & Political Freedom At Work Again in Trying to Nix Bequest to National Alliance
Let’s be quite clear “anti-racists” are anti-White. We are in an all-out war with people who wish to suppress any ideas contrary to their own. No marketplace or ideas for them, free discussion. In their jihad against free speech, nothing is sacred to such people.

 
The sanctity of a man’s will means nothing to people like the well-funded ($125-million war chest)  Montgomery-based Southern Poverty Law Center. They are certainly not suffering from poverty.
.
In an error-riddled article, the National Post (June 28, 2013) reports the latest example of this phenomenon. Beginning  with the headline, the Post manages a serious error or untruth in almost every sentence.
The article is headlined “How a late Canadian coin collector’s $1M estate could be used to revive ‘most dangerous neo-Nazi group in America.” I am reliably informed by sources close to the case that the estate is much more modest, about $250,000, of which the Canadian taxman wants about a third, leaving perhaps $150,000, not chump change but considerably less than the Southern Poverty Law Center alleges with its magic million number.
First sentence: “A U.S. racist group that has been linked to assassinations and bombings is poised to inherit an estate worth as much as $1-million from a late Canadian coin collector, the Southern .Poverty Law Center said Thursday.” The “link to assassinations and bombings” is utterly bogus. The National Alliance was/is an explicitly non-violent group. The Post explains: “The author of The Turner Diaries, a fictional account of a U.S. race war and the apparent inspiration for the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, Mr. Pierce advocated the creation of a whites-only homeland through the eradication of Jews and other races.” National Alliance founder Dr. William Peirce promoted non-violent political education. The Turner Diaries is a novel — that is, fiction — no different in its violence than a Rambo or James Bond story. Timothy McVeigh, the person alleged to have bombed the Murragh Building in Oklahoma City, was not a National Alliance member. There is also considerable question as to whether he DID, in fact, commit this act or was merely a patsy.
The Post continues: “Before he died in Saint John, N.B., in 2004, Robert McCorkell bequeathed his assets to the National Alliance, a neo-Nazi group that waged a three-decade campaign of racist violence in the United States, the SLPC said. While the National Alliance is now basically defunct, Mr. McCorkell’s estate, which the SLPC said is about to be settled, could help revive what at one point was the dominant force of the American neo-Nazi movement.” The National Alliance was NOT involved in violence. As usual, the catch-all smear “neo-Nazi” is used to muddy the waters. The National Alliance was White Nationalist. They did not emulate National Socialism. They did not wear uniforms. In fact, the only “uniform” Dr. Pierce, who held a  Ph.D. in physics, advocated was conservative dress for the young men and women in the movement to be able to recruit their peers. Dr. Pierce, according to Wikipedia, “was descended from the aristocracy of the Old South, descendant of Thomas H. Watts, the Governor of Alabama and Attorney General of the Confederate States of America during the American Civil War.”
Then, we’re told by the Post: “While the National Alliance is now basically defunct, Mr. McCorkell’s estate, which the SLPC said is about to be settled, could help revive what at one point was the dominant force of the American neo-Nazi movement. This is a movement that very rarely sees hundreds of thousands of dollars. Typically these people have no money at all, said Mark Potok, a senior fellow at the Alabama-based civil rights group and a top expert on hate and extremist groups.” Hang on a second, if the National Alliance is “now basically defunct” and “has no money at all”, what is there to revive? And Mark Potok may be a senior fellow or an odd  fellow, but the SPLC is NOT a “civil rights group.” Just the opposite: It is actively opposed to freedom of speech.
The meddling U.S. group is now trying to reach into Canada to nullify Robert McCorkell’s bequest to the National Alliance: “The SPLC has hired Ottawa lawyer Pam MacEachern to examine what could be done to stop the Alliance from inheriting Mr. McCorkell’s estate. She found two cases suggesting the bequest might be halted through the courts. ‘At this point we’re really not sure what we’re going to do next, if anything. But certainly we felt it was important that Canadians knew about this in particular,’ Mr. Potok said. ‘It‘s very rare. This is a movement that very rarely sees hundreds of thousands of dollars. Typically these people have no money at all.’” It might be noted that Pam MacEachern represented EGALE (Equality for Gays and Lesbians Everywhere) a militant homosexual lobby group in arguing before the Supreme Court of Canada that the normal traditional definition of marriage (a man and a woman!) was unconstitutional. The judicial revolutionaries on the Court agreed and, so, Canada has same-sex marriage. MacEachern also represented anti-Internet free speech complainer Richard Warman in a lengthy libel suit against Paul Fromm and the Canadian Association for Free Expression, alleging that inter alia he had been defamed by being called a “censor.”
And now the man himself, tearing himself away from whatever he does in the bowels of Canada’s Ministry of National Defence: “‘I think it’s possible to challenge the bequest legally,’ said Richard Warman, an Ottawa lawyer and anti-racist activist. He said he hoped either the family or interest groups would step forward to do so.The basis of such a challenge could be that the will goes against public policy as well as Canada’s international legal obligations, which require Ottawa to prevent the financing of groups espousing racial hatred, he said.”
A U.S. source close to the case called the SPLC’s and Warman’s remarks “Orwellian. They seem to want to cancel the Canadian and American legal tradition of respecting a testator’s wishes and intent.” the National Alliance espouses White pride, not hatred. The SPLC-Warman line seems to be that the courts should be able to step in and nullify a will if the bequest goes to an ideology of which they disapprove.
We’ll be keeping an eye on this one.
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

Robert  McCorkell was recruited into the National Alliance in 1998, and in 2002 lived at the group’s hilltop compound in West Virginia, where he edited the final book written by its founder, William Pierce.

Robert  McCorkell was recruited into the National Alliance in 1998, and in 2002 lived at the group’s
hilltop headquarters in West Virginia, where he edited the final book written by its founder, William Pierce.