Britons awake! This trial isn’t about me, it’s about all of us

Britons awake! This trial isn’t about me, it’s about all of us

180111 undefeated

They came from far and wide in defiance of this latest assault on our freedoms. From Lancashire, Liverpool, Scotland and all the way from Canada – thank you Mr Fromm! The media coverage was glorious – mostly down to so many turning up in support, me being handed flowers outside court and general media astonishment at my songs being played in court. And no, I certainly did not sing along – nor did I mouth the words. Where this fake news originated I have no idea – perhaps a reaction to my song Find Me Guilty? In particular, the line:

I’ll sing my way to court in high heels and a frock
Give the press a winning smile from inside the dock!

After the day’s proceedings, – my trial now bizarrely adjourned (again) to March 7th – I fell ill with food poisoning and had to be ushered into a taxi (my high heels thankfully not ruined). A sickly night followed and I’m still not 100%. That’ll teach me not to eat fresh Shetland mussels (one of which clearly wasn’t that fresh) the night before a court hearing.

The next morning, I awoke to a 30-day Facebook ban (for publishing a fake news post, clearly tagged as #fakenews) and 60 emails from YouTube informing that my entire library was now subject to sandboxing restrictions. My channel still exists, but no longer appears in searches either on Google or on YouTube. In any case, over half my videos are banned in the UK in order to comply with some non-existent local law. Clearly, my accusers and their team of trusted flaggers have been very busy. Still, 4.5k views on Facebook of my little Christmas ditty won’t please them.

Asides all the mainstream coverage, there have been several alternative media broadcasts. Two of The Fetch’s recent Inside the Eye Live! shows have featured segments on my case, including last Thursday’s Oy Vey Moment (worth a listen just for the jingle – from about 34 minutes in).  Dennis’ second show features an interview with Ross who came to support me last Wednesday, also well worth a listen, from about 80 minutes in. Ditto regards last night’s Radio Aryan edition of  The Daily Nationalist with Sven Longshanks and Jez Turner.

This coming Thursday, you’ll be able to hear me in conversation with Andrew Carrington Hitchcock on Euro Folk Radio (recorded a few days before last week’s court appearance but a great show nonetheless) and next Monday, I’ll be the featured guest on the Graham Hart show when, if all goes well, you’ll be able to hear one or two of my songs.

Once again, HUGE thanks to those who came in support last Wednesday. As the title of this piece confirms – my trial is not about me, it’s about us all. See you March 7th, same time same place.

If you would like to support Alison, please see the right-hand sidebar where you will find links to PayPal and BitCoin.

Comments, likes and shares are of course also welcome. You can also find Alison on Gab, and on her new Facebook backup account.


https://alisonchabloz.wordpress.com/2018/01/16/britons-awake-this-trial-isnt-about-me-its-about-all-of-us/

They came from far and wide in defiance of this latest assault on our freedoms. From Lancashire, Liverpool, Scotland and all the way from Canada – thank you Mr Fromm! The media coverage was g…
Attachments area

CAFE & JCCF Granted Intervenor Status for Bill Whatcott’s Motion to Have Oger’s Transgendered Discrimination Complaint Dismissed as Meritless

CAFE & JCCF Granted Intervenor Status for Bill Whatcott’s Motion to Have Oger’s Transgendered Discrimination Complaint Dismissed as Meritless
 
On December 1, the Canadian Association for Free Expression and the Justice Cenre for Constitutional Freedoms , both pro-free speech intervenors in a complaint before the British Columbia Human Rights Commission were granted intervenor status in a special application filed by Mr. Whatcott seeking summary dismissal of the complaint by flamboyant transgendered activist and failed NDP candidate Rona Oger, formerly married and who has fathered two children, but now styles himself a woman and uses the name “Morgane”. Oger filed the complaint in retaliation for Mr. Whatcott’s distributing 1,500 leaflets during last May’s provincial election arguing that, if Oger cannot even get his gender right, he dopes not have the judgement to be a good MLA (Member of the Legislative Assembly.
 

​Ronan Oger                                                                                                    Now “Morgane” Oger

 
CAFE and JCCF were both accepted as intervenors in this motion and have until December 22 to file their submissions, CAFE’s Director Paul Fromm and JCCF attorney Jay Cameron were told today.
 
The following is evangelist and victim Bill Whatcott’s motion, filed December 8.
 
Dear Mr. Rilkoff, Ms Quail and others,
 
I am filing my application to dismiss on the following grounds,
BC Human Rights Code:
 
27 (1) A member or panel may, at any time after a complaint is filed and with or without a
hearing, dismiss all or part of the complaint if that member or panel determines that any of the
following apply:
(b) the acts or omissions alleged in the complaint or that part of the complaint do not
contravene this Code;
(c) there is no reasonable prospect that the complaint will succeed;
And the Word of God:
“He who created them from the beginning made them male and female.”
Matthew 19:5
 
There is a very high threshold which must be established for a finding of ‘hate speech’ under
provincial human rights codes further to the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision
in Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, [2013] 1 SCR 467, 2013 SCC 11
(CanLII). The flyers are not even remotely close to meeting that threshold.
 
According to the Supreme Court in that case:
The definition of “hatred” set out in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, 1990 CanLII
26 (SCC), [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892, with some modifications, provides a workable approach to
interpreting the word “hatred” as it is used in legislative provisions prohibiting hate speech.
Three main prescriptions must be followed. First, courts must apply the hate speech prohibitions
objectively. The question courts must ask is whether a reasonable person, aware of the context
and circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to
hatred. Second, the legislative term “hatred” or “hatred or contempt” must be interpreted as
being restricted to those extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words
“detestation” and “vilification”. This filters out expression which, while repugnant and
offensive, does not incite the level of abhorrence, delegitimization and rejection that risks
causing discrimination or other harmful effects. Third, tribunals must focus their analysis on the
effect of the expression at issue, namely whether it is likely to expose the targeted person or
group to hatred by others. The repugnancy of the ideas being expressed is not sufficient to
justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the author of the expression intended to
incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is irrelevant. The key is to determine the likely effect of
the expression on its audience, keeping in mind the legislative objectives to reduce or eliminate
discrimination. In light of these three directives, the term “hatred” contained in a legislative hate
speech prohibition should be applied objectively to determine whether a reasonable person,
aware of the context and circumstances, would view the expression as likely to expose a person
or persons to detestation and vilification on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
 
In my submission, simply expressing the opinion that the Complainant is a man does not
possibly rise to the level of hate speech. The fact that the Complainant was a political candidate
and narrowly lost is irrelevant to whether the speech is hate speech under Whatcott SCC 2013.
 
The Tribunal must first ask, “whether a reasonable person, aware of the context and
circumstances, would view the expression as exposing the protected group to hatred.” The flyers
do not expose the Complainant to hatred. The flyers express the opinion that the Complainant is
a man, and that people should not vote for someone who pretends to be a woman for the
purposes of an election. The purpose of the flyers is to bring transparency to the democratic
process – voters deserve transparency. Saying that someone should not vote for a candidate is not
exposing them to “hatred”. The flyers express a protected religious belief that gender is male and
female, and not subject to change. That is not hate speech. That is an opinion, and we have
freedom to have those under section 2(b) of the Charter in this country.
 
Second, the Tribunal must restrict its consideration of the whether the flyers were “hateful” to a
definition of hatred that restricts itself to the one the Supreme Court of Canada outlined
in Whatcott: “extreme manifestations of the emotion described by the words “detestation” and
“vilification””. The flyers do not even begin to approach extreme manifestations described by
“detestation” and “vilification”. The flyers don’t advocate violence or persecution – they advocate
not voting for the Complainant. That does not even remotely qualify as “hate”.
 
Third, the Tribunal must focus on the expression and consider whether it was “likely to
expose the targeted person or group to hatred by others. The repugnancy of the ideas being
expressed is not sufficient to justify restricting the expression, and whether or not the
author of the expression intended to incite hatred or discriminatory treatment is
irrelevant.” The result of the community was predictable: they either told me I was an
idiot, or they ignored me. No one read the flyer and “vilified” the Complainant. No one
acted out against the Complainant. The Complainant has pointed to no harm at all from the
flyers, except to claim that the Complainant lost the election because of them, which is
irrelevant to a consideration of this matter, and no link has been established between the
election result and the flyers, in any event.
 
I could not be successfully sued for defamation for the content of the flyers: the
Complainant fathered two children with a biological woman that the Complainant was
once married or in a common law relationship with. It is not hateful to highlight biological
reality. The Complainant identifies as a woman, but the Complainant differs
physiologically from a biological woman. It is not hate speech to point this out.
 
Lastly, many millions of people in Canada believe and express the biological reality of sex
as being male or female. The statements in the flyers are not unusual. They represent a
common understanding of biology that is both accepted in science and taught in religion.
In Whatcott, the Court delineated the line between protected expression under the Charter
and hate speech:
“In my view, expression that “ridicules, belittles or otherwise affronts the dignity of” does
not rise to the level of ardent and extreme feelings that were found essential to the
constitutionality of s. 13(1) of the CHRA in Taylor. Those words are not synonymous with
“hatred” or “contempt”. Rather, they refer to expression which is derogatory and
insensitive, such as representations criticizing or making fun of protected groups on the
basis of their commonly shared characteristics and practices, or on stereotypes. As
Richards J.A. observed in Owens, at para. 53:
 
Much speech which is self-evidently constitutionally protected involves some measure of
ridicule, belittlement or an affront to dignity grounded in characteristics like race, religion
and so forth. I have in mind, by way of general illustration, the editorial cartoon which
satirizes people from a particular country, the magazine piece which criticizes the social
policy agenda of a religious group and so forth. Freedom of speech in a healthy and robust
democracy must make space for that kind of discourse . . . .
 
I agree. Expression criticizing or creating humour at the expense of others can be
derogatory to the extent of being repugnant. Representations belittling a minority group or
attacking its dignity through jokes, ridicule or insults may be hurtful and offensive.
However, for the reasons discussed above, offensive ideas are not sufficient to ground a
justification for infringing on freedom of expression. While such expression may inspire
feelings of disdain or superiority, it does not expose the targeted group to hatred.”
 
The complaint should be dismissed because there is no reasonable chance it will succeed in
light of the law in regard to hate speech from the Supreme Court of Canada.
Under section 27(1)(b), the Complaint should be dismissed because the flyers are not a
contravention of the Human Rights Code.
 
Finally, the flyers are clearly in harmony with Matthew 19 in the Holy Bible, and I would
like to remind the Chairperson and everyone else reading this; God is the highest arbiter of
right and wrong and one day we will all stand before Him.
 
In Christ’s Service,
Bill Whatcott

Free Speech Leader Denied Hotel Rooms All Over Winnipeg, Canada

Free Speech Leader Denied Hotel Rooms All Over Winnipeg, Canada

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7jmsrCL53FY&feature=youtu.be

Paul Fromm gave this talk on Dec. 8th at a meeting at Brian…
Paul Fromm gave this talk on Dec. 8th at a meeting in Vancouver.. Paul is the Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) since 1983, at: http://cafe.nfshost.com/. His playlist of over 100 videos is: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list… Paul is also the Director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee at: http://canadafirst.nfshost.com/ Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994. Co-host of “The Trump Phenomenon” Radio Show on RBN (week nights, 9:00 p.m. EST) You can join Paul’s email list by contacting him at paul@paulfromm.com

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.

B’nai Brith Extols Suppression of Free Speech in Its On-line Fundraiser at Taxpayers’s Expense: We Fund the Zionist Lobby

B’nai Brith Extols Suppression of Free Speech in Its On-line Fundraiser at Taxpayers’s Expense: We Fund the Zionist Lobby

 

This Giving Tuesday, Help B’nai Brith Canada Fight Back

Screen_Shot_2017-11-23_at_1.44.46_PM.png

Dear Friends,

A week from today – on Nov. 28, 2017 – the world will mark #GivingTuesday, an international movement that seeks to promote charitable giving, and where people from around the world donate to causes that are near and dear to their hearts.

As the voice of Canada’s grassroots Jewish community, B’nai Brith Canada is proud to participate in this important initiative that embodies the Jewish concept of tzedakah. In a year marred with antisemitism and hatred targeting members of our community from both sides of the political spectrum, B’nai Brith’s ongoing advocacy efforts have been particularly vital, and it is only through your support that we can continue to fight for the human rights of all Canadians.

With the help of your fully tax-deductible donation, B’nai Brith will continue to:

a) Fight against the purveyors of racism and hatred in Canada, from notorious white supremacist Paul Fromm to Your Ward News editor James Sears to the Vancouver imam who urged his congregants to finance Palestinian terrorism.

b) Refute the antisemitic boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) movement, as we did through our nation-wide campaign in support of award-winning filmmaker Ian Halperin’s Wish You Weren’t Here, which exposes BDS and its supporters as antisemitic.

c) Support Jewish and pro-Israel students facing discrimination on campus. After three pro-Israel students at McGill University were targeted for their support of Jewish causes, B’nai Brith launched a petition (which now has more than 5,350 signatures) demanding that McGill’s administration investigate. McGill has since complied with this request.

On #GivingTuesday, please consider giving back to your community – by supporting Canada’s oldest self-funded and independent Jewish organization. Even the smallest donation helps in our objective of eradicating the racism and antisemitism that threatens our society today, defending the Jewish State of Israel, and supporting the members of our community.

To donate, please click here.

Thank you for your commitment to B’nai Brith Canada.

Sincerely,

Michael_Mostyn_Signature_copy.png

Michael Mostyn
Chief Executive Officer
B’nai Brith Canada

White Supremacist Paul Fromm Barred From Winnipeg Hotel

fromm_cancelled.jpg
White Nationalist Paul Fromm
Nov. 15, 2017
By Ran Ukashi
Regional Director, Winnipeg Region
B’nai Brith Canada

WINNIPEG, MB – A notorious white supremacist has been disallowed from holding a private meeting in a Winnipeg hotel room, B’nai Brith Canada has learned.

The Hilton Winnipeg Airport Suites has been directed by its leadership to cancel a reservation by Paul Fromm, who had booked a room in the facility for a Wednesday night meeting.

B’nai Brith and concerned citizens in Manitoba had been advocating against the meeting after reports circulated that it had been planned.

Fromm lost his teaching licence because of his association with white supremacist organizations. He also was penalized for endorsing racist and antisemitic organizations ranging from neo-Nazis to the KKK, including their Canadian counterparts.

In a recent talk delivered in Vancouver, Fromm made antisemitic, homophobic, anti-First Nations, anti-Sikh, anti-black and anti-Muslim remarks. He also distributed material showcasing propaganda produced by Alfred Schaefer, a Holocaust denier who is facing trial in Germany on criminal incitement charges.

“B’nai Brith commends Hilton Hotels & Resorts for saying no to hatred,” said Michael Mostyn, Chief Executive Officer of B’nai Brith Canada. “There is no place for Fromm’s vile brand of hatred and antisemitism in Canadian society.”

Fromm also has endorsed and distributed the newsletter Your Ward News, a‎n antisemitic and hateful publication that has been disseminated by publishers James Nicholas Sears and Lawrence (Leroy) St. Germaine. Sears and St. Germaine were charged Wednesday with willfully promoting hatred against Jews and women.

YOU TUBE THOUGHT POLICE BAN VIDEO OF JIM RIZOLI/DIANE KING TALK TO CAFE — SEE IT WHILE YOU STILL CAN

YOU TUBE THOUGHT POLICE BAN VIDEO OF JIM RIZOLI/DIANE KING TALK TO CAFE — SEE IT WHILE YOU STILL CAN

The Zionist thought police have a hate-on for anything Revisionist videographer Jim Rizoli does. 

“Jim could be videoing MILLING FLOWER IN MASSACHUSETTS and get this same demonization,” says his co-worker Diane King. Here’s the YOU TUBE ban notice. Below it is the video of the Toronto meeting YOU TUBE seeks to censor.

Imagine that…..lol

JR


Regarding your account: J Rizoli

We have received a legal complaint regarding your video. After review, the following video: Toronto Trip, Toronto, Ontario meeting with Jim and Diane, Nov 2, 2017 has been blocked from view on the following YouTube country site(s):

Austria, Switzerland, Czech Republic, Germany, France, French Guiana, Guadeloupe, Israel, Italy, Martinique, New Caledonia, French Polynesia, Poland, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Reunion, French Southern Territories, Wallis and Futuna, Mayotte, United Kingdom

YouTube blocks content where necessary to comply with local laws. Please review our help center article on legal complaints //support.google.com/youtube/answer/3001497?hl=en.

Sincerely, 
The YouTube Team

Jim Rizoli and Diane King speak at Alternative Forum, Toronto, Canada, Nov 2, 2017. AN UPDATE ON REVISIONISM,

TORONTO, ONTARIO TALK:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly9dnU-KTx0&feature=youtu.be

Paul Fromm, CAFE, Canadian Association for Free Expression, Jim Rizoli and Diane King speak in Toronto, Ontario about Free Speech issues in the states, the looming assaults of freedoms from the government.

Image may contain: 2 people, text

Jim Rizoli and Diane King speak at Alternative Forum, Toronto, Canada, Nov 2, 2017. AN UPDATE ON REVISIONISM,

Jim Rizoli and Diane King speak at Alternative Forum, Toronto, Canada, Nov 2, 2017. AN UPDATE ON REVISIONISM,

TORONTO, ONTARIO TALK:

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ly9dnU-KTx0&feature=youtu.be

Paul Fromm, CAFE, Canadian Association for Free Expression, Jim Rizoli and Diane King speak in Toronto, Ontario about Free Speech issues in the states, the looming assaults of freedoms from the government.

Image may contain: 2 people, text