“This is ridiculous,” Derek Sloan refuses to leave CPC without a fight

“This is ridiculous,” Derek Sloan refuses to leave CPC without a fight

By True North Wire – January 19, 2021 Share Facebook Twitter Linkedin ReddIt

Conservative MP Derek Sloan says he will fight efforts by Erin O’Toole to kick him out of caucus.

“If I am guilty of something, they are guilty of something. This is ridiculous,” Sloan said in a Facebook video on Monday.

“I’m not going to go down without a fight.” https://www.facebook.com/plugins/video.php?height=476&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2FDerekSloanCPC%2Fvideos%2F438544913916115%2F&show_text=false&width=267

On Monday, O’Toole said he has begun the process of removing Sloan from caucus after it was revealed that Sloan’s leadership campaign received a donation from known white supremacist Paul Fromm. 

“Racism is a disease of the soul, repugnant to our core values. It has no place in our country. It has no place in the Conservative Party of Canada. I won’t tolerate it,” O’Toole said in his statement. https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1351319921423249408&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftnc.news%2F2021%2F01%2F19%2Fthis-is-ridiculous-derek-sloan-refuses-to-leave-cpc-without-a-fight%2F&siteScreenName=truenorthcentre&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px

However, the MP for Hastings – Lennox and Addington is accusing the party of hypocrisy. 

According to Sloan, Fromm was a party member and voted in the party’s recent leadership contest — something that would have been known to all leadership candidates, including O’Toole, and party headquarters as well. 

In a statement on Twitter, Sloan says he was unaware of this donation and that nobody made any effort to contact him.

“His donation was processed without either my campaign or the CPC realizing who had made the donation,” said Sloan.

“The Party must check each donor to ensure they have not exceeded the maximum, I did not hear from them, ever, on this matter.” https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-1&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1351356504201375747&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Ftnc.news%2F2021%2F01%2F19%2Fthis-is-ridiculous-derek-sloan-refuses-to-leave-cpc-without-a-fight%2F&siteScreenName=truenorthcentre&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px

Sloan said it’s absurd to expect that any politician to be familiar with the names of every single one of their donors. Fromm’s donation of $131 was one of 13,000 donations to Sloan’s leadership campaign. 

Leadership campaign donations are processed by both the campaign staff and the Party. 

Under the Reform Act, O’Toole can initiate a vote within the party to remove a member of caucus should they lose the confidence of the party. https://www.youtube.com/embed/AzgTqOrHhOY?feature=oembed

FROMM GATE: Conservative Party Accepted Fromm’s Membership Application, Mailed Him Leadership Race Ballot, Accepted Returned Ballot Says Sloan

Conservative Party Accepted Fromm’s Membership Application, Mailed Him Leadership Race Ballot, Accepted Returned Ballot Says Sloan

NewsSpencerFernandoJanuary 18, 20210

How can they justify booting Sloan when it appears responsibility actually rests with the central party.

With Conservative leader Erin O’Toole pushing to remove Derek Sloan on a weak pretext, Sloan is pushing back.

In a letter shared online, Sloan went through the chain of events.

He also made some quite interesting points, including saying that the Conservative Party of Canada approved Paul Fromm’s (going under the name Frederick P Fromm) application to be a party member, mailed him a leadership race ballot, and accepted his ballot when it was returned.

As Sloan notes, “Therefore the Party, and the O’Toole campaign, failed to uphold the same standards to which they are now applying to me.”

He also points out that even after O’Toole said he would investigate what happened, he never even contacted Sloan.

You can read Sloan’s full letter below:

Image

https://platform.twitter.com/embed/index.html?creatorScreenName=SpencerFernando&dnt=true&embedId=twitter-widget-0&frame=false&hideCard=false&hideThread=false&id=1351356504201375747&lang=en&origin=https%3A%2F%2Fspencerfernando.com%2F2021%2F01%2F18%2Fconservative-party-accepted-fromms-membership-application-mailed-him-leadership-race-ballot-accepted-returned-ballot-says-sloan%2F&siteScreenName=SpencerFernando&theme=light&widgetsVersion=ed20a2b%3A1601588405575&width=550px

Government-funded Militant Anti-Free Speech Group, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network Wants Sec. 13 (Internet Censorship) Back

Government-funded Militant Anti-Free Speech Group, the Canadian Anti-Hate Network Wants Sec. 13 (Internet Censorship) Back

Hatemongers Don’t Face Serious Enough Consequences in Canadian Courts

While Canada has clear legal definitions of what does and does not constitute hate speech, enforcement is lacking. In the cases when known peddlers are actually brought before a judge, the trials are delayed, extended, and lack consequences. It’s time to bring back section 13. Posted on December 30, 2020

Elizabeth Simons 

Canadian Anti-Hate Network



Unsplash


We need to do away with the myth that hate and racism aren’t issues in Canada, especially online. We produce hate speech and internationally recognized hate figures at a disproportionately high rate — in many measures we’re worse than the United States on a per capita basis. 

As it stands now, we do not have the legal tools needed to reverse this trend.

On 4Chan, we represent almost 6% of posts made to the worst message board on the site, and earlier this year UK based think tank Institute for Strategic Dialogue identified 6,600 online channels where Canadians posted hateful content.

Before we begin, let’s quickly debunk the central bad faith argument against our hate speech laws. “Hate” is not impossible to define or undefined — the Supreme Court has clearly defined it and endorsed a guide to determining what is and isn’t criminal hate speech. Our laws have been challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court as Charter consistent.

The laws strike a good balance between freedom of expression and criminalizing what is dangerous hate speech. Unfortunately, they aren’t enforced and they don’t have sharp enough teeth to be a deterrent. The very worst actors continue spreading hate largely with impunity.

Police services across Canada are the main roadblock. A few do take it seriously and act, but most are reluctant in the extreme to investigate hate-related charges against individuals — whether that’s hate speech, continuous harassment, and even death threats. Sometimes, overwhelming community pressure on the police works — but shouldn’t be necessary.

Even if the law is applied correctly, it’s not strong enough to be a deterrent. Some hatemongers make a mockery of it and use the opportunity to grandstand. 

James Sears, the discredited former medical doctor who served as editor for Toronto-based Your Ward News, was sentenced to the maximum one year in prison in 2019 for promoting hatred against women and Jews. The crown proceeded with the charge as a summary offence.

Ontario Justice Richard Blouin wished he could hand down more, saying at the time “It is impossible, in my view, to conclude that Mr. Sears … should receive a sentence of any less than 18 months in jail.” 

Sears hasn’t seen a day in jail yet. He was allowed to stay out, pending his argument that his lawyer misrepresented him by not giving him an opportunity to deny the holocaust and call notorious antisemites as “expert witnesses.” He regrets nothing.

Hate vlogger Kevin Johnston was initially charged with a single count of wilful promotion of hatred in 2017. Johnston has still not been tried. In 2019 he lost a $2.5 million judgment to Toronto philanthropist Mohamad Fakih for his role in racially motivated defamation against Fakih in which he repeatedly accused him of being a terrorist. 

Ontario Superior Court Justice Jane Ferguson called Johnston’s attacks on Fakih “hate speech at its worst.” 

Travis Patron, leader of the overtly neo-Nazi federal Canadian Nationalist Party, has been “under investigation” by the RCMP for over a year for a video in which he claimed Jews are a “parasitic tribe” and called for their expulsion from Canada. Patron continues to make antisemitic posts and flyers and do photo ops giving the Nazi salute.

It’s an open and shut case. What could possibly make it take this long to lay charges? 

In 2018, a warrant was issued for Gabriel Sohier Chaput, aka Zeiger — called one of the most prominent neo-Nazis in North America, and writer with The Daily Stormer, a white supremacist website — for spreading hatred. Having been on the run for two years, in August 2020 Chaput reappeared and is awaiting trial in Montreal. 

Chaput is one of the ideological leaders of the newest generation of neo-Nazi terrorists — his hands are soaked in blood. It’s a travesty that the most he’s likely to get is a year. It’s uncertain whether he will even spend it in prison, given the pandemic. 

Neo-Nazi Paul Fromm was under investigation by the Hamilton Police Service for posting the manifesto of the Christchurch killer, titled “The Great Replacement” — a nod to the white supremacist conspiracy theory that white people are being replaced —  in full on his website in 2019. Fromm had stated, “[The shooter’s] analysis of the crisis we face is cogent.”* 

They decided not to charge him.

British Columbia’s Arthur Topham, convicted in 2015 of one count of communicating online statements that wilfully promoted hatred against Jews, and again in 2017, had been sentenced to a six month conditional sentence, two years probation, a curfew, and was banned from posting online. 

In early 2020, Topham was again before the courts for breaching his probation order and spreading online hate. 

Some of these people just won’t stop — not as things are.

Our hate speech law,  s. 319 (2), is crafted to balance freedom of expression while criminalizing the worst hate speech. Unfortunately, it’s not a deterrent for the most vitriolic offenders because the police won’t enforce it, and some hate mongers laugh off the consequences. 

It feels like we’re banging our heads against the wall filing criminal complaints.

Before 2014, members of the public could file a hate speech complaint under s.13. Credible complaints went to the Human Rights Tribunal, and a panel of judges could order hatemongers to stop. It was relatively fast, gave communities the power to defend themselves legally, and it worked. It gave us direct access to justice

If they refused to stop, they were in violation of a standing court order and were relatively quickly thrown in jail. Eventually, most of them learned their lesson.

Earlier this month we met with Heritage minister Steven Guilbeault and a number of social justice organizations to discuss legislation surrounding online hate. We argued that reinstating s. 13 is fundamental to successfully dealing with the problem. We were joined by numerous voices in support of these measures — the Mosaic Institute, the National Association of Friendship Centres, the Chinese Canadian National Council for Social Justice, and others — and we are committed to a coalition to realize a better solution for today.

Every single anti-racist and human rights group we know of wants it back.

Bring it back.

Follow Elizabeth Simons on Twitter @esimons_

_____* This viciously anti-free speech group utterly distorts my posting of the Christchurch Manifesto. Yes, I said his analysis of the dire position of Europeans, betrayed internally and being replaced by an elite-organized Third World invasion_was correct. BUT, and this is a huge BUT, I added that his solution — shooting up two mosques and killing 31 people was NOT the solution._________________________________________

THE CBC Picked Up a Smear By the Fiercely Anti-Free Speech VICE” — nationalist’ Paul Fromm received federal COVID-19 relief money to fund his groups

THE CBC Picked Up a Smear By the Fiercely Anti-Free Speech VICE” — nationalist’ Paul Fromm received federal COVID-19 relief money to fund his groups

Canadian Association for Free Expression and Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform both received relief money

[A few comments:

1. The hypocrisy of anti-free speech loudmouth Bernie Farber of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network is appalling. Apparently, he’d like a politically correct litmus test for receiving relief funds that we all pay for. The irony is rich in that CAHN gets government grants and a subsidy from the Bank of Montreal (BMO). They are no slouches as grantcatchers feasting off taxpayer’s funds. One of their board members announced this past summer: ” Good news! Canada is giving us a $270,000 grant through the Anti-Racism Action Programme.”.

2. Then, we must take instruction from one ” Kojo Damptey, Hamilton Centre for Civic Inclusion’s interim executive director.” He hails from that hotbed of liberty, Ghana. He’s all for a political litmus test: ” “They should have a list of organizations that espouse racist rhetoric, xenophobic rhetoric, and not provide them with public funding,” It’s 2019/2020 Annual Report shows it took in $532,477 from various governments and universities to expound its anti-White, anti-free speech propaganda: ” For the year2019/2020 we received funds from ,Community, and Social Services, Ontario Trillium Fund, Ministry of Canadian Heritage and Multiculturalism, Hamilton Community Foundation, Ryerson University, In Spirit Foundation, Hamilton Health Sciences,Laidlaw Foundation,and the City of Hamilton.”]

CBC News · Posted: Dec 23, 2020 3:49 PM ET | Last Updated: 1 hour ago

Paul Fromm, a self-described white nationalist who founded the Canadian Association for Free Expression and Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform, received COVID-19 relief funds for both of those groups. (Lorenda Reddekopp, CBC News)

Anti-hate groups are urging the federal government to reconsider which employers can apply for the Canada Emergency Wage Subsidy (CEWS) after self-described white nationalist Paul Fromm received COVID-19 relief funds for two of his groups.

Vice first reported he received money for the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) after the government published a searchable registry of companies that have accessed CEWS.

CAFE is a non-profit that has intervened in several human rights cases across Canada, including on behalf of websites encouraging homophobia and Holocaust denial.

CBC News has since learned Fromm also received money for another group of his — Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform, which opposes foreign aid and multiculturalism.

Fromm has appeared in far-right protests, spoken regularly on the white nationalist radio show Stormfront, and is the subject of a Hamilton police investigation after complaints he shared the New Zealand mosque shooter’s manifesto on the CAFE website. Stormfront describes itself as being “pro-white news, opinion and inspiration.”

“I’m a white nationalist,” Fromm said in an interview. “I’m proud of our European heritage and I want to keep it.”

Still, he denies being labelled a neo-Nazi or white supremacist, and told CBC News on Wednesday that his organizations met all the requirements to receive CEWS funds.

Paul Fromm, a self-described white nationalist who ran for mayor in Hamilton, is seen here at a yellow vest protest in front of Hamilton city hall last year. (Hamilton Against Fascism/Facebook)

“The criteria as I read it was not ‘What are your politics?’ The criteria is ‘Are you an employer, do you have an employer number, have you been impacted by the COVID shutdown and if so, you qualify up to a certain amount,” Fromm said.

“Given the rules, there’s not much [the government] can do.”

The government was unable to provide an interview.

Katherine Cuplinskas, press secretary for the office of Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance Chrystia Freeland said the government “categorically condemns white supremacy, far-right extremism, and racism in all its forms.”

“Wage subsidy funds can only be used for employee remuneration. Should these funds have been abused, the penalties can include repayment of the wage subsidy, an additional 25 per cent penalty, and potentially imprisonment in cases of fraud,” Cuplinskas wrote in an email.

Anti-hate groups want government to review system

Bernie Farber, chair of the Canadian Anti-Hate Network, said he was shocked to learn Fromm successfully applied to CEWS. Neo-Nazi groups getting taxpayer money is a “a glitch in the system” from a government trying to navigate a pandemic, he added.

“I don’t think any of us can really blame the government for having a glitch in the system. I think we can blame the government if this glitch in the system isn’t fixed immediately,” he said.

“I think Canadians want to hear our government say ‘Whoops, this was a mistake … it’s an outrage at a time when people are literally losing their homes and livelihoods and need this money badly, that it would be going to people like Paul Fromm.”

Fromm would not reveal the number of employees in either organization, but acknowledged the number was “small and modest.” He also didn’t disclose how much money he received but said it was “small potatoes.” 

Cuplinskas wouldn’t say whether the government plans to investigate the issue further, but Kojo Damptey, Hamilton Centre for Civic Inclusion’s interim executive director, said he hopes it does.

“They should have a list of organizations that espouse racist rhetoric, xenophobic rhetoric, and not provide them with public funding,” he said. “If our government are funding racist institutions, white nationalist institutions, what kind of society are we building and what does it say to many marginalized communities that have been affected by this sort of rhetoric?”

With files

CAFE Urges Vancouver City Council Not to Impose Masking Indoors

CAFE Urges Vancouver City Council Not to Impose Masking Indoors

Canadian Association for Free Expression, BC,

Paul Fromm, Director

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

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

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


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

Paul FrommDirector

Signed by

7192 Medical & Public  Health Scientists 7,192

16066 Medical Practitioners 231838 General Public

The Great Barrington Declaration

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Co-signers

Medical and Public Health Scientists and Medical Practitioners

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

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

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

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

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

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

Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fired for My Political Views: The Peel Board of Education Buckled to Canadian Jewish Congress Pressure

Fired for My Political Views: The Peel Board of Education Buckled to Canadian Jewish Congress Pressure

In 1997, I had a young family & was fired at a very vulnerable time in my life, solely for the non-violent expression of my political views on my own time, off school property — victim of the thought police at the Canadian Jewish Congress. The censorship tail wagged the dog, the Peel Board of Education.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L6MT10nujYE&feature=youtu.be&fbclid=IwAR3hNbzmEYbfMPIx8CRy7ztX6-7U7km32xsDao9u3AU7T2zRG_Bgeok2Qp0

Free John McCash Protest by CAFE Outside Brampton Provincial Court

Free John McCash Protest by CAFE Outside Brampton Provincial Court

BRAMPTON, September 25, 2020. Members of the Canadian Association for Free Expression staged a protest outside the Provincial Court in Brampton, Ontario, where the latest victim of political policing during the COVID hysteria was to make his first appearance by video.

Get too mouthy opposing being muzzled like a dog, argue with some bossy clerk now acting as a mask enforcer and you might get arrested in COVID crazy Canada. “A 48-year-old Mississauga man has been charged for a … tirade caught on camera in Mississauga, Ont. on Sunday, July 5 which went viral after a White, non-mask wearing man berated staff at T&T Supermarket who told him he couldn’t shop at the store without a face covering.  ‘If I wear a mask I will have an asthma attack and these communists are attacking all of us…go back to China and take your coronavirus with you,’ said a man in a … tirade filmed by a bystander.

“The video was uploaded to YouTube and has been viewed over 280,000 times and was filmed at the predominantly Chinese-operated supermarket. It starts with a White man with his wife near him dumping grocery products from a bag on the floor while telling staff he ‘will never come back here again.’  The man then goes on to threaten the staff that he’ll ‘have the media’ here and staff can wear their masks and get sick. ‘When you wear the mask, you get sick — it’s science,’  he said.'” (CTV News, July 16, 2020)

“The charges were clearly political,” CAFE director Paul Fromm said. “There’s no crime here. Mr. McCash is being punished simply for speaking up and opposing the mask tyranny.”