What follows is an interview conducted by James Edwards with Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression. It was originally published by the American Free Press.

James Edwards: As one of Canada’s most internationally well-known dissident activists, you have spent a lifetime fighting at the intersection of free speech and immigration reform. How did you first arrive at this destination?

Paul Fromm: Forty years ago, I saw planned massive Third World immigration as a policy to replace Canada’s European founding/settler people. In 1965, just as immigration laws were changing in Canada and the United States, the Canadian government began to consider “anti-hate” legislation. I could see that, among other things, as Canadians woke up to what was being done to them, it would be used to quell or silence opposition to the great replacement. Thus, for over 20 years, I’ve introduced myself to audiences as being about free speech and immigration: not enough free speech and too much immigration. The Canadian Jewish Congress had lobbied Ottawa for several decades for a “hate law”; that is legislation, to mute or silence criticism of them. By 1965, their lobbying power pushed then Prime Minister Lester Pearson to strike a Royal Commission to inquire into “hate” propaganda. It was stacked so that it would deliver the desired opinion. Its chairman was Dean Maxwell Cohen of McGill University Law School, a former head of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and Saul Hayes, also a former head of the Canadian Jewish Congress. A third member of the seven-man Royal Commission was a then-obscure leftist professor from Montreal, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, an admirer of both Mao and Castro, who would become Prime Minister in 1968. In 1965, the newly created Canadian Nazi Party gained a lot of headlines and short-lived notoriety. It was heavily influenced by operatives from the Canadian Jewish Congress. The Cohen Commission had trouble finding much “hate propaganda” in Canada. So, the sudden appearance of a “Nazi” party with young Canadians, not old European immigrants, was convenient to provide a “justification” for limiting free speech. The Cohen Commission’s report provided the outline of what would become the “hate law” (Sec. 318 & 319) of the Criminal Code which would be introduced as legislation by Pierre Trudeau and passed into law in 1971.

Edwards: A particularly alarming and Orwellian piece of legislation has been proposed in Canada. What is the so-called Online Harms Bill?

Fromm: John Carpay, Director of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, calls this proposed law “a full-on frontal assault on free expression, the worst in Canadian history. Full stop.” Current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has longed to further censor the Internet. He blamed the Internet as a source of misinformation. He was outraged at the Trucker’s Freedom Convoy protest which lasted for three weeks in Ottawa in early 2022. The Liberal elite despises working class Canadians and describes White working-class men and women as “deplorables”, backward, bigoted ignorant people. That these much-despised people organized such a formidable protest drove the globalist elite crazy. They invoked the Emergencies Act (a war measures act) piece of legislation which stripped people of their civil rights and allowed the tyrants to freeze bank accounts. Trudeau saw that much of the organizing occurred over the Internet. Also, both the Zionist lobby and the increasingly shrill Moslem lobby are complaining of “hate” on the Internet. The Online Harms bill seeks to make Internet service providers responsible for censoring people. The Act adds Stalinist era punishments for online “hate”. In Stalin’s Soviet Union anti-semitism was punishable by death. Canada pretends to be more civilized. So, advocacy of “genocide” – whatever that is – can get you up to life imprisonment for mere words! Also, any branch of the Criminal Code, say assault, if motivated by hate against a privileged group (but not Whites), religion (but not Christianity), sex, or sexual orientation can increase the sentence to up to life in prison.

Edwards: This bill has received global attention and a significant amount of pushback. Has this surprised you and, in your opinion, how likely is it that this might become law?

Fromm: International attention is welcome. Many foreigners are surprised how, under Trudeau, who like his father also admires Red China, Canada has become such a totalitarian state. The likelihood of passage is a good question. Groups like my own Canadian Association for Free Expression, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association are determined to fight it right from the get-go. The Parliamentary agenda is crowded, and the hope is that, if we can alert enough freedom-minded Canadians, the bill may never get to a vote.

Edwards: In what ways would this potential law further stifle free speech and expression in Canada?

Fromm: Well, a person who fears that another person may commit a “hate crime” can go before a judge and seek an order that could force house arrest, the wearing of an electronic bracelet, prohibition of drugs or alcohol, forced testing for such substances, and restriction on movement. This would all be preemptive. We know the anti-Whites portray themselves as endlessly afraid and vulnerable. This could result in massive abuse of our liberties. In addition to the Criminal Code provisions, the Canadian Human Rights Commission could now receive complaints about online expressions of “hate” as being a discriminatory practice. At human rights tribunals, really kangaroo courts, where the appointed member (judge) is chosen for a special sensitivity to human rights (they don’t include freedom of speech), and the truth is no defense, the victim has little chance. Also, if the accuser is fearful of retaliation, his/her/its identity may be kept secret from the defendant and the press. In other words, a millennium of Anglo-Saxon individual rights – in this case, the defendant’s right to face his accuser – would be tossed out the window.

Edwards: How would you compare punishment for so-called “hate speech” violations in the United States and Canada, and even European nations like the United Kingdom and Germany, where dissidents receive harsh prison sentences for having politically incorrect points of view?

Fromm: When it comes to speech, America is still a largely free country in terms of legal sanctions. Canada is now attempting to join wretched thought-control regimes like Germany in its eagerness to jail dissidents.

Edwards: Immigration is your other signature issue. Compared to the United States, how advanced has the Great Replacement become in Canada?

Fromm: America is worse off than Canada but we’re catching up. Our population is still 78% White, but massive Third World immigration engineered and enabled from the top is replacing us fast. Toronto, 98% White in 1960, is now majority Third World, as is Vancouver. This is the result of a cold-blooded and deliberate policy of replacement, collaborated in by all political parties except the populist People’s Party of Canada, and by big businesses and banks which have eagerly adopted the anti-White policies of diversity (fewer Whites hired), equity (inferior results and mediocrity), and inclusion (but not of White Christians).

Edwards: What interests drive the open border policies of the United States and Canada?

Fromm: There are several motives. One cabal wants to see Whites replaced. Greedy businessmen always bemoan a labor shortage. They mean a cheap labor shortage. They don’t care whether the potential worker is legal, illegal, Black, Yellow, or Purple, as long as he’s cheap.

Edwards: Though 90% of the population lives within an hour of the border, to many Americans, Canada still appears to be the Great White North. Does homogeneity exist in some of the more remote provinces of your expansive continent more so than in places like multicultural Toronto?

Fromm: Rural areas and small towns are still relatively White, especially in Quebec and the Maritimes. Most of the Third Worlders flock to the big cities – Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Hamilton, Calgary, and Edmonton.

Edwards: I read that the Canadian courts recently ruled that many of the overreaches during the Covid-era were unconstitutional. What can you tell us about that?

Fromm: Yes, in a stunning pro-freedom ruling, the Federal Court ruled that many of the federal government’s COVID restrictions were a violation of individual rights.

Edwards: As an avid observer of American politics, what are your thoughts on the upcoming elections in the United States?

Fromm: I pray for the election of Donald Trump to make America great again. I hope he has learned from his first term the bitter opposition and vile tactics of the deep state and will move swiftly and with determination to build that wall and deport, as Dwight Eisenhower did, millions of illegal aliens.

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.

Paul Fromm is Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.