Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) Exposed: The Wrath of CAHN by John Klein

Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) Exposed: The Wrath of CAHN by John Klein

The Wrath of CAHN

John Klein January 22, 2020 Canada is among the world’s most tolerant and peaceable countries. The Canadian Anti-Hate Network wants you to believe otherwise, however, working tirelessly to convince Canadians their country is a seething hotbed of (mostly white, right-wing) hate groups. John Klein lays bare the hypocrisy, intolerance and damage done to individuals and free speech rights when a small group of political activists model themselves on a much larger American group and appoint themselves as our country’s figurative judge, jury and executioner.

You can’t tell the haters without a program. 

For decades the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has styled itself as the indispensable guide to what constitutes hatred in the United States. Its signature “Hate Map” has long been cited in the media and by commentators as an objective and reliable reference point for measuring the worrisome growth of hate groups across America. And according to the SPLC, hate is always growing. The latest Hate Map puts the number of active hate groups in the U.S. at 1,020, up by 70 percent since 2000. Another thing that’s seemingly always growing at the SPLC: its bank account. Thanks to its self-declared status as arbiter of American hate, and in conjunction with highly sophisticated fundraising techniques, the group holds an astounding half-billion dollars in assets, making it one of America’s richest non-profit advocacy groups.

Despite such obvious trappings of success, the Alabama-based SPLC has lately found itself on the receiving end of the sort of nasty accusations it typically makes of others. Last year the organization was rocked by several internal accusations of sexual impropriety and racism against co-founder and former chief litigator Morris Dees, who was fired that March. Dees − long the public face of the organization, as well as a member of the Direct Marketing Association’s Hall of Fame for his masterful use of direct mail solicitations − was apparently fond of reminding his black female staffers how much he liked “chocolate”, among other lewd remarks, as well as inappropriate touching; it was recently revealed that decades ago he faced an accusation of molesting his stepdaughter with a sex toy.

“Chocolate” lover: SPLC co-founder Dees was at last fired from the organization.

Beyond the damaging hypocrisy of an anti-hate group being accused of sexist and racist behaviour, the SPLC has also been sued by several organizations and individuals claiming they were maliciously and erroneously targeted as “haters” and, in the case of Muslim reformer and counter-extremist Maajid Nawaz (whom it had labelled an anti-Muslim “extremist”), has had to pay out millions of dollars. This is a remarkable fact, considering the legal hurdle for defamation in the U.S. is nearly insurmountable. 

The reputation of the SPLC’s much-cited Hate Map has also been seriously damaged in other ways. A recent insider’s account in the New Yorker alleges the SPLC’s hate data has been deliberately exaggerated in order to coax donations from “gullible Northern liberals”. And the far-left magazine Current Affairs devastatingly declared that the SPLC “is a scam: It finds as much ‘hate’ as possible in order to make as much money as possible.”

The SPLC’s upside-down world: Counter-extremist Muslim reformer Nawaz was labelled an “anti-Muslim extremist.”

While the reek of hypocrisy was highly inconvenient, the allegations of “hate inflation” undermine the group’s very legitimacy. The confluence of internal crises and external criticisms has prompted nearly every top SPLC official abruptly to leave the group, Twitter to drop the SPLC as one of its hate-monitoring “safety partners” and a U.S. Senator to request the IRS investigate its non-profit status. 

In short, the SPLC’s carefully crafted public image as a virtuous hate-fighter has been shredded. It hardly seems a model to emulate. Yet that’s exactly what the fledgling Canadian Anti-Hate Network (CAHN) is doing.

Canada’s SPLC

CAHN began operations in early 2018, billing itself as an “independent, nonprofit organization made up of Canada’s leading experts and researchers on hate groups and hate crimes.” Its mandate, according to CAHN’s website, “is to monitor, research, and counter hate groups by providing education and information on hate groups to the public, media, researchers, courts, law enforcement, and community groups.” And it makes no bones about the inspiration for its domestic anti-hate crusade. In a letter to a House of Commons committee introducing itself to Canadian parliamentarians last April, CAHN claimed to be “modelled after, and supported by, the esteemed Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in the United States.” The letter was delivered several weeks after the no-longer-esteemed Dees was fired for allegations of sexual and racial misconduct.

CAHN claimed to be “modelled after, and supported by, the esteemed Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) in the United States.” The letter was delivered to Parliament several weeks after the SPLC’s no-longer-esteemed co-founder Dees was fired for allegations of sexual and racial misconduct. Tweet

CAHN is chaired by Bernie Farber, well-known in Canadian media circles for an earlier career as CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC). Other key members of the organization include executive director Evan Balgord, a former special assistant to Toronto mayor John Tory, controversial “anti-hate” lawyer Richard Warman and Ontario Institute of Technology professor Barbara Perry.

The first necessary step in following the SPLC’s path is to establish CAHN as a useful source of hate information in Canada. CAHN’s principals make themselves readily available to media outlets eager to tell terrifying stories about the proliferation of hate groups in our midst. The CBC and Global News appear to be the most ardent devotees of this service, although a wide range of publications at home and abroad avail themselves of CAHN’s self-proclaimed expertise. In a particularly successful twist on its formula, CAHN board member Amira Elghawaby recently announced on Twitter that the Toronto Star will have her write a “bimonthly” column focused on “exploring human rights”.

The group also makes savvy use of social media for publicity and fundraising, and as a weapon in its anti-hate activities. Ricochet Media, an online portal that bills itself as a crowd-funded public interest journal (but is at least partly Government-of-Canada funded and seems to publish only left-wing content), is another outlet where CAHN’s messages are quoted approvingly and amplified. This breathless article, for example, alleged “levels of extremist activity not seen in generations” and called upon governments to do more than merely monitor and research right-wing extremists. 

Perry makes the stunning claim that approximately 300 hate groups are extant in Canada. If true, this would give Canada a three times higher per capita incidence of hate groups than even the SPLC claims exists in the U.S. Tweet

Having inserted itself into public discussions on hate, the next requirement in SPLC mimicry is to build a case that Canada is a seething hotbed of hatred. CAHN’s website offers a veritable avalanche of revealed hate: neo-Nazi groups are lurking in central Canadian suburbs, hate groups you’ve never heard of are organizing across Atlantic Canada, gender-identity hatred is simmering on the West Coast, anti-Semitism is surging everywhere.

The recent federal election produced an apparent bumper crop of hate in Canada, with CAHN training its steely eyes on everything from Maxime Bernier’s People’s Party of Canada to the Yellow Vest movement to an entirely insignificant collection of political no-hopers scattered across the country. As for the total amount of hate in this country, Perry makes the stunning claim that approximately 300 hate groups are extant in Canada. If true, this would give Canada a three times higher per capita incidence of hate groups than even the SPLC claims exists in the U.S. Despite the shock value of her allegations, Perry has not produced the actual list, or any verifiable evidence that such a claim is accurate. In 2015, Perry claimed there were only 100 hate groups in Canada. 

Haters, haters everywhere, from PPC leader Bernier to the Yellow Vests. If this is the best CAHN can do, is there really that much hate in Canada?
Haters, haters everywhere, from PPC leader Bernier to the Yellow Vests. If this is the best CAHN can do, is there really that much hate in Canada?

Arguing hate is in such great supply in this country is quite a feat given that Canada generally tops global surveys on racial tolerance and acceptance of immigration. And despite CAHN’s breathless claims, open expressions of racism in Canada are actually quite rare. Interestingly, visible minorities and non-visible minorities often report experiencing similar rates of discriminatory acts. 

The most recent Statistics Canada survey of police-reported hate crimes happily reveals a substantial year-over-year decline. Some places in Canada reported precisely zero hate crimes in 2018. Belleville, Ontario and Trois Rivières, Quebec were two such cities. Many other places recorded a mere handful. Examples are St. John’s, Newfoundland with one; Lethbridge, Alberta with three; and Abbotsford, B.C. with six. Out of 2.3 million Criminal Code violations that year, there were just 1,798 hate crimes – substantially less than one-tenth of one percent of the total. And the vast majority of these offences were for mischief or graffiti. Actual violence is very, very hard to find. Fewer than 100 instances of hate-motivated assaults were recorded across the entire country in 2018, of which just two were homicides. 

In truth, Canada appears to be a country remarkable for its lack of hate. But you wouldn’t know this from listening to CAHN. In response to the recent happy news that hate crimes fell sharply in 2018, CAHN complained that these new figures “aren’t showing the whole picture.” It then launched a campaign for “better hate crime statistics.” What CAHN really wants, presumably, is bigger hate crime statistics. As American journalist Wilfred Reilly memorably said of the Jussie Smollett hate-crime hoax in Chicago, “the demand for bigots exceeds the supply.” Reilly is African-American. 

Judge, jury and executioner

In addition to claiming hate is always on the rise, CAHN closely follows several other discreditable SPLC tactics. Among these is the practice of “doxing” its enemies. Doxing involves publishing the details and contact information of organizations, businesses and even private individuals deemed to be purveyors of hate. The objective is to expose those it declares to be haters to public opprobrium, or worse. It can get out of hand. 

CAHN has doxed the founder of a far-right podcast who owns a small business in Thunder Bay. It also threatened to publish the names and addresses of members of the Canadian Nationalist Party in an unsuccessful attempt to derail their application for official party status with Elections Canada. And it published the names of hundreds of donors to the quixotic Toronto mayoral campaign of Faith Goldy. “Naming and shaming is part of our mandate,” the group explains on its Twitter account. 

In many cases, the only evidence of hate to be found amongst CAHN’s targets is that they question Ottawa’s sacred twin ideologies of diversity and multiculturalism. But simply calling for illegal immigrants – who have, after all, broken Canada’s laws – to be deported is not itself evidence of hate. Tweet

In one horrifying example of naming-and-shaming’s potential consequences in the United States, Jessica Prol Smith, an editor at the Washington-based Family Research Council, a pro-marriage group opposed to homosexuality, found her life threatened by a gunman. In 2012, Floyd Lee Corkins II shot and wounded a security guard at Smith’s building before being subdued; he later admitted his actions were largely motivated by the SPLC’s designation of Smith’s employer as a hate group. Corkins was charged with domestic terrorism and is serving a 25-year prison sentence. Smith recounted these events last summer in the memorably headlined USA Today article “The Southern Poverty Law Center is a hate-based scam that nearly caused me to be murdered.” 

The SPLC and CAHN thus grandly claim for themselves the overlapping roles of investigator, adjudicator and punisher of actions, opinions and ideas they determine to be wrong. Of course, all of these properly belong to government, and all are wisely separated in democratic states. No single organization should ever have such sweeping powers combined, let alone a private group of activists. CAHN’s arrogance in assuming all three brings to mind the ancient Roman poet Juvenal’s famous aphorism: Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? Who will guard the guards themselves?

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? After her employer was labelled by the SPLC, Jessica Prol’s life was threatened by a gunman.

Other CAHN tactics borrowed from the SPLC include filing highly-dubious requests to police for criminal hate speech investigations and restraining orders against utterly inconsequential people, such as long-time polemicists Kevin Goudreau and Paul Fromm. Elsewhere, CAHN has successfully pushed Facebook to de-platform its opponents, such as the Soldiers of Odin, a tiny group of nativist bikers who have done charitable work and who dispute the news media’s characterization of them as racist. And it is currently pushing the same for Canada’s chaotic Yellow Vest movement, which embraces a dizzying array of social and economic concerns (and whose sister group in France is led by a native of Martinique). It also convinced Toronto City Council to audit Goldy’s mayoral campaign finances. 

A field guide to spotting hate in Canada: bring your microscope

Often, those targeted by CAHN or the SPLC are not only insignificant and/or obscure, but too weak or disorganized to fight back. One SPLC staffer noted Dees’s favoured approach was to pick opponents who had a “poor education…limited funds, few if any good lawyers…[it] was like shooting fish in a barrel.” During Farber’s time as head of the CJC, former Maclean’s columnist Mark Steyn described him as someone who’d spent most of his career fighting “irrelevant penniless shaven-headed nobodies” as opposed to actual threats to minority rights and society as a whole.

As with the SPLC’s targets, sometimes CAHN’s also push back, however. Canadian Nationalist Party leader Travis Patron some time ago sent a cease-and-desist letter to CAHN’s Balgord, demanding he retract “false” claims that his Canadian Nationalist Party is “Neo-Nazi” and that it is “under investigation for alleged ‘hate speech.’” If Patron’s bank account permits, it will be up to the courts to decide the validity of his case against CAHN. 

Regardless of the legal outcome, Canadian voters don’t appear to be buying what Patron is selling. He received just 166 votes – or 0.4 percent of total ballots – in the Saskatchewan riding of Souris-Moose Mountain in the recent federal election. Patron has demonstrated such little traction with the voting public that it seems pointless to bother getting worked up about anything he says. CAHN’s efforts have likely provided him with far more publicity than his trivial Canadian Nationalist Party could ever have hoped to earn on its own. 

In many cases, the only evidence of hate to be found amongst CAHN’s targets is that they question Ottawa’s sacred twin ideologies of diversity and multiculturalism. But simply calling for illegal immigrants – who have, after all, broken Canada’s laws – to be deported, as Patron has, is not itself evidence of hate. Neither is engaging in a debate over Canada’s annual immigration intake. CAHN’s animosity towards Bernier’s PPC (whose supporters are “terrible people”, according to executive director Balgord) and his pledge to limit immigration to 150,000 people per year is rather hard to fathom. 

Any party committed to admitting 150,000 immigrants per year – about the same as Australia’s annual intake and significantly more than Canada itself welcomed for many years under former prime ministers Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney − cannot logically be considered anti-immigrant, regardless of who chooses to join the party as a result of such a commitment. Most of the world’s countries, in fact, accept almost no immigration at all. Regarding Bernier’s criticism of “extreme multiculturalism”, in his later years Pierre Trudeau also came to lament how official multiculturalism had metastasized into identity politics. Plus, Bernier’s party was recognized by the federal Leaders’ Debates Commission as a serious and legitimate entity deserving a place in the national televised events.

It is certainly not necessary for a reasonable person to agree with the positions taken by Patron, Goldy, the Soldiers of Odin et al − and in many cases their claims are embarrassingly naïve, delusional, aggressive or simply plain wrong − to recognize that democracy works best when a full-range of views can be aired and dismantled as necessary. Censorship is not the answer to bad ideas. Better ideas are. 

CAHN has targeted Faith Goldy, pictured above with her then-Toronto Mayoral campaign team, and the Soldiers of Odin, seen here at a Fraser Valley community clean-up event.

Instead of engaging or debating, the preferred tactic of the aggressive anti-hate movement is to attack. The CAHN website boasts that, “We convinced an Art gallery to Cancel a People’s Party of Canada Event in Winnipeg.” How? Via smear tactics and other ugly de-platforming techniques. But with a large segment of the Canadian population deeply concerned about current immigration policy, wildly throwing around claims of “hate” and neo-Nazism at opponents who merely seek to debate immigration orthodoxies can only coarsen public discourse.

Naming-and-shaming for thee, but not for me

CAHN makes no evident attempt to acknowledge the massive grey area between hotly debated viewpoints and outright hate. Rather, it actively picks sides and ignores the consequences. The group flatly bills itself as a “monitor” of “right-wing extremist groups” (and then just white supremacist groups, apparently). Warman has explained his purpose is to create “maximum disruption” for alt-right organizations. As such, CAHN habitually ignores equally egregious activity by the far-left. In line with the SPLC, CAHN also generally avoids attacking the speech or association rights of Muslim or Sikh extremists, current allies of white liberals. 

CAHN’s Perry as well complains about law enforcement agencies’ tendency to distinguish between hate groups and terrorist groups. To most people, such a distinction might seem clear and reasonable. In the one category are groups holding strong views that many people might find distasteful or even awful, but that don’t incite or engage in violence; in the other are groups planning and/or carrying out attacks. Perry’s preference, however, is to blur the difference between the two – thus conflating the holding of views she considers objectionable with illegal activity aimed at destroying Western society.

When presented with evidence of apparent hate-related activity that appears to meet or exceed the flimsy standards applied against foes such as Patron, but emanating from the other end of the political or religious spectrum, CAHN seems unable to rouse itself off the couch, let alone commit to a full-on anti-hate or doxing campaign. Consider the group’s surprisingly flaccid response to Islamist activist Jawed Anwar’s plans for an Islamic Party of Ontario. 

While admitting Anwar espouses the sort of hardline religious views about gender and homosexuality that CAHN despises when promoted by white Christian polemicists like Patron or former Ontario Progressive Conservative leadership candidate Tanya Granic Allen, it brushes off Anwar as an inconsequential distraction. “There are no indications that [Islamic Party of Ontario] has any support,” reads CAHN’s Facebook page. “To make it out to be a significant threat at present time is fearmongering.” To a principled defender of free speech rights, this statement could seem reasonable on its face. Coming from CAHN, it is remarkable for its hypocrisy. If causing a ruckus about idiosyncratic groups with an insignificant public presence is “fearmongering”, then CAHN is a banner candidate to be Canada’s fearmonger-in-chief. 

CAHN seems equally unconcerned about Canadian branch plant operations of the violent Antifa movement or the overt anti-white prejudice of Black Lives Matter (BLM). Both organizations are examples of alt-left extremism, no different in principle from the alt-right groups CAHN seeks to put out of business, and often far worse in practise. Antifa members are frequently found assaulting their opponents in messy counter-demonstrations, while BLM prefers civil disobedience that often seems to go just slightly too far, at times resulting in serious physical injuries, including to police officers

The Antifa and BLM movements are somehow exempt from investigation and scrutiny by CAHN.

In this area, CAHN’s approach is unlike the SPLC’s, which regularly denounces the violence of these groups (although still keeping them off its extremist list). The CAHN website actively encourages citizens to partner with Antifa in staging counter-demonstrations (which the SPLC specifically advises against). Balgord has also defended its tactics in print despite the movement being accused of domestic terrorism by the Obama Administration. And with no hint of irony, Balgord explicitly defends Antifa thugs’ preference for facemasks as a necessary precaution since it “protects themselves from doxing” − the very tactic favoured by CAHN against its opponents. 

Given such tendentiousness, Farber and his cohorts’ attempt to position CAHN as a reliable and objective arbiter of what constitutes hate strains credulity. When combined with CAHN’s behaviour to date, it is difficult to envision anyone who stumbles into the organization’s crosshairs receiving an impartial evaluation.

Section 13 redux

Beyond simply making life difficult for its carefully-curated enemies, CAHN’s broader ambition appears to be establishing itself in the space vacated by the departed but unlamented Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. This notoriously stringent law once barred online speech that “may expose” identifiable groups not just to hatred, but mere contempt. It allowed no defences with regards to truth, intent or fair comment on matters of public interest. And not only direct targets but any non-targeted third party could file a complaint, while the federal human rights commission only rarely tried to mediate the complaints. This proved to be a big problem for poor defendants, considering free legal representation was not available. 

Section 13 was thrust into the public eye in 2002 with the arrival of Warman’s novel strategy to proactively use the legislation to shut down voices he disapproved of. While the law was intended for the protection of minority groups, Warman – a white male − was responsible for an impressive 16 complaints, the most of any individual. 

Balgord has defended Antifa’s tactics in print despite the movement being accused of domestic terrorism by the Obama Administration. And with no hint of irony, he explicitly defends Antifa thugs’ preference for facemasks since it “protects themselves from doxing” – a tactic favoured by CAHN against its opponents. Tweet

In some instances, Warman obtained his evidence by provoking extremist statements from obscure online message boards. Sometimes he even posed as a neo-Nazi poster himself, which one tribunal adjudicator later said “diminish[ed] his credibility” and “could have precipitated further hate messages.” Partly because his targets were mostly poor and couldn’t afford legal help, Warman was successful in every case but one. He was awarded tens of thousands of dollars in monetary compensation for the damages he purportedly suffered. As one Huffington Post contributor wryly described Warman: “He’s sacked more peewee quarterbacks than any other NFL linebacker.”

When it became apparent that Section 13 was being used as a bludgeon against free speech in Canada – most notably when three human rights tribunal complaints were launched against Maclean’s columnist Steyn – public opinion finally shifted against it. A 2008 report by University of Windsor law professor Richard Moon identified it as a clear threat to legitimate political discourse and recommended it be removed.

Journalist Steyn torpedoes the listing ship that was Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Now it might be making a comeback.

A year later Warman’s final and only failed Section 13 complaint, against Internet provocateur Marc Lemire, was famously dismissed when a human rights tribunal declined to enforce its provisions because it found they were inconsistent with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ guarantees of freedom of expression. The section was finally repealed in 2013 by the Conservative government of Stephen Harper. 

Stolen identities 

As an attorney early in his career, SPLC co-founder Dees once represented the Ku Klux Klan and had his bill paid by the White Citizens’ Council in a case involving the beating of a Montgomery, Alabama Freedom Rider (a group of civil rights activists who fought segregation). In 1958 Dees had campaigned for arch-segregationist George Wallace in the Georgia gubernatorial campaign. According to his former law partner, Millard Fuller, Dees’ “overriding purpose…[was] making a pile of money.” He transformed himself into an anti-racism crusader – with the Klan becoming one of his favourite targets – after discovering it offered an alternative route to riches via the miracle of direct mail solicitation. 

CAHN has yet to prove itself as adept at fundraising as the SPLC, which in 2018 generated US$103 million in donations alone. We do know, however, that CAHN boasts of receiving direct funding and support from its big brother south of the border. And in 2018 Toronto-area businessman Mohamad Fakih made a media splash with a donation of $25,000 to CAHN following a successful defamation lawsuit against his online critics. 

But now CAHN is facing its own troubling allegations of profiteering from hate. In February 2019 Elisa Hategan, an anti-racism activist and former member of an early-90s skinhead group called the Heritage Front, teamed up with professor and human rights lawyer Yavar Hameed to file a $200,000 civil claim against CAHN. Farber is also named. The lawsuit alleges CAHN Advisory Committee member Elizabeth Moore (also a former Heritage Front member) “fraudulently appropriated several significant elements of Ms. Hategan’s personal life story in order to boost her own credentials as a former neo-Nazi and did this to monetize a fraudulent narrative.” These stolen elements include Hategan’s experience as a former spokesperson for the Heritage Front and later as a defector who helped prosecutors bring the group down.

Elisa Hategan, posing here with her book Race Traitor, has filed a lawsuit against CAHN for appropriating her story and allegedly hoping to gain from it.

Moore had simply been an unmemorable Heritage Front fellow traveller, says Hategan. But instead, Hategan claims Moore took credit for a film made about Hategan’s experiences: 1998’s White Lies. Her suit alleges that appropriating her “narrative would be an important method of securing greater publicity, speaking engagements and financial opportunities for Moore, as well as publicity, consulting and speaking engagements for Farber.” On top of this, Hategan alleges that Farber and Moore have disparaged her publicly in order to cut her out from employment and advocacy opportunities, maximizing their own in the process. If true, this wouldn’t exactly be behaviour consistent with an organization “committed to increasing public awareness about the scourge of ‘hate’ across Canada.” The civil trial is set to begin in March. 

Theatrical vs. substantive advocacy

While assuming the mantle of hate-fighter sounds like a heroic exercise in defending minority rights and rescuing the oppressed, the crusade embarked upon by the SPLC – with which CAHN, as we’ve seen, openly associates itself – is criticized even by members of the intellectual left as a fraudulent exercise. The far-left Nation magazine has called “anti-hate” advocacy a form of “theatrical” rather than “substantive advocacy.” If advocates were truly concerned about minority uplift, its columnist wrote, they should be fighting more tangible problems like employment and housing discrimination – practising actual poverty law, in other words − instead of simply “fingering militiamen in a potato field in Idaho.”

That the SPLC lost the plot by preferring activities that boosted its fundraising effectiveness over fighting for tangible improvements in its alleged clientele’s lives is not a new idea. As long ago as 1988, a former SPLC staffer admitted to The Progressive that there were “certainly bigger problems facing blacks and the poor” than continuing to tackle a now-toothless Ku Klux Klan. The Klan, said another former staffer, “was such an easy target − easy to beat in court, easy to raise big money on”, and so it dominated the SPLC’s attention. Last year, Current Affairs also argued that the SPLC’s habit of elevating minority rights by targeting inconsequential right-wing groups continues a “politics of spectacle.” 

Even some liberal voices in Canada have expressed concerns about “anti-hate” advocacy and hate speech generally. Former Liberal Party MP Keith Martin, a doctor of mixed-race background, fought hard against hate speech restrictions during his nearly 20 years in Parliament, saying they represented what Canada fought against in the Second World War. Martin noted that while Canadians have a right to be free from slander, they “do not have the right to not be offended.” Laws like Section 13 created a “slippery slope” in that they could be easily politicized and used to simply shut down debate. 

Notable Holocaust historian Deborah Lipstadt is against such laws for the same reason. The criticism seems particularly apt when applied to organized and powerful groups like the SPLC and CAHN. Refusing to debate or engage with groups or people they don’t like, and choosing instead to malign them in the most alarmist terms possible, is to engage in the politics of spectacle. The same goes for the active use or tacit approval of such ignominious tactics as de-platforming, doxing, Antifa mobbing and piling on spurious legal complaints.

Antifa protester (l) grabs a Canadian flag from a Bernier supporter (r) at a campaign event at Mohawk College’s McIntyre Theatre.

Because hate speech charges are so nebulous and problematic, free speech advocate and author Stefan Braun refers to them as a “packaged idea.” When unpacked, Braun writes, hate speech allegations are often revealed to be based on “many different reasons besides the public good, including fear, political expedience, moral comfort, public approval, or even the ‘bottom line.’” And because it is so far from a clear concept, the Supreme Court has ruled that “hate speech” requires intense and highly fact-dependent inquiry. For this reason, hate-incitement is unique in the Criminal Code in requiring a province’s attorney-general to personally sign off on any charges. 

Policing hate, in other words, is properly regarded as the most complex and delicate aspect of the entire criminal justice system, balancing as it does the Charter’s guarantees of “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression” with the Criminal Code’s protection from incitement of “hatred against any identifiable group.” Given its intricate nature, why would anyone willingly hand over responsibility for policing hate to a private group of activists that shows so little interest in the legal, democratic and social ramifications of the task and openly styles itself after a badly-tarnished American outfit? And why would so many media outlets give such an outfit the credibility it craves by treating it as a reliable and unbiased source of information?

A better and more civil way

Anyone looking to reconcile concerns over hate speech in Canadian discourse with the demands of free expression is advised to reread Moon’s 2008 report on Section 13. Therein, he suggested dealing with problematic public opinions and statements through engagement rather than prohibition and punishment. “We must develop ways other than censorship to respond to expression that stereotypes and defames the members of an identifiable group,” Moon wrote. 

At the very least, before attacking someone in public, branding them “neo-Nazis” or doxing them to reveal their intimate personal details in hopes someone else will make their life miserable, CAHN should first define what it means by the labels it employs. And these labels – hate-mongering, for example – should be applied equally to everyone who expresses such animus, regardless of race, religion or politics. 

Policing hate is properly regarded as the most complex and delicate aspect of the entire criminal justice system. So why would anyone willingly hand such responsibility to a private group of activists that shows so little interest in the legal, democratic and social ramifications of the task and openly styles itself after a badly-tarnished American outfit? Tweet

When a group is identified that meets these equally applied criteria, it should first be asked to clarify or disavow its impugned statements. If a disavowal is forthcoming, this could be put on record to, first, credit the target for its goodwill and, if needed, embarrass the target should it later recant. If not, those opinions could be met by way of a debate (in public, online, etc.) and refuted with more and better-quality speech. As 18th-Century French essayist Joseph Joubert put it, “It is better to debate a question without settling it than to settle a question without debating it.” In addition to lubricating mutual communication and clearing up potential misunderstandings, both sides might even learn something from one another. 

Were “anti-hate” groups such as CAHN to take such an approach, the public might be better assured the group was properly concerned with the best interests of civil society and free speech. Improved transparency with respect to donors, salaries, and its watch-list of hate groups wouldn’t hurt, either.

John Klein is a business owner in the United States and an advocate for freedom of thought, belief and opinion.

Attorney Glen Allen fights the Multi-Headed Hydra of SPLC

Attorney Glen Allen fights the Multi-Headed Hydra of SPLC

Latest communique to supporters

From: glen allen [mailto:glenallenlaw@gmail.com]
Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2019 10:50 PM
To: glen allen; glen allen; Glen Allen
Subject: 6th Update from Glen Allen re Allen v. SPLC lawsuit

Friends, Donors, and Interested Persons,

 

As before and always, I thank you for your continued financial and moral support for my lawsuit against the SPLC, Heidi Beirich, and Mark Potok.

 

I mentioned in my  April 2, 2019 update that the SPLC defendants had until April 15 to file their reply memoranda in further support of their motions to dismiss my complaint.  They asked for an extension until April 24, which I granted, and they filed on that date.  Their reply memoranda, in my judgment, were superficial, especially with regard to my RICO and common law claims.  But of course, the decisive question is not what I think but what Judge Blake thinks, and she has not yet rendered a decision.

 

On April 25, I asked for a hearing on the SPLC’s motions but Judge Blake has not responded.

 

If any of you would like to see the SPLC Defendants’ reply memoranda, let me know and I will send them to you.

 

Please know that I will greatly need your continued donations whatever Judge Blake’s decision may be.  If she denies the defendants’ motions to dismiss, in whole or in part, my case will proceed into discovery — e.g., document requests and depositions — which will be expensive but extremely interesting given the result scandals at the SPLC.  If Judge Blake grants the motion in its entirety, I will appeal to the Fourth Circuit and perhaps even the Supreme Court.  The issues raised by the SPLC’s outrageous behavior, for which it has escaped justice for so many years, certainly merit appellate review at the highest levels.

 

My best to all of you.  Thank you for joining me on this journey!

 

Glen

 

 

ANATOMY OF A FAKE NEWS MEDIA SMEAR

ANATOMY OF A FAKE NEWS MEDIA SMEAR

One of the great contributions of President Donald Trump is to undermine and expose what he calls the lying media or the “fake news” media. Much of North America’s media is in the control of the Cultural Marxists or minority special interest groups.  News, as I have argued for years, is not really news — that is,. the facts about what is happening, like the scores of last night’s hockey game — but, in fact, a soap opera, where there are good guys and bad guys and few in betweens. And, guess what, we in the nationalist or pro-freedom or populist movement are always the bad guys. Whatever the specific story might be, through labels and selective presentation of details, our side is presented as evil The reader or viewer is not presented with objective facts from which he or she can then form an opinion.

Here is a textbook example of soap opera false news journalism — a recent smear on me by the HAMILTON SPECTATOR, which, I would more properly dub as the EXPECTORATOR.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

_______________________________________

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 289-674-4455;

Website: http://cafe.nfshost.com

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

 

March 25, 2019

 

Mr. Paul Berton, Editor-in-Chief,

THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR,

44 Frid St.,

Hamilton, ON.,

L8N 3G3

 

Dear Mr. Berton:

 

 

On March 19, THE HAMILTON SPECTATOR printed an article by Teviah Moro entitled “Paul Fromm investigated for posting of New Zealand shooter’s manifesto.”

 

The entire article is defamatory, misleading to the point of falsehood and utterly unprofessional. I demand a complete retraction.

 

The article has three elements: I posted Brenton Tarrant’s manifesto; there was a complaint about this; the Hamilton Police “hate crimes unit” is investigating.

 

I am the main focus of this article. Many details are given about me, all of a negative nature. However, I was never interviewed or asked to comment.

 

The headline itself clearly suggests that I agree with the shooter. Otherwise why would I post the manifesto.

 

The opening paragraph strengthens that impression by labelling me a “White supremacist”, The accused shooter has also been widely identified as a “White supremacist.” Interestingly, when one accesses this story on the SPECTATOR’S website, there is a link to an article announcing my candidacy  for mayor last year correctly identifying me as a “White nationalist” (“Self proclaimed White nationalist Paul Fromm running for Mayor of Hamilton”). There is a profound difference. A nationalist wants to promote the interests of his people, in this case, the European people. A supremacist seeks to rule over or dominate others. I emphatically reject the “‘White Supremacist” label, as your reporter would have learned had she contacted me.

 

What is missing in the story is the vital information that I wrote an introduction before posting the manifesto and made it quite clear that I reject violence. I largely agreed with Tarant that European people are being replaced in their own countries by massive Third World immigration and that this is a bad thing. I urged peaceful discussion but pointed out that, in many Western nations, we are restricted by “hate laws” and other legal barriers. I warned that, when you silence the man of the pen, you must deal with the man of the sword. I attach the introduction as it appears on the CAFE website.

 

Did you reporter even look at the online post? If so, she’d have seen the story changing introduction: I do not support violence. If she didn’t look at the post, she’s incompetent and should be fired. If she did, she’s a deliberate liar by suppressing vital information and should be fired.  Another media outlet, Global did interview me and got the story essentially correct,

 

The article is about me but never quotes me once. Whatever views I might have are explained by hostile sources. A paragraph in the version of this article that appeared in the Toronto Star quotes an American group, the Southern Poverty Law Centre. This group is discredited and notorious. It raises hundreds of millions of dollars from liberal donors by spreading hyperventilating accusations of “hate” against many people and groups on the right of the political spectrum. It has been successfully sued by its victims on a number of occasions. It recently fired its co-founder and longtime board member Morris Dees for persistent sexual harassment of Centre employees. Yet, the Star version of the article quotes the SPLC as saying the Canadian Association for Free Expression of which I am the Director defends “anti-Semites, racists and Holocaust deniers.” Yes, we support anyone whose rights to free speech are being impinged. Over the years, we’ve also defended Little Sisters bookstore in Vancouver which was being harassed by Canada Customs for importing homosexual and lesbian publications. We opposed efforts by pro-censorship groups to keep Minister Lewis Farrakhan out of Canada for a series of talks, some years ago. Again, fairness involving an interview with me would have provided a different perspective.

 

The article reeks of bias. I am described and defined only through the words of mortal enemies of free speech.

 

The only details about me in the article are those calculated to be negative, with no balance provided by a reaction or explanation I might have made, had I been asked.

 

The article is a defamatory hatchet job. It is utterly unfair to me and misleading to the HAMILTON SPECTATOR’s readers.

 

I demand a retraction and want to hear from you by week’s end.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

 

Paul Fromm

 

INTRODUCTION TO BRENTON TERRANT’S NEW ZEALAND MANIFESTO PUBLISHED ON THE CAFE WEBSITE]

 

[For years, I have warned human rights tribunals and others: “When you silence the men of the word, you will have to deal with the men of the sword.” When debate and dissent are silenced by “hate laws” you make violence almost inevitable. Sadly, that seems to be what happened in New Zealand with  the alleged shooter’s killing of some 49 Moslems at two Christ Church area mosques.

 

Such repression has choked immigration and historical debate in almost all West European nations and, of course, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Canada has its notorious “”hate law” — Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, which saw Don Andrews, an immigration critic, jailed in the 1970s. Brad Love got 18 months for writing fierce but non-threatening letters to 20 MPs and other public officials. Most recently, a humourless Toronto judge in the fine Puritan tradition of banned in Boston, found Dr. James Sears and Leroy St. Germaine guilty for satire targetting Jews and radical feminists. This vile  hate law was enacted after years of Jewish lobby pressure. Jewish lobby groups have stoutly supported it and other anti-free speech measures in Canada. I have seen the human wreckage caused by Richard Warman’s use a decade ago of SEC. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act — fines, bank accounts looted, lifetime gags and even jail time. Oh, yes, and truth in such “human rights” cases was no defence — only the feelings or perceived possible hatred or contempt directed at privileged minorities.

 

 Many European countries, especially Germany, have laws criminalizing criticism of the Hollywood version of World War II — or the new secular religion of holocaust. Dissent from Islam in Saudi Arabia and you can get lashed and/or imprisoned; dissent from the new religion of holocaust in Germany and you can be beggared and jailed.

 

Here is the manifesto of Brenton Terrant, the alleged shooter in New Zealand. His analysis of the crisis we face is cogent. In Europe, North America, Australia and New Zealand, we ARE being invaded and replaced by Third World aliens. This is not the result of having lost a war. It is the result of the cold blooded, White-hating policies of our political elites.  The European indigenous people of Europe and the European founding/settler people of North America, Australia and New Zealand are being replaced by policy. This is planned genocide and will see its fulfillment before the end of this century. Hate laws in Canada have made this mortal threat to us as a people hard even to discuss. Critics of our genocidal immigration policies have been marginalized. Our trust fund kid prime minister who has never passed a Gay Pride Parade without participating refused to meet with a truck convoy of protesters in February because they included some members of the Yellow Vest movement which had criticized our immigration policies. One of several reasons Trudeau reneged on his 2015 election promise to change our electoral system to the more representative proportional representation model was the far of having some White nationalists elected to Parliament. Thus, a significant segment of Canadian political opinion is silenced, marginalized and unrepresented BY POLICY.

 

When you silence dissent, you invite violence.

 

I disagree with the violence indulged in by the shooter. It is not the way to go, but our vile elites have made it all but inevitable

The Concerned Citizens and Friends of Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement or CCFIILE was listed by the SPLC as a general hate group

Framingham Group Listed As Hate Group By SPLC
(Shutterstock)

A Framingham based group was listed among 14 hate groups in Massachusetts by the Southern Poverty Law Center, a watchdog group that tracks hate groups across the nation.

The Concerned Citizens and Friends of Illegal Immigration Law Enforcement, or CCFILE, was founded in 2003 by twin brothers Jim and Joe Rizoli. It has been listed as a “general hate” group since 2009 by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Jim Rizoli did not flatly reject the SPLC‘s categorization but instead asked, “What constitutes a hate group?” He added that he consider’s the SPLC a hate group.

The SPLC defines a hate group as “an organization that – based on its official statements or principles, the statements of its leaders, or its activities – has beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.”

CCFIILE’s presence and categorization by the SPLC is not new to Framingham. The mayor’s office is aware of the listing but refused to comment on it, saying the group should not get any more attention that it deserves.

The group focuses on illegal immigration. Several posts on its website target immigrants in Framingham’s Brazilian community, decry censorship and deny the Holocaust. The group’s website does not list any meetings, but Rizoli said it has a large following on the internet. The website homepage includes tabs that read “Case Against the Jews,” “Rizolis Uncensored” and “Conspiracies.”

Jim Rizoli could not give a hard count to how many members are part of the group. “It’s hard to say,” Rizoli said, “It’s a belief system in your mind, how you think and act.”

The Rizolis once had a cable TV show but it was canceled by Access Framingham in 2011 for violating network policies after a viewer complained about anti-Semitic content.

The most recent public appearance by either brother was by Joe Rizoli during a City Council meeting called to discuss a proposed welcoming ordinance directed at the immigrant community. Rizoli was the only member of the public to speak against the proposal, claiming it would be a gateway for illegal immigration.

Cesar Stewart-Morales, a commissioner on Framingham’s Human Relations Commission said he initially didn’t know much about CCFIILE and what the group stood for. He said knew the beliefs the Rizolis hold and that it didn’t surprise him that they are on the SPLC‘s list again. “Everything he says is just so offensive,” Morales said.

The commission has not heard any formal complaints against the group, but Morales said given the reaction to the welcoming ordinance by Joe Rizoli at the City Council meeting and the SPLC‘s news, the commission will discuss it. “Our job is to focus on how groups in the community are relating,” Morales said, “It will definitely be a discussion item.”

View the Souther Poverty Law Center’s full Hate Map.

ALSO READ:

Framingham To Hold Forum On Diversity, Equity & Inclusion

Framingham PD Hopes to ‘Reflect the Community It Serves’

Letters Of Unity Pour In For Muslim Girl Targeted By Hate Speech

(For more news and information like this, subscribe to the Framingham Patch for free. If you have an iPhone, click here to get the free Patch iPhone app; download the free Patch Android app here. Don’t forget to like us on Facebook! Got a news tip? Email samantha.mercado@patch.com)

New US Law Blurs the Line Between Hate Speech and Hate Crime

New US Law Blurs the Line Between Hate Speech and Hate Crime

September 16, 2017
 
Eleven years ago, this essay argued against hate-crime laws. One argument read “People can eventually be accused of hate crimes when they use hateful speech. Hate crimes laws are a seed that can sprout in new directions.” This has now come to pass, I am sorry to say. This week, the Congress passed S. J. Res. 49, and President Trump signed it, making it part of the U.S. legal code.
The law rejects “White nationalists, White supremacists, the Ku Klux Klan, neo-Nazis, and other hate groups…” But why? Because of their ideas? Because of their expression of these ideas? No government that stands for freedom and free speech, whose charge is to protect rights, should be singling out specific groups by name and by law declaring them as outlaws or threats because of their philosophies. If they have committed a crime, such as defamation of character or incitement to riot or riot itself, then charge them and try them. But American government has no legitimate authority to single out some of its citizens in this way. This, furthermore, is an exceedingly bad precedent. Who’s next?
The resolution is too specific, but it’s also dangerously vague. The term “other hate groups” has no known definition. Suppose that this term is defined by a group like the Southern Poverty Law Center. The SPLC currently names 917 groups as hate groups (see here for a list). Their criteria are not restricted to violent actions. They comprise SPEECH. They say “All hate groups have beliefs or practices that attack or malign an entire class of people, typically for their immutable characteristics.” They are very clear about this: “Hate group activities can include criminal acts, marches, rallies, speeches, meetings, leafleting or publishing.”
This Congressional resolution is a declaration that certain kinds of groups, some named but many, many others open to inclusion, are to be attacked by the U.S. government. The law urges “the President and the President’s Cabinet to use all available resources to address the threats posed by those groups.” The term “threats” in the first paragraph is vague, dangerously vague. However, the very next paragraph singles outfree speech actions when “hundreds of torch-bearing White nationalists, White supremacists, Klansmen, and neo-Nazis chanted racist, anti-Semitic, and anti-immigrant slogans…” The same sentence joins this with violent actions “…and violently engaged with counter-demonstrators on and around the grounds of the University of Virginia in Charlottesville…”
This law regards free speech as a threat, linking it to violence, painting them with one brush. There can be no justice that can stem from such a completely sloppy and inexcusably amateurish legal treatment. This linkage is made clear in paragraph seven with this language: “…communities everywhere are concerned about the growing and open display of hate and violence being perpetrated by those groups…” There is no distinction made here between the “open display of hate” and “violence being perpetrated”. As I predicted 11 years ago in arguing against hate crime laws, hate speech is being identified with hate crime.
I am just as uncomfortable with the notion of defining and singling out “hate speech” as some sort of new danger or threat or harmful activity or crime, to be dealt with by government or courts of law as I was 11 years ago with the idea of “hate crime”. The standard categories of crime are quite enough without adding to them a government laundry list of prejudices and aversions that everyone is not supposed to express or feel, under penalty of government law.
Reprinted with permission from LewRockwell.com.

THE WORST SMEAR SITE IN AMERICA

THE WORST SMEAR SITE IN AMERICA

The Southern Poverty Law Center smears patriots and provides cover for the nation’s enemies.

The far-left Southern Poverty Law Center relentlessly promotes the Big Lie, wildly popular in the media, that conservative Americans are racists and the real threat to the nation rather than Islamic terrorists.

The group claims the principal enemies of the American people are presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump, conservatives like David Horowitz, and the Tea Party movement.

The SPLC is a shamelessly hypocritical leftist attack machine funded by radical speculator George Soros and a rogue’s gallery of rich people and established philanthropies that want to fundamentally transform America. The fabulously wealthy 501(c)(3) nonprofit has an astounding one third of a billion dollars ($338 million) in assets, as well as investments in Bermuda and the Cayman Islands, two offshore tax havens the Left loves to attack (but only when non-leftists stash cash there).

The Center characterizes all opposition to immigration and open borders as symptomatic of hate and all political expression of those views to be hate speech. In other words, if you disagree with founder Morris Dees and his minions you are evil and worthy of public condemnation. It may take some intellectual toughness to insist that the nation has the right to decide who may or may not cross its borders, but it’s not hate.

Following the Islamist massacre at a gay club in Orlando a fortnight ago, the group has played an integral role in the Left’s propaganda push aimed at taking the focus away from gay-hating Islam and finding creative ways to blame conservatives and Republicans for the slaughter.

Two days after Orlando as a sea of rainbow flags rivaling those that washed over Facebook and Twitter following the Supreme Court’s pro-same sex marriage ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges swept over social media, David Dinielli, deputy legal director of SPLC’s LGBT Rights Project, tossed out a red herring as he whined amidst a national outpouring of grief that somehow politicians weren’t doing enough to characterize the attack as an assault on the gay community.

Instead of blaming Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen, reportedly a registered Democrat, for the attack, Dinielli blamed people like Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) instead. Many politicians were secretly delighted so many gays were killed, he implied.

“[M]any who offered their ‘thoughts and prayers’ know exactly what they are doing. They are trading on political expediency. The demonization of gay, lesbian, and transgender Americans pays, politically.”

But this “demonization” of the LGBT community that the Southern Poverty Law Center complains of is pure paranoid fantasy. Anyone who followed media coverage in the days following the June 12 incident knows that cable TV and other media were filled with wall-to-wall denunciations of the Muslim terrorist Omar Mateen by politicians who acknowledged the sexual orientation of the victims whether explicitly or implicitly. Even those not generally sympathetic to gay rights made it clear that murder, including the murder of people based on their sexual preference, was morally abhorrent.

None of this is surprising to those of us who have been tracking the SPLC’s adventures in vilification and defamation over the years.

The SPLC is waging a scorched-earth war against Donald Trump. The group routinely and baselessly associates Trump with neo-Nazis, white nationalists, and other marginal political actors it calls “the racist right.”

Pointing out that these fringe figures back Trump in the election is the most obvious kind of smear. The Left did the same thing to Ronald Reagan in 1984 when the Ku Klux Klan offered him its unwanted endorsement.

Reagan waited a full two weeks to denounce the KKK and reject its endorsement.

But Trump waited barely a day after a bungled CNN interview Feb. 28 in which Jake Tapper asked him if he would reject the Klan’s endorsement of him.

Trump gave a less than clear answer to Tapper, blaming a “bad earpiece” that led him to misunderstand the question. The very next day Trump asked “How many times do I have to continue to disavow people?” andattacked the KKK on Michael Savage’s radio show. Replying to a question, he said “yeah, totally denounce, and I disavowed it, and I’ve disavowed it numerous times, and I’ve disavowed it on Twitter and on Facebook and all over the place but people refuse to accept it.”

The SPLC’s annual report on “hate” in America this year features a cover picture of Trump, a man the group blames for increasing hate in the U.S.

According to the left-wing Guardian (UK), “the image underscores a theme laid out by the report’s author, about how hate speech has invaded mainstream political discourse in a way that might have shocked many even a year ago.”

“I have been writing these Year in Hate and Extremism essays for 20 years now, and only very rarely, if at all, have we seen a year like last year,” said SPLC senior fellow Mark Potok.

Hate, of course, isn’t exactly a precise concept in the world of politics and ideology, and the SPLC likes it that way because then it has wide latitude to malign and slander its targets. Its leaders are no doubt proud that Pentagon training materials borrow from SPLC reports and refer to extremists as “haters,” a colloquialism that appears in hip hop music and in humorous graphic art posted on the Internet.

Trump is definitely a hater, according to the Center. On April 4 its blog cited his “continued embrace of racist and extremist ideas” and accused him of turning “the political landscape on its side and introduced countless numbers to hate speech and racist conspiracy theories.”

It’s all spin and lies. The SPLC is still bellyaching over the courageous, electrifying anti-illegal immigration speech Trump gave last summer when launching his campaign. In it Trump said many of the Mexicans crossing illegally into the U.S. are “people that have lots of problems” who bring drugs and crime with them and that some are “rapists.”

Trump’s statements are demonstrably true. He wasn’t saying all Mexicans are criminals, just many of the Mexicans sneaking into the country. This isn’t racism: it is empirical fact.

Many of the so-called hate groups the SPLC monitors are so labeled because they fail to genuflect before political correctness. The Center labels as hate groups respectable right-leaning organizations such as the Center for Security Policy (CSP), Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), American Freedom Defense Initiative, and the David Horowitz Freedom Center, which publishes FrontPage.

The Southern Poverty Law Center frequently targets New York-based civil rights attorney David Yerushalmi, a co-founder of the American Freedom Law Center and counsel to CSP.

In 2011 the SPLC named Yerushalmi to its 10-member “Anti-Muslim Inner Circle.” Among the other “members” of the inner circle are David Horowitz, Robert Spencer, Pamela Geller, and Brigitte Gabriel. According to the Center, the rhetoric these individuals use “reveals how doggedly this group works to provoke and guide populist anger over what is seen as the threat posed by the 0.6% of Americans who are Muslim — an agenda that goes beyond reasonable concern about terrorism into the realm of demonization.”

The Guardian ran a story last week attacking Yerushalmi for daring to countersue a group of grandstanding Muslim women trying to shake down a Laguna Beach, Calif. café. The women filed a discrimination lawsuit claiming they were given the bum’s rush at the establishment because they were wearing hijabs. The café counters that the women violated the 45-minute seating time limit and that other headscarf-clad women present were not asked to leave.

The newspaper regurgitated SPLC writings on Yerushalmi who maintains that the women’s lawyers are “ambulance-chasers” involved in “an extortion.” It reported:

“Asked about the SPLC’s characterization of him, Yerushalmi said that he ‘represents a lot of Muslims.’

“I represent Muslim Americans, running from jihad and seeking asylum. If you want to say I’m an anti-jihad lawyer, you’re 100% right,” he continued. “Am I anti-Sharia? Yes, I am. Am I anti-Muslim? Not if he doesn’t have a gun in his hand shooting at me.’

“Yerushalmi alleged that the suit against Urth Caffe was part of a wider “civilizational jihad” waged by the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) which aims, he said, “to weaken western civilization.”

The SPLC never tires of trying to assassinate the character of David Horowitz. A May 24, 2014 profile calls him “the godfather of the modern anti-Muslim movement.”

Without presenting a shred of useful evidence, the Center separately smears Horowitz as “a driving force of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant and anti-black movements.”

Horowitz rejects these characterizations. On Monday he told this writer:

“I’m called the godfather of the anti-Muslim movement, which puts a target on my back, whereas out of million words and scores of hours of speeches on the subject they couldn’t find one sentence to back up their claim.”

The Southern Poverty Law Center has been playing this dangerous game for a long time. It doesn’t care if it gets innocent Americans killed.

It came close to getting people killed four years ago.

SPLC reports inspired left-wing terrorist Floyd Lee Corkins II to shoot up the Washington, D.C. headquarters of the Family Research Council four years ago. The Center identified FRC as a “hate group” not because it actually hates anyone but because it opposes same-sex marriage.

Even the reliably left-wing Dana Milbank rejected that designation for FRC in an Aug. 16, 2012 Washington Postcolumn, calling that group “a mainstream conservative think tank.”

“I disagree with the Family Research Council’s views on gays and lesbians,” he wrote. “But it’s absurd to put the group, as the law center does, in the same category as Aryan Nations, Knights of the Ku Klux Klan, Stormfront and the Westboro Baptist Church.”

Corkins apparently disagreed. Upon entering FRC’s office he reportedly said “I don’t like your politics” and shot a black Christian security guard who managed to subdue him and lived to forgive him.

Later Corkins told investigators “Southern Poverty Law lists anti-gay groups,” the Washington Examiner reported at the time. “I found them online, did a little research, went to the website, stuff like that.”

The gay rights-avenging shooter had planned to kill as many FRC staffers as possible and smear Chick-fil-A sandwiches — his backpack contained 15 of them — on their faces as a political statement. He chose that fast food chain whose management is unabashedly Christian because its president was revealed to be a supporter of traditional marriage. Corkins was convicted of terrorism in 2013 and sentenced to 25 years in prison.

And when the next Floyd Corkins comes along and actually succeeds in killing someone targeted by the Southern Poverty Law Center, its staffers will direct blame elsewhere.

Scapegoating is what they do best.

Dr. Tom Sunic Blasts Slanderous Gov’t Attack on American Freedom Party

  Dr. Tom Sunic Blasts Slanderous Gov’t Attack on American Freedom Party                     

           American Freedom Party

2753 Broadway, Suite 245

New York, NY 10025

www.theamericanfreedomparty.us

Tel.  (213) 621-3000

Fax: (213) 621-2900

 

 

June 27, 2016

To:

-The Honorable Jeh Johnson

Secretary of Homeland Security

Washington, D.C. 20528

-Mr. William Webster (Chair)

Homeland Security Advisory Council Member

HSAC@hq.dhs.gov

hsasreview@dhs.gov

 

Re: Countering Violent Extremism (CVE) Subcommittee Interim Report and Recommendations (June 2016)

 

Dear Madams, Sirs:

 

The June 2016 Interim Report by the Homeland Security Advisory Council (HSAC) contains a number of factual, conceptual, and semantic errors that need to be critically addressed, and possibly revised. While we are aware that the USA is faced with threats to its domestic security, and that the DHS must therefore encourage cooperation with various academic and non-governmental bodies in assuring the safety of the American people, we have serious concerns with the HSAC’s choice of words and with the sources it quotes.

The commendable objective of the HSAC Report is to alert the American public to the rise of radical and unconstitutional behavior among American youth. Why then does the author of the Report, in describing “extremist  groups,”  resort to loaded, unfair terminology, such as “violent extremism “ and “white supremacism” when describing peaceful groups such as the American Freedom Party (AFP)? Thus, in Chapter III, titled “Generational Threat,” the HSAC author writes that “the American Freedom Party, a white supremacist group, recently established a youth wing…” As his source, the HSAC author quotes the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an activist organization whose own ethnic agenda hardly qualifies it as able to provide a neutral assessment of the American political scene. Such groups are incapable of providing useful, unbiased information for the DHS staff.

 

The locution “white supremacist” used in the HSAC Report has become a standard insult whose value-laden meaning serves primarily as a way of closing off discussion and debate about the legitimate interests of Americans of European cultural heritage. Another technique is to call European Americans “racists” when they seek to advance the interests of their group — at the same time that all other Americans are strongly encouraged to identify with their racial or ethnic group and band together to promote their interests. Likewise, the phrase “violent extremism”, also used in the HSAC Report, should only be used to describe groups with a history of promoting violence — certainly not the stance of the American Freedom Party.

 

The American Freedom Party is a law-abiding party whose primary goal is to educate young Americans of European ancestry about their heritage and culture. This goal is achieved by educating citizens on a range of academic subjects; from classical literature to sociobiology. Of course, we cannot keep track of the pedigree of all our members or all our sympathizers; nor can we exclude the possibility that some “Hollywood Nazis” or other agents provocateurs may identify with the AFP for reasons that are thoroughly incompatible with AFP goals.

 

Of far more interest to the HASC should be violence-prone, “diversity”-championing activists on the Left who thrive in the highly politicized atmosphere of American colleges and universities. The AFP considers these groups to be a far more significant threat to the stability of America and to the preservation of traditional American freedoms such as freedom of speech — an issue which the HASC should examine in depth in future reports.

 

On a personal level, I, T. Sunic, as a naturalized American citizen, having spent a good portion of my youth in communist ex-Yugoslavia, am well-acquainted with the narratives of the former communist regimes in Eastern Europe and their similarity to various semantic distortions in the present political and mainstream media and academic discourse in the USA, including the discourse of the HSAC report. The author of the HASC Report may or may not be aware that his prose often lapses into the type of “millenarian”, eschatological prose that bears a strange, if less threatening, resemblance to the former Soviet ukases.

Feel free to call or write if I /we can be of any assistance.

 

Sincerely,

 

Tom Sunic, Ph.D                                                    Kevin MacDonald, Ph.D.

 

Author, former Prof. of Pol. Sc., former diplomat    Author, emeritus Prof. of Psychology

Member of the Board of Directors, AFP                  Member of the Board of Directors, AFP Croatia (temp.)                                                Oregon, USA

Cell. 00385 91 1722 783                                         Email: kevin.macdonald@CSULB.edu

Email: tom.sunic@gmail.com

 

cc.

Ms. Loretta E. Lynch

Attorney General of the United States

U.S. Department of Justice

Washington, DC 20530-0001

webmaster@usdoj.gov

Inheritance Rights Attacked: McCorkill Case Lost

Inheritance Rights Attacked: McCorkill Case Lost
 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eQ1634BmFI
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaM3woqKqag
 
 
Paul Fromm explains how free speech and property rights took another hit at the hands of the Supreme Court of Canada in not hearing an appeal in the McCorkill inheritance and free speech case, which he discussed in previous videos with the host, Brian Ruhe. Paul is Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression and Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994.
 
 
 
 
Donations to offset CAFE’s legal costs can be sent by PayPal to
cafe.nfshost.com
 
Paul Fromm explains how they lost the McCorkill inheritance and free speech case, which he discussed in previous videos with the host, Brian Ruhe. Paul is Di…
YOUTUBE.COM

Donations to offset CAFE’s legal costs can be sent by PayPal to
cafe.nfshost.com