Gad Saad believes in free speech at (almost) all costs

Gad Saad is Jewish and emigrated from Lebanon due to religious persecution, yet he supports the freedom of speech of Holocaust deniers.

Gad Saad is Concordia University’s Research Chair in Evolutionary Behavioural Sciences and Darwinian Consumption. SUBMITTED PHOTO

SHAREADJUSTCOMMENTPRINT

Gad Saad is Jewish and emigrated from Lebanon due to religious persecution, yet he supports the freedom of speech of Holocaust deniers.

That’s how committed he is to an open dialogue, something he says is being lost in the western world.

Saad is scheduled to speak Monday evening at the University of Regina on “forces that impede the free and rational exchange of ideas.”

“I support the right of grotesque, diabolical people saying that the Holocaust and anything that I might have experienced is a hoax. Why? Because that’s what freedom of speech is. It’s the right for people to be idiots, to be wrong,” said Saad, a marketing professor at Montreal’s Concordia University and the Canada Research Chair in evolutionary behavioural sciences and Darwinian consumption.

There are only two exceptions to “absolute” freedom of speech, said Saad.

The first is using words to directly incite violence against other people.

The second is defaming or libelling someone.

Those criteria aside, it is “dangerous” to decide what other people can and can’t say.

That’s what happened last month, as Saad was set to be part of a panel at Toronto’s Ryerson University, which was cancelled in protest of two speakers: Faith Goldy, a Rebel Media contributor, and Jordan Peterson, a professor who has refused to use students’ preferred gender pronouns.

The panel discussion topic was “the stifling of free speech on university campuses.”

“I guess the irony was lost on the people who shut us down that that event was stifled,” said Saad.

Saad counts himself as neither right nor left on the political spectrum, but “a classically liberal guy.” He said the political left drives most of academia, which can be detrimental.

“As a student, what you’d like to develop is your ability to critically think, to analyze different positions and then form an informed opinion,” said Saad.

“But if most of the professors tend to be almost exclusively linked to one particular political ideology, then you are removing the intellectual diversity that is needed, especially in a university.”

Saad said he has received emails from students who are afraid to express an unpopular opinion lest they be ostracized or receive a failing grade.

“Really we’re pretty much like North Korea at this point,” said Saad.

“I mean, people are walking around afraid that someone might find out the dark, dark secret that they preferred Trump over Hillary Clinton.

“You could have a million very, very good reasons to dislike Trump, and I would understand probably all of them. But is it really a good idea for professors and for students to be walking around fearful …? Is this the type of intellectual environment that we want?”

Saad said to shut down free speech in fear of hurt feelings is a “slippery slope that becomes an abyss of infinite lunacy.”

He said if people disagree with an idea, they should “fight them with better ideas.”

“Be committed to the truth, battle others peacefully through dialogue, through debate, through science, and then hopefully the better ideas win,” he said.

“But what we’re seeing today is there is a group of people that get to decide whether Gad Saad is allowed to speak on campus or not. And if people don’t see how dangerous that is, then I’m afraid we’ve already lost the battle.”

Saad is scheduled to speak Monday at 7:30 p.m. in the U of R Education Auditorium.

amartin@postmedia.com

twitter.com/LPAshleyM

TRENDING STORIES

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 Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show (429) Paul Fromm – Not Enough Free Speech And Too Much Immigration

The Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show (429) Paul Fromm – Not Enough Free Speech And Too Much Immigration

 
 

On today’s show I was joined by Paul Fromm to discuss, “Not Enough Free Speech And Too Much Immigration.”

We discussed: Paul’s background; how he was fired from his teaching post in 1997 after suffering years of attacks by the Jewish lobby; how he has been warning for decades about the attack on free speech which we are now experiencing; how all the laws in White nations elevating Third World immigration above White Race immigration, were introduced in 1965; why politicians in White nations keep telling us diversity is our greatest strength; and many other topics.

Click Here To Listen To The Show

Click Here For Paul’s, “Canadian Association For Free Expression,” Website

Click Here For Paul’s, “Canada First Immigration Reform Committee,” Website

Click Here For The Andrew Carrington Hitchcock Show Archive Where You Can Listen To Or Download All My Shows

Court Tosses Out Kinsellas’ “Threat” Charges Against Dr. James Sears and Leroy St. Germaine

Court Tosses Out Kinsellas’ “Threat” Charges Against Dr. James Sears and Leroy St. Germaine

TORONTO. September 7, 2017. A Toronto judge today tossed out a private charge of uttering threats (Sec. 264.1 of the Criminal Code) laid by Liberal Party attack dog Warren Kinsella and his wife Lisa against YOUR WARD NEWS publisher Leroy St. Germaine and editor Dr. James Sears.The private prosecution was undertaken by the combative Kinsellas who specialize in dumping heaps of yak doodoo and vitriol — “neo-Nazi; White supremacist” — on a host of political opponents. They have been  strident antagonists trying to get the satirical anti-ZioMarxist publication shut down.

The National Post (June 21, 2017) reported that in the Summer, 2017 issue of YOUR WARD NEWS, editor Dr. James Sears explained “that his family had been targeted by a ‘hoax’ complaint to the Children’s Aid Society. In his column, Sears accused Lisa Kinsella of …  being responsible for the complaint. Kinsella, for her part, vehemently denied any involvement.Sears said he waited months to inform his ‘thousands’ of friends and followers about the apparent CAS investigation due to fear that ‘some hothead who cares deeply about me and my family, would lose it and do something illegal, like bludgeon the Kinsellas to death.’” That passage, the Kinsellas alleged, constitutes a threat.

Kinsella went wild over a story in the Summer issue of YOUR WARD NEWS. A person who is all elbows and insults in politics, Warren Kinsella went scurrying to the Metropolitan Toronto Police. The National Post’s account continued:  “Kinsella brought the article to Toronto Police, but she was told that there was not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges.Toronto Police spokesman Mark Pugash told the National Post that a detective looked at the case, then asked the advice of a Crown attorney. That Crown attorney, in turn, asked another Crown. ‘Both Crowns came to the same conclusion as the detective’ Pugash said, “which was that there wasn’t enough evidence.'”

So, the Metropolitan Toronto Police and two Crown Attorneys found no evidence of a crime. Still, the relentless Kinsellas initiated a private charge. This harassment is a time and resource waster. Dr. Sears and Mr. St. Germaine had to attend a court hearing August 2. The Kinsellas did not attend. The required disclosure to the defence was not ready. The case was adjourned to September 7.


Publisher Leroy St. Germaine & YOUR WARD NEWS editor

Dr. James Sears leave Toronto court victorious over

Warren & Lisa Kinsella

Again, the Kinsellas were no shows at the ordeal they had inflicted on the controversial editor and publisher. Again, the required disclosure was not forthcoming.

David Icke Event at Toronto Convention Centre cancelled. No Free Speech in Canada! “Censorship just as bad as in Germany”.

 

David Icke Event at Toronto Convention Centre cancelled. No Free Speech in Canada! “Censorship just as bad as in Germany”.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tm3DYmSXHQ

This is the web page of those who run the Metro Toronto Convention Center referenced in the videocast: http://www.mtccc.com/corporate/leadership/ Please be respectful …

Open Letter to the U. of Lethbridge Community Regarding Extreme Defamation of Prof. Hall

 Mike Mahon c8424

Dear member of the university community and President Mahon,

Dr. Gundry reveals the top 3 common foods that you would have never guessed were the cause of your fatigue.

A crime of extreme defamation has been committed against one of the tenured faculty members of the University of Lethbridge.

The damage caused by the crime goes far beyond the damage done to the reputation of the professor. It makes a mockery of the motto “Let there be light” and undermines the university’s commitment to academic freedom and the founding principle of liberal education.

There are many people who have aided in the commission of this crime, though some may not have done so wittingly. This letter is both an open letter to the university community and a request to the president that he ask for an apology from one person in particular who aided in the commission of the crime.

The primary defamatory bombshell was dropped on Aug. 26, 2016, when an egregiously bigoted post was placed on the Facebook wall of Dr. Anthony Hall. Waves of shocked complaint immediately emanated from B’nai Brith Canada, which called attention to the bigotry through several posts on its website, including a petition calling for the investigation of Professor Hall.

The post planted on Facebook consisted of an image of one man holding another in a headlock, together with the following piece of text:

“There never was a ‘Holocaust’, but there should have been and, rest assured, there WILL be, as you serpentine kikes richly deserve one. I will not rest until every single filthy, parasitic kike is rounded up and slaughtered like the vermin that they are. The white man has had more than enough of the international Jewry and we are more than prepared to smite the parasite for the millionth time. The greedy, hook-nosed kikes knows that their days are numbered and, unlike in the past, they have nowhere to run. This time there will be no kikes alive  to spread around the planet like cockroaches. We will get them ALL into the oven and their putrid memory will finally be erased from the planet once and for all. Like all parasite, the Jew will continue to reproduce until every single last one has been wiped out. This is why it is crucial that all kikes are ruthlessly and mercilessly butchered for the good of us all. KILL ALL JEWS NOW! EVERY LAST ONE!”

This was placed on Dr. Hall’s Facebook wall while he was away in the U.S. visiting Jewish friends.  He had nothing to do with putting up the post or with pulling it down, and was completely unaware of what had happened until it was brought to his attention by the B’nai Brith complaints. As soon as he became aware of what the B’nai Brith was saying he publicly condemned the post.

It seems bizarre to me that anyone would find it the least bit plausible that this sort of bigotry could in any way resemble the views of Dr. Hall. Although I have never been a student of Dr. Hall’s I have been researching his views now for over a year. My assessment is corroborated by someone who attended four semesters of his Globalization Studies program whose view can be found here.

If you found a piece of text on the webpage of the office of the president of the University of Lethbridge calling for the murder of liberal professors would you think that President Mahon authored it? Would you call for an investigation of President Mahon by the Alberta Human Rights commission, or would you call for an investigation to find the defamatory trickster?

In damaging Dr. Hall’s reputation this campaign has also severely tarnished the reputation of the university. The repressive actions that have been set in motion have caused bitter divisions within the university community and beyond.

In doing his own research of the source of the post Dr. Hall discovered that the image was altered through photoshopping. The image and text were probably created (though not necessarily posted) by someone named Joshua Goldberg. There are many media reports of Mr. Goldberg impersonating others in order to defame them. He is currently in prison awaiting trial on a charge of sending bomb-making plans to an undercover FBI informant in 2015, expressing the hope that “there will be some jihad on the anniversary of 9/11.”

If you carefully read what the B’nai Brith says on its site, you will see that nowhere do they explicitly state that Hall put up the offensive Facebook post, but it is easy to get that idea. However, in letters to President Mahon, and to the holders of the highest political offices in Alberta, the claim is explicitly made that Hall put up the post.

For further details about the background situation, go to Links to Details About the Planted Facebook Post and follow the links that interest you.

President Mahon reacted on Oct. 3 and 4, of 2016, by suspending Dr. Hall, a tenured faculty member who had taught at U. of L. for 26 years. Dr. Hall was pulled in mid-term from his classes without any process of investigation in which he could present his side of the story. He was suspended without pay, though this was subsequently reinstated.

Since that time a Freedom of Information inquiry shows that President Mahon was speaking to the President of the B’nai Brith about the Hall case prior to Sep. 1, 2016. However, he has never spoken to Professor Hall himself.

The Freedom of Information inquiry also brought to light several documents, some of which contain outright defamatory falsehoods. One letter in particular, which is my primary focus here, was sent on Aug. 27, 2016, to the president of the university, to Premier Rachel Notley, to the Alberta Minister of Justice and Solicitor General, Kathleen Ganley, and to the Minister of Advanced Education, Marlin Schmidt.

Here’s a quote from the letter:

“Yesterday I received a message from B’nai Brith Canada reporting a recent social media post by one of your faculty members, Prof. Anthony Hall. I was shocked and upset, both by Facebook’s initial reaction to this post, and by the fact a respected faculty member at a Canadian institution of higher learning would post such an incendiary, hateful message, inciting violence against Jews. It boggles my mind. …

… the concept of academic freedom … was never intended as a shield for spewing hatred and threats against minorities….

I would encourage you to seriously consider whether you want someone on your faculty who would advocate the murder of Jews …”

In another letter, dated September 1, 2016, the late Bert Raphael, President of the Canadian Jewish Civil Rights Association, also reported to Dr. Mahon that Prof. Hall was responsible for the offending Facebook post. Mr. Raphael cited the whole passage, referring to it as coming “from the lips” of Prof. Hall.

Photographs of both of these letters can be seen here.

Whether or not the authors of these letters knew that their defamatory assertions were false they should have known that the evidence did not support them. On the B’nai Brith news release, “Kill All Jews Now” is an Acceptable Message, Facebook Says, there is a sentence:

“UPDATE: As of 3:15 PM ET on Friday August 26, B’nai Brith Canada has learned the image has been removed from Facebook. A screengrab of the image has been taken before its removal and can be viewed here.”

If you go to the screengrab you will see a name purporting to be that of the poster of the message but it is not that of Anthony Hall. Evidence gathered by Professor Hall and myself indicates that the name used was a fraudulent impersonation, but even if the letter writers had not known that, they should have known that there was evidence against the attribution of the post to Professor Hall.

Is the timing of all this just a coincidence or was Professor Hall deliberately framed? By all appearances it was an orchestrated operation against him, akin to planting illicit drugs on someone, and then calling the police.

There are two important issues at stake here. One is the interest we all have in protecting each other from having our reputations ruined by defamatory falsehoods. The other is the vital role that the protection of academic freedom has in preserving a democratic culture. Regarding the latter, it is worth noting that if there was a good case that Hall had views that were so beyond the pale that they could not legitimately be permitted under the principle of academic freedom then it would not have been necessary to resort to a deceitful Facebook post.

I will be writing several letters to various authors who have been part of this campaign against Professor Hall, asking them for clarification of some of the foggy claims they have made, and, where appropriate, asking for apologies.

However, I cannot write a letter to the person who wrote the Aug. 27 letter (the first letter quoted above) because the identity of the author has been redacted in the material obtained through the freedom of information inquiry. The recipients of that letter, including Dr. Mahon, do know that person’s identity. Therefore, as a citizen who believes that protecting academic freedom is essential to the maintenance of a democratic culture, I am requesting President Mahon to write a letter to that person, asking for an apology.  Could you please do this, President Mahon, and report back to me and the university community? Given that the reputation of the university, as well as of Dr. Hall, has been grievously impugned in the eyes of those who hold high political office will some of you in the university community join me in this request?

Many of you will know that one of the great advocates of liberal education was John Stuart Mill. You will be familiar with the first sentence of a quote taken from his Inaugural Address to the University of St. Andrews in 1867:

“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing. He is not a good man who, without a protest, allows wrong to be committed in his name, and with the means which he helps to supply, because he will not trouble himself to use his mind on the subject. It depends on the habit of attending to and looking into public transactions, and on the degree of information and solid judgment respecting them that exists in the community, whether the conduct of the nation as a nation, both within itself and towards others, shall be selfish, corrupt, and tyrannical, or rational and enlightened, just and noble.”

I extended the quote beyond the familiar first sentence because what Mill was talking about here is the responsibility of citizens to inform themselves, and to protest, when governments fail to apply honesty and humanity in their internal and external affairs.  This is exactly the sort of thing that Professor Hall used to speak of in his courses, and continues to speak of, in venues like False Flag Weekly News and the American Herald Tribune.

It is true that Professor Hall’s views are outside the mainstream. However, if university students are to learn to think critically they should be encouraged to engage with such views. Liberal education cannot be promoted by allowing a professor to be bullied out of the classroom with deceitful character assassination. To quote again from Mill, this time from On Liberty:

“He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that.”

Remember Semmelweiss. In 1847 he observed that fatal instances of puerperal fever could be drastically reduced if doctors would wash their hands with chlorinated lime solutions before delivering babies. This observation was not well aligned with the prevailing medical theories of the time, and was repulsed by the doctors, who felt insulted. Many thousands of women died needlessly until years after the death of Semmelweiss, when the medical profession finally realized that he had been right.

Is it not one of the aims of liberal education to foster the assessment of unorthodox views honestly, weighing the evidence for and against them, as opposed to silencing them without a fair hearing?

Sincerely,

Andrew Blair

*(University of Lethbridge President, Dr. Mike Mahon. Image courtesy of ulethbridge/ YouTube) 

Alison Chabloz — Too Extreme for the BNP

Alison Chabloz — Too Extreme for the BNP

 

During my latest ban from here, censorship fanatics were again targeting my YouTube account.

In an unprecedented move, my song ‘I like the story as it is’ was removed, despite having already been ‘sandboxed’ AND despite being clearly marked as ‘SATIRE’ in both the title and the meta tags.

Maybe if I’d threatened to kill queers, used abusive language against women (Eminem) or called for all Whites to be genocided (most Black rap artists), I’d have at least six million YouTube subscribers by now?

In defiance, I uploaded another new song. Already sandboxed and banned in the usual countries, it should nevertheless still be visible to most.

David Icke Event at Toronto Convention Centre cancelled. No Free Speech in Canada! “Censorship just as bad as in Germany”.

David Icke Event at Toronto Convention Centre cancelled. No Free Speech in Canada! “Censorship just as bad as in Germany”.  

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Tm3DYmSXHQ

This is the web page of those who run the Metro Toronto Convention Center referenced in the videocast: http://www.mtccc.com/corporate/leadership/ Please be respectful …

Court Tosses Out Kinsellas’ “Threat” Charges Against Dr. James Sears and Leroy St. Germaine

Court Tosses Out Kinsellas’ “Threat” Charges Against Dr. James Sears and Leroy St. Germaine

TORONTO. September 7, 2017. A Toronto judge today tossed out a private charge of uttering threats (Sec. 264.1 of the Criminal Code) laid by Liberal Party attack dog Warren Kinsella and his wife Lisa against YOUR WARD NEWS publisher Leroy St. Germaine and editor Dr. James Sears.The private prosecution was undertaken by the combative Kinsellas who specialize in dumping heaps of yak doodoo and vitriol — “neo-Nazi; White supremacist” — on a host of political opponents. They have been  strident antagonists trying to get the satirical anti-ZioMarxist publication shut down.

The National Post (June 21, 2017) reported that in the Summer, 2017 issue of YOUR WARD NEWS, editor Dr. James Sears explained “that his family had been targeted by a ‘hoax’ complaint to the Children’s Aid Society. In his column, Sears accused Lisa Kinsella of …  being responsible for the complaint. Kinsella, for her part, vehemently denied any involvement.Sears said he waited months to inform his ‘thousands’ of friends and followers about the apparent CAS investigation due to fear that ‘some hothead who cares deeply about me and my family, would lose it and do something illegal, like bludgeon the Kinsellas to death.’” That passage, the Kinsellas alleged, constitutes a threat.

Kinsella went wild over a story in the Summer issue of YOUR WARD NEWS. A person who is all elbows and insults in politics, Warren Kinsella went scurrying to the Metropolitan Toronto Police. The National Post’s account continued:  “Kinsella brought the article to Toronto Police, but she was told that there was not enough evidence to pursue criminal charges.Toronto Police spokesman Mark Pugash told the National Post that a detective looked at the case, then asked the advice of a Crown attorney. That Crown attorney, in turn, asked another Crown. ‘Both Crowns came to the same conclusion as the detective’ Pugash said, “which was that there wasn’t enough evidence.'”

So, the Metropolitan Toronto Police and two Crown Attorneys found no evidence of a crime. Still, the relentless Kinsellas initiated a private charge. This harassment is a time and resource waster. Dr. Sears and Mr. St. Germaine had to attend a court hearing August 2. The Kinsellas did not attend. The required disclosure to the defence was not ready. The case was adjourned to September 7.


Publisher Leroy St. Germaine & YOUR WARD NEWS editor

Dr. James Sears leave Toronto court victorious over

Warren & Lisa Kinsella

Again, the Kinsellas were no shows at the ordeal they had inflicted on the controversial editor and publisher. Again, the required disclosure was not forthcoming.

The judge dismissed the charges.

When the charges were laid, Dr. Sears had commented that the Kinsellas’ charges were a “mischievous, impotent complaint laid in desperation by these publicity whores. My legal team and I will mop the floor with the Kinsellas on our first available opportunity in court”

Today the anti-free speech Kinsella crusaders were duly mopped.

CAFE Protests Peel Board’s Censorship Bylaw

CAFE Protests Peel Board’s Censorship Bylaw

The following article appeared in The Mississauga News (August 31, 2017). The Board has turned itself into something close to a national security institution. So fearful is it of the voice of the often angry people.. Security officers patrol the parking lot. Beefy security guards patrol the lobby.Visitor taxpayers or delegations have to sign in and show government ID,  to an institution THEY OWN. The peasants are advised they’ll be videotaped.

 
In my comments to the Board I pointed out the ancient right, under British Common Law, of her Majesty’s subjects to petition the Queen/King with their concerns of grievances. The Peel District School  Board would silence delegations or toss them off taxpayers’ property for  “offensive” comments.
No automatic alt text available.

 

 
 
In the letter advising me that my request to appear as a delegation had been granted, I was warned by Janice Mueller, Executive Assistant to the Director of Education: “Discourteous and offensive behaviour will not be tolerated and will result in ejection from the building.” Public SERVANTS have become hooped up Tyrants over the taxpayers who involuntarily are bled to support this institution.
 

 
Here is an outline of some of my remarks.
 
RE: “Bylaw addition would give chairman more power over delegates”  (Mississauga News, July 20, 2017)
Dear Sir:
I fear that, like the ancien regime, the Peel District School has grown out of touch and arrogant.
Recently, they arbitrarily cut off delegations wishing to discuss special treatment of Muslim students.
Now, a new bylaw proposal seems even more ham-handed in stifling opinions they don’t like. It says, in part: “Delegations who use offensive language, make any disorderly noise or disturbance … or behave in a manner that is not consistent with … the Ontario Human Rights Code, may by ordered to discontinue the presence and/or leave the board room … or premises.”
In other words, parents and taxpayers, shut up but don’t forget to send in your August property tax installment that pays for the Board, and make sure it reaches us on time.
“Offensive language” is utterly subjective and, in an increasingly diverse and divided society, someone is likely to take offence at almost any remark.
Even more preposterous is the decision to turf people whose comments, presumably, are not consistent with the Ontario Human Rights Code. And the Board chairman is to make a snap decision to cut off a speaker? Nothing is contrary to the OHRC until a complaint has been launched, a hearing held where evidence pro and con and submissions pro and con are made and a finding of forbidden discrimination made.
Chairman Barbara McDougald, ironically, in your report clarifies the sinister censorship aims of this proposed bylaw. “An example of a delegate who could be asked to leave the property would be in individual who publicly describes another person in a ‘hateful way'”. Really? “Hateful” is entirely in the eyes of the beholder. Our community encompasses strong and antagonistic views which will clash.
We’re the taxpayers. It’s the Board who spends our money hugely who should shut up and listen to the taxpayers. And, no we shouldn’t have to doff our caps and bleat, “May I?”
Paul Fromm
Port Credit
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

 

Controversial ex-teacher protests to Peel board over meeting bylaw

Paul Fromm’s teaching licence was pulled because of his political activities

NEWS 11:25 AM by Jason Spencer  Mississauga News
Delegate_Board_Fromm

Former high school teacher Paul Fromm made a delegation to the Peel Board of Education regarding a recent bylaw change regarding public attendance at meetings. Aug 29, 2017. – Rob Beintema/Metroland

A former Peel District School Board employee whose teaching licence was pulled because of his political activities is questioning a bylaw change that gives the chair more power at school board meetings.

Paul Fromm, who previously taught at Applewood Heights Secondary School and the Britannia Adult Education Centre, spoke out to trustees at the headquarters of his past employer during the Aug. 29 regular meeting over an addition to section G-3 of the board’s bylaws that passed last June.

“You are the elected managers of the this board of education, but we, the taxpayers, are the owners, and we have a right to come before you and to speak,” said Fromm.

The section in question reads: “Delegations who use offensive language, make any disorderly noise or disturbance, resist the rules of the board, disobey the decision of the chair or of the board, or behave in a manner that is not consistent with board policies and the Ontario Human Rights Code, may be ordered by the chair to discontinue the prevention and/or leave the board room or meeting room or premises.”

  • r

So if the chair thinks a delegate violates the human rights’ code, they can have that individual booted from the property.

Fromm, who was fired from the Peel board in 1997 after he wouldn’t cut ties with known racists, wants the bylaw addition done away with. He was unaware at the time of this delegation that the change had already gone through.

Arguing that what is deemed “offensive language” can be broad and subjective, he said, “I don’t think anybody has a right not to be offended over contentious issues.”

The former Mississauga mayoral candidate also questioned how the board would interpret the human rights code.

The bylaw addition came about after months of tense board meetings last school year around opposition to Muslim prayer in Peel schools. Attendees are still required to provide photo ID and sign in before entering board meetings, a security measure that was implemented last spring to quell disruptions.

Though a response will be provided to Fromm at the next board meeting, chair Janet McDougald shared her thoughts on the ex-teacher’s delegation.

“I would disagree with Mr. Fromm – I think the board has proven itself in that we are more than willing to listen to people’s issues, complaints, criticism as long as it’s done in a respectful way,” said McDougald.

“And for him to suggest that we cannot determine, or the chair of the board cannot determine, what is respectful, I think is misguided. We all understand what respect means.”

She’s confident that the board will be able to detect when language or actions at meetings are “discriminatory.”

McDougald is familiar with Fromm, whose teaching certificate was revoked by the Ontario College of Teachers (OCT) in 2007.

According to his OCT decision notice, Fromm previously attended events run by white supremacist groups such as a Heritage Front celebration for Adolf Hitler’s birthday in 1991 as well as a National Alliance event in 1994, where he shared the stage with former Ku Klux Klan head David Duke.

The OCT decision also states that Fromm co-founded the Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform and the Canadian Association for Free Expression – two organizations that support “beliefs and values contrary to the principals of multiculturalism and tolerance.”

McDougald noted that the board was open to Fromm’s comments, despite his controversial history.

“The very fact that we didn’t shut him down because of past practice or activities shows that we are open to that (listening to his delegation),” she said. “He was very respectful and he will get a respectful response.”