SCHADENFREUDE

THE CANADIAN RED ENSIGN

The Canadian Red Ensign

MONDAY, APRIL 8, 2019

Schadenfreude

On the fourth Sunday in Lent we were given a sermon on the “love thy enemy” passage in the Sermon on the Mount. While it is probably not entirely within the spirit of that passage to engage in schadenfreude over one’s enemies’ misfortunes, I find it impossible to resist doing so since this era of triumphant liberalism afford few opportunities for such to a man of the right.

The Liberal Party of Canada has, over the years, made itself odious to all sorts of Canadians but most consistently to two distinct groups who despise them for very different reasons. The old Tories of the kind frequently but erroneously called “Red,” (1) i.e., the ones who prize Canada’s British and Loyalist history, traditions, and heritage, her constitutional monarchy, Westminster parliamentary system of government, and Common Law, her ongoing ties to the British Commonwealth and who associate all of this with an older, more organic, more rooted, vision of society than modern, individualistic, commercialism see the Liberals, quite correctly, as a party of rootless, modernizers who can conceive of value in no terms other than those of a price tag and whose goal is to sell out the Dominion and everything for which she once stood to Yankee capitalism for a quick buck. On the other hand, the rugged, rural, inhabitants of the prairie provinces of the Canadian West whom the Liberals and their academic and media fellow travelers dismiss with “redneck” and other, worse, epithets, have long loathed the Grits as being a party of totalitarian socialists who a) tax them to death, b) ignore, or worse, aggravate, their economic difficulties, and c) display the same arrogant contempt towards them that the Obama/Clinton Democrats display towards middle and working class red state Americans. Both of these negative views of the Liberals are entirely valid. (2) Someone like myself, who has belonged to both groups simultaneously for all of his life – a Redneck Tory, would be one way of putting it, I suppose – has particularly good reason to look upon the Liberal Party with utter abhorrence.

The Liberal Party has always been bad but it has sunk to new depths of depravity under the current leadership of Captain Airhead who, more than any of his predecessors, has brought shame and disgrace upon the office of Her Majesty’s First Minister in this Dominion. Will Ferguson divided Canada’s Prime Ministers into two categories, “Boneheads” and “Bastards”, but Captain Airhead has the distinction of being both. Smug, arrogant, self-righteous and preening, all of his public statements and actions, before and after taking office, have been calculated to project, with the cooperation of a fawning media, a carefully crafted image of himself. Since that image was that of the opposite of, at first, his predecessor Stephen Harper, then later of American President Donald Trump, it has all along resembled a bad caricature of the worst sort of loony leftist. He began his term by trying to import the migrant crisis that has been threatening to inundate Europe and create a Camp of the Saints scenario for half of a decade, creating a miniature version of America’s southern border crisis on the 49th Parallel, and at the end of his term, signed an insane and evil United Nations accord on migration which in effect, amounted to an agreement to surrender the Dominion’s essential right to maintain and police her own borders. Any and all criticism of this, or, for that matter, any of his other policies, was met with accusations of “racism”. He used the federal summer jobs funding program to coerce employers into agreeing with abortion on demand, having previously evicted pro-lifers from the Liberal Party, and otherwise attempted to shove his “woke” notions down all Canadians throats by legislation, or at any rate Parliamentary motions, condemning “Islamophobia” and protecting the new found “right” of individuals to choose or even make up their own gender identity. Jumping on board the bandwagon of an environmentalist movement that had long ago lost sight of its original, legitimate, goal – the conservation and preservation for future generations of natural resources and aesthetics – and gone to seed on apocalyptic, end-of-the-world, alarmism, he sabotaged and destroyed Canada’s energy industry and then, just this year, pulled the world’s most tasteless April Fool’s prank, by slapping down a carbon tax that will accomplish nothing but a needless rise in the cost of living, which hurts the poor and the working class the most. All the while his extravagance with the public purse has made his father, previously noted for his record deficits, look like a model of budgetary austerity in comparison. Speaking of money, he had the audacity to take the image of our first – and greatest – Prime Minister, the man who spearheaded the Confederation project and led the Dominion for most of its first two decades, fighting tooth and nail to get the railroad built and prevent the country from splitting up and falling into the avaricious hands of the republic to our south, off of our ten dollar bill and replace it with that of a woman who achieved fame, decades after the fact thanks to the Liberals’ desperate sifting of Canadian history for an equivalent of the figures in America’s Civil Rights Movement, for sitting down in a theatre.

It has been with much joy and pleasure, therefore, that I have been watching Captain Airhead’s image and popularity implode over the past couple of months. If there has been a cloud amidst all the silver lining of the SNC-Lavalin Affair it is that it took an ordinary, run-of-the-mill, corruption scandal to bring about the collapse of his reputation after all the evils mentioned in the preceding paragraph failed to do so. Perhaps the best way to look at that is to regard it as a case of the straw finally breaking the humpy back of the camel. To briefly summarize the scandal, a large corporation that has been a significant contributor to Liberal Party funds and which is based in the home province of the Prime Minister has been under prosecution for bribing a foreign government and last year our government snuck a bill in with the budget that allows for slap-on-the-wrist treatment of white collar crimes of this nature. When Jody Wilson-Raybould was shifted out of her Cabinet position of Minister of Justice and Attorney General in January of this year, rumours began to circulate that this was because she had refused to give in to pressure from the Prime Minister’s Office to apply the new rules retroactively to SNC Lavalin. As Jay Currie observed, the real scandal in all of this ought to have been the revelation that the government snuck legislation in to give their friends a break. Instead, what everyone jumped on was the compromise of an independent judiciary by inappropriate political interference in a prosecution. To put the same matter in Canadian rather than Yankee terms, as our press should have been doing all along although they have probably long ago forgotten what little they ever knew of Canadian civics, the rulings of the courts of the Queen-on-the-bench are not to be decided and dictated for political reasons by the ministers of the Queen-in-Council. Whether we speak Canadian or American it is a rotten and corrupt thing to do – and the Prime Minister’s being guilty of it would not have come as news to anyone still capable of remembering that we were not always at war with Eastasia. What, after all, did his inappropriate tweets following the Gerald Stanley jury acquittal last year constitute if not an unashamed and public display of such interference? Indeed, this was a far worse instance of such interference and one in which Jody Wilson-Raybould was equally guilty for it had all the appearance of promising changes to the jury selection process that would compromise such ancient principles as the right of the accused to presumption of innocence and the right of the accused – not the victim – to a trial of his peers and put in the place of the justice based on such principles, a primitive form of blood-based-vengeance, as if the Oresteia were being played out in reverse. It was at this point that Captain Airhead and the then-Justice Minister should both have received a summons to Rideau Hall and been told that Her Majesty no longer requires their services. Of course this didn’t happen and for that we ought to burn an effigy of William Lyon Mackenzie King annually for it was that, longest sitting Grit premier, who subverted the Westminster system and undermined the accountability of the Prime Minister’s Office turning it into a virtual dictatorship whenever there is a majority government..

As the SNC-Lavalin scandal developed, Captain Airhead’s team tried desperately to salvage their leader’s reputation, but their every effort, beginning with the self-immolation of Seymour Butts – my apologies to Matt Groening and his creative staff for appropriating what was originally a joke of theirs but I refuse to sully my own Christian name by admitting that it is shared by this man – was like adding fuel to the fire. Now, the very people who for the past four years swooned at the very mention of Captain Airhead’s name, are falling over themselves in their efforts to get as far away from him as possible. The scandal having broken on the eve of the next Dominion election things have gotten so bad for the Airhead Grits that they can think of nothing else to do than recycle the lame tactics that failed to win Hilary Clinton the last American presidential election by telling us that Andrew Scheer is courting the “far right” and, most hilariously since it has come a week after Robert Mueller announced that he could find no evidence that the Trump team had colluded with Russia, warning us about Russian interference in the upcoming election.

There is a lesson in this for Captain “Because it is 2015” Airhead if he is capable of learning it. Those who ride to the top on the crest of the wave of fashion, will crash and crash hard, when the tide goes out.Taylor Swift may very well have been right and she and whoever she was singing to at the time will “never go out of style”, but Justin, baby, you just ain’t her.

(1) This is due mainly to the socialist sympathies of George Grant and Eugene Forsey. While Grant attempted to argue that “socialism” was “conservative” his argument depended entirely upon a clever redefinition of socialism and he, like Forsey, acknowledged that this positive view of socialism was not that of the Tories as a group.

(2) This is true despite the fact that one view sees the Grits as being capitalist while the other sees them as being socialist. Capitalism and socialism are but two sides to the same coin which is the economy of the Modern Age. The true reactionary seeks wisdom, economic and otherwise, in the older traditions that predated the Modern Age. George Grant was a man who sought to do just that and this is reflected in his admirable criticism of capitalism but it was lamentable, pun intended, that he chose to stay within the limits of Modern thinking in using the term “socialism” for the opposite of where capitalism had gone wrong. Friedrich Hayek, on the other hand, was a man who made no effort whatsoever to think outside of the Modern box, and while he produced an otherwise admirable critique of socialism, could see it in no other terms than a return to pre-Modern feudalism, which it was not.

Freedom of Speech for Teachers in the U.S.? — Not if You’re a White Nationalist!

Freedom of Speech for Teachers in the U.S.? — Not if You’re a White Nationalist!

Florida Middle School Teacher Who Hosted White Supremacist Podcast Resigns

(JTA) — A Florida middle school teacher who hosted a white supremacist podcast and shared anti-Semitic and Islamophobic content on social media has resigned.

Dayanna Volitich, a teacher at Crystal River Middle School, in the western part of the state, was removed from her classroom early last month when the Citrus County School District began investigating the podcast she hosted under a pseudonym.

The probe started after the Huffington Post reported that using the name Tiana Dalichov, the teacher bragged about secretly injecting her beliefs into the classroom. She reportedly bashed diversity, said Muslims should be eradicated “from the face of the Earth” and praised the work of Kevin MacDonald, a retired psychology professor who holds anti-Semitic views. MacDonald has said Jews are genetically programmed to destroy Western societies, according to the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Assistant Superintendent Mike Mullen said on Monday that the district received Volitich’s resignation, CNN reported. The resignation is not final until the letter is accepted by the school board. Mullen said approval of the resignation will be on the agenda at the April 10 school board meeting.

Volitich has claimed that her statements during the podcast, called “Unapologetic,” were “political satire and exaggeration.”

“None of the statements released about my being a white nationalist or white supremacist have any truth to them, nor are my political beliefs injected into my teaching of social studies curriculum,” she said in a statement released last month.

This story “Florida Teacher With White Supremacist Podcast Resigns” was written by JTA.

Read more: https://forward.com/fast-forward/398060/florida-middle-school-teacher-who-hosted-white-supremacist-podcast-resigns/

ANATOMY OF THE FAKE “NEWS” MEDIA SMEAR — Paul Fromm Accused of Hate Speech after Posting NZ Shooter’s Manifesto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwLuatjWam0 YOUTUBE.COM Paul Fromm Accused of Hate Speech after Posting NZ Shooter’s Manifesto Brian Ruhe’s guest is Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression

ANATOMY OF THE FAKE “NEWS” MEDIA SMEAR — Paul Fromm Accused of Hate Speech after Posting NZ Shooter’s Manifesto
YOUTUBE.COM
Brian Ruhe’s guest is Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression

Jared Taylor prevented from attending Scandza ForumLetter from Zurich Airport

Jared Taylor prevented from attending Scandza ForumLetter from Zurich Airport

Jared Taylor, American Renaissance, March 29, 2019

https://www.amren.com/commentary/2019/03/letter-from-zurich-airport/

I have been banned from Europe and will be deported tomorrow.

March 29, 2019, Zurich

Dear Friends in Stockholm, Turku, and around the world,

I am sorry to have to tell you that I cannot attend the Scandza Forum in Stockholm or the Awakening Conference in Turku, Finland, where I had been invited to give talks. Today, when I landed in Zurich for a connecting flight to Stockholm, Swiss border authorities told me I have been banned from Europe until 2021. I will spend the night at the airport, and tomorrow I will be deported.

The officer at passport control in Zurich airport had already stamped my passport and waved me through to my Stockholm flight when she called after me to come back. She stared at her computer screen and told me I had to wait. She didn’t say why. In a few minutes, a policeman arrived and told me there was an order from Poland that barred me from all 26 countries in the Schengen Zone.

He said the Poles did not give a reason for the ban, and he asked me what I had done. I said I give talks on immigration, and someone in Poland must not like them. “That makes me a political criminal,” I said.

The officer took me to an interrogation room and asked me about my travel plans. He went off to another room for a while and came back with a form for me to sign, saying that I understood I had been denied entry and was being sent back to the United States. After some more waiting, he fingerprinted me and took my photograph.

He then turned me over to a man in civilian clothes, who took me to a spare, dormitory-like accommodation where I will spend the night. It’s not a jail. People pay the equivalent of $40 to spend the night here if they miss a flight. I am free to walk around the terminal, I can make phone calls and use the internet, and I have a meal voucher that is supposed to last me for the next 12 hours. The officer kept my passport, though, and won’t give it back to me until I board the flight home.

Number 18, my room for the night.

Why did Poland ban me? Last September, I gave a few talks to nationalist groups in Warsaw. The talks went well, so when I was invited to Lithuania and Estonia in February to speak at conferences, I went back to Poland and spoke in Lublin and Warsaw. Attendance was by invitation only, but the Polish police learned about the meetings. They told the organizer that if I broke any Polish hate speech laws, he would be held responsible. They said I was “spreading a totalitarian ideology.”

In both cities, we switched venues for the talks rather than risk having the police show up. The talks were a success, and in Warsaw I also gave two television interviews. I left Poland by plane and assumed the matter was closed; clearly, it wasn’t. My Polish friends say they will try to find out the reason for the ban and try to appeal it.

But what are the Poles thinking? I’m not like Lenin and Trotsky meeting in Paris, plotting to uproot the entire West. I want to keep Poland as it is, the proud and eternal homeland of the Polish people. What I hope for Poland is what a huge majority of Polish people want, and is not much different from the policies of the regime. I am not a danger to Poland; I am its friend, its devoted admirer.

Three years ago, I got a letter from Theresa May, when she was still home secretary. She told me that my views are repugnant and that she had decided to keep me out of her country. Britain is the land of my ancestors, my language, my favorite authors—and now I was an exile. It was a bitter blow.

Just a few minutes ago, I used my meal voucher at the “Montreux Jazz Lounge” in Terminal E. I watched people eating and talking and laughing, and I envied them. They can come and go as they please. Terminal E is a modern, soulless place, but it is still Europe. It is part of that culture, heritage, and people that I love with a desperate, yearning love—to which I have devoted my life—and from which I am banned.

You and I, working together with our European brothers and sisters, we will save Europe. We will save it from every threat from every corner of the world. But our first and hardest task is to save it from itself.

Jared Taylor

TOPICS: Censorshi

Canada has really gone bonkers: You Cannot Even Question Transgenderism

Canada has really gone bonkers: You Cannot Even Question Transgenderism

28, 2019 – 11:51 am EST
Court orders Christian to pay $55,000 to trans politician for calling him ‘biological male’
VANCOUVER, March 28, 2019 (LifeSiteNews) – A B.C. human rights tribunal has ruled that a Christian activist discriminated against a man who claims to be “female” by distributing flyers that referred to the man, who was running for political office at the time, as a “biological male.”
The court ruled for transgender activist “Morgane” Oger, born Ronan Oger, and against Christian activist Bill Whatcott by declaring it’s discriminatory not to accept transgender people as the gender they claim to be.
In a 104-page ruling released Wednesday (read full ruling below), the tribunal further declared there’s no room for any public debate in the matter, according to theVancouver Star.
The tribunal also ordered Whatcott to pay Oger $35,000 in compensation for injury to his “dignity, feelings and self-respect,” and an additional $20,000 to Oger for Whatcott’s alleged improper conduct during and before the hearings, it reported.
Whatcott, 52, described the tribunal hearing as a “kangaroo show trial” and said he’s not surprised by the decision.
“Jesus Christ is still Lord and he will come again, I put my hope into that,” he told LifeSiteNews.
John Carpay, president of the Justice Center for Constitutional Freedom, which intervened in the case, decried the ruling as harming democracy.
“The Supreme Court of Canada has long held that freedom of expression is the lifeblood of democracy,” Carpay said in a press release.
“Society is full of people with diverse views and the Tribunal’s decision undermines the foundational principles of the free society and jeopardizes the health of Canada’s democracy,” he said.
Oger, who is vice president of the B.C. NDP, launched a discrimination complaint against Whatcott after the Christian activist distributed flyers in Vancouver-False Creek riding in 2017 when Oger was running as MLA for the B.C. NDP.
Whatcott’s flyer asserted Oger “is a biological male who has renamed himself ‘Morgane Oger’ after he embraced a transvestite lifestyle,” and can be found here.
The flyer also stated that “[t]hose who promote falsehoods like the NDP and BC’s major media . . . do so to their eternal peril.”
Oger, who narrowly lost to a former Vancouver mayor, alleged the flyer was discriminatory and exposed him to “hatred and contempt” under Section 7 of British Columbia’s Human Rights Code.
In a December 11 to 14 hearing, the JCCF and the Canadian Association for Free Expression intervened on Whatcott’s behalf, while West Coast LEAF and the B.C. Teachers’ Federation intervened for Oger.
Whatcott’s lawyer, Dr. Charles Lugosi, intended to give evidence that Oger was, in fact, a biological male as a defense.
Tribunal judge Devyn Cousineau, however, ruled “the ‘truth’ of the statements in the flyer is not a defense.”
“Therefore, to the extent that Mr. Whatcott intends to call witnesses to establish the truth of his impugned publications, that evidence is simply not relevant to the legal issue and will not be heard by this Tribunal,” she wrote.
Lugosi also argued Whatcott’s Charter rights of free speech and religion allowed him to express his views. A summary of Lugosi’s legal defense of Whatcott can be found here.
The tribunal, which was composed of lawyers Cousineau, Diana Juricevic, andNorman Trerise, disagreed.
The ruling, penned by Cousineau, declared that even questioning transgenderism is discriminatory.
“[T]he proposition that we should continue to debate and deny the existence of trans people is at the root of the prejudice and stereotypes that continue to oppress them,” wrote Cousineau.
“It rests on the persistent belief, held by people like Mr. Whatcott, that a person’s genitals are the essential determinant of their sex and, therefore, gender. The result of this belief is to necessarily cast transgender people as either ‘deceivers or pretenders’,” she wrote.
Cousineau also censored Whatcott’s original flyer in her ruling.
“Throughout his testimony, Mr. Whatcott refused to recognize Ms. Oger as a woman, or to abide by the Tribunal’s frequent orders not to call her a man,” she wrote in a footnote.
“I will return to this in respect of Ms. Oger’s application for costs, but in the meantime, I have replaced his male pronouns with the correct, female, ones.”
“(It) is really so encouraging … to have the tribunal say you know you can’t argue that you are just commenting on a legitimate public issue because this is not a public issue. There is no debate about whether people are or should be transgender,” Oger’s lawyer, Susanna Allevato Quail, told the Star.
The December tribunal hearing sometimes appeared to be “rancorous,” according to an earlier LifeSiteNews report describing the conduct Cousineau ruled as improper.
“When my lawyer was cross-examining Mr. Oger about his subjective experiences, Oger’s lawyer repeatedly objected to my lawyer’s line of questioning and the Tribunal upheld all of her objections,” Whatcott reported then.
When Cousineau “berated” Lugosi for having “misgendered” Oger five times, Whatcott demanded that the tribunal stop bullying his lawyer and shouted, “The Emperor has no clothes; even Norman accidentally called Roman what he is: a guy.”
In response, Trerise allegedly told Whatcott to shut up, and Juricevic allegedly warned Whatcott that if he had an “outburst” like that again, he would be removed from his own hearing and ordered to pay costs.
Whatcott told LifeSiteNews he’s not sure if he will appeal the decision, nor does he have the money to pay the fine.
He is also facing a Criminal Code hate crime charge for infiltrating Toronto’s homosexual Pride parade in 2016 disguised as a “gay zombie” with five others, to distribute pamphlets warning of the spiritual and physical dangers of sodomy. Whatcott’s next scheduled court appearance on that charge is a judicial pretrial in Toronto on April 10.
However, Whatcott does hope to see Oger on Saturday in Kamloops where Oger is speaking on the “living the transgender lifestyle faithfully” at a Lutheran church.
“I’m going to be there,” he told LifeSiteNews. “I’ve got a thousand flyers to put out.”

Facebook bans ‘white nationalism’ content

Facebook bans ‘white nationalism’ content

 

[Here Facebook declares total war on White Pride.]

AP

In the wake of the New Zealand shootings, Facebook has announced it will no longer allow “praise, support and representation of white nationalism and separatism” on its site.

News Corp Australia NetworkMarch 28, 20196:32am

Facebook is extending its ban on hate speech to prohibit the promotion and support of white nationalism and white separatism.

The company previously allowed such material even though it has long banned white supremacists. The social network said that it didn’t apply the ban previously to expressions of white nationalism because it linked such expressions with broader concepts of nationalism and separatism — such as American pride or Basque separatism (which are still allowed).

But civil rights groups and academics called this view “misguided” and have long pressured the company to change its stance. Facebook said it concluded after months of “conversations” with them that white nationalism and separatism cannot be meaningfully separated from white supremacy and organised hate groups.

Critics have “raised these issues to the highest levels at Facebook (and held) a number of working meetings with their staff as we’ve tried to get them to the right place,” said Kristen Clarke, president and executive director of the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, a Washington, DC-based legal advocacy group.

“This is long overdue as the country continues to deal with the grip of hate and the increase in violent white supremacy,” she said. “We need the tech sector to do its part to combat these efforts.”

Though Facebook said it has been working on the change for three months, it comes less than two weeks after Facebook received widespread criticism after the suspect in shootings at two New Zealand mosques that killed 49 people was able to broadcast the massacre on live video on Facebook.

As part of the change, people who search for terms associated with white supremacy will be directed to a group called Life After Hate, which was founded by former extremists who want to help people leave the violent far-right. Ms Clarke called the idea that white supremacism is different than white nationalism or white separatism a misguided “distinction without a difference.”

She said the New Zealand attack was a “powerful reminder about why we need the tech sector to do more to stamp out the conduct and activity of violent white supremacists.”

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

Major New Zealand bookstore bans Jordan Peterson’s book in shocking act of censorship

Major New Zealand bookstore bans Jordan Peterson’s book in shocking act of censorship

Whitcoulls, a major New Zealand bookstore with 50 shops nationwide, has removed Dr. Jordan Peterson’s best selling self-help book 12 Rules for Life from their shelves in the wake of the deadliest terrorist attack in the country’s history.

On March 15, a gunman attacked tw12 rULESo mosques in Christchurch in an act of Islamaphobic hate. It didn’t take long for the politicization of this unspeakable tragedy to begin. Within minutes, politicians, pundits, and keyboard warriors were attacking each other based on ideological differences.

The Daily Dot, an embarrassingly progressivist outlet, used the tragedy as an opportunity to slander the popular YouTuber PewDiePie as a “Nazi”, a claim with absolutely no basis in fact.

Now the mob is once again coming after Dr. Peterson—another major cultural influencer. The decision to ban Dr. Peterson’s book can not be seen as anything other than a straight-up power grab by authoritarians who wish to use a period of mourning and deep human suffering for their own censorious gain. And it comes directly after Cambridge University’s decision to rescind their offer of a two-month visiting fellowship for Peterson.

Nick Monroe, an independent, Twitter-based journalist found the evidence of the banning on Reddit and put in on blast in a tweet early Thursday morning:

The tweet features a screenshot of a customer service rep’s email to an enquiring customer. In it, the rep named Erica writes, “Unfortunately, 12 Rules for Life is currently unavailable, which is a decision that Whitcoulls has made in light of some extremely disturbing material being circulated prior, during, and after the Christchurch attacks. As a business which takes our responsibilities to our communities very seriously, we believe it would be wrong to support the author at this time.”

Monroe pointed in the same Twitter thread that Hitler’s Mein Kampf remains on Whitcoulls shelves. A brief browse of Whitcoulls’ inventory reveals that they are selling Mao’s Little Red Book. They also haven’t pulled all of the books Peterson is associated with, just the major sellers. Vox Day—an actual member of the alt-right—still has his book available in Whitcoulls stores.

Though Peterson is the farthest thing from an alt-right figure, wasn’t even remotely involved in the attacks, actively discourages violence, and, in fact, wrote 12 Rules for Life in order to help people figure out how to get their lives in order, he has been smeared again and again by leftists who associate his message of competence and responsibility with one of “violence.” For Peterson’s readers and listeners, this hasn’t made any sense, and continues to be perplexing. The only logical reason for ideologues to do this is to remove his influence from our culture.

This dangerous trend banning books, and associating relevant and meaningful ideas with violence and destruction must reverse, though it seems like it’s just beginning. Ideas are not the enemy, books are not the enemy, reasonable thought and discourse are the way out of mayhem, not what is standing in the way. People are not going to get on board with a given perspective simply because alternatives are denied to them. Intellectual exploration is what makes peaceful democracies, open minds, and reasonable thinkers who do not advocate for hate and exploitation. Assuming that Peterson is more dangerous than Nazi ideology, or even to associate his scholarship with anything like that, is to give credence to authoritarianism.

If reasonable ideas are banned, if forthright authors are prohibited, what happens when people discover them on their own? When you deem a perfectly reasonable book worthy of censorship, what does that do to society’s conception of truly dangerous ideas? The worst ideas of mankind should be shown for what they are, in the fluorescent light of bookshop displays.

The idea that a Canadian psychologist with classically liberal views and a desire to help young people lead authentic lives should be in any way associated with the horrific act of violence that happened in Christchurch is an insult to him, to reasonable minded people everywhere, and to the western concept of a free society.

We must put a stop to this Orwellian madness before it’s too late.

Not Much Tolerance Shown to MAGA Hat Wearing Student By “Tolerance-Preaching” York U Students

Not Much Tolerance Shown to MAGA Hat Wearing Student By “Tolerance-Preaching” York U Students
Maga hat york

Guy wearing MAGA hat disrupts Toronto vigil for mosque attack victims

A sombre vigil at York University for the victims of last week’s deadly New Zealand mosque attack erupted into chaos Monday afternoon when one person showed up wearing a MAGA hat.

The red and white “Make America Great Again” cap has become a widely divisive symbol since the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election, synonymous with members of the alt-right movement and other extremist groups who helped carry Donald Trump to victory.

Wearing a MAGA hat anywhere in Canada is risky for those who wish to avoid confrontation, but wearing a MAGA hat to a vigil for victims of an Islamaphobic hate crime that killed 49 people is… well, many at York yesterday seemed to feel it was an act of provocation.

Video footage from Monday afternoon’s vigil shows a dramatic confrontation between a young man in a MAGA hat and several attendees.

Embedded video

a. 🍒@ayeshapeiris

I’m disgusted to even be posting this but I think people should be informed. Today a student at york University decided to wear a “MAGA” hat, and decided to stand at the vigil held by york students to honour those who were murdered due to the horrific terrorist attacks in NZ.

67 people are talking about this

At first, the man can be seen on camera arguing with angry vigil attendees who are asking him to leave.

“I can stand here if I want,” he says in one video, at which point some people really go off, calling the man everything from “a disgrace” to an “obnoxious asshat.”

Another video starts with an attendee telling the man that “these people don’t owe you an explanation, you just need to leave.” The man is seen smiling and playing with his phone as students grow increasingly irate.

“You’re wearing a symbol of racism, get the f**k out! Get out of here, right now!” shouts another person, at which point several people start chanting “Get out!”

Embedded video

blogTO

✔@blogTO

Someone wore a MAGA hat to a vigil for New Zealand mosque shooting victims at York University

2,520 people are talking about this

Footage of the incident has been circulating since Monday night on Instagram, Reddit and Twitter, prompting outrage among many of those who’ve seen it (and sympathy from some others).

“Anyone that wears a MAGA hat in Canada is straight up a dumbass,” reads the top-voted comment in a Reddit thread about the man’s actions.

“Ignoring the ethics stuff, the infatuation some people have in this country with an American leader that harms Canadian industry and trade is mind boggling,” the comment continues. “Anybody that is a Canadian Trump supporter is a straight up moron, more moronic than his voter base in the U.S. where at least his intentions are America first.”

Politicalpaki@Political_Paki

Some people are having a problem understanding why that guy wearing a MAGA hat shouldn’t have been at the vigil at York. Maybe this will clear up what the MAGA brand represents and why it was inappropriate to wear in that situation.

Humza@HumzaRaza

I cant believe the president of America endorsed this and clearly showed his support for anti-religious propaganda. And im not shocked b/c ‘he exposed muslims’ im shocked b/c he’s promoting a false image of them https://twitter.com/ajplus/status/935844972372271105 …

15 people are talking about this

Making matters worse is what authorities believe to have provoked the terror attack in Christchurch, New Zealand.

The person suspected of carrying out the shootings is said to have published 74-page dossier containing “extremist alt-right” and “white nationalist” ideology before entering the mosques.

“It’s so shitty and disrespectful, like how can you disrespect 49 dead people because your political views are different than the majority,” commented one person in a different Reddit thread linking to the video.

“This vigil was no place for anyone to preach their political views in the first place, it was a group of people remembering those who died in a racially motivated massacre,” they continued. “In my opinion it’s not a political issue, it’s a moral one.”