Author Archives: admin

Kenneth Tellis on Our British Legal

Posted on by
Kenneth Tellis on Our British  Legal
Heritage
 
Kenneth Tellis is a long-time opponent of enforced bilingualism and special privilege in Canada. He is a tireless backer of free speech and a dedicated writer.
Photo: Kenneth Tellis on Our British Legal Heritage Kenneth Tellis is a long-time opponent of enforced bilingualism and special privilege in Canada. He is a tireless backer of free speech and a dedicated writer. This is my heritage from the past to the present time, which I often times re-affirm with pride The other I came upon something that I had written in a site in New Brunswick that was publishing many of my articles, and realized that I had indeed inherited much from our past as an English-speaking people. While my roots were quite clearly embedded in the Magna Carta of 1215 AD, I had come through the centuries with the very same ideals that many from the English-speaking world had also inherited and used to defend their rights from those who sought to deny them the rights enshrined in English Common Law. From the Magna Carta and English COMMON LAW came the guarantees of all our very basic rights and even the king could not take those away from us. But then came, King Charles 1, who assumed that the king’s word was the law of the land and hired mercenaries in Holland to make war on the British Parliament, which was a treasonous act, and he was beheaded., But, that was not heeded by King George III, in the years before the American Revolution. He used his influence with British Prime Minister Frederick Lord North, to get his Conservative government to pass laws that violated those rights that were guaranteed by the Magna Carta of 1215 AD. Every one of the Intolerant Acts passed by the government of Frederick Lord North violated the spirit of the Magna Carta, but the worst of these Intolerable Acts was the Kebec Act of June 22, 1774, which brought on the American Revolution. This quote by Edmund Burke clearly outlines the choices left to the Continental Congress in 1774: “People crushed by law have no hopes but from power. If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the laws; and those, who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous, more or less.” October 1777. “If the laws are subverted by the powerful politicians as in Canada today, I see the same end result as what brought on the American Revolution.” Thus nothing I have written here should be taken lightly or in jest. But, the best quote comes from that grand old revolutionary Benjamin Franklin: “A little neglect may breed mischief…. For want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost.” This too is part of our common heritage, and which we must think about seriously, because if we overlook our own heritage, what will have we left for our future generations, that they may hold dear? Yes! I have written this, so that others, who come after me, will have something on which to base the coming struggle on. Kenneth T. Tellis

This is my heritage from the past to the present time, which I often times re-affirm with pride

The other I came upon something that I had written in a site in New Brunswick that was publishing many of my articles, and realized that I had indeed inherited much from our past as an English-speaking people.  While my roots were quite clearly embedded in the Magna Carta of 1215 AD, I had come through the centuries with the very same ideals that many from the English-speaking world had also inherited and used to defend their rights from those who sought to deny them the rights enshrined in English Common Law.  From the Magna Carta and English COMMON LAW came the guarantees of all our very basic rights and even the king could not take those away from us.  But then came, King Charles 1, who assumed that the king’s word was the law of the land and hired mercenaries in Holland to make war on the British Parliament, which was a treasonous act, and he was beheaded.,

 But, that was not heeded by King George III, in the years before the American Revolution.  He used his influence with British Prime Minister Frederick Lord North, to get his Conservative government to pass laws that violated those rights that were guaranteed by the Magna Carta of 1215 AD.  Every one of the Intolerant Acts passed by the government of Frederick Lord North violated the spirit of the Magna Carta, but the worst of these Intolerable Acts was the Kebec Act of June 22, 1774, which brought on the American Revolution.  This quote by Edmund Burke clearly outlines the choices left to the Continental Congress in 1774: 

“People crushed by law have no hopes but from power.  If laws are their enemies, they will be enemies to the laws; and those, who have much to hope and nothing to lose, will always be dangerous, more or less.”  October 1777.

“If the laws are subverted by the powerful politicians as in Canada today, I see the same end result as what brought on the American Revolution.”  Thus nothing I have written here should be taken lightly or in jest.   But, the best quote comes from that grand old revolutionary Benjamin Franklin:

“A little neglect may breed mischief…. For want of a nail the shoe was lost; for want of a shoe the horse was lost; and for want of a horse the rider was lost.”

This too is part of our common heritage, and which we must think about seriously, because if we overlook our own heritage, what will have we left for our future generations, that they may hold dear?

Yes!  I have written this, so that others, who come after me, will have something on which to base the coming struggle on.

Kenneth T. Tellis

Cracker Barrel Recants Bowing to the Homosexual Lobby

Posted on by
Cracker Barrel Recants Bowing to the Homosexual Lobby
 
This is a good news story. Cracker barrel is a chain of traditional down home style country restaurants located along major highways in the South, Northeast and Mid West. Their food tends to be wholesome and predictable from outlet to outlet. They also sell merchandise.
It all started this week when reality show star and patriarch Phil Robertson offered traditional views on homosexuality in an interview with GQ. CTV (December 21, 2013)  reports: “Asked his definition of sinful behavior by GQ, Robertson replied, “‘Start with homosexual behavior and just go from there.’Then he continued, ‘Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.'” 

Politically correct punishment was swift John Rogers, writing for the Associated Press (December 21, 2013) explained: “Robertson had been placed on indefinite ‘hiatus’ for telling GQ magazine, among other things, that gays are headed to hell, more than a half-million people liked an impromptu Facebook page demanding the show be boycotted until he returns.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who had her picture taken with Robertson just last month, complained that his free-speech rights were being trampled. Bobby Jindal, governor of the state of Louisiana, where the show is filmed, complained that Miley Cyrus got a pass for twerking on TV while Phil got shown the door.

 

T-shirts, of course, went on the market with the words ‘I Don’t Give a Duck About A or E, Bring Back Phil.’

‘It’s a show that is promoting clean living and good moral values, and that’s something we need more of today,’ one of the programme’s many fans, Rick Peter of Vernon, British Columbia, Canada, told The Associated Press.

It’s also a show that 67-year-old Robertson, who sports a beard that seemingly should qualify him for immediate membership in the rock group ZZ Top, is at the centre of the controversy.”

 

But, then, the fans fought back. Many people are fed up with the censorship stranglehold the homosexual lobby has even in the supposed “land of the free.” The Internet and facebook were ablaze with outrage and calls for a boycott of A&E and demands for Robertson’s reinstatement. CNN reported (December 21, 2013): “. A Change.org petition demanding that Robertson be reinstated and the network issue an apology was steadily climbing toward 100,000 signatures Friday.

A separate petition at a website called IStandWithPhil.com makes a similar appeal. Hosted by the online community Faith Driven Consumers, the website helps its members spend their money with companies that fall in line with their spiritual beliefs. The petition on IStandWithPhil.com had surpassed 130,000 signatures by Friday evening.

Those who’ve signed the IStandWithPhil.com petition are asking for their “views (to) be treated with equality and respect in America’s rich rainbow of diversity,” and for the “network to immediately reinstate Mr. Robertson to ‘Duck Dynasty,’ and to formally apologize to him, his family, and the millions of viewers who tune in every week, stand by him, and share his worldview.'”

 

Well, back to Cracker Barrel. In politicially correct America, often when a victim of the thought police is wounded others pile in to inflict further torment. That’s what Cracker Barrel did. On December 20 the restaurant chain issued a statement saying they were removing certain merchandise associated with the Duck Dynasty programme.

December 20

“Cracker Barrel’s mission is Pleasing People. We operate within the ideals of fairness, mutual respect and equal treatment of all people. These ideals are the core of our corporate culture.

We continue to offer Duck Commander products in our stores.

We removed selected products which we were concerned might offend some of our guests while we evaluate the situation.

We continually evaluate the products we offer and will continue to do so.”

They hadn’t counted on their enraged traditional supporters. Their Facebook page was choked with angry protests and suggestions that many people with traditional religious beliefs were rethinking plans to hold lunches or get togethers at Cracker Barrel.
In less than 48 hours, Cracker Barrel re-dedicated itself to freedom of expression and religion and reversed its position.

 

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store

Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:

“When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we’ve done.

You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren’t shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

We listened.

Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.

And, we apologize for offending you.

We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.”

On Facebook, within nine hours of the reversal, a staggering  64,453 people had clicked “like” on the decision, as opposed to just 4,183 over a two day period who had approved of the original decision.
One of several thousands people posting comments captured the significance of the protest: Al and Sherry Ferguson wrote: “It’s about time that the American Christian majority spoke up. Hey folks, if we do this on everything, including voting, we can regain the America we all knew and loved. Let’s get busy!!”
Indeed, silence in the face of censorship is just not an option!
 
This is a good news story. Cracker barrel is a chain of traditional down home style country restaurants located along major highways in the South, Northeast and Mid West. Their food tends to be wholesome and predictable from outlet to outlet. They also sell merchandise.
It all started this week when reality show star and patriarch Phil Robertson offered traditional views on homosexuality in an interview with GQ. CTV (December 21, 2013)  reports: “Asked his definition of sinful behavior by GQ, Robertson replied, “‘Start with homosexual behavior and just go from there.’Then he continued, ‘Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers — they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.'” 

Politically correct punishment was swift John Rogers, writing for the Associated Press (December 21, 2013) explained: “Robertson had been placed on indefinite ‘hiatus’ for telling GQ magazine, among other things, that gays are headed to hell, more than a half-million people liked an impromptu Facebook page demanding the show be boycotted until he returns.

Former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin, who had her picture taken with Robertson just last month, complained that his free-speech rights were being trampled. Bobby Jindal, governor of the state of Louisiana, where the show is filmed, complained that Miley Cyrus got a pass for twerking on TV while Phil got shown the door.

 

T-shirts, of course, went on the market with the words ‘I Don’t Give a Duck About A or E, Bring Back Phil.’

‘It’s a show that is promoting clean living and good moral values, and that’s something we need more of today,’ one of the programme’s many fans, Rick Peter of Vernon, British Columbia, Canada, told The Associated Press.

It’s also a show that 67-year-old Robertson, who sports a beard that seemingly should qualify him for immediate membership in the rock group ZZ Top, is at the centre of the controversy.”

 

But, then, the fans fought back. Many people are fed up with the censorship stranglehold the homosexual lobby has even in the supposed “land of the free.” The Internet and facebook were ablaze with outrage and calls for a boycott of A&E and demands for Robertson’s reinstatement. CNN reported (December 21, 2013): “. A Change.org petition demanding that Robertson be reinstated and the network issue an apology was steadily climbing toward 100,000 signatures Friday.

A separate petition at a website called IStandWithPhil.com makes a similar appeal. Hosted by the online community Faith Driven Consumers, the website helps its members spend their money with companies that fall in line with their spiritual beliefs. The petition on IStandWithPhil.com had surpassed 130,000 signatures by Friday evening.

Those who’ve signed the IStandWithPhil.com petition are asking for their “views (to) be treated with equality and respect in America’s rich rainbow of diversity,” and for the “network to immediately reinstate Mr. Robertson to ‘Duck Dynasty,’ and to formally apologize to him, his family, and the millions of viewers who tune in every week, stand by him, and share his worldview.'”

 

Well, back to Cracker Barrel. In politicially correct America, often when a victim of the thought police is wounded others pile in to inflict further torment. That’s what Cracker Barrel did. On December 20 the restaurant chain issued a statement saying they were removing certain merchandise associated with the Duck Dynasty programme.

December 20

“Cracker Barrel’s mission is Pleasing People. We operate within the ideals of fairness, mutual respect and equal treatment of all people. These ideals are the core of our corporate culture.

We continue to offer Duck Commander products in our stores.

We removed selected products which we were concerned might offend some of our guests while we evaluate the situation.

We continually evaluate the products we offer and will continue to do so.”

They hadn’t counted on their enraged traditional supporters. Their Facebook page was choked with angry protests and suggestions that many people with traditional religious beliefs were rethinking plans to hold lunches or get togethers at Cracker Barrel.
In less than 48 hours, Cracker Barrel re-dedicated itself to freedom of expression and religion and reversed its position.

 

Cracker Barrel Old Country Store

Dear Cracker Barrel Customer:

“When we made the decision to remove and evaluate certain Duck Dynasty items, we offended many of our loyal customers. Our intent was to avoid offending, but that’s just what we’ve done.

You told us we made a mistake. And, you weren’t shy about it. You wrote, you called and you took to social media to express your thoughts and feelings. You flat out told us we were wrong.

We listened.

Today, we are putting all our Duck Dynasty products back in our stores.

And, we apologize for offending you.

We respect all individuals right to express their beliefs. We certainly did not mean to have anyone think different.

We sincerely hope you will continue to be part of our Cracker Barrel family.”

On Facebook, within nine hours of the reversal, a staggering  64,453 people had clicked “like” on the decision, as opposed to just 4,183 over a two day period who had approved of the original decision.
One of several thousands people posting comments captured the significance of the protest: Al and Sherry Ferguson wrote: “It’s about time that the American Christian majority spoke up. Hey folks, if we do this on everything, including voting, we can regain the America we all knew and loved. Let’s get busy!!”
Indeed, silence in the face of censorship is just not an option!

James Alcock Explains the History of the Red Ensign — the Flag of the Real Canada

Posted on by
James Alcock Explains the History of the Red Ensign — the Flag of the Real Canada
 
REXDALE, ON. December 19, 2013. Transportation and Vexillologist (flag expert) James Alcock outlined the rich history and development of the Red Ensign, which is the flag of the real Canada and which has never legally been rescinded, at the monthly meeting of the Alternative Forum here tonight.

Photo: Canada's Real Flag. We fly it at all our meetings. I've spoken beneath its glory at EURO conferences and in Britain.

 
 
Introducing Mr. Alcock, Forum chairman Paul Fromm, said: “The year 1965 marked a revolution, a near coup d’état in Canada. That was the year Lester Pearson changed our immigration policy and turned our backs on our traditional immigration sources — Britain and Europe — and flung the door open to the Third World. That same year, he established the rigged Royal Commission of Hate Propaganda, which brought us Canada’s “hate law” in 1971, which would make criticism of the changes in immigration legally risky. And, 1965 was the year Lester Pearson changed our flag. The old Red Ensign was a strong symbol of our Christian roots and the European founding/settler people who built this country. The new flag looked like the logo for some insurance company. Even the symbolism was cockeyed. The two bars represented the Atlantic and Pacific Oceans but they are red not blue.Frederick Fromm's photo. If you are about to replace a free European country with an anti-free speech Third World invasion you must replace the flag that reminds people of our real roots,” Mr. Fromm said.

 

“Young people are not told of the Re Ensign,” Mr. Alcock explained. “They are told Canada had no flag until 1965.”
 
In 1867, he explained. “the Fathers of Confederation wanted a flag to represent our ships at sea.. As part of the British Empire, we flew the Union Jack. The British Admiralty looked after flag issues. In 1868, we adopted the British Red Ensign with a crest which contained the crests of the four founding provinces of Canada — Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick. This flag was approved for all merchant ships in Canada.”
 
Then, he said, “in 1892, the Admiralty granted approval for the use of this flag on land.”
 
Ironically, the normal rules are that the ensign with a blue background is to be flown on land and the ensign with the red background is to be flown at sea. However, much of Canada had been opened up by the Hudson’s Bay Company which used a red Ensign with the initials “HBC” on the fly.
 
To recognize this peculiar tradition, Mr. Alcock explained, Canada was allowed to use the Red Ensign on land and the Blue Ensign. Frederick Fromm's photo.
 
As time went on, it was decided that all British colonies were to use blue ensigns but territories, protectorates and Dominions like Canada could use the Red (background) ensign on land, he explained.
 
“By 1905,” Mr. Alcock continued,” Canada had nine provinces and their crests would not easily fit into a single crest of the fly. Therefore, a new design was needed.” In recognition of Canada’s valiant contributions in the First World War, in 1921, King George V awarded Canada with its own coat of arms which included the crests of England, Ireland, Scotland and pre-revolutionary France, with three Maple Leafs, representing the eastern, western and northern regions of Canada, all joined together on a single stem and coming together as a nation.Frederick Fromm's photo.
 
“In 1924, the Dominion Parliament approved the Red Ensign to be Canada’s flag abroad. After World War II, under the leadership of Prime Minister Mackenzie King, the Red Ensign became the flag of Canada. Viscount Alexander the Governor General delivered a Royal Proclamation that the Red Ensign was the national flag of Canada.”
 
In the 1950s, Quebec nationalists put pressure on the governing Liberals to change the flag and abandon the Union Jack within the Red Ensign. The green Maple Leaves representing growth and hope were replaced with red leaves, beautiful in their Autumn splendour but dying. Incongruously, the female bust on the Irish harp was removed and replaced with a knob.
 
 “During the Suez crisis in 1956, Egyptians charged that Canadians could not be neutral in a conflict that pitted Britain and France against Egypt, as the Canadian flag contained the Union Jack. Then External Affairs Minister Lester Pearson vowed he would get rid of the Red Ensign,” Mr. Alcock revealed. When he became Prime Minister in 1963, he proceeded to do just that.
 
“A lawyer has advised that the Royal Proclamation making the Red Ensign Canada’s flag has never been rescinded,” Mr. Alcock insisted. “Thus, it remains a valid flag of Canada.”
 
Mr. Alcock decorated the meeting room with wall flags of the various incarnations of the red Ensign. The Alternative Forum’s final meeting of the year concluded with some Christmas chocolates and a hearty politically incorrect “MERRY CHRISTMAS.”

 

Frederick Fromm's photo.

Truth — The New Hate Speech

Posted on by

truth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

In the Whatcott case, Canada’s Court of Supreme Frankfurt School indoctrinated cultural Marxist idiots has ruled that truth is no defence, nor is political or religious speech, against “hate speech” charges under provincial “human rights” (actually minority privileges) laws. Time to strap on some testicles and overthrow this tyrannical order.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hollering for Dollars for the Wiesenthal Centre

Posted on by

Hollering for Dollars for the Wiesenthal Centre

  • One of he most committed enemies of free speech in Canada is the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre for Holocaust Studies (FSWC). Going back to the mid 1990s, they made war on any Canadian ISPs brave enough to host controversial “rightwing” websites. They have been  interveners for Internet  censorship in a number of key cases, including Sabina Citron and the Toronto’s Mayor’s Committee on Community and Race Relations vs The Zundelsite and Richard Warman v. Marc Lemire. For almost 20 years they have been warning of 5,000, 7,500, now 15,000 “hate” sites available on the Internet. (Gosh, the outlets for dissent unacceptable to the Wiesenthalers just gets worse and worse. Send money!!!) CAFE has been studying two years worth of fundraising letters fired out by a guy with the handle Avi Benlolo. He’s the president and CEO of the Friends of the Simon Wiesenthal Centre. His pleas for pennies, well, actually dollars, follow a pattern: The Nazis are coming, the Nazis are coming, people who don’t like Jews are speaking up. Send money and we’ll try to shut them up.
  • His fundraising letters ere undated. Here are some recent samples. One from 2012 asserts: “Fight back against anti-Semitic hate worldwide. A respected university poll suggests that more than  150-million Europeans hold intensely anti-Jewish views. … A study presented at the Bundestag reported 20% of Germans still harbor anti-Semitic attiudes. A banner reading ‘Adolf Hitler was right’ and a swastika were displayed at a Madrid building. Italian winemakers are selling bottles of wine with labels portraying Adolf Hitler and other Nazi leaders.” [To be fair, the same Italian wine bottler also has labels extolling the Italian Carabiniere and  another the Alpine fighters. French bottlers  feature labels with Marilyn Monroe and another with a frog and the name “Fat Bastard”.  So what?] So, “FSWC is exposing the dark undercurrent of anti-Semitism and demanding Europe’s leaders confront the anti-Semites in their midst. Indeed our partners at the Simon Wiesenthal Center … have just achieved what the New York Times called ‘a major victory’ when they presented a hard hitting report exposing the German pulp magazine Der Landser — in print for over 50 years — violated German laws prohibiting the glorification of Nazism [but not the glorification of communism, it might be noted]. The publisher was forced to pull the plug on the magazine.” Avi Benlolo is not long on introspection, but it might occur to a person less fixated on shaking shekels out of his supporters that, if 20% of Germans have a less than rosy view of Jews, it might be as a result of seeing them as meddlers trying to censor and shut up people with whom they don’t agree.
  • The Wiesenthalers are very concerned about anti-Israeli Apartheid committees organized on many Canadian campuses. An undated 2012 fundraising letter reports: “FSWC has been active in helping campus communities combat anti-Semitism, identify and confront hate speech and promote dialogue among diverse viewpointsl We are also pleased to commend those universities who recognize that anti-Semitism has become a growing problem for both student and faculty on campus, and for taking steps to address the issue head on,”  Don’t let the talk of “dialogue among diverse opinions” fool you. Shutting up the critics of Israel is the agenda.
  • Avi Benlolo, CEO of the Friends of the Simon  Wiesenthal Centre, and Ontario’s Liberal lesbian Premier Kathleen Wynne.
  • Earlier this year, the National Post (April 12, 2013) reported: “University of Manitoba Students Union voted Thursday to strip the group Students Against Israeli Apartheid (SAIA) of official club status. … For several years, pressure from Jewish groups including B’nai Brith has been put on the University to ban  … ‘Israeli Apartheid Week’ (IAW), but the University has refused demands to cancel or censor this annual event. On Friday, in a statement titled ‘first victory in Canada,’ B’nai Brith applauded the motion as a win for the democratic process.” Victories are seen, not as dialogue or “diversity of opinions” but in silencing opponents. The chatter about “hate speech” is mischievous because it is never defined. Legally speaking, however, no one on a Canadian campus has been charged, let alone convicted, of violating Canada’s “hate laws”, repressive as they might be.
  • In another fundraiser, Benlolo proclaims: ” Israel Apartheid Week persists in promoting a racist ideology targeting a minority group with little oversight from the campus authorities, or concern for the ongoing intimidation of Jewish students.” The accusation of “racism” is incomprehensible, as the IAW is accusing the Zionists accusers of racism, Readers will see a familiar “human rights” industry  notion that criticism of a privileged group (in this case Zionists) is a form of “intimidation. Anyway, the Wiesenthalers will rush to the rescue, if you’ll just send money: “You can count on FSWC to be on the front lines working on your behalf to combat anti-Semitism and hate 365 a year, wherever and whenever the rights of the Jewish people and the State of Israel are concerned.”
  • In yet another fundraiser, Benlolo  proclaims: “When you see your child .. off to university, … what you do not expect is that new students will be subjected to harassment, intimidation and a storm of anti-Israel hate. …. You know that FSWC will never stand idly by as anti-Israel fanatics poison young hearts and minds against the Jewish State.” There is an irony here that likely escapes Benlolo. Israel is identified as “a Jewish state,” but were one to argue that Canada should remain a Christian and European land, true to its founding/settler people, one would find oneself denounced as a ‘racist’ if not an ‘anti-Semite.’
  • In a later 2012, begging letter, Benlolo writes: “Combat anti-Israel, anti-Semitic hate and pro-terror activity on the Internet. As you know, FSWC is one of Canada’s leading experts on Internet hate and terrorism, Our groundbreaking Digital Terrorism and Hate project has found 15,000 problematic social networks forums, blogs and Twitter accounts, and our app has become a key support for Canadian law enforcement officials as they track and analyze extremist activity on the World Wide Web.”  Another fundraiser adds: “Our Digital Terrorism and Hate annual reports, specialized app for police and intelligence forces, and high level leadership training on four continents is combatting the growing use of the social media and Internet technology in the service of bigotry, anti-Semitism and terrorism.” Thus, the Wiesenthalers are helping direct police forces, including Canadian police forces, in their spying on the expression of political opinions on-line by their fellow Canadians. Now, that certainly deserves a big old cheque as support.  
  • Note the dog’s breakfast of villains — “anti-Israel,” “hate,” “extremist,” “problematic.” The Wiesenthalers, who, of course, have a strong political agenda seem to have convinced establishment agencies  that they are somehow neutral experts. Freedom suffers. In a 2013 fundraising appeal, Benlolo complained about the co-chairman of the Finish Governments Foreign Affairs Committee who noted of the U.S.: They have a large Jewish population who have a significant control of the money and the media. … This is a sad truth about U.S. politics.’ Many of his peers rushed to defend him from our protests.” Of course, Benlolo and company would see the Finn as “anti-Semitic”. However, was he wrong? Do Jews in the U.S. not have a huge and disproportionate control of the media — heading most of the major news networks and Hollywood studios? Over half the donations to the Republicans and over 70% of the donations to the Democrats come from Jews, who constitute just over 2 peer cent of the U.S. population. Most of the “hate” and “anti-Semitism” denounced by Benlolo are merely truths uncomfortable to the Zionist lobby,
  • Still another achievement for the FSWC was “we … reported Toronto’s East End Madrassah for teaching extreme forms of anti-Semitism to thousands of students, launching a full police investigation into the school” (which Benlolo doesn’t tell his donors did not result in any charges.) FSWC called investigators’ attention to a school syllabus that referred  [to] ‘Jewish plots and treacheries’ and lumped Jews together with Nazis.” Canadian law wisely accords wide latitude to religious beliefs as opposed to actions. Mr. Benlolo might be forced to do some nimble legalistic dancing to explain away some of the hateful, anti-Goyim (non-Jewish people) passages of the Talmud, taught widely to Jewish youth,

Paul Fromm on Grace Under Pressure

Posted on by

Counter-Currents Radio
Paul Fromm on Grace Under Pressure

Posted By Counter-Currents Radio On December 6, 2013 @ 2:36 pm In Counter-Currents Radio | 1 Comment

paul_fromm_red_ensign225 [1]26:57 / 111 words

Photo: Counter-Currents Radio Paul Fromm on Grace Under Pressure Posted By Counter-Currents Radio On December 6, 2013 @ 2:36 pm In Counter-Currents Radio | 1 Comment paul_fromm_red_ensign225 [1]26:57 / 111 words To download the mp3, right-click here [2] and choose “save target or link as.” To subscribe to our podcasts, click here [3]. In this short talk, Paul Fromm talks about the campaign spearheaded by the Canadian Jewish Congress to have him fired from his job as a public school teacher because of his pro-free speech and anti-immigration activism. He deals specifically with the question of whether it is productive for whites who are under attack to give interviews to the media. The remarks at the conclusion of the talk are somewhat choppy because I edited out questions and comments that were not picked up by the microphone. feedburner.com/Counter-Currents To download the mp3, right-click here [2] and choose “save target or link as.”

 

To download the mp3, right-click here [2] and choose “save target or link as.”

To subscribe to our podcasts, click here[3].

In this short talk, Paul Fromm talks about the campaign spearheaded by the Canadian Jewish Congress to have him fired from his job as a public school teacher because of his pro-free speech and anti-immigration activism. He deals specifically with the question of whether it is productive for whites who are under attack to give interviews to the media. The remarks at the conclusion of the talk are somewhat choppy because I edited out questions and comments that were not picked up by the microphone.

 

 

feedburner.com/Counter-Currents

 

To download the mp3, right-click here [2] and choose “save target or link as.”

Political Prisoner Brad Love Charged for Writing to His Own Lawyer

Posted on by
Political Prisoner Brad Love Charged for Writing to His Own Lawyer
.
 
The decade long saga of state persecution of inveterate letter writer Brad Love reached a new low this week, when he was charged with writing a letter to his own lawyer
 
 Brad Love called me from prison this morning and reported that, on November 28, police arrived at the prison in Lindsay where he’s being held pending an appeal of the 18-month sentence he was handed for breach of probation.
 
He was charged with violating an Alberta bail undertaking or condition forbidding him to write, text or e-mail to any person. [Yes, that was a condition for freedom pending trial in Alberta, not North Korea!] In July, Brad went back to Court and had the bail conditions amended so that he could write to anyone, except the parties to whom  he was charged with sending “scurrilous” political material.

Brad Love, letter writer & oil
patch worker in Fort McMurray
 
“The cops are just bullies,” Mr. Love told me. “They arrest the free speech guy in jail for writing to his own lawyer about free speech. It’s crazy! I told them to check the paper work. I’m allowed to write to my own lawyer” Peter Lindsay, and, indeed, anyone other than certain politicians and media people in Fort McMurray.”
 
Further, Mr. Love reported, a fellow inmate who had sent out some letters for Bad was warned: “You could be getting out of here soon. You’d better have nothing to do with Brad!”
 
Mr. Love is scheduled to appear in Court in Lindsay on December 12 to answer the “breach” charge.
 
If you would like to give permission to Brad Love to write to you, call Kevin Nesbit, Deputy Superintendent (Operations) for the prison and give your name and address and our permission for Brad to send you letters. The phone number is 705-328-6000.
 
You can write to political prisoner Brad Love, one of our “men behind the wire” at:
 
  1. Brad Love [557137416]
  3. C.E.C.C.,
  5. 541 Highway 36,
  7. Box 4500,
  9. Lindsay, ON.,
  11. K9V 4S6

 

 

 

A date has still not been sent for an appeal against Mr. Love’s 2012 conviction and 18-month sentence for breach of probation.

 

Judges Reserve in Lemire Appeal Challenging Constitutionality of Sec. 13

Posted on by
Judges Reserve in Lemire Appeal Challenging Constitutionality of Sec. 13

TORONTO, November 14, 2013. The now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act should be found to be unconstitutional, as well, Marc Lemire, victim of a 10-year long battle with Richard Warman, argued this morning. Supported by interveners, the Canadian Association for Free Expression and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Barbara Kulaszka, Mr. Lemire’s erstwhile lawyer insisted: The Canadian Human Rights Act “was a statute designed to help little people against big government or corporations, but the Act’s Sec. 13 has hit little people having a beer and posting on the Internet.” Three Federal Court of Appeals judges reserved and retired to mull over their opinion

“The fact Parliament has repealed Sec. 13 should be taken into account,” Miss Kulaszka argued. Before penalties, now ruled unconstitutional were added in 1998, and, until Parliament, in 2001, legislated that Sec. 13 applied to the Internet, this section was largely unused. Interestingly, she added, “it has been used primarily by one man (Richard Warman), a White male, not the minorities” it was said to protect.”

In almost every case, “Richard Warman and the Canadian Human Rights Commission had joint submissions and always wanted penalties” assessed against the victims. In Mr. Lemire’s case, they originally sought a $7,500 penalty.”

Sec. 13, she argued, “is an anomaly within the Canadian Human Rights Act.” Most complaints under other sections of the Act result in settlements. “Until the Lemire case, there was a 100 per cent conviction under Sec. 13.” The Act, she added, “was designed to help little people against government or Crown corporations. However, Sec. 13 hits little people having a beer and posting their ideas on the Internet.”

Mr. Warman, she reminded the three judges hearing the appeal, never contacted Mr. Lemire about the Freedomsite message board that he complained about. By the time Mr. Lemire was served with the complaint, the message board had already been taken down. “The message board was taken down in early 2004. The complaint came in March 2004,” but proceeded nonetheless.

Mr. Lemire took down all six specific articles in the Warman complaint. “I wrote to the Commission and said all the impugned articles had been removed, but I received no reply,” Miss Kulaszka recalled. “Instead they started hunting for more material.”

The Internet, she explained, “is very different from a telephone answering machine.” Telephone messages were the original target of Sec. 13. “Accusations of ‘hate’ carry incredible stigma. It is not the equivalent in the public eye of the accusation your business failed to provide a ramp for the handicapped,” she added.

“The Internet is loved by the people but feared by the courts. Maybe, it’s generational. The Internet is empowering and people can talk back. Perhaps, Karen Mock testifying for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith in this matter put it best when she said education was the best way to fight ‘hate.'”

Sec. 13 should be ruled unconstitutional so that “ordinary people can self publish on the Internet, argue back and forth, and not have to have a lawyer present,” she concluded.

Barclay Johnson, a Victoria lawyer, representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression, reminded the appeals judges that, in their ruling on Keegstra and Taylor (which upheld the old version of Sec. 13), “the Supreme Court of Canada did not have the benefit of expert scientific evidence” that was led in the Lemire case “which discredited the scientific justification for ‘hate laws’; namely, the supposed dire effects on minorities of so-called “hate propaganda.”

CAFE’s lawyer Barclay Johnson of Victoria

The Court relied on Frederick Kaufman’s “basically Freudian analysis. His report had formed part of the Cohen Report on Hate Propaganda.” In this case, the defence led the expert evidence of Dr. Michael Persinger who exposed “the inaccurate methodology of Kaufmann. Persinger said:’I don’t use terms like ‘hate’. I use the tem ‘aversive stimuli. ‘Hate’ is a subjective term or label. The term ‘hate’ is arbitrary and highly subjective. Persinger’s evidence was not available to the Supreme Court in reaching their recent decision in Whatcott. The psychological field has changed,” Mr. Johnson added. The Court had relied on what we now know to be junk science.

Mr. Lemire’s Freedomsite “was not a public communication. Someone had to go looking for it. Mr. Warman wasn’t just walking down the street and saw the Freedomsite. In Crooks and Newton, the Supreme Court found that people using a hyperlink are involved in a private conversation. Hyperlinks are like a reference to material. They indicate that something exists,” he explained, “but you have to make the choice to go and call it up. Mr. Warman went looking for evidence of ‘hate’. That method of getting information is private. In this case, Mr. Warman was going to websites in order to be offended,” he added. “Mr. Warman did not go to a Canadian website but to one {the Freedomsite] hosted in the U.S.”

Concluding, Mr. Johnson said, “for Mr. Lemire to be responsible for everything uploaded to a website outside the country is unfair.”

Predicting the outcome of the appeal is perilous but the three presiding justices seemed to perk up when the two very pale lawyers — are there no Negro attrorneys? — speaking on behalf of the African Canadian Legal Clinic extolled the importance of penalties (which Judge Mosley had ruled unconstitutional).

The Battle of Vancouver

Posted on by

062The Battle of Vancouver

Speech by Paul Fromm at 2000 Rally for Journalist Doug Collins (under attack by human rights commission). The meeting was organized by his lawyer Doug Christie. It was attacked by several hundred ARA crazies. The policing was minimal and terrible.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=S7nIAVkLqXI