Monthly Archives: January 2014

Free Dominion Silenced — Richard Warman Cannot Be Criticized on their Site

Posted on by
Free Dominion Silenced — Richard Warman Cannot Be Criticized on their Site
 

Richard Warman seems to do very well in Ottawa with defamation suits. The courts there seem to like him and he pockets fat awards, plus costs. He’s a hometown boy. His wife too works in the legal system. It’s tough for outsiders like the Fourniers or CAFE/Fromm or others who have not had the home town advantage. On January 23, a provincial  superior judge, Robert Smith,  slapped the Fourniers with a crushing Singapore-style $127,000 judgement — damages and costs for Richard Warman in a six-year long defamation suit. The Fourniers are shutting down their website Free Dominion, at least as a discussion board.

 

They write: “As of today, January 23, 2014, and after 13 years online, Free Dominion is closing its doors to the public. We have been successfully censored.

Today, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith issued an order in the Richard Warman vs Mark and Connie Fournier and John Does defamation case heard September, 2013. In addition to ordering that we must pay Warman $127,000, Justice Smith issued an injunction against us ordering we that never publish, or allow to be published, anything negative about Richard Warman. This means we are barred for life from ever operating a public forum or a blog (even about cookie recipes) where the public can comment. If we do so, any one of Warman’s handful of supporters could, and probably would, use a common proxy server to avoid being traced, plant a negative comment about Warman on our site, and we would both be charged with contempt of court. If that happened –unlike in the Ottawa courtroom where we were blocked at every turn from presenting a defense– we actually would have no defense. We would both go to jail. This life sentence was imposed for our terrible crimes of voicing our honestly held beliefs and allowing others to do the same. Defamation law, in its current state, is entirely inadequate and counterproductive when applied to the internet. Now it is being used as a tool of censorship. Effectively!

We are assessing our options.

In faith,
Mark and Connie Fournier

“If it takes force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with your ideas. If you are willing to use force to impose your ideas on your fellow man, there is something wrong with you.” – Mark Fournier

 

The good news is that the Fourniers are appealing.

 

A lawyer we consulted says that Canada’s libel laws have to be changed and brought into the age of the Internet. To make the owner of a discussion board responsible for the comments of anonymous posters is repressive and unrealistic. In the U.S., an aggrieved person must go after the person who wrote the post, not the owner of the discussion board.

 

The injunction granted to Richard Warman is an outrage. It makes 41 comments — deemed defamatory — forbidden. While the Fourniers may be able to tiptoe in their own comments around the thin-skinned self-styled Ottawa “human rights” lawyer, they fear a troll, a mischievous “anti-racist” or even an exuberant critic of Warman’s decade long attack on posters he disapproves of on the Internet might repeat one of the forbidden criticisms — even as I am forbidden by Madam Monique Metivier’s judgement to call Mr. Warman a “censor” — and, thus, land the Fourniers into a position where they are in contempt of court and on a swift trip to prison — two more potential political prisoners in this land that preaches free speech, but practices repression.
Canada’s libel laws desperately need reform. As they stand now, they are capriciously applied, A prominent Vancovuer shock jock called Doug Christie “a perverted monster” for defending Ernst Zundel’s right to speak. That was not considered defamatory. Canada’s libel laws are beginning to resemble those of Singapore in the past. Yes, opposition to the strongman was permitted and there was a feeble opposition and the trappings of democracy. However, any opposition politician who criticized a government member quickly found himself sued for libel. Ruinous judgements soon all but silenced the opposition.
Sadly, Canada seems headed in this direction.
The Fourniers have decided to shut down FreeDominion as a discussion board. That may be wise in a repressive state but it is sad. Canada needs more spirited discussion, not less.

 

 
 
 
The Ottawa Citizen (January 29, 2014) explains the horrific blow to free speech further:
 
“

Conservative website shuttered after libel ruling

 

Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman wins long-running legal battle

 
By Andrew Duffy, OTTAWA CITIZEN January 28, 2014
 
 

 
Conservative website shuttered after libel ruling
 

Richard Warman has been awarded more than $127,000 in general damages, aggravated damages, punitive damages and court costs because of 41 defamatory statements published on the conservative website in 2007.

Photograph by: Bruno Schlumberger , BRUNO SCHLUMBERGER

OTTAWA — The online political forum, Free Dominion, has shut down after a wholesale defeat in a libel case brought by Ottawa human rights lawyer Richard Warman.

A jury concluded that Warman was maliciously defamed by four commentators on Free Dominion, a website that bills itself as “the voice of principled conservatism.”

Warman has been awarded more than $127,000 in general damages, aggravated damages, punitive damages and court costs because of 41 defamatory statements published on the conservative website in 2007.

Warman rose to prominence during the past decade by using the Canadian Human Rights Act to shut down the websites of people spreading hate speech; it made him the target of free speech advocates in the conservative blogosphere, and on websites such as Free Dominion.

In a recently released decision, Ontario Superior Court Justice Robert Smith granted Warman a permanent injunction that prohibits Free Dominion from ever repeating “in any manner whatsoever” any of the 41 defamations.

The website’s operators, Connie and Mark Fournier, of Kingston, this week shut down freedominion.ca, saying they could not control what comments other people posted.

“By leaving the forum open and allowing people to comment, we’d be opening ourselves to a contempt-of-court charge,” Connie Fournier said Tuesday.

“If someone repeated one of those comments, we would be in trouble — and could even go to jail.”

The Fourniers have operated the website as a “labour of love” for the past 13 years.

“It’s really sad to be at the point where we have to shut down the political forum,” she said. “But we’ve come to the point where it would be crazy for us to keep it open: it would be too much of a risk.”

They have vowed to appeal the defamation case and have launched a campaign on Indiegogo.com to raise money for their legal costs. The campaign has so far raised $2,800 of its $25,000 goal.”

 

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

CAFE & Free Speech Supporters Heard In McCorkill Will Case; Judge Reserves

Posted on by
CAFE & Free Speech  Supporters Heard In McCorkill Will Case; Judge Reserves
 
St. John, New Brunswick. January 28, 2014. Lawyers defending the  right of a man to will his estate to a controversial group had their day in court today. At the end of this morning’s session before the Court of Queen’s Bench here, Judge Grant reserved decision about a motion brought by Isabelle McCorkell, sister of the late Professor Robert McCorkill who had willed his collection of antique coins and artefacts to the U.S. National Alliance.
 
However, before the free speech lawyers defending the bequest were heard, the third of three interveners advocating the nullification of the will addressed the court. Danys Delaquis, representing the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said: “CIJA opposes anti-Semitism, racism and discrimination. There is no room for any Jewish person in the White space the National Alliance seeks to create,” he complained. “If the bequest is not voided it will be detrimental to the Canadian Jewish community,” he added.
 
“Where is the evidence from Mr. Gleibe and Mr. Streed [the executor] that the bequest will not be used in ways detrimental to the Jewish community?”
 
“The Peel Board of Education had found the National Alliance to be ‘a well known White supremacist organization.’ Therefore, it would be quite reasonable for this court to make this finding of fact as was done in a grievance terminating Mr. Fromm as  a teacher.” A late CIJA affidavit from one Simon Fogel smeared CAFE director Paul Fromm in an ad hominem attack. Mr. Fromm is not a beneficiary in this case. The grievance finding had merely restated accusations about the NA. The grievance board had never investigated the NA.
 
Mr. Delaquis then issued a warning: “If a barrister or solicitor here in New Brunswick adopted the views of the National Alliance, he would soon be out of work. The role of regulatory bodies is vital to see the values of inclusiveness we hold prevail.” The St. John lawyer seemed to see no irony in recommending the exclusion of dissident opinions from his ideal universe of “inclusiveness.”
 
He urged the Court to take an activist approach: “The Courts cannot leave it to the legislature.”

 

 

There are no redeeming qualities in the National Alliance in regard to Canadian public policy,” he insisted. “The National Alliance excludes an entire people from its White space. This is repugnant and offensive. The public interest must outweigh the wishes of Mr. McCorkill. Can the Court allow a testamentary gift to stand that is contrary to public policy?” he challenged the judge.
 
Rising for the defence was John Hughes, a tall stately lawyer from Moncton with a shock of white hair.” “I am acting for the Estate of Robert McCorkill, not the National Alliance,” he explained. “There is no propaganda or hate speech in the will. No one has argued that Robert McCorkill was not capable of making this bequest and the bequest is clear.”
 
“The National Alliance,” he explained, “is described as an incorporated company in the State of Virginia, with an office in West Virginia. There is no evidence the National Alliance has violated any U.S. law and it remains a U.S. corporation in good standing. There is no evidence the National Alliance was ever convicted or charged with an offence in either the U.S. or Canada. Is the NA duty bound to obey the law of any country but its own?” he asked.
 
“The  affidavit of the Southern Poverty Law Centre’s Mark Potok’s points to six ‘contact points’ the National Alliance had in Canada in 2003 — Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, London, Ottawa — but none in New Brunswick. Potok admits a name can be included on a ‘hate list’ for merely the mentioning of a P.O. Box. Erich Gleibe, National Chairman of the NA, said in his affidavit that, as of 2013, the NA has no programmes in Canada.”
 
“There is no evidence,” he added, “that the National Alliance has ever held a meeting in New Brunswick. Without a credible presence in New Brunswick, the NA is subject to the jurisdiction it resides in; namely, West Virginia, where the glorious First Amendment with its guarantee of freedom of speech is the law that governs it, not the laws of Canada.”
 
“The National Alliance is a peaceable organization that promotes and exchanges ideas and does not cross the line into crime. Therefore, the National Alliance qualifies as a beneficiary under the law governing it — U.S. law.”
 
Photo
CAFE Director Paul Fromm in press scrum
Referring to the applicant and her allies as “the unruly chorus about the law of public policy,” Mr. Hughes argued: “Courts can make decisions for the restraint of the population under their jurisdiction, like the New Brunswick horses in the Wishart case (the frequently cited case where a provision requiring the shooting of the man’s four horses was overturned by a Court.)”
 
“The disposition of this will either way will have no effect on the people of New Brunswick. The appropriate decision is for the Court to follow the guidance of Sec. 17 of the Interpretation Act and dismiss this application with costs.”
 
The final submissions were from Andy Lodge, a well organized litigator from St. John, representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression. “I am not here to defend the National Alliance,” he said. “I have listened for many hours and read through 1,000 pages of legal documentation and I am struck by one point — all the energy and money spent over the past six months, with very little time spent on the actual McCorkill will.”
 
“There is no legal basis,” Mr. Lodge argued, “to challenge the McCorkill will. It is a valid will, properly constructed and compliant with the Wills Act. No words in this will are contrary to any public policy. This is a very significant point and the real reason this Court should refuse this applicant.”
 
“Other interveners,” he continued, “are very concerned about the character, written words and behaviour of the National Alliance. That alone is not enough to challenge a will.”
 
“Make no mistake,” Mr. Lodge warned, “the applicant and the supporting interveners are trying to get this Court to go where no Court has gone before. The applicant is trying to get this Court to evaluate the beneficiary and to find effectively that the National Alliance is not worthy to receive a testamentary gift — the ‘public policy issue.’ Despite legal arguments over the past six months, there is no evidence of any members of the National Alliance being charged with crimes. Otherwise, the representative of the Attorney General of New Brunswick [Mr. Williams] would be downstairs charging the National Alliance.”
 
And, he continued, “even if a person is charged with a crime that does not disqualify him from receiving a bequest.” He pointed out that in the very few precedents where the court did nullify a section of a will it was because of the language of the will; for instance, the much referenced Wishart horse case, where the will mandated the shooting of the horses.
 
“There is no language of hate in this will,” he explained. “My learned friends who want to argue that ‘hate speech’ is not allowed in Canada are engaged in an exercize in futility. The real question gets lost and that is whether to prevent possible future acts from happening a person can be excluded from receiving a gift from a testator in New Brunswick or Canada. There is no precedent for this very large and drastic step where receiving a bequest depends on the character of the beneficiaries. Are we saying a known drug dealer can never receive a bequest? What about Greenpeace or pro-life groups or any organization dedicated to private health care? Some of their beliefs are against current ‘public policy’ in Canada.”
 
Pursuing his argument, he added: “We open beneficiaries up to examination of their writings, character and beliefs. Where is the new line? This evaluation of the beneficiary should not be permitted at all to avoid drastic pitfalls in a free and democratic society.”
 
And, he said, “none of the examples of case law examined the beneficiaries.”
 
Imagine two siblings left an estate. “If we begin evaluating beneficiaries, it would be in their best interests to slander each other as unworthy. It would be in their financial interests to smear each other.”
 
“Would my learned friends be here today if the money had been given to Mr. Gliebe?” he asked. “If the courts allow the examination of the character of beneficiaries, where is the certainty in counselling a client on the drafting of his will?” he wondered,.
 
“This Court shouldn’t be used to debate ‘hate’,” he said emphatically in his lilting Newfoundland accent. “Make no mistake: The applicant and the other interveners are trying to open up the courts to an avalanche of beneficiary disputes. They are opening a Pandora’s Box. There will be no limit to what is potentially relevant.”
 
Mr. Lodge pointed out: “In the past, Courts stuck to the wording of the will to establish public policy. I submit respectfully that a finding for the applicant will do more harm than good.”
 
“We have already seen bad effect happening here, with the attack on other people’s character in the most recent CIJA affidavit [attacking Paul Fromm, Director of CAFE]. Suffice it to say, the affidavit contained personal and irrelevant information intending to discredit Mr. Fromm. It was an attack on his character. He is not even a beneficiary in this case. Why did CIJA do this? Because character has now become an issue in estate litigation! Discredit the other beneficiary and the more likely you are to get their portion of the bequest voided and get more for yourself.”
 
“That is what Isabelle McCorkill is doing here today, trying to get more money,” he charged.
 
“Whether the National Alliance’s values are congruent with the values of Canada should not be the issue. Allowing this applicant to succeed by assailing the character of others should not be permitted,” he concluded.
 
Just before noon Judge Grant announced: “I am going to reserve my decision. I’ll get my decision out as quickly as I can.” — Paul Fromm

 

Judge reserves decision in unusual estate case

Posted on by

TELEGRAPH JOURNAL PIC OF PAUL AND MALCOLMJudge reserves decision in unusual estate case

JENNIFER PRITCHETT Telegraph-Journal
January 28, 2014

 

Malcolm Ross attended the second day of the trial as an observer. Paul Fromm in foreground

Photo: Jennifer Pritchett/Telegraph-Journal

SAINT JOHN – A Court of Queen’s Bench judge has reserved his decision on whether a Saint John man’s will is legal and can bequeath about $250,000 in rare coins and antiquities to an American neo-Nazi group.

Harry Robert McCorkill left his estate to the National Alliance when he died in 2004. A decade later, his sister, some rights groups and the province of New Brunswick went to court to prevent the money from flowing to the white supremacist, anti-Semitic organization.

The trial into the matter, held Monday and Tuesday, saw lawyers from both sides make arguments in an unusual legal case that weighs peoples’ individual right to leave their estate to whomever – and whatever type of organization – they choose against the court’s ability to intervene in special circumstances that are deemed against “public policy.”

There’s little case law on the subject and in many ways, the debate around the McCorkill estate is unique and breaks new legal ground.

Dan Delaquis, a lawyer for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, told the court Tuesday that the gift, if it’s permitted to stand, will be “detrimental to the Jewish community” and will result in an erosion of Canadian values because the National Alliance has a mandate of hate and is a well-known white supremacist group.

“We submit in this case that the public interest must outweigh the wish of Mr. McCorkill,” he said.

Marc-Antoine Chiasson, a lawyer for Isabelle Rose McCorkill, argued that one need only look at the National Alliance’s own handbook to see firsthand how it purports a racist message.

He read excerpts of the small handbook in court on Monday, highlighting how it points to “white” living spaces with white schools and residential areas with the overall view to create a white world.

Chiasson also pointed to the words of National Alliance founder William Luther Pierce and described his books, Hunter and The Turner Diaries, which were written under the pseudonym “Andrew Macdonald,” as repugnant.

But Andy Lodge, a lawyer for the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE), told the court Tuesday that the fact that an organization may be considered “morally reprehensible” should have no impact on whether it can be a beneficiary of an estate. He pointed out that there are no laws prohibiting even a serial killer or a drug dealer to receive assets from a will.

For the court to evaluate whether a beneficiary such as the National Alliance is against “public policy,” he argued, would open “Pandora’s box.”

He said it would do more harm than good if the courts started assessing a beneficiary’s past or try to predict how they would spend the money they receive from a will.

Lodge described the court debate over McCorkill’s will as an “exercise in futility.” He argued there is no legal basis to challenge the will because it’s valid, follows New Brunswick’s Wills Act and contains no words that are contrary to Canada’s public policy.

The lawyer said he knows of no law that would prohibit a living person in Canada from giving money to the National Alliance.

John Hughes, the lawyer for the executor of the estate Fred Streed, argued that the application to prevent the disposition of McCorkill’s estate to the National Alliance should be dismissed.

Isabelle McCorkill didn’t attend the trial in Saint John nor did any representative from the National Alliance, a West-Virginia based organization.

Chiasson, her lawyer, has said that the legal battle over her brother’s estate has never been about the money, but rather, about preventing it from going to a neo-Nazi group.

Catherine Fawcett, who represents the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, also argued that the gift to the National Alliance is “completely against public policy” and pointed to the connection between hate propaganda and violence.

McCorkill’s estate includes, among other items, a collection of hundreds of Greek, Roman, and Italian coins – some dating back to 525 BC – that he amassed since the 1970s. Some items were once displayed at the University of Saskatchewan’s Antiquities Museum and a release from that institution in 1997 described him as a well-travelled collector and a chemist who spent time at MIT and the Smithsonian Institution.

Little else is known about the man or why he lived in Saint John, where he moved about a year before his death. He lived quietly in a townhouse in Millidgeville and after he died at home in 2004, his body remained at the Saint John Regional Hospital for nearly two weeks while the authorities tried to track down his next of kin.

The National Alliance paid for his funeral and hired Malcolm Ross and William Ross of Moncton to transport, store and take inventory of his assets.

Malcolm Ross, who attended McCorkill’s court hearing in Saint John on Tuesday with his brother, was the focus of a 1996 Supreme Court ruling that found that the former Moncton-area teacher whose off-duty writings claimed Christians were under attack by an international Jewish conspiracy, had in fact “poisoned” the educational environment. The ruling upheld a human rights board of inquiry that ordered Ross into a non-teaching job.

Outside court, he told the Telegraph-Journal that he was there to “observe,” but declined to comment on his connection to the McCorkill matter.

Free Speech Takes A Thumping As Thought Control Forces Argue McCorkill Will Is “Against Public Policy”

Posted on by

Free Speech Takes A Thumping As Thought Control Forces Argue McCorkill Will Is “Against Public Policy”

ST.JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK. January 27, 2014. “Where is the McCorkill case being heard?” I asked the court officer just before 9:30 this morning here in St. John.

“Courtroom 13,” he answered.

“Is this our lucky day?” I wondered.

The atmosphere inside Courtroom 13 was more frigid for freedom of thought than the bitter Maritime winter outside the courtroom. This morning lawyers argued that the will of the late Professor Robert McCorkill giving a bequest to the White Nationalist U.S.-based National Alliance be set aside. It was like an Anti-racist Action meeting with slogans of “neo-Nazi” “White supremacist” and “racist” snapping through the air in the Court of Queen’ Bench. There was a lot of “hate” in the air or, at least, how much certain people hate “hate.”

Moncton lawyer Marc-Antoine Chiasson led off the complainant’s case before Judge William T. Grant. He represents the long-estranged sister of the late Robert McCorkill who brought this current action to nullify the bequest. She turned up or was found after being silent during the nine years since her brother’s death, after the militantly anti-free speech U.S.-based Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) found about about the bequest soon after the will was probated in May, 2013. The exceedingly well-funded SPLC, an arch enemy of the National Alliance, went on the warpath to stop the bequest. The only problem for them was that they have no legal standing in Canada. Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman was soon being quoted in the press commenting that the bequest should be nullified because I was contrary to public policy. Isabelle McCorkell [yes, different spelling] emerged and, although she claims to live on $1,000 a month hired a pricey Moncton law firm to obtain an ex-parte injunction freezing the assets of the will and then a further application to nullify the bequest. Piling in to support her were the Attorney General of New Brunswick , the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

” This is an unusual case,” Mr. Chiasson noted. And then the smears and name-calling began: “The Court must decide whether it is acceptable or appropriate to leave a bequest to a White supremacist, neo-Nazi organization that wants to rid North America of Jews.”

“We should not be able to interfere with a will on a whim because we don’t like the beneficiary,” he added. [Then, why are we here? I wondered.]

However, he added, “there is a certain line that cannot be crossed, but the line has been crossed with the bequest to the National Alliance and we ask this Court to intervene.”

“The Court should intervene in very few cases,” he admitted. However, an exception should be made for “hate propaganda” and “hate groups.” He quote Mr.Justice Cory in the appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals in the Don Andrews “hate law case” back in the 1970s. The judge had said that “hate meant the instilling of detestation in others and does incalculable damage to the Canadian community.”

“Sec. 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code prohibit ‘hate propaganda’ and the promtion of genocide,” he added.

The three lawyers arguing for the application repeatedly demanded suppression of people and views their clients didn’t like. “Any group that promotes views contrary to the human rights codes is unacceptable,” Mr. Chiasson announced. “The International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination condemn all groups that promote the superiority of a race and the participation in or financing of such groups,” he added. [Did Canada or its Parliament knowingly sign on to such a mental straight jacket.]

“Multiculturalism and equality are the linchpins of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” he said. The Charter, it might be noted, for all its talk of “equality” grants special privileges to favoured minorities.

005
Paul Fromm being interviewed by Neville Crabbe of CBC News

So, he argued, “we have adopted the view that, in Canada, the propaganda of the National Alliance, the existence of the National Alliance and the financing of the National Alliance is contrary to public policy.” Mr. Chiasson professed himself outraged that the National Alliance believes in “the preservation of the White Race and racial separation.” Reading from the National Alliance’s 2005 Membership Handbook, he quoted the NA’s programme: “We must have White work spaces, White farms, White schools. … We want an environment where our own nature can express itself. We must root out Semitic and non-Aryan influences.”

Mr. Chiason equated White self-preservation with White Supremacy.

“We just can’t stop ideas at the border due to the power of the Internet,” he complained.

Apparently, dissenting in certain historical debates is against the law, at least in Mr. Chiasson’s submissions: “The National Alliance says ‘the holocaust is a myth’. This is hate speech and contrary to public policy.” He expressed further shock at a comment by the National Alliance: “We have a debt of gratitude to Adolf Hitler who was the greatest man of our era.” [One wonders whether we’d be in Court with a two volume record o fwell over 600 pages of submissions and exhibits if the National Alliance had hailed Joseph Stalin or Mao Tse Tung or even Pol Pot as the greatest man of our era.]

No evidence had been adduced of homicidal inclinations on the part of the NA, but, Mr. Chiasson concluded: “The sole purpose of the NA is promoting hate and killing non-Whites, its sole objective is to create White living space, and, thus, it offends public policy. The gift is illegal and against public policy and should be voided. Mr. McCorkill should be declared intestate and, therefore, my client and her brother would be the beneficiaries of the estate.”

Next up was Richard Williams of Fredericton, representing the Attorney General of New Brunswick. “|Our only interest in this matter is our belief that the bequest is illegal and contrary to public policy,” he said. A strong voice for repression, he declared: “The theme of the Charter and human rights codes is that racism will not be allowed in this country.” He professed himself upset at the notion of “White living space”, although he made no mention of native land claims or special lands for Indians or Eskimos.

He added “there is no redeeming merit” in the National Alliance. Attempting to answer an argument in CAFE’s brief that nullifying the McCorkill will could launch a flood of similar litigation, he concluded: “I never expect to have a case like this again in my career.”

The final presentation of the morning came on behalf of another intervener, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. Representing B’nai Brith, Catherine Fawcett insisted: “The National Alliance has a presence in Canada and is well known to the League.” Whether the NA has actually committed acts of violence “doesn’t matter. They put out ideas that incite hate. Their membership is restricted to White people who support the objectives of the NA. [One wonders whether certain Jewish or Catholic groups might not similarly be restricted to adherents of their faith who support the group’s objectives.]

“What you read in their Handbook,” she charged, “is we will recruit and build infrastructure for final victory. But you must read between the lines. A further danger of the National Alliance is a video game they produced called Ethnic Cleansing,” she added. She didn’t explain what it was about.

“In the NA Handbook, they say: “The holocaust story in engineered by Jews or is full of exaggerations.’ This is contrary to Canadian values,” she insisted.

Elsewhere, the NA says that “AIDS has taken off undesireables among Whites — homosexuals, intravenous drug users, and those who have sex with non-Whites. That, M’lord, is hate.”

In a country that does not have a Second Amendment to protect the right to keep and bear arms, Miss Fawcett was very critical of the NA Handbook urging members to have weapons for the defence of their family or to join the state militia, if necessary. The Handbook recommended a riot gun, a military semi-automatic rifle, a handgun and at least 500 rounds of ammunition.

She took great exception to the NA saying: “The Aryan Race has the right to ensure its own survival and it must have a White living space including Europe, North America and the southern tip of Africa.”

NA Chairman Erich Gleibe in an affidavit “says the National Alliance has no programmes in Canada, but the effect of the National Alliance message is to corrupt people and turn a small receptive minority against multiculturalism. We can stop printed material at the border and we have ‘anti-hate’ legislation but the Internet can reach so many.”

Concluding, she said: “This Court has the power to strike down the testamentary gift to the National Alliance and stop it spreading its message of hate.”

The hearing continues tomorrow. — Paul Fromm

Hear Paul Fromm on the Don Black Show at 10:00 a.m. Friday, January 24 Discussing the SPLC’s Efforts to Hijack the McCorkill Will

Posted on by

Hear Paul Fromm on the Don Black Show at 10:00 a.m. Friday, January 24 Discussing the SPLC’s Efforts to Hijack the McCorkill Will

http://www.renseradio.com/listenlive.htm

They can find the archives from there.

The announcement thread on the public side of Stormfront is here:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1017362/

Listen live weekdays 9:00-11:00am ET

to Stormfront with DonBlack & Truck Roy
on the Rense satellite/radio network.

You can also listen live to any show by calling
712-432-7855 from any phone.

Stormfront radio show with host Don Black
back on the air tomorrow!

 The Don and Derek Black Show went on the air on WPBR 1340AM four years ago. We broadcast five days a week for three years, despite considerable expense and relentless threats against the station by our enemies.

Don Black and his long-time co-host Truck Roy are now back, with a bigger audience than ever! We have partnered with the Rense Internet/Satellite network for a live two-hour show, every weekday morning, 9:00-11:00 Eastern Time. This is just before the David Duke Show at 11:00.

Don Black has been an activist fighting for European-American survival for forty-five years, beginning when he was fifteen years old. After many difficult years working to reach our people with the truth of racial realities, he was first to realize the potential of the Internet.

He first started promoting our message on various online services in 1988, before most people had ever heard of the Internet. He then set up a small dial-up computer bulletin board called Stormfront in 1990, while working on the David Duke for US Senate Campaign. This would later go online on the Net.

But it wasn’t until March of 1995 that Stormfront’s reach exploded, when the World Wide Web had made navigating the Net easier for non-techies.

For the first time, we had our own media. And in the years since, with the media monopoly’s control of news broken, more of our people than ever before now understand the truth. But we have a long way to go.

Join Don Black and Truck Roy, with special guest Gordon Lee Baum, CEO of the largest pro-White organization in America, the Council of Conservative Citizens, talk about where we’ve been and where we’re going. Call-ins welcome.

Tune in live here Monday-Friday, 9:00-11:00am Eastern Time. Archives will be available shortly after each show.

Or you can listen to the show live by calling 712-432-7855 from any phone.

If you would like to participate, our toll free call-in number is 877-342-6673

Arthur Topham “Hate” Trial Opens With a Whimper

Posted on by

Arthur Topham “Hate” Trial Opens With a Whimper
ARTHUR TOPHAM

Quesnel, BC., January 22, 2014. The long awaited preliminary hearing into “hate” charges against dissident and political prisoner Arthur Topham for postings on his website Radicalpress.com opened here this morning. Mr. Topham reports, with some disappointment, that only about an hour and a half’s worth of testimony was heard.

The shambolic hearing was repeatedly interrupted with remands and other court business. There is only one courtroom and one judge in this small town in the British Columbia interior. One of the two Crowns or prosecuting lawyers was ill.

Photo: Arthur Topham “Hate” Trial Opens With a Whimper Quesnel, BC., January 22, 2014. The long awaited preliminary hearing into “hate” charges against dissident and political prisoner Arthur Topham for postings on his website Radicalpress.com opened here this morning. Mr. Topham reports, with some disappointment, that only about an hour and a half’s worth of testimony was heard. The shambolic hearing was repeatedly interrupted with remands and other court business. There is only one courtroom and one judge in this small town in the British Columbia interior. One of the two Crowns or prosecuting lawyers was ill. The Crown’s case under Canada’s notorious “hate law” (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) opened with the testimony of the investigating officer Det. Terry Wilson of the British Columbia “hate squad.” Most of the evidence presented merely established that Mr. Topham owned the Radicalpress.com website and that he had posted material there, none of which he denies. After Mr. Topham’s arrest, Det. Wilson contacted Mr. Topham’s ISP to pressure it to drop his Radicalpress.com website, saying he had been charged with “hate”. The initial charges did not indicate what posts out of many on this active website might constitute “hate”. The ISP directed Mr. Topham to remove the offending passages, but he couldn’t, not knowing what they were. So, the ISP pulled the plug on the site. In Canada, as in the U.S., a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, Det. Terry Wilson began to inflict punishment even before a trial. The charges were instigated by complaints from Harry Abrams of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and chronic complaint filer Richard Warman of Ottawa. The hearing, slated to last five days, continues tomorrow.

The Crown’s case under Canada’s notorious “hate law” (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) opened with the testimony of the investigating officer Det. Terry Wilson of the British Columbia “hate squad.” Most of the evidence presented merely established that Mr. Topham owned the Radicalpress.com website and that he had posted material there, none of which he denies.

After Mr. Topham’s arrest, Det. Wilson contacted Mr. Topham’s ISP to pressure it to drop his Radicalpress.com website, saying he had been charged with “hate”. The initial charges did not indicate what posts out of many on this active website might constitute “hate”. The ISP directed Mr. Topham to remove the offending passages, but he couldn’t, not knowing what they were. So, the ISP pulled the plug on the site.

In Canada, as in the U.S., a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty. However, Det. Terry Wilson began to inflict punishment even before a trial.

The charges were instigated by complaints from Harry Abrams of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and chronic complaint filer Richard Warman of Ottawa.

The hearing, slated to last five days, continues tomorrow.