Monthly Archives: January 2015

Je Suis Brad — Attend Trial of “Citizen Journalist” — Fort McMurray, Monday, January 19, 2015

Posted on by

Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820;

Website http://cafe.nfshost.com

 

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

January 18, 2015

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Je Suis Brad — Attend Trial of “Citizen Journalist” — Fort McMurray, Monday, January 19, 2015

A week ago, many Canadians joined rallies across the country supporting free speech and showing solidarity with the victims of the radical Islamic terrorists who gunned down 12 people at French satirical paper Charlie Hebdo in Paris.

Most Canadians smugly thought free speech as safe in Canada. After all, we have Trudeau’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms with its guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of opinion, freedom of the press. Sadly, due to the weasel clauses in the Charter, these rights have been steadily eroded since it took effect in 1982.

A good case in point is inveterate letter writer, Brad Love, a construction worker in Fort McMurray, Alberta. A self taught writer, inveterate reader and opinionated curmudgeon, Mr. Love’s problems began in 2002. Over a 20 year period, he estimates he’d written over 10,000 letters to politicians at all levels, the media and public figures. That year he was charged under Canada’s notorious “hate” law — Section 318 of the Criminal Code — for 20 letters he’s written to politicians and public figures. It must be emphasize that none of these letters contained threats — just his populist opinions. He is critical of foreign aid, immigration and waste of taxpayers’ money.

Mr. Love was sentenced to 18 months in prison — the stiffest sentence ever handed down under the “hate law” — for writing letters. Amnesty International defines a prisoner of conscience or political prisoner as someone punished or jailed for the non-violent expression of his political, religious or cultural views. Yes, Brad Love is a political prisoner and may soon be so again. This situation is a disgrace to Canada.

However, when he was released in 2003, Mr, Love faced a three year parole and increasingly restrictive conditions. At one point, an Ontario judge named Hogg imposed the condition that he could not write to “anyone” without their consent. That condition

In 2012, Mr. Love was convicted of “breach of undertaking” for having sent opinionated information packages to several Toronto Jewish groups, having obtained their oral consent. For this he received 18 months and a further three year gag order. The average sentence for a drug dealing gangbanger for “breach of bail” is 60 days, A non-violent letter writer draws 18 months,

In 2013, Mr. Love was charged in Fort McMurray with “sending scurrilous material through the mail” and “harassment” for repeated communications with the editor of Fort McMurray Today, which advertises that it WANTS its readers’ comments,  and a local representative of OXFAM.

When initially charged, Mr. Love’s bail forbade him to “write by e-mail, text or letter” to any person, presumably not even his gravely ill mother in Ontario. Again, this brutal gag was imposed, not in North Korea or Cuba or Saudi Arabia, but in Alberta, Canada.

Last September, just as Mr. Love was completely his “breach” sentence in Ontario, Albert sent two officers to bring him back in handcuffs and leg irons in a wheelchair to Alberta like some murderer, bank robber or drug lord — all for non-violent communication. What did the three airfares, travel expenses and salaries cost the taxpayers of Alberta?

On Monday, January 19 at 9:30, Mr. Love will go on trial in the Provincial Courthouse (9700 Franklin Ave.) in Fort McMurray.

“Free speech is the issue,” says Paul Fromm Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression which has championed Mr. Love’s struggle since 2003.

“In the education system we both grew up in in Etobicoke, Ontario, we were told that citizenship implied certain duties. A good citizen should inform himself, care, take a stand and voice his opinion. Mr. Love’s outspoken populism may not be everybody’s cup of tea, but by any measure, he is a good citizen, a concerned citizen and should be honoured for his commitment not prosecuted,” Mr. Fromm adds.

–30–

Contact Paul Fromm — 416-428-5308

Brad Love “Citizen Journalist” Opens 37th Year of Alternative Forum

Posted on by
Brad Love “Citizen Journalist” Opens 37th Year of Alternative Forum
 
 

REXDALE, January 14, 2015, Former political prisoner Brad Love kicked off the 37th year of the monthly Alternative Forum in Toronto tonight with a spirited talk about his persecution over the past two decades for writing and calling politicians and media and speaking his mind.

 
“I only care about my people, not Israel or immigrants,” he said, outlining his philosophy.
 
“I spent all day trying to get my father into extended care, after  a hip replacement operation. Harper has spent nearly $800-million on aid to Haiti, but our medical system cannot deliver,” he added. “Our government spends millions on fighting Ebola, but no one here has Ebola. We spend money on gay marches and multiculturalism, but we can’t get my dad into a nursing home. He’s worked all his life here.”
 
Recounting the events of last year, he said: “I spent one year in jail for breach of probation.” He had sent packages of information and commentary to several Toronto Jewish groups, having obtained oral consent on the phone. Nevertheless, he was convicted of “breach of probation” and given a draconian 18 months in jail. His conditions had forbad him to write to “anyone” without their consent. [These conditions were imposed in Ontario, not North Korea.]
 
“The average black crack pusher gets 60 days for a breach. I get 18 months. I am a working guy who works 84 hours a week and no longer even lives in Ontario!”
 
“Nobody in the newspapers would cover my trial. I had to fly back for repeated hearings 10 times — that’s airfare, car rental, legal fees for a minor breach. They brought in major fingerprint experts for this little breach. They should be working on bank robberies, not a non-violent breach,” he argued.
 
“I was kept beyond my release date so that sheriff’s deputies could travel from Alberta to arrest me. I was taken in a wheelchair in shackles through Toronto International; Airport. How I got on a plane with no ID, I don’t know. When we arrived in Alberta, I was taken to Leduc. I had a bail hearing by telephone with  JP. The Crown said I had no roots in Fort McMurray. I’d worked there for 10 years!,” he exclaimed. “The JP then asked me how much money I had on me. I had $961. I had to post $900. There I was five hours away from home. I was released in a town where I knew nobody at 6:00 a.m. With my remaining money, I took a cab to a bank machine to withdraw money to fly back home.”
 
This coming Monday, he explained, “I go on trial in Fort McMurray for writing letters to the editor of the local paper Fort McMurray Today and for having had a n argument with a representative of OXFAM collecting money in a local mall, I had said, why are you digging wells in Africa. The blacks must be standing around laughing at these silly Whites digging them wells, while they stand around idle.” These do gooders, he added, “are the types who’;d step over a homeless person in their own city.”
 
Mr. Love noticed [police hanging around his home a few weeks back. “The police presence sends a message” to the neighbours that the letter-writer is a dangerous person.
 
“The local paper says ‘we want to hear your comments.’ I wrote to them, I bombarded the editor for years.”
 
“The judge has said I cannot cross-examine the complainants.” Mr. Love will be representing himself, with the assistance of Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression. Mr. Love is charged with “harassment” and “sending scurrilous material through the mails.”
 
“These charges are 20 months old,” Mr. Love noted. “My right to a speedy trial has been violated.”
 
“When I appear in Court,” he explained, “I am animated as I am here tonight. They always have special deputies sitting there. They are used to Newfies or natives,” who tend to be passive. “The IQ in Fort Mac is room temperature,” he quipped.
 
“The lawyers there are afraid of free speech. One Fort McMurray lawyer said to me, ‘I’m not comfortable with you,’ but they’d eagerly represent a native axe murderer.”
 
Brad Love "Citizen Journalist" Opens 37th Year of Alternative Forum REXDALE, January 14, 2015, Former political prisoner Brad Love kicked off the 37th year of the monthly Alternative Forum in Toronto tonight with a spirited talk about his persecution over the past two decades for writing and calling politicians and media and speaking his mind. "I only care about my people, not Israel or immigrants," he said, outlining his philosophy. "I spent all day trying to get my father into extended care, after a hip replacement operation. Harper has spent nearly $800-million on aid to Haiti, but our medical system cannot deliver," he added. "Our government spends millions on fighting Ebola, but no one here has Ebola. We spend money on gay marches and multiculturalism, but we can't get my dad into a nursing home. He's worked all his life here." Recounting the events of last year, he said: "I spent one year in jail for breach of probation." He had sent packages of information and commentary to several Toronto Jewish groups, having obtained oral consent on the phone. Nevertheless, he was convicted of "breach of probation" and given a draconian 18 months in jail. His conditions had forbad him to write to "anyone" without their consent. [These conditions were imposed in Ontario, not North Korea.] "The average black crack pusher gets 60 days for a breach. I get 18 months. I am a working guy who works 84 hours a week and no longer even lives in Ontario!" "Nobody in the newspapers would cover my trial. I had to fly back for repeated hearings 10 times -- that's airfare, car rental, legal fees for a minor breach. They brought in major fingerprint experts for this little breach. They should be working on bank robberies, not a non-violent breach," he argued. "I was kept beyond my release date so that sheriff's deputies could travel from Alberta to arrest me. I was taken in a wheelchair in shackles through Toronto International; Airport. How I got on a plane with no ID, I don't know. When we arrived in Alberta, I was taken to Leduc. I had a bail hearing by telephone with JP. The Crown said I had no roots in Fort McMurray. I'd worked there for 10 years!," he exclaimed. "The JP then asked me how much money I had on me. I had $961. I had to post $900. There I was five hours away from home. I was released in a town where I knew nobody at 6:00 a.m. With my remaining money, I took a cab to a bank machine to withdraw money to fly back home." This coming Monday, he explained, "I go on trial in Fort McMurray for writing letters to the editor of the local paper Fort McMurray Today and for having had a n argument with a representative of OXFAM collecting money in a local mall, I had said, why are you digging wells in Africa. The blacks must be standing around laughing at these silly Whites digging them wells, while they stand around idle." These do gooders, he added, "are the types who';d step over a homeless person in their own city." Mr. Love noticed [police hanging around his home a few weeks back. "The police presence sends a message" to the neighbours that the letter-writer is a dangerous person. "The local paper says 'we want to hear your comments.' I wrote to them, I bombarded the editor for years." "The judge has said I cannot cross-examine the complainants." Mr. Love will be representing himself, with the assistance of Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression. Mr. Love is charged with "harassment" and "sending scurrilous material through the mails." "These charges are 20 months old," Mr. Love noted. "My right to a speedy trial has been violated." "When I appear in Court," he explained, "I am animated as I am here tonight. They always have special deputies sitting there. They are used to Newfies or natives," who tend to be passive. "The IQ in Fort Mac is room temperature," he quipped. "The lawyers there are afraid of free speech. One Fort McMurray lawyer said to me, 'I'm not comfortable with you,' but they'd eagerly represent a native axe murderer." "If yuo write about immigration and black crime, White cops will come and arrest you, White lawyers will prosecute you. Why? If Love is right and cutting immigration would reduce crime, then it could mean our jobs. The police forces could lose 40% of their force. We're the bogeyman. Our own people have sold us out!" he charged. While in jail in Lindsay, he said, "my mail was held without a court order. I was specially punished. When I was released, they gave me 138 letters that had been held." "I consider myself a citizen journalist," he explained. "When I speak to people in Fort McMurray of these matters, they resent me because I remind them of their own cowardice," he concluded. A lively discussion and question-and-answer session followed and those in attendance cheered Mr. Love and wished him every success at next week's trial.
 
“If you write about immigration and black crime, White cops will come and arrest you, White lawyers will prosecute you. Why? If Love is right and cutting immigration would reduce crime, then it could mean our jobs. The police forces could lose 40% of their force. We’re the bogeyman. Our own people have sold us out!” he charged.
While in jail in Lindsay, he said, “my mail was held without a court order. I was specially punished. When I was released, they gave me 138 letters that had been held.”
 
“I consider myself a citizen journalist,” he explained.
 
“When I speak to people in Fort McMurray of these matters, they resent me because I remind them of their own cowardice,” he concluded. A lively discussion and question-and-answer session followed and those in attendance cheered Mr. Love and wished him every success at next week’s trial.

Lessons from the Charlie Hebdo Massacre: Immigrants MUST Be Culturally Compatible

Posted on by
Lessons from the Charlie Hebdo Massacre: Immigrants MUST Be Culturally Compatible
PORT CREDIT. January, 7, 2015. It was not long after I’d finished my stint as co-host of Don Black’s STORMFRONT Radio on the Rense Network today that I received a call from Colin Perkel of the Canadian Press.
 
In light of the massacre by Moslem fanatics of 12 people at the French satiric newspaper Charlie Hebdo, did I think such an attack could happen here in Canada? Yes, it certainly could and likely will. Last October, two Canadians soldiers were killed in Canada in the same week by converts to radical Islam, one of the killers a half Libyan.
 
 
Lessons from the Charlie Hebdo Massacre: Immigrants MUST Be Culturally Compatible PORT CREDIT. January, 7, 2015. It was not long after I'd finished my stint as co-host of Don Black's STORMFRONT Radio on the Rense Network today that I received a call from Colin Perkel of the Canadian Press. In light of the massacre by Moslem fanatics of 12 people at the French satiric newspaper Charlie Hebdo, did I think such an attack could happen here in Canada? Yes, it certainly could and likely will. Last October, two Canadians soldiers were killed in Canada in the same week by converts to radical Islam, one of the killers a half Libyan. "Why do you think so?" I was asked. Canada's lax and idiotic immigration policy has allowed people who do not share our values to enter this country. Canada is now home to over a million Moslems. Many are followers of radical Wahabbism. They hate the West. They hate our freedoms. They want to see us convert to Islam and adopt sharia law. They do not accept religious freedom or free speech. Worse, our policy of multiculturalism says all cultures are equal; that theirs is as good (or better than ours) and they are encouraged to maintain and practise their culture. To protect Canadians, if we are to have immigration at all, we must insist newcomers are culturally compatible. If they are not, they have no place here. France is paying the horrific price in blood to allowing a culturally hostile fifth column into their land. "Is this, then, about free speech?" I was asked next. Absolutely. Free speech is vital. Without it, you don't have a participatory democracy. Charlie Hebdo was satirical. It attacked Christians, often in the most vulgar of terms, and Moslems and others. I wouldn't agree with most of what they published, but freedom of expression is vital. "But, shouldn't there be limits on offending minorities?" he asked. Absolutely not! That's the veto of the heckler or, in this case, the terrorist. These foreigners must accept that they or their beliefs may be criticized. If they cannot accept that and insist on fire bombing or shooting critics (as they did in several attacks on Charlie Hebdo), then they have no place in our country. Ultimately, this is an immigration issue. The European and, I might add, the Canadian experiment with multiculturalism has been a colossal failure. Last fall, Canada began to reap the whirlwind with the killing of two unarmed Canadian soldiers right here in Canada by radical Moslems. Today, in volleys of targeted gunfire, France did too, with 12 dead and 10 wounded. Paul Fromm Director CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE p.s. Not a word of what I said appeared in Perkel's article on Canadian reactions to the Paris massacre. Why am I not surprised?
“Why do you think so?” I was asked. Canada’s lax and idiotic immigration policy has allowed people who do not share our values to enter this country. Canada is now home to over a million Moslems. Many are followers of radical Wahabbism. They hate the West. They hate our freedoms. They want to see us convert to Islam and adopt sharia law. They do not accept religious freedom or free speech. Worse, our policy of multiculturalism says all cultures are equal; that theirs is as good (or better than ours) and they are encouraged to maintain and practise their culture. To protect Canadians, if we are to have immigration at all, we must insist newcomers are culturally compatible. If they are not, they have no place here.  France is paying the horrific price in blood to allowing a culturally hostile fifth column into their land.
 
“Is this, then, about free speech?” I was asked next. Absolutely. Free speech is vital. Without it, you don’t have a participatory democracy. Charlie Hebdo was satirical. It attacked Christians, often in the most vulgar of terms, and Moslems and others. I wouldn’t agree with most of what they published, but freedom of expression is vital.
 
“But, shouldn’t there be limits on offending minorities?” he asked. Absolutely not! That’s the veto of the heckler or, in this case, the terrorist. These foreigners must accept that they or their beliefs may be criticized. If they cannot accept that and insist on fire bombing or shooting critics (as they did in several attacks on Charlie Hebdo), then they have no place in our country.
 
Ultimately, this is an immigration issue. The European and, I might add, the Canadian experiment with multiculturalism has been a colossal failure. Last fall, Canada began to reap the whirlwind with the killing of two unarmed Canadian soldiers right here in Canada by radical Moslems. Today, in volleys of targeted gunfire, France did too, with 12 dead and 10 wounded.
 
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADA FIRST IMMIGRATION REFORM COMMITTEE
 
p.s. Not a word of what I said appeared in Perkel’s article on Canadian reactions to the Paris massacre. Why am I not surprised?

 

“Hate speech laws – Repeal them,” St. Mary’s Prof. Says

Posted on by
2015-01-09

“Hate speech laws – Repeal them,” St. Mary’s Prof. Says

One thing we should do to increase our physical safety is repeal our remaining laws against hate speech.

Isn’t that claim outlandish? It might seem obvious that if we want to protect ourselves, we should instead police expression even more vigorously than we do now, so that violent people will be less likely to see or hear something that sets them off.

Well, of course, we know that by giving in to the heckler’s veto, we simply create more hecklers, and more raucous hecklers, at that. So maybe stricter laws against expression isn’t the answer. But how could having no anti-hate laws help us?

I don’t mean to argue here for repealing our laws against the expression of hate on the grounds that they are anti-democratic, or that they deform public discourse, or that they are contrary to the ideal of the moral autonomy of the individual, though I think each of those arguments is sound. I mean to explain how the laws we currently live under, mild though some think them (though Arthur Topham or David Ahenakew would disagree), encourage the offended to take up violence.

Those who lash out physically against people who (they feel) have ridiculed or offended them are lashing out because they believe they have suffered an injustice. My argument is that laws against the expression of hate endanger us because they affirm and encourage that belief.

That is to say, countries that have laws against hate speech proclaim through their laws that some targets of expression are, indeed, victims of injustice. As victims of injustice, they are entitled to restitution through the punishment of their assailants.

The police and the courts don’t always get things right, of course. Someone has defamed you by attacking your religion, and so you complain to the officials, but the officials decide that the speech that offended you didn’t cross the line. But it did, you think; or the line wasn’t properly placed. You believe that you are a victim of injustice, an injustice, moreover, that the state refuses to rectify.

How many times was Charlie Hebdo investigated for violating France’s laws against the expression of hate? At least twice, and both times acquitted. What’s left to do but attack it yourself?

If, on the other hand, Canadians were truly to embrace freedom of expression, and get rid of our laws that censor or suppress expression, we would thereby say to the world that being mocked or ridiculed or subjected to expressions of hate is not to suffer an injustice. That you have been insulted, offended, or upset by something someone said does not make you a victim, and you are not entitled to restitution or compensation.

Repealing our laws against the expression of hate would make us safer by removing from our culture official affirmation of the thought that a person’s hurt feelings merit official concern. Removing that thought would weaken the desire to take the law into one’s own hands when the state refuses to come to one’s aid.

My argument is speculative in that it contains a premise about cause and effect for which I cannot cite adequate evidence. According to that premise, removing laws that imply that one who has been offended or demeaned can thereby be a victim of injustice will result in fewer people thinking they are victims of injustice. If that premise is true, then that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was committed in France by Frenchmen isn’t entirely a coincidence, for France has stronger laws against the expression of hate than most other European countries and enforces them regularly.

But why think that that premise is true? Empirical evidence would be needed to settle the question. All I can say in defence of it right now is that, generally, legal culture affects the mores and attitudes of the individuals who make up a society.

For reasons of safety, then (along with all the other reasons), let us not accommodate even in the slightest demands that people be silenced, no matter what they say or how hurt people are by what they say. That would take offence out of the realm of law and politics, and that would (probably, maybe) lessen the chance that the aggrieved will style themselves victims and their violence justice.

Mark Mercer is Professor of philosophy at Saint Mary’s University, Halifax. He can be reached by e-mail: mark.mercer@smu.ca

–