Vancouver Man Fired for Historical Dissent

Vancouver Man Fired for Historical Dissent

On Dominion Day, some call it Canada Day, many commentators reminded Canadians how much they have to be grateful for. Many burbled on about Trudeau phony Charter (of limited Rights and Freedoms). They cited freedom of speech. Don’t believe it for a moment. Brian Ruhe of Vancouver, who runs a meet up group on UFOs/ Conspiracy Theories and has posted some you tubes of speeches on historical revisionism, is the latest Canadian to face poverty: job loss is the price, on your own time, away from work, for expressing politically incorrect opinions.

CAFE Director Paul Fromm spoke to his group on Sunday May 2 in Vancouver on the menace posed by Bill C-51. Mr. Ruhe recorded  a YouTube of the talk and posted it on the Internet.


Frederick Fromm's photo.

On May 12, he received a phone call from  someone calling himself “Lama Tsewang.” He is not Oriental. Mr. Ruhe says: “He is a Jew and a Canadian  Tibetan Buddhist lama named Lama Tsewang.” [It’s a weird old world!] The caller said: “Your students will know.” Mr. Ruhe teaches Buddhism and meditation at a number of venues in Vancouver. The caller continued: “The B’nai Brith is after you now. The school board will know about you. You’re a fascist, There is no free speech for fascists. The school board will know. I’ll make sure that you are fired. Fascism doesn’t deserve free speech. No free speech for fascism. Paul Fromm is not about free speech and anyone who brings him here cannot teach in a Buddhist temple. If you want to speak the truth, why did you bring Paul Fromm to speak?”

 Well, apparently, these were not idle threats. Clearly, calls were made and freedom of speech, great in the abstract, means little to many weak employers. Brian Ruhe, a successful and popular instructor, is out of a job. 

He explains:  “Today Friday July 3, I spoke on the phone with Bettina Boyle at Capilano University. She is the Programme Manager at Continuing Studies & Executive Education.  They are dropping me and trying other instructors but will keep me on file in case there is more demand. She said the evaluations of my courses  — Mindfulness Meditation for Stress Reduction —  were good and the attendance was good.

So, I said that didn’t make sense; if my evaluations were good then they should keep me. That’s what the other institutions have done. She sounded unsure of herself and said they decided on this a few months ago when this decision was made before she came.

Then she said they will get someone else for the fall and maybe they could consider me for the winter. I said that didn’t make sense either, because there is so little time, they should keep me for the fall since there’s no time now. They should have told me this months ago if they already knew they were dropping me, I said.

I said I believed that the real reason was because of my YouTube videos as I talk about Jewish supremacy and the revisionist history of World War II. She said she would check if there was another reason and call me back. She called back about five minutes later and admitted that they did have complaints and the reason I described was the reason why I was dropped, she admitted. She said they had to be really careful about these things. (So she lied initially.) I said I felt this is a free speech issue so what they’re doing isn’t right. She wouldn’t change her decision so I said I will challenge this. I have over 500 YouTube videos and I could make a video about this, I told her. She said I have the right to do that. I said I understand that, and I asked if that was all? It was, so we finished the conversation and then hung up.

The West End Community Centre didn’t give me a reason. This week I was also fired from the Burnaby School Board but they didn’t tell me the true reason, which is the same. Linda at the Burnaby School Board said that the reason was because they were phasing out some general interest courses in favour of courses which trained people for a job.”


I Have a Right to Hear ‘Hate’ Speech

I Have a Right to Hear ‘Hate’ Speech

Wouldn’t it be nice if the police spent their time policing what people do rather than policing what they say?

Don’t get me wrong. I hate ISIS. And I think anyone—especially a Canadian-born guy—who converts to Islam and Islamism, is an idiot. BUT. The arrest of Aaron Driver for merely twitting support for ISIS is both ridiculous and outrageous. As I understand it, the police have prohibited him from twitting or owning a computer (!!!!!!) Shouldn’t this ring alarm bells for us? What if the government one day designates the Swedish Democrats, or UKIP, or PEGIDA as ‘hate’ groups, and passes a law that stipulates that anyone in Canada who declares support for such organizations be apprehended, held for two weeks, electronically monitored and deprived of communicating over the Internet? I don’t think that scenario is far-fetched. In fact, I see it coming just over the horizon.

If we truly support freedom of expression in this country, we must support freedom of expression for those whose ideas we abhor. Freedom of speech means nothing if it is only to apply to ideas which we approve of. Authorities have the right and the obligation to monitor those who they believe are capable of committing terrorist acts, but I don’t believe they have a right to intercede simply because someone declares his support for terrorists and ‘enemies of the state’.

There is much talk today about youth being “radicalized” by what they read on the Internet. But oddly, little mention is made of youth being radicalized in the ‘One Party’ classrooms of Indoctrination University, where they fed a diet of cultural relativism and anti-Western Leftist propaganda. And there is an abundance of websites that echo that dogma too. Some of them even heap praise upon murderers like Che Guevera. If you are a ruthless killer in the service of “anti-colonialism” you are on the side of the angels.

Can disturbed and alienated individuals be “inspired” to commit acts of violence by what they read? Of course they can. Two of them were “inspired” by reading Catcher in the Rye. Two of them were “inspired” by the Turner Diaries.  Many,  like Charles Manson,  were “inspired” by rock lyrics. At least a hundred thousand Muslims are “inspired” by the Koran to do unspeakable things. Dylan Roof was apparently “inspired” by what he read on some ‘White Nationalist” websites.  Some people could even be “inspired” by what they read in the Yellow Pages or on a milk carton.

Every book or speech or website has the potential to inspire angry individuals on the edge to do anything.  Does that mean that government should be empowered to ban everything? How far along that road are we going to go? If some speech is to be banned and others not, what objective criteria can be found to determine what is over the line? Who gets to determine what is unacceptable? For ‘Progressives’ the answer is clear: Progressives. The possibility that one day the tables could be turned on them is beyond their comprehension.

I am not prepared to grant any government or any agency of the government the right to decide what is hateful and what is not. If the state  has the power to do that, then I am as vulnerable as is any fellow traveller of any cause the government deems unacceptable or dangerous. If this sounds like I am an ‘absolutist’ on this issue, I am not. Obviously there is a difference between voicing support for the actions of violent people, and inciting people to commit violent acts. Even the First Amendment makes allowance for some restrictions on speech. But that is not an open door for the kind of censorship, harassment, intimidation, punishment and persecution we are seeing now, particularly on the Canadian side of the border—and in many European states as well—Sweden and the UK being the best examples. Aaron Driver is not a terrorist or intent on becoming one. He is just a fool. And fools have a constitutional right to be fools.

But this is really not about Aaron Driver’s rights. It is about mine. I have a right to read ‘hate’ literature. I have a right to hear ‘hate’ speech. I have that right because any citizen in an authentic democracy has a right to make up his own mind about whether a given speech is meritorious or nonsensical. If citizens are not to be entrusted with that right, if their judgment is not to be trusted, then why are they given the right to vote? Why bother with elections? Why have a democracy? And why fund universities and college campuses who presently strangle the free exchange of ideas with Orwellian speech codes?

And by the way, the emotional state of a speaker is irrelevant. I don’t care whether a speaker is motivated by hate, love, infatuation envy, greed or any of the deadly sins. I don’t care if he or she is a nasty ‘bigot’ of bad character or Mother Theresa.  What matters to me is the content of his speech and its veracity. It’s God’s job to judge character. My job is to judge ideas.

I  heard what Mr. Driver’s has had to say about ISIL, as did millions of other TV viewers. I don’t think that any government agency or police force should be authorized to prevent other Canadians from hearing it too. It is as simple as that.

Read this extract from CBC News Manitoba:

Jeff Gindin, who has been a defence lawyer for more than four decades, calls the case unusual. He says it is contrary to all basic principles of criminal law. “So far there’s no real law that I’m aware of that when you think someone might commit an offence that you would then have the right to arrest them prior to that,” said Gindin, who is not representing Driver, but is following the case out of interest.

Using social media for evidence is becoming more common, he said.

“Normally, you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt to charge someone with an offence. Here you have to have some reason to suspect that they may be contributing in some way to terrorist activity,” Gindin said.

Take note of what I have underlined. Be careful about what you say on social media. You are not living in a free country anymore.

PS According to CBC News, Driver grew up in London, Ontario. That doesn’t surprise me. London seems to be the epicentre of far-left lunacy. And the University of Western Ontario  must have a lot to do with that. The NDP MP for London-Fanshawe, boomer bimbo Irene Mathyssen, went through the UWO conveyor belt and as could have been predicted, emerged as a mindless moron.  I recall a friend of mine locking horns with her some 7 years ago, and her pathetic pathological altruism was evident. When she was reminded that Canada has the highest per capita immigration intake in the world, her biggest beef was that the government was not processing immigrant applications fast enough!

However, even a brainless bimbo has the right to utter nonsense. But the likes of Mathyssen  and her political collaborators have no right to deny people who do not share her perspective the right to publically contest it on a level playing field. She and people of her ilk have no right to impose a trendy ‘progressive’ version of sharia-like speech constraints on the infidels of the ‘far right’.  She is as much or more an enemy of democracy as Aaron Driver.

Tim Murray

June 26, 2015

— “Retain the power of speech no matter what other power you may lose… Do what you will, but speak out always. Beshunned, be hated, be ridiculed, be scared, be in doubt, but don’t be gagged. The time of trial is always. Now is the appointed time” John Jay Chapman – 1900 “Candour before tact, honesty before diplomacy.” Tim Murray – 2006

Toronto Journalist Protests Against Flag Shop Removing the Confederate Flag

Toronto Journalist Protests Against Flag Shop Removing the Confederate Flag
To: Susan Braverman
Dear Susan,
President of The Flag Shop,

I came across your website since your business is located in Canada, and the Confederate Battle Flag is still indexed as being available in both fabric flags and decal stickers.

Though when I tried to place an order I was appalled when I was redirected to a notice that your company has banned the flag permanently.

In your “Press Release” you obviously used this to ban ANY flag you assume would offend historically ignorant zombies including “the flag of apartheid-era South Africa”.

Yet you still sell the flags of the old Soviet Union, Maoist China, North Korea, Castro’s Cuba, North Vietnam, Sierra Leone… not to mention almost every mass murdering tin pot banana republic in Africa and Asia. So, your state that the Confederate Battle Flag (which was never the actual flag of the Confederate States of America) is “a symbol for hate and racism”. This is pathetic considering your unwavering support of the genocide of FAR OVER A HUNDRED MILLION people. You also have NO problem selling the so called “post-apartheid-era” African National Congress flag. This brutal Marxist terrorist regime that committed unquestionable ethnic cleansing of white founding settlers by burning them alive with gasoline and rubber tires.

Many national flags you sell today are *STILL* symbols of repressed Communist hell holes where human rights violations and genocide are government policy. I am not going to try and educate you on the true facts surrounding the War of Northern Aggression, nor do you actually care.

You are just another putz who jumped on the politically correct bandwagon, fearing a loss in revenue from sales of Rainbow Flags, Stars of David, and mass-extermination paraphernalia from multicult sheeple with a credit card. The fact you used the banning of the Stars and Bars to advertise some ungodly pink “Anti-Bullying” flag is a double standard insanity. I guess mass murder, terror, torture and rape is not bullying to you. Yet, somehow Southern Pride is.

You, madam, make me sick!

Robert James


    • The maximum quantity allowed for purchase is 0.

Confederate Battle Flag

Double click on above image to view full picture

Zoom Out

Zoom In


Confederate Battle Flag

PRICE: CA$0.00

Be the first to review this product

This product is permanently unavailable.
Confederate Battle Flag often referred to as The battle flag of the Confederacy, it was the design that was the basis of more than 180 separate Confederate military battle flags.



The Flag Shop halts sales of Confederate Battle Flag

Vancouver, BC (June 24, 2015) – The Flag Shop announces that, effective Monday June 22, all thirteen locations of The Flag Shop have removed the Confederate Flag (or Battle Flag of North Virginia) from the stock product line.

“The Flag Shop offers all of the current flags of the US States as well as a number of historical flags,” says Susan Braverman, President of The Flag Shop, “but when a historical US flag is increasingly used by racist groups as a symbol of hate, it makes me sick to my stomach. I knew it was time for us to remove the Confederate Flag from our stores.”

The Flag Shop has added the Confederate flag to its list of flags that will not be sold to the public. This list includes the flags of World War II Germany, the flag of Rhodesia, and the flag of apartheid-era South Africa. Museums, the film industry, and others with a genuine historical need may still contact us and will be considered on a case-by-case basis.

The Flag Shop does not condone or allow racism or racist behaviour in any way, shape or form and we are doing what we can to support positive messages of dignity, equality, diversity and safety amongst all Canadians. We are national advocates of Anti-Bullying, proud supporters of PRIDE and the LGBT+ communities and committed to the teachers of our children throughout Canada.

Businesses and government agencies interested in advocating positive corporate social responsibility and acting for the benefit of society are invited to contact The Flag Shop to discuss how we might work together in Canada.

Absurd: Judge Won’t Consider Charter Objection Until AFTER Topham “Hate Speech” Trial

Absurd: Judge Won’t Consider Charter Objection Until AFTER Topham “Hate Speech” Trial

 “Hate speech” trials are an abuse BY process. The judge’s decision is absurd. He’s saying, “put Topham through the expense and trauma of a trial and then will decide whether the whole proceeding is constitutional.” It is Alice in Wonderland persecution of dissent. 
If one doesn’t like Topham’s views go to another webpage. Actually, the persecution of Arthur Topham, first under the now repealed and notorious Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and now under the “hate law” tends to validate Topham’s point that these are minority instigated prosecutions to shelter certain privileged groups, in this case, Zionists, from critique or criticism.
It has nothing to do with “hate”. You are completely free to mock, hate and vilify White Europeans and Christians. None other than the Chief Supremo Beverley McLaughlin defames Euro-Canadians in saying our effort to educate natives through the residential school system was “cultural genocide.” 
However,accuse Israel of genocide against Palestinians and you end up in court like Arthur Topham.
Paul Fromm

Judge in hate speech trial won’t hear free speech charter argument before trial

By Glynn Brothen

(GLYNN BROTHEN /InfoTel Multimedia)
July 13, 2015 – 9:00 PM

QUESNEL – The hate-speech versus free-speech debate continues in a Quesnel courtroom after a judge decided to wait until the end of trial to hear constitutional arguments from the accused charged with promoting hatred.

Roy Arthur Topham, born 1947, is charged with promoting hatred against those of the Jewish religion or ethnic group on his website called the Radical Press. On the site, Topham writes anti-zionist content, has links to Hitler’s Mein Kampf and provides regular blog entries on his court case.

Last week in Quesnel Supreme Court, Justice Bruce Butler dismissed Topham’s application to have his constitutional argument of freedom of expression heard before trial.

“This can only be done at the conclusion of the trial. It would be unwise to embark on a consideration of the issues at this stage of the proceedings,” the justice said in his reasons for judgment. 

Topham was charged in 2012. He elected to be tried before judge and jury.

To contact a reporter for this story, email Glynn Brothen at, or call 250-319-7494. To contact the editor, email or call 250-718-2724.


Topham “Hate Trial” to Proceed Oct. 26; Charter Argument Postponed

Topham “Hate Trial” to Proceed Oct. 26; Charter Argument Postponed
Dear Radical Press Reader,
It has been close to a month now since I last posted an article. This is a rather long time given the usual amount of information regularly furnished to the site and it requires further explanation.
Since the end of April I have been caring for an older brother of mine who came down with a serious case of melanoma (skin cancer). Being on his own and handicapped and living in North Vancouver I had little choice but to spend a great deal of time away from my home in Cottonwood, B.C. (approximately 700 km NE of Vancouver).
My dear brother David passed away on July 1st and since that time I’ve been dealing with all the legal matters associated with his death. All of this has taken a heavy toll on my time and energy and prevented me from carrying on with my normal line of work, i.e. exposing the Zionist New World Order agenda and defending myself against the spurious, politically-motivated Sec. 319(2) CCC “hate crime” criminal charges that were brought against me back in May of 2012 thanks to the machinations of B’nai Brith Canada and its agents working for the Jewish lobby.
It was during one of my trips to the coast that I attended the hearing being held in the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver in June. That event and the outcome of it will be the subject of my next Legal Update. Suffice it to say here that the judge hearing the case, Justice Butler, declined to allow the Charter challenge to proceed prior to the pending trial set for October 26th, 2015.
What this means is that the case will proceed to trial although it is still uncertain as to whether or not the actual date set will remain fixed. This is due to the fact that now that the Charterapplication has been refused and the majority of the funds raised in order to pay counsel to represent me at the hearing are exhausted I am faced with having to raise another substantial amount of money in order to retain counsel for the actual trial in the fall. What that amount will be is not determined at this point. My current counsel was acting on my behalf on what in legalese is called a “limited retainer” which means that he was hired only to deal with the Charter application. The trial itself, which could run for ten days, will require additional funding upwards of possibly $40,000.00. The exact amount is still undetermined at this stage but it means that I will have to re-apply for another Rowbotham application in order to assist me in paying the cost of hiring counsel.
The procedure for doing a Rowbotham was initiated back in June when I approached the local Legal Aid office here in Quesnel and, as per their unreasonable policies, was refused based upon the amount of donations that I was receiving at the time. I then wrote to the provincial office in Vancouver requesting that they reconsider their decision and I am currently awaiting word from the head office. When they reply and refuse me a second time (which they inevitably do) then I can proceed with the Rowbotham application. Time of course is running out and it does take time to jump through all the legal hoops involved in applying for funding in this manner for the Attorney General’s office is not about to assist me in hiring counsel when, at the same time, they are hell-bent on convicting me of this spurious, politically-motivated “hate” charge. So the outcome of this next stage of developments is still very tentative and uncertain. If I cannot come up with the funds then I will be left with only one recourse and that will be to represent myself.
My GoGetFunding account is still active for those who may wish to assist in helping me to defray the cost of retaining their constitutional right to freedom of speech here in Canada. It will be a tough row to hoe to raise another $35 to $40 thousand dollars to fight this Zionist-created creature in the courtroom but one way or another the challenge must be met if Canadians wish to retain their most valued and fundamental right.
One final word on the planned Legal Update. I’m still not sure of my schedule over the next month or so as I am awaiting word from the lawyer who is dealing with my brother’s estate. I am currently at home but could be forced to return to North Vancouver any day and then my ability to focus on the update will undoubtedly be delayed.
My apologies to readers for all of this extra hindrance and the lack of posts. Hopefully this will return to normal in the next while.


Arthur Topham
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

Crown Drops Four Charges Against Political Prisoner Brad Love

FORT MCMURRAY, July 13, 2015. A letter from the Crown prosecutor received by Brad Love today announced that four charges pf breach of probation have been dropped.

The charges related to Mr. Love having contacted four different Edmonton  journalists by phone or letter. All write for papers who invite reader comment. The charges were based on a reading of Judge Kelly Wright’s incredible probation conditions
The charges were four counts of  breach of probation [Sec. 733.1] involving communication in Edmonton, November 13, November 24, 2014 and January 7 and 8, 2015, with unnamed media in Edmonton. “Being bound by a probation order dated the 13 day of July, 2012, [Mr. Love] did without reasonable excuse, fail or refuse to comply with the order in that he failed top abstain from any political speech, correspondence, communication or commentary with any media outlet.” Yes, that bail condition was actually imposed by Ontario Judge Kelly Wright, not by some judge in Cuba or North Korea.
What’s quoted in the charge is not exactly what Judge Wright said. I was there. She ordered: “Mr.  Love is to refrain from any political speech or commentary to any media  outlet, political, cultural or religious group or organization, or  police organization.”
Mr. Love has been battling for 13 years to secure his right to write to the press and public officials and has served over 32 months in prison in that time for nothing more than the non-violent expression, through letters to public officials or the press, of his political opinions.
Frederick Fromm's photo.
He still faces charges in Fort McMurray, October 26, for having breached his probation.  These accusations of “breach of probation” stem from his having a discussion with a journalist at a winter fair,and calling the RCMP to find out if there’d been any developments in the case of a Pakistani woman who flew back to Alberta with illegal insecticide and ended up killing two of her children inadvertently.
As well, he faces one count for allegedly uttering threats in a casual conversation with other workers. The alleged threat was not directed at any of the workers. Fort Mac, Brad reports, is rife with police informers and envious people, most of them White sadly enough, eager to do each other harm.– Paul Fromm

Free Speech in Canada? Don’t Believe It — Open your mouth and you Lose Your Job?

  • Free Speech in Canada? Don’t Believe It — Open your mouth and you Lose Your Job?

    Guest speaker Paul Fromm Returns: Free Speech in Canada?

    • Thursday, July 23, 2015

      7:00 PM to 9:00 PM

    • Price: CAD8.00/per person

      Refund policy


      Paul Fromm gave us a dynamic and entertaining lecture on May 3rd! Paul will return to tell us how political correctness for the past 30 years has threatened poverty to people who express controversial opinions on their own time, off the job. This topic is very relevant to our Organizer, Brian Ruhe who was just fired on July 3rd from his teaching job at Capilano University because of his free speech in his YouTube videos.

      Paul has a long history going back to the 1960’s in political activism and free speech issues.

      Paul Fromm heads the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee and the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Canada’s leading defender of free speech. He has battled Canada’s Internet censors and supported political prisoners Brad Love, Terry Tremaine, Arthur Topham and David Irving.

      His free speech work has made him the object of arson and death threats from the ARA, who staged a protest outside his Port Credit home in 2006. As part of state pay-back for his free speech work, he has been  routinely hassled by Canada Customs, and had books, including Irish Fairy Tales, seized as possible “hate propaganda.”.  Customs also seized his laptop on suspicion of containing “hate.”

      An author and former English instructor, Mr. Fromm was fired from his position by the Peel Board of Education in 1997, after years of pressure from Jewish lobby groups who hated his support for victims of censorship and his opposition to the Third World invasion of Canada. In 2014, Mr. Fromm ran for mayor of the city of Mississauga, population 720,000, on a campaign of opposition to immigration, the undisputed cause of traffic gridlock, the number one issue for voters in the city.

      Suggested donation $8

      I’m looking forward to hosting Paul again. The YouTube video from hisMay 3 talk to our Meetup group is at:

      -Brian Ruhe

Court of Appeals Reserves in Crucial McCorkill Appeal: Key Free Speech & Property Rights on the Line

Court of Appeals Reserves in Crucial McCorkill Appeal: Key Free Speech & Property Rights on the Line
Fredericton, New Brunswick. June 18, 2015. A three judge panel of the New Brunswick Court of Appeals reserved its decision in the McCorkill Will appeal. Panel chairman Judge Kathleen Quigg said: “We are going to try to do it as quickly as possible but it also must be translated (into French). It will take a couple of months.” Experienced court observers predicted a six month wait for the decision.
“This case is crucial for freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs and for property rights in Canada,” said Paul Fromm Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression in a statement before the appeal began.
The late chemistry professor William McCorkill left the bulk of his estate consisting of old artifacts and rare coins, variously estimated at between $150,000 and a million dollars, to the U.S.-based White nationalist National Alliance. The will was probated in 2013. When the information became public, a Montgomery based censorship group called the Southern Poverty Law Center complained that the bequest would revive Nazism. The SPLC had no standing in Canada, but Ottawa lawyer, copious human rights complainant and loud anti-racist Richard Warman took up the cry and announced the will should be nullified as the bequest was “contrary to public policy.” Isabelle McCorkell *yes, different spelling), the long estranged sister of Robert McCorkill, who had taken no part in the nine year probate proceedings emerged and made an application to nullify the will on the grounds, get this, that it was “contrary to public policy.” Quickly the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith intervened in support of this brazen attack on property rights. The Canadian Association for Free Expression intervened to support the lawyer for the trustee, John Hughes of Moncton, and to support freedom of belief, freedom of speech and property rights, specifically, the right of a testator to direct his estate as he sees fit.
The application was heard in January, 2014. In June, 2014, in a surprise decision, Mr. Justice William Grant nullified the bequest on the grounds that it was “contrary to public policy.”
The bulk of the work of an appeal is in the written submissions presented to the Court. The actual appeal hearing allows each party to highlight their best arguments and the judges to question and challenge these arguments.
CAFE’s lawyer Andy Lodge explained: “We are here today because the Court of First Instance found the National Alliance, the beneficiary of the the gift to be unworthy. This is a ground breaking precedent. There are no conditions in the bequest. Some of the evidence in the affidavits [there was no viva voce testimony] was double hearsay. There was no previous case law to rely on. The goals and objectives of the National Alliance should not be in question.
Mr. Lodge was repeatedly interrupted by questions from Judge Alexandre Deschenes.
Mr. Lodge continued: “The public policy grounds have generally been a last resort in an effort to invalidate a bequest. There has been much discussion about the activities, communications and character of the National Alliance. the test should be McCorkill.” He gave this bequest with no strings or directions attached. “Giving a bequest to a group some find objectionable is not contrary to public policy. It is difficult to evaluate the character of a beneficiary. This could be a very, very slippery slope, It will shift estate litigation to evaluating beneficiaries. You step away from the conditions, if any, imposed by the testator. How is a court to evaluate how an organization might spend the money. This decision opens that door.”
Chairman Justice Quigg wondered: “:Just because it’s new law, just because we have no jurisprudence to rely on doesn’t mean we can’t go forth. There’s legislation against the dissemination of hate propaganda. There could be a link here between the National Alliance and dissemination.”
Then joining the battle of behalf of CAFE was Mr. Lodge’s associate Jean-Yves Bernard. “Is it to be against public policy to give a bequest to a group or person of bad character?” he asked. Mr. Justice Grant is creating new law.” The ruling, he added, “creates a problem for estate law, as we must now look at the character of the beneficiaries, their worthiness. It brings ambiguity into estate law.”
“These cases would be very rare,” Judge Quigg suggested.
The Grant ruling  has created “a sliding scale. It makes estate matters very unpredictable,” Mr. Bernard added. “Untiol now a testator could dispose of property as he saw fit, unless he imposed a codicil that was illegal” — like a New Brunswick will, frequently cited in this case,  where the testator wanted his four horses shot.. The Charter supports freedom of belief and the right to support a belief with a bequest.  Already this case has inspired Spence v BMO using ‘public policy’ to state we should write someone into a will because the testator wrote someone out of the will on racial grounds.”
Next, John Hughes of Moncton, lawyer for the Trustee or Executor of the Estate, weighed in to support CAFE. “The International Boundary separates the U.S. from Canada,” he explained. The McCorkill will makes a bequest in New Brunswick but the proceeds go to a beneficiary in the United States.”
Frederick Fromm's photo.
CAFE Director Paul Fromm with John Hughes, lawyer for the
Trustee of the McCorkill Estate, Provincial Court of Appeal,
Fredericton, NB., June 18, 2015.
“I labour under a restriction because of a lack of funds due to a Court injunction  freezing the funds of the estate. “This injunction has crippled the ability of the estate to defend itself and has caused the abandonment of one of the Estate’s appeals.”
 “The beneficiaries are in the U.S. and this raises the question of ‘public policy.’ Whose public policy? There is no evidence that the National Alliance was ever cjarged or convicted in either Canada or the U.S. The National Alliance in the U.S. is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.” And, he added, former N.A. Chairman Erick Gleibe stated in his affidavit that the organization has no activities in Canada. “How can a Canadian Court deny a bequest to a U.S. citizen or group?” he demanded. “This is extraterritoriality.”
He then turned his guns on the mischievous organization behind this raid on the estate. “The outrage of minorities to this bequest is irrelevant. this estate is being sent to the United States. The Southern Poverty Law Centre is the puppet master behind this case. The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith [which has since withdrawn from the appeal] in its submissions made clear references to SPLC’s website.”
One of the interveners, he added, “went into a rant against Mr. Fromm and CAFE which I objected to as irrelevant.”  He observed that the SPLC separates its contributors from tens of millions of dollars to enrich itself. The Attorney General has been led down the garden path. The SPLC has enlisted law enforcement agencies and seems to have sold a bill of goods to the new Brunswick Attorney General,” he charged. “And the puppet master role of the SPLC seeks to manipulate the Court of New Brunswick. The Wills Act, Sec. 24(2) of New Brunswick holds that a testator may will his bequest as he sees fit. His failure to note this was an error on Judge Grant’s part,” he argued. “the will, therefore, has legal protection in New Brunswick.”
In his decision, Judge Grant “characterized the National Alliance as unreservedly criminal,” Mr. Hughes said. “However, we have a special obligation to our own race, to improve its prospects. It is not racism. There was  no evidence of the National Alliance operating in New Brunswick. Yet, Judge Grant points to the participation of the Attorney General of New Brunswick as an intervener to protect the people of New Brunswick.”
Further, Mr. Hughes argued, “there is no evidence of National Alliance Internet dissemination in Canada. Therefore, Judge Grant had to jurisdiction to make the findings he did. Groups that don’t value White survival have criticized the National Alliance.”
In response to criticisms of National Alliance founder William Pierce’s fictional writings — The Turner Diaries and Hunter — and ther violence associated with race war in those pages, Mr. Hughes argued: “Where would Hollywood or pulp fiction be without fictional violence. Dr. Pierce’s goal in writing was the preservation of the White Race.”
“To render a judgement against a group from another country because of its character is an insult to the U.S.,” he added.
“Where do we get the authority our own public policy” to a U.S. group?”  Mr. Justice Deschenes asked.
Continuing, Mr. Hughes said: “The Executor has asked me to express the point that. Justice Grant may have been biased” in freezing the assets of the Estate and money due the National Alliance and my accounts. He could have entertained a review of the passing (or unfreezing of the assets) of my accounts, but he postponed it until after this appeal.” The lack of funds had restricted Mr. Hughes ability to act.
Next came those arguing against the appeal. Mr. Justice Deschenes observed: “Promoting the White Race is not necessarily detrimental.”
Arguing for the Applicant Isabelle McCorkell, Marc-Antoine Chiasson insisted: “Promoting the White Race if it is the majority, is detrimental to minorities.” Admitting that such brazen court intervention to nullify a will as contrary to public policy had little precedent, he said: “To suggest that because it’s a novel idea doesn’t mean the courts shouldn’t intervene. This Court is absolutely able and should intervene. There is evidence that the National Alliance is a White supremacist organization. Public policy is that hate propaganda and hate groups offend public policy. So, therefore a gift to the National Alliance offends public policy. Mr. Chiasson then contended that advocating for “White living space flies fully in the face of  public policy.’
“Why can’t Mr. McCorkill make a gift to an organization that is functioning legally in the United States without impediment?” Mr. Justice Deschenes queried,
“International boundaries shouldn’t be an impediment to voiding the will,” Mr. Chiasson responded. Also, “I don’t believe fear of opening the floodgates [to more litigation] is sufficient grounds not to act.”
“But there is no precedent on this issue,” Mr. Justice Deschenes interjected.
Mr. Chiasson admitted: “There is not.” Then, he persisted: “The impact of this gift flies against public policy. The fact that this gift would help fund a hate group flies against public policy. I ask the Court to dismiss the appeal and we seek costs from CAFE.”
Arguing for the Attorney General of New Brunswick, Richard Williams admitted: “None of us has been able to find a similar case iin our extensive research, as Mr. Lodge has indicated.. This seems to be the first case of its kind in Canada where a beneficiary’s character is at issue. This is a rare instance. The National Alliance has no redeeming qualities. Even a drug addict is someone’s son.”
Almost the last word was left to Mr. Justice Deschenes: “If the National Alliance had been performing illegal acts in the United States, the judge [Grant] and parties would have known about it.”
Please consider making a contribution to help CAFE pay its bills in this crucial appeal defending free speech and property rights.

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3


__   Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE pay off its legal bills in the McCorkill Will Appeal to be heard in New Brunswick this month.

__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.

__  Please renew my subscription for 2015 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#_________________________________________

Expiry date: ______ Signature:_______________________________________________



Address:________________________________________________       _______________________________________________________Email___________________________________