Great CAFE Meeting in Victoria
Fantastic Canadian Association for Free Expression gathering in Victoria last night.
My topic: COVID Craziness: Cancelling Our Rights – Medico-Stalinism is Upon Us (Gov’t, media & big business in cahoots).
Attendees came from as far away as Nanaimo & Metchosin. Lively discussion
A CAFE Supporter Challenges Freedom Lovers in the GTA –Time to Put on Your Marching Boots: END THE LOCKDOWN RALLY, Toronto, Saturday, October 24 — Be There
Nobody here is going to accomplish anything politically from behind your computers and hiding at home, especially under current tyrannical rule.
Work on getting your freedoms back first!
It’s time to lace up your boots, get out there, and march!
Faith without works is dead.
Two Saturdays ago, a minimum of 4,000 patriots and freedom
fighters (myself included) took over downtown Toronto and marched.
Think I’m lying?
Check out this Tweet and look at that crowd: https://twitter.com/intent/like?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1317533226810941440%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3%2Ccontainerclick_1&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthepostmillennial.com%2Fcrowd-of-4000-protests-lockdowns-in-toronto&tweet_id=1317533226810941440
If you live in Ontario, I expect you out next Saturday, 12:00 p.m. at Dundas Square (Yonge and Dundas St.). No excuses!
If you’re outside of Ontario, find a march near you. They’re happening all over the country.
Cheers,
Ryan
FORCED MASKS — WE’VE BEEN SCAMMED! “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little if any protection from infection. The desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.” — NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, May, 2020.
THE GREATEST HEALTH THREAT IN OUR LIFETIMES? — ”
The basic facts are that the coronavirus is not fatal to 99.997 per cent
of people under the age of 65, and not fatal to 94.6 per cent of people
above the age of 65. The vast majority of people of all ages, including
the elderly, have zero or minimal symptoms when afflicted by it. The
approximately 98 per cent of people who do contract the coronavirus and
survive it appear to be thereafter largely immune to it, at least for a
time.” — Conrad Black (National Post, October 24, 2020)
“Research also shows that over 80 per cent of fatalities attributed to the coronavirus in advanced countries that test comprehensively and report accurately are people who also suffer from other significant illnesses or vulnerabilities. The extent to which the coronavirus is the effective cause of death varies in each case and is sometimes nearly impossible to determine.” — — Conrad Black (National Post, October 24, 2020)
Lady Michele Renouf’s Thought Crimes Trial in Germany Suddenly Adjourned, Gag Order Imposed
British actress, model and longtime videographer (through her company Telling Films) and free speech activist Lady Michele Renouf was to go on trial in Dresden, Germany on October 16. We can’t report on the proceedings because neither Lady Michele nor her associate and publicist Peter Rushton is allowed to comment on the proceedings. We have been advised that they were suddenly halted and no date set for their continuation.
Peter Rushton reports: “On 16th October 2020 an Australian-born Briton goes on trial in Dresden for ‘incitement’ – not for terrorism or threats, but because of a 10-minute speech given to 300 mourners at a commemoration of the Allied terror bombing of Dresden in 1945.The charges have been brought under Germany’s draconian volksverhetzung law – Para 130 of the criminal code, against Lady Michèle Renouf. … In February 2018 Lady Renouf attended a public commemoration in central Dresden, marking the anniversary of the 1945 terror bombing by the Royal Air Force and the USAAF. Responding to an anti-British comment by someone in the crowd, Lady Renouf was invited to give a brief spontaneous speech in which she acknowledged Britain’s shame for its deliberate wartime policy of targeting civilians.
During this speech she referred to the following facts:
Many influential Britons at the time condemned Churchill’s barbaric terror bombing policy and the associated demand for unconditional surrender – such people included Lord Hankey (formerly Sir Maurice Hankey, founder of the modern civil service); the Rt. Rev. George Bell, Bishop of Chichester; Labour MP and future minister Richard Stokes; and government scientist and future bestselling novelist C.P. Snow.
The terror bombing of Dresden was a literal holocaust in which tens of thousands of civilians were burned alive. We shall never know the atrocity’s exact death toll, because the city was packed with refugees – uncounted and undocumented – fleeing from the advancing Soviet Red Army.
The Allied justification for this targeting of civilians was that Britain and America were at war with Germany. Yet, this factor is ignored when discussing what has become known as the ‘Holocaust’, an unchallengeable dogma taking the place of history.
The simple fact that Jewish civilians were interned in camps is today regarded as a ‘war crime’ and part of ‘genocide’, regardless of what did or did not happen in the camps themselves, a topic which Lady Renouf did not address, knowing that it is illegal in Germany to debate such matters. It is odd to condemn internment itself as criminal, bearing in mind that both Britain and America interned enemy aliens. It is scarcely surprising that European Jews were placed in this ‘enemy alien’ category, given the actions of the self-styled leaders of World Jewry who had as early as 1933 declared economic war on Germany. Moreover the future founders of Israel such as Chaim Weizmann were actively engaged in a campaign of covert warfare, some of it contrary to international law, in collaboration with Britain’s Special Operations Executive. In itself it was not unreasonable for the German authorities to intern large numbers of European Jews as potential collaborators in this covert war.
On Friday, October 16, CAFE supporters and Truth and Justice for Germans staged a protest outside the German Consulate in Toronto urging Germany to drop all charges against Lady Michele and show respect for freedom of speech.
CAFE Urges Vancouver City Council Not to Impose Masking Indoors
Canadian Association for Free Expression, BC,
Paul Fromm, Director
Dear Member of Council:
In the past eight months, Canadians have seen the most massive intrusion into their freedoms and civil rights in our nation’s history, dwarfing even the War Measures Act.
Travel to some provinces has been banned or restricted; businesses forced to close down; jobs eliminated and the mandating of intrusive,
uncomfortable and largely useless face masks. Remember back to March and April when Teresa Tam, Chief Medical Officer of Health for Canada dismissed masks as not very effective? What has changed? If you’re a smoker, take a strong drag on your cigarette, hold the smoke in your lungs, put on your mask and exhale. The smoke will drift through the mask and up and down and around and over it. If the mask can’t stop the smoke you can see, how will it stop the virus you can’t see?
You are being urged to require that masks be worn indoors at city facilities. The motion is to be presented October 20 by Councillor Sarah Kirby-Yung.
According to CTV News (October 7, 2020, “Richmond’s medical health officer Dr. Meena Dawar… indicated she favoured other precautions over mandating masks. ‘There is little justification for a mandatory mask policy and I recommend that it not be pursued,” Dr. Dawar wrote, and added buying masks could create ‘additional financial costs for already stretched households,’ as well as create potential barriers for people who cannot wear masks due to certain medical conditions. ‘In the hierarchy of measures public health has recommended to prevent transmission since the beginning of the pandemic, non-medical mask wearing is one of the lowest.'””
I append a statement by many prominent medical men and women that the forced lockdowns and masking are the wrong way to handle the COVID virus.
Paul FrommDirector
7192 Medical & Public Health Scientists 7,192
16066 Medical Practitioners
231838 General Public
The Great Barrington Declaration – As infectious disease epidemiologists and public health scientists we have grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies, and recommend an approach we call Focused Protection.
Coming from both the left and right, and around the world, we have devoted our careers to protecting people. Current lockdown policies are producing devastating effects on short and long-term public health. The results (to name a few) include lower childhood vaccination rates, worsening cardiovascular disease outcomes, fewer cancer screenings and deteriorating mental health – leading to greater excess mortality in years to come, with the working class and younger members of society carrying the heaviest burden. Keeping students out of school is a grave injustice.
Keeping these measures in place until a vaccine is available will cause irreparable damage, with the underprivileged disproportionately harmed.
Fortunately, our understanding of the virus is growing. We know that vulnerability to death from COVID-19 is more than a thousand-fold higher in the old and infirm than the young. Indeed, for children, COVID-19 is less dangerous than many other harms, including influenza.
As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.
The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection.
Adopting measures to protect the vulnerable should be the central aim of public health responses to COVID-19. By way of example, nursing homes should use staff with acquired immunity and perform frequent PCR testing of other staff and all visitors. Staff rotation should be minimized. Retired people living at home should have groceries and other essentials delivered to their home. When possible, they should meet family members outside rather than inside. A comprehensive and detailed list of measures, including approaches to multi-generational households, can be implemented, and is well within the scope and capability of public health professionals.
Those who are not vulnerable should immediately be allowed to resume life as normal. Simple hygiene measures, such as hand washing and staying home when sick should be practiced by everyone to reduce the herd immunity threshold. Schools and universities should be open for in-person teaching. Extracurricular activities, such as sports, should be resumed. Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home. Restaurants and other businesses should open. Arts, music, sport and other cultural activities should resume. People who are more at risk may participate if they wish, while society as a whole enjoys the protection conferred upon the vulnerable by those who have built up herd immunity.
On October 4, 2020, this declaration was authored and signed in Great Barrington, United States, by:
Dr. Martin Kulldorff, professor of medicine at Harvard University, a biostatistician, and epidemiologist with expertise in detecting and monitoring of infectious disease outbreaks and vaccine safety evaluations.
Dr. Sunetra Gupta, professor at Oxford University, an epidemiologist with expertise in immunology, vaccine development, and mathematical modeling of infectious diseases.
Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, professor at Stanford University Medical School, a physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases and vulnerable populations. Sign the Declaration
Dr. Rajiv Bhatia, physician, epidemiologist and public policy expert at the Veterans Administration, USA
Dr. Stephen Bremner,professor of medical statistics, University of Sussex, England
Dr. Anthony J Brookes, professor of genetics, University of Leicester, England
Dr. Helen Colhoun, ,professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, and public health physician, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Dr. Angus Dalgleish, oncologist, infectious disease expert and professor, St. George’s Hospital Medical School, University of London, EnglandDr. Sylvia Fogel, autism expert and psychiatrist at Massachusetts General Hospital and instructor at Harvard Medical School, USA
Dr. Eitan Friedman, professor of medicine, Tel-Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Uri Gavish, biomedical consultant, Israel
Dr. Motti Gerlic, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, IsraelDr. Gabriela Gomes, mathematician studying infectious disease epidemiology, professor, University of Strathclyde, Scotland
Dr. Mike Hulme, professor of human geography, University of Cambridge, EnglandDr. Michael Jackson, research fellow, School of Biological Sciences, University of Canterbury, New Zealand Dr. Annie Janvier, professor of pediatrics and clinical ethics, Université de Montréal and Sainte-Justine University Medical Centre, Canada
Dr. David Katz, physician and president, True Health Initiative, and founder of the Yale University Prevention Research Center, USADr. Andrius Kavaliunas, epidemiologist and assistant professor at Karolinska Institute, Sweden Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences and of biomedical data science, Stanford University Medical School, USA
Dr. Michael Levitt, biophysicist and professor of structural biology, Stanford University, USA.
Recipient of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry.
Dr. David Livermore, microbiologist, infectious disease epidemiologist and professor, University of East Anglia, EnglandDr. Jonas Ludvigsson, pediatrician, epidemiologist and professor at Karolinska Institute and senior physician at Örebro University Hospital, Sweden Dr. Paul McKeigue, physician, disease modeler and professor of epidemiology and public health, University of Edinburgh, Scotland Dr. Cody Meissner, professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety. Tufts University School of Medicine, USA
Dr. Ariel Munitz, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Yaz Gulnur Muradoglu, professor of finance, director of the Behavioural Finance Working Group, Queen Mary University of London, England
Dr. Partha P. Majumder, professor and founder of the National Institute of Biomedical Genomics, Kalyani, India
Dr. Udi Qimron, professor of clinical microbiology and immunology, Tel Aviv University, Israel
Dr. Matthew Ratcliffe, professor of philosophy, specializing in philosophy of mental health, University of York, EnglandDr. Mario Recker, malaria researcher and associate professor, University of Exeter, England Dr. Eyal Shahar, physician, epidemiologist and professor (emeritus) of public health, University of Arizona, USA
Dr. Karol Sikora MA, physician, oncologist, and professor of medicine at the University of Buckingham, EnglandDr. Matthew Strauss, critical care physician and assistant professor of medicine, Queen’s University, Canada Dr. Rodney Sturdivant, infectious disease scientist and associate professor of biostatistics, Baylor University, USA Dr. Simon Thornley, epidemiologist and biostatistician, University of Auckland, New Zealand
Dr. Ellen Townsend, professor of psychology, head of the Self-Harm Research Group, University of Nottingham, England
Dr. Lisa White, professor of modelling and epidemiology, Oxford University, England
Dr. Simon Wood, biostatistician and professor, University of Edinburgh, Scotland
Watch “Free John McCash! Do We Have Freedom Of Speech In Canada?” https://youtu.be/4JgAPqBOusM
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Box 332,
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820;
Website http://cafe.nfshost.com
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
Dear Mr. Gammal:
I am a client and shareholder of BMO.
Your decision to give a million dollars to certain Black groups is a concern. Do you give money to groups that promote European pride?
Of most concern, however, is BMO funding the Canadian Anti-Hate Network. This is a militant anti-free speech and anti-democratic group. It surveilles and smears people on the right side of the political spectrum.
Among other things,
* CAHN Board member Evan Balgorde lobbied Mohawk College in Hamilton Ontario to cancel a debate featuring People’s Party of Canada leader Maxime Bernier during last year’s federal election. Masked radicals protested the meeting trying to block attendees and, in one especially disgraceful incident, three maked thugs tried to block a feeble 81-year old woman on a walker from gaining access to the meeting.
*CAHM Board member Bernie Farber has written that far right parties should not be allowed to run in elections — an unusual take on basic democratic rights.
* Last year, CAHM tried to intimidate and interfere with the rights of Canadians to peacefully support the political party of their choice. It published the names and cities of the 250-plus people who registered as members of the rightist Canadian Nationalist Party in order for it to obtain certification by elections Canada. This matter is a subject of a complaint to Elections Canada.
Ensuring a client’s financial security involves shrewd and informed judgement, not merely following the fashionable trends of the moment. The decision to squander a million dollars, in part to support a nasty, anti-free speech group in Canada, shakes my confidence in the judgement of the senior management of BMO Financial.
Sincerely yours,
Paul Fromm
Four Hundred People Stress Loss of Freedoms in “END THE LOCKDOWN” Protest at Queen’s Park, Toronto
The “END THE LOCKDOWN” protests in Toronto started two weeks ago at Queen’s Park with about 50 people. The premier denounced these concerned citizens as “a bunch of yahoos” who were reckless. Many now wear the term “yahoo” as a badge of honour. A week ago, the protest had swelled to 200. On a frigid, windy May 9 — yes, it must be global warming — there were 400 protesters of all ages in Queen’s Park. CAFE (the Canadian Association for Free Expression’s) contingent, marching under the Red Ensign quadrupled from the week before.
The protesters emphasized several concerns — the lies we’ve been told (3,500-13,000 deaths in Ontario by the end of April — actually fewer than 500); the insane closing of parks and other facilities; the worries about 5G technology and concerns about the danger of vaccines and the terror or compulsory vaccination.
Most of all protesters stressed the outrageous loss of individual rights — freedom of movement, freedom of assembly, freedom of speech. Several repeated an important warning: “Quarantine is when you restrict movement of sick people. Tyranny is when you restrict the movement of people.”
Independent candidate (Brantford-Brant) in last fall’s federal election Les Bory took the following video. It includes interviews with many protesters, including Paul Fromm, Director of CAFE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oe3FpG4NB9c
There will be another protest next Saturday from noon to 3:00 p.m. and until the lockdown and trampling of our civil rights end.
DIETER KAHL, R.I.P.
Dieter played at CAFE meetings in Toronto and at Paul Fromm’s annual “too-late-for-Christmas-too-early-for-New-Years” Party for the past 20 years. He’d been playing accordion since his teen years. His iconic Die Gedanken sind Frei (“Thoughts Are Free”) was a standby at CAFE meetings. Dieter Heinrich Kahl was 80. He was born in Bremen, Germany on October 24, 1939. He worked for five years in South Africa and came to Canada in 1969. He was an avid gardener and sportsman and a passionate supporter of free speech.
Marc Lemire No Longer Works for the City of Hamilton
Marc is another victim of Cultural Marxist hit squads & cowardly politicians. CBC reported: “Kojo Damptey, interim executive director for the Hamilton Centre for Civic Inclusion, said Lemire’s departure was ‘a minimal step.'”
“Inclusion” but not for different points of view!
[More details will follow.]
Marc Lemire being presented with Freedom Award by Paul Fromm of the
Canadian Association for Free Expression for his long battle for Internet freedom
imperilled by the thought police at the Canadian Human Rights Commission
CAFE CALLS ON MINISTER OF JUSTICE NOT TO REINTRODUCE SEC 13 — INTERNET CENSORSHIP
Canadian Association for Free Expression
Box 332,
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-289-674-4455; FAX: 289-674-4820;
Website http://cafe.nfshost.com
Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director
June 21, 2019
Hon. David Lametti,
Minister of Justice,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, ON.,
K1A 0A6
Dear Minister Lametti:
RE: Please Don’t Reintroduce Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Code
I read in the National Post (June 20, 2019) that you are considering “very carefully” a recommendation by the Commons Justice Committee to reintroduce the discredited Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act which was repealed by Parliament in 2013. Please don’t do it.
Sec. 13 made it a discriminatory practice to repeatedly communicate over the Internet material that is “likely to expose to hatred or contempt” a long list of privileged groups.
I represented a number of the victims of this section at Tribunals. Our organization the Canadian Association for Free Expression participated in a number of other Tribunals including the very complex Warman v Lemire.
In practice, Sec. 13 meant certain groups were virtually immune from criticism. While hatred is a very strong emotion, contempt is merely the result of negative commentary. To take a neutral example, were I to say smokers had bad breath, discoloured teeth, stained fingers, smelled and ran added risks of cancer or strokes, I would not be exposing smokers to hatred. I wouldn’t be asking anyone to hate smokers but I would certainly be creating an unfavourable impression of them, and, thus, exposing them to contempt. Thus, were smokers a privileged groups, I’d risk a conviction under Sec. 13.
As time went on, Tribunal rulings held that it was not necessary to prove that anyone actually felt or expressed hatred or contempt as a result of the impugned posting. In the Lemire case, logs showed that only five people had ever even read one impugned post. Surely a case of de minimis! It also emerged that truth was not a defence, sincerely held religious belief was not a defence nor was opinion or commentary.
Indeed, there actually were no defences, except, perhaps, that the accused person had not posted the controversial material in question. Thus, until the Lemire case, Sec. 13 had a one hundred per cent conviction rate. This would rival the vile legal system of North Korea!
After 2001, when Sec. 13 was amended to specifically include material on the Internet, one individual, Richard Warman, a driven “anti-Nazi” campaigner and sometime employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, made the bulk of the complaints, turning it into an industry and, at times a profitable one too for, should the victim post criticisms of Mr. Warman after he filed a complaint, he would then allege retaliation, which exposed the victim to a punitive fine.
Sec. 13 was only used against people seen to be on the “right” of the political spectrum. No person expressing strident opinions against Christians or Europeans was ever prosecuted.
Much is made of so-called “hate speech” on the Internet. The Internet is not a free for all. Postings expressing extreme hatred can and have been prosecuted under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. Those who denounce “hate speech” are using a loaded term to demonize views they don’t like. The accusation of “hate speech” tells you little about the content of the impugned material but does tell you that it is material the accuser hates!
The Internet allows a much greater range of views and commentary and a more free wheeling debate, especially on such volatile issues as immigration, than usually appears in Canada’s fairly controlled press that tends to limit the range of acceptable opinions. Such freedom and the divergent voices being heard are upsetting to people who would like a much more controlled public discourse.
I have seen lives ruined by Sec. 13 — huge fines and life-long “cease and desist orders” that have the force of a Federal Court order. I have seen individuals jailed for nothing more than the non-violent expression of their political views.
I urge you to choose freedom. Reject calls for the reintroduction of Sec. 13. Yes, there is some extreme, foolish and insulting material on the Internet. Open discussion and debate tend to isolate and expose such postings. Canada needs more speech and debate not less. Do not bring back Sec. 13.
Sincerely yours,
Paul Fromm
Director