Tag Archives: CAFE

Gordon Watson Wants Hotel Manager Charged With Assault: THE BATTLE OF THE WADDLING DOG — Part III

Posted on by

Gordon Watson Wants Hotel Manager Charged With Assault: THE BATTLE OF THE WADDLING DOG — Part III

Journalist and longtime free speech campaigner Gordon Watson gives his account of his attendance at the Quality Inn Waddling Dog the afternoon when CAFE’s meeting was supposed to occur. The meeting had been arbitrarily and, in defiance of a verbal contract, been cancelled the previous afternoon by manager Brandon Petraroia. When asked to leave, Mr. Watson left quietly. Nevertheless, the manager threw him a body check in a clear attempt to provoke retaliation which would have invited the five or so Central Saanich officers sent to shut down the free speech meeting the opportunity to arrest Mr. Watson. In the formal Freedom of Information request delivered Monday, Mr. Watson demands that Petraroia be charged with assault.

 

 
Mr. Petraroia seems to be in his fourth year in a Bachelor’s programme in International Hotel Management at Royal Roads University in Victoria. In his resume, he lists bartending experience. He also boasts that he has the “ability to deal with the public.” As a bartender, one would assume he had some training in dealing with the public and in keeping his hands off visitors to his premises. It turns out he is also a hockey player for the Waddling Dog Greasers in a Victoria Island Hockey League. In two seasons, 2014-2016, he scored 36 points in 47 games. Can one assume he learned that the behavior permissible on the hockey rink — body checks and blocking — might not be proper off the rink, especially when the victim is more than twice his age. Petraroia graduated high school in 2009 — let’s say at age 18 or 19. Seven years later that would make him 25 or 26. Mr. Watson, the man he blocked and body checked is 67! Mananger/”owner”? Brandon is behind the cop. In his on-line resume, Mr. Petraroia lists himself as “assistant manager” at the Waddling Dog. He introduced himself to Mr. Watson as the owner and to Mr. Fromm alternately as the “manager” and “the owner.” The Battle of the Waddling Dog continues.

Paul Fromm Director

waddling dog 5CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION

\


Below is the Freedom of Information demand which I hand delivered, at 11 am today (Monday, June 20, 2016) it included the 20 pages of Your ward News / one page of your announcement of the meeting / 4 pages of photos taken that day
Gordon S Watson — —- —-

Chief Constable Central Saanich police, Les Sylvain: 01 On Saturday June 18th 2016, I arrived at the Waddling Dog Quality Inn at approximately 1:45 pm, to find your officers Sihota and Apa and several others, on the premises. I went in to the building as I had done several times in previous years when I attended meetings convened there by Paul Fromm. Immediately inside the main door I noticed a chalkboard on an easel in front of the Library door saying “this area is closed”. 02 It occurred to me I might find people who’d arrived for the meeting which had been scheduled for the Library, and were puzzled what to do next, in the restaurant. So I headed down the hall towards it. A man followed me and asked who I was. When I said “I’m from the press” he asked for credentials. When I said I did not have such credentials on me, he told me to leave the premises. I asked him who he was. He replied “I’m the owner.” I said the words “I’m gone” or I may have said “I’m going”. Either way, it was clear to all concerned that I intended to leave. Turning back from going towards the restaurant, I proceeded the way I’d just come, so as to go out the main door. As I did so, the man who’d challenged me stepped in to my line of travel, jamming his left shoulder in to my body as I walked by him. Glancing back after being assaulted, I noticed he still had his feet planted firmly in a squat, knees slightly bent, which lowers one’s centre of gravity. There is no doubt in my mind but that he’d assumed that stance, readying himself to impede me, as part of provoking me to retaliate physically against him. 03 His act was what police officers / deputy sheriffs do when they want to arrest someone but don’t yet have an excuse = ie. deliberately make physical contact so as to provoke reaction in the target, of him reflexively shoving back, so they can then lay hands on that person, pretending that he had initiated an assault. In this instance, I did not pause in my travel towards the door. Rather, after I felt his shove, I stepped farther away from the man and said to him sarcastically “that’s so trite”. Sergeant Sihota was standing right there, paying attention to what was going on. Sgt. Sihota couldn’t have missed witnessing the man purposely putting his shoulder into my chest as I walked by him, and hearing my response to the assault 04 This is my complaint that that man – whose name I think is “Brandon” – should be charged with the offence of ‘assault”.
05 I came away insulted that police had let themselves be manipulated into enforcing denial of my right to freedom of association, ; my right to participate in democratic activity, along with denial of Paul Fromm’s freedom of speech. Especially, I was insulted that armed, uniformed officers of the government interfered with the reciprocal of freedom of speech, which is, my right to hear what he has to say on certain political issues. Having known Mr Fromm for over 20 years, and heard what he has to say about the pattern of vicissitudes he’s endured from his enemies during that time, there is no doubt in my mind but that the same old canard was played by them on Saturday June 18th 2016. Do I have to remind you that this kind of intimidation for suppressing political activity is one of the hallmarks of fascism? You were duped into the role of the goon squad = mis-appropriating the power, prestige and resources of local government to assist the enemies of freedom. The ‘show of force’ at the Waddling Dog Quality Inn in this instance was a disgrace upon the reputation of your police force.
06 Enclosed – integral to this my complaint – find a copy of Your Ward News / 20 pages. It predicted what played-out in the incident : that Canada is now so morally bankrupt that those of us who disagree with the Central Party line find ourselves facing policemen who mouthe the ridiculous excuse proffered by Sgt. Sihota : “we’re here to keep the peace … to see that everyone is safe”. Safe from what? Controversial Ideas? Safe from discomfort when confronted with concepts Outside the Box of what race traitors in high places deem palatable?! 07 Part of my role as a politician, is : scrutinizing allocation of resources of government. Enclosed – integral to this complaint – find a copy of the advertisement for the meeting which had been set for that day. I was there to get the facts with which to prepare my platform when standing for office of MLA in the provincial election. The electorate needs to know about how funds from public accounts are being misappropriated for elective surgeries. As well ; Citizens need to know that the present administration proposes amending the Criminal Code so critics of the insanity of “trans-gender-ism” could be charged with “hate speech”. I was there to participate in activity essential to the well-being of the body politic. In the farce your officers came off as The Thought Police. 08 Once I’d exited the building, I asked Sgt. Sihota ‘who called the police, and why?’. He told me he didn’t have to answer those questions. He directed me to talk to you. Therefore pursuant to the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act Revised Statutes of British Columbia, I require and hereby demand
09 copies of all records to do with that incident at the Waddling Dog Quality Inn on Saturday June 18 2016, and without limiting the generality of the foregoing, 10 the full name of the man who presented himself as “the owner” and who is seen in the photos enclosed 11 copies of all materials accessed by the Central Saanich police force in support of your decision to send officers to the Waddling Dog that day, going to the question of “who called the police, and why?” 12 copies of all internet website pages viewed by any and every member of the Central Saanich police force, before, during and after this incident 13 copies of all communications in any and every form, including audio recordings of telephone calls to and from any and every member of the Central Saanich police, before, during and after this incident, concerning Paul Fromm 14 copies of all records in control of the Central Saanich Police department concerning me / my name Gordon Stephen Watson born September 10 1949.
15 a printout of the PRIMEbc database concerning me / my name Gordon Stephen Watson born September 10 1949.

Gordon S Watson

Thursday Will Be A Crucial Day for Property Rights & Freedom of Belief

Posted on by

Thursday Will Be A Crucial Day for Property Rights & Freedom of Belief

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

On Thursday, June 18, the New Brunswick Court of Appeal gets a chance to reverse a lower court decision that seriously infringes on property rights and freedom of belief. Last year, a Court of Queen’s Bench  judge found a U.S. group guilty of thought crimes in Canada, even though they had never been charged, evidence presented, defences mounted or arguments heard. He, then, overturned a will and cancelled a bequest to this group.

CAFÉ is carrying the burden in the battle to reverse a particularly dangerous court decision. Last June, Judge Grant of the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench delivered a breathtaking decision overturning a will with a bequest to a U.S. White Nationalist group on the amazing grounds that it was “contrary to public policy.” The appeal, already delayed once, will be heard in Fredericton on June 18 and CAFÉ, which has fought this battle alone,  owes a pot of money in legal fees.

CAFÉ intervened in the McCorkill will case, beginning  in the summer of 2013. Robert McCorkill, a Canadian  chemistry professor who died in 2004, bequeathed his estate to the National Alliance. The will was probated in May, 2013. Then, the mischief-making, free speech hating Southern Poverty Law Centre in Montgomery, Alabama raised a hue and cry. Ottawa lawyer and frequent human rights and hate law complaint filer Richard Warman proclaimed the bequest “contrary to public policy.” Isabelle McCorkell [yes, different spellings], the long estranged sister of Robert McCorkill, suddenly appeared. Like Warman, she lives in Ottawa. And, although saying she had few resources and lived on $1,000 a month, she retained one of Moncton’s priciest law firms. She obtained an injunction and then filed an application to overturn the will. She was joined by the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Studies and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. CAFÉ intervened on behalf of the executor of the estate.

 

The application was heard in January, 2014 in St. John. The decision came down the same week three Mounties were gunned down in Moncton. Mr. Justice Grant put a shotgun blast through freedom of belief and property rights and overturned the will. All parties, except CAFÉ and the lawyer for the executor, insisted that this was a one-off case. It was not a precedent. Not so. As we reported in the Free Speech Monitor (March, 2015), a Negro preacher who objected to one of his daughters having a child by a White man cut her out of his will. That will was recently overturned because the preacher was deemed to be “racist” and to have discriminated and that such discrimination (with his OWN money) was “contrary to public policy.” The sky is now the limit!

CAFÉ has appealed this appalling precedent. This case is vital to free speech in Canada. We desperately need your help NOW! The appeal has thus far cost us over $30,000 and the bills are not all in. We’ve gone way out on a limb because this case is so very important.

I’ve been in this free speech battle for four decades. We have had some important victories but there have also been defeats. On an ongoing basis, we face efforts by the enemies of free speech to impose their beliefs and throttle dissent, usually using the might of Big Governments and the Court. You and I are dedicated to this precious right of freedom of speech. We’ve taken to heart the late Doug Christie frequent warning: “You only have the rights you’re prepared to fight for.”

Please  send CAFÉ your most generous contribution for the McCorkill Will Appeal.

Sincerely yours,

 

Paul Fromm

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:_______________________________________________

 

Name:__________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________       _______________________________________________________Email___________________________________

Posted on by
007Free Speech Supporters Condemn Anti-Christian Bigotry of the Law Society of Upper Canada

 



​ ​

TORONTO. May 16, 2014. About 30 protesters held a noon-time vigil outside the Law Society of Upper Canada in downtown Toronto today. An eclectic group of Christian spokesmen and free speech supporters joined by the Canadian Association for Free Expression denounced a recent decision by the Law Society of Upper Canada (LSUC) to not recognize graduates of the planned Trinity Western University Law School because of their fundamentalist Christian principles.

Trinity Western University is an evangelical Christian college in Langley, BC. It requires faculty and students to pledge to follow traditional Christian morality including refraining from sex outside of marriage. Critics say this pledge discriminates against homosexuals. No one is required to attend Trinity Western University. There is a wide variety of secular alternatives.

The proselytizers of the homosexual agenda who have led a campaign, first to deny graduates of this university the right to teach in B.C.(eventually overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada) and then to deny the planned law school legal accreditation (the move failed) now have pressured provincial law societies in to declare that graduates of the law school will not be granted accreditation. So far, the anti-Christian campaign has succeeded in Nova Scotia and Ontario.

One of the protest leaders Rev. David Lynn, founder of Christian Positive Space (www.christianpositivespace.com) said much of Ontario’s curriculum is “biblephobic.” He noted that well over 70 per cent of Canada is Christian. “We say to the Law Society of Upper Canada: ‘You have to be more tolerant. You are saying Christians do not have the right to practise law in Ontario,. You are anti-Canadian.”

Gary McHale, an activist who led protests against the failure by the Ontario Provincial Police to enforce court injunctions against radical Indians who occupied and still occupy private (now Crown) land in Caledonia, Ontario, noted there was an effort to ban graduates of Trinity Western from teaching in British Columbia. “The case went all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada and they ruled that religious views should not exclude a person from the classroom. Now, the Law Society of Upper Canada wants to exclude Christians from the practise of law.”


 ​

The story of Mr. McHale’s battle against politically correct policing — soft on native thugs occupying land in defiance of an injunction, and harsh on White resident merely driving through their own community or trying to counter-protest the occupation — has just been published by Freedom Press (www.freedompress.ca). It is entitled Victory In the No-Go Zone: Winning the Fight Against Two-Tier Policing.

A contingent from FreedomPress, led by President Tristan Emmanuel, also attended the protest.

Bill Whatcott spoke of his campaign to keep radical homosexual material — including discussions of anal sex — excluded from elementary school in Saskatchewan. His leafleting led to human rights complaints, a conviction and a $17,5000 fine. He fought this all the way to the Supreme Court which overturned the Saskatchewan Court of Appeals reversing Mr. Whatcott’s conviction. The Supreme Court , “and shame on them,” Mr. Whatcott said, upheld anti-Christian speech censorship and ruled that truth, intent, sincerely held religious beliefs or political opinions were irrelevant. “It was determined that making statements like this is hate. They acknowledged that although my flyers might be factual, if used for a hateful purpose — and they weren’t — advocating traditional Christian views on sexual behaviour could be censored. I have been left with over $100,000 in legal costs” payable to the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission.

Paul Fromm Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, called the Law Society of Upper Canada “Christian haters.”

“The issue here,” he said, “is the decision by the Law Society of Upper Canada to not allow graduates of the planned Trinity Western University Law School to practise in the Province of Ontario. The ironic thing is that Trinity Western has not even opened its law school yet and hasn’t graduated a single student. That is the definition of bigotry — to make a decision before the facts are in. The LSUC is very much under the control of the homosexual lobby. The privileges of homosexual trump the rights of Christians. It’s wrong. And we’re standing here for free speech.”

Click on the picture below for the link to hear Paul Fromm’s remarks.

 

You’re a “Nazi” If You Support Free Speech

Posted on by
You’re a “Nazi” If You Support Free Speech
 
Anti-racists are just really anti-White. Consider this defaced poster from Kingston, Ontario. A new European awareness nationalist group has formed there called The Euro-United Front.
 
They recently put up posters saying “Freedom of  Speech Means Everyone, Not Just Ones You Agree With.”

 

Photo: You're a "Nazi" If You Support Free Speech Anti-racists are just really anti-White. Consider this defaced poster from Kingston, Ontario. A new European awareness nationalist group has formed there called The Euro-United Front. They recently put up posters saying "Freedom of Speech Means Everyone, Not Just Ones You Agree With." It all seems perfectly obvious and middle of the road, but not form some anonymous clod with a magic marker who scrawled "Nazis" on the poster. So, supporter free speech means you are a Nazi. While this is vandalism by one individual, it points to the fact that Canadians need a lot of encouragement and educating. Fro nearly 40 years, we've been lectured that free speech must be limited, that minority sensitivities must prevail and that not all views are "appropriate" or acceptable. However, without freedom of speech, all our other rights are in peril CAFE remains committed to standing for free speech, no matter how unpopular the opinions may be. Speaking is not the crime; attempting to silence others is. Paul Fromm Director Canadian Association for Free Expression We Need Your Help! We need your support for the McCorkill Will Case in St. John, NB. We need your help to keep CAFÉ in the courts punching for freedom of speech. We need your help to support free speech victims. CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3 ___ Here is my donation of $_______ to help CAFÉ’s work in supporting the victims of censorship and McCorkill cases. ___ Please renew my subscription for 2014 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15). $___ Doug Christie booklet order from back of this coupon. Please charge _____my VISA#________________________________________________________________ Expiry date: __________ Signature:_______________________________________________________________________________ Name:____________________________________________________________________________________ Address: __________________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________Email______________________________ Doug Christie Free Speech Booklets For 30 years, Doug Christie, the Battling Barrister, has been Canada’s outstanding free speech attorney. He passed away of liver cancer, all too young, on March 11, at age 66. Order his outstanding free speech booklets published in C-FAR’S Canadian Issue Series. __ The Zundel Trial & Free Speech by Douglas Christie (1985) $4.00 __ Thought Crimes Trial: The Keegstra Case by Douglas Christie (1987) $4.00 __ Free Speech IS the Issue by Douglas Christie (1990) ($5) [Tick booklets you want here and indicate the number and enter dollar amount on the other side of this coupon.]
 
 
It all seems perfectly obvious and middle of the road, but not form some anonymous clod with a magic marker who scrawled “Nazis” on the poster. So, supporter free speech means you are a Nazi.
 
While this is vandalism by one individual, it points to the fact that Canadians need a lot of encouragement and educating. Fro nearly 40 years, we’ve been lectured that free speech must be limited, that minority sensitivities must prevail and that not all views are “appropriate” or acceptable.
 
However, without freedom of speech, all our other rights are in peril
 
CAFE remains committed to standing for free speech, no matter how unpopular the opinions may be.
 
Speaking is not the crime; attempting to silence others is.
 
Paul Fromm
Director
Canadian Association for Free Expression

 We Need Your Help!

 

We need your support for the McCorkill Will Case in St. John, NB. We need your help to keep CAFÉ in the courts punching for freedom of speech. We need your help to support free speech victims.

 

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

 

___    Here is my donation of $_______ to help CAFÉ’s  work in supporting the victims of censorship and McCorkill cases.

___   Please renew my subscription for 2014 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

$___  Doug Christie booklet order from back of this coupon.

 

Please charge _____my VISA#________________________________________________________________

 

Expiry date: __________ Signature:_______________________________________________________________________________

 

Name:____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Address: __________________________________________________________________________________           

 

_______________________________________________________Email______________________________

 

Doug Christie Free Speech  Booklets

For 30 years, Doug Christie, the Battling Barrister, has been Canada’s outstanding free speech attorney. He passed away of liver cancer, all too young, on March 11, at age 66. Order his outstanding free speech booklets published in C-FAR’S Canadian Issue Series.

 

 __ The Zundel Trial & Free Speech by Douglas Christie (1985) $4.00

__  Thought Crimes Trial: The Keegstra Case by Douglas Christie (1987) $4.00

__   Free Speech IS the Issue by Douglas Christie  (1990) ($5)

[Tick booklets you want here and indicate the number and enter dollar amount on the other side of this coupon.]

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

 

CAFE Accepted As Intervener in McCorkill Case

Posted on by
                   CAFE Accepted As Intervener in McCorkill Case
St. John, New Brunswick, September 3, 2013. The Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted intervener status by the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s bench. CAFE will be supporting the …Estate of the late Robert McCorkill who left a large legacy to the National Alliance. This legacy has been challenged by McCorkill’s estranged sister Isabelle, who came forward nine years after his death after a U.S. anti-free speech group the Southern Poverty Law Centre of Montgomery, AL sought to prevent the NA from receiving the legacy.

“This is an incredibly crucial case,” says CAFE Director Paul Fromm. “The enemies of free speech, with significant Establishment assistance, are seeking to reach the skeletal fingers of political correctness even into the disposition of a person’s private property.”

Supporting Isabelle McCorkell’s [yes, there’s a spelling difference] motion to negate the legacy are the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. All are arguing  that the bequest is contrary to the public good. Photo: CAFE Accepted As Intervener in McCorkill Case St. John, New Brunswick, September 3, 2013. The Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted intervener status by the New Brunswick Court of Queen's bench. CAFE will be supporting the Estate of the late Robert McCorkill who left a large legacy to the National Alliance. This legacy has been challenged by McCorkill's estranged sister Isabelle, who came forward nine years after his death after a U.S. anti-free speech group the Southern Poverty Law Centre of Montgomery, AL sought to prevent the NA from receiving the legacy. "This is an incredibly crucial case," says CAFE Director Paul Fromm. "The enemies of free speech, with significant Establishment assistance, are seeking to reach the skeletal fingers of political correctness even into the disposition of a person's private property." Supporting Isabelle McCorkell's [yes, there's a spelling difference] motion to negate the legacy are the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. All are arguing that the bequest is contrary to the public good. Marc-Antoine Chiasson, Isabelle McCorkell's lawyer has said: “Hate speech in Canada is criminally prohibited. Secondly, Canada has signed on to numerous international conventions with the specific goal and aim to get rid of hate speech, hate groups and the financing of hate groups.” We signed on to some poxy agreement preventing donations to groups the biased SPLC says are “hate groups”? " The National Alliance is a perfectly legal group in the U.S." Paul Fromm points out. "The New Brunswick Attorney General is arguing that the bequest is contrary to the public good or public policy. Abortion on demand is the laws of the land. Would a bequest to a pro-life group be ruled contrary to the public good? The implications of this case are frightening!" Interestingly, neither of the parties, the petitioner Isabelle McCorkell or John Hughes lawyer for Fred Streed, executor of the estate, were in Court this morning, CAFE lawyer Andy Lodge reported. Mr. Hughes had written to the Court giving his consent to CAFE's intervention. Lawyers for the other three interveners did attend Court. The New Brunswick Attorney General indicated that he neither consented nor opposed CAFE;s participation. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs indicated it did not oppose CAFE's intervention, but did "want to go on the record as opposing any substantive evidence CAFE might submit and CAFE's arguments." It might be noted that these arguments are still to be filed. ____________________________________________________________ Please Help CAFE Defend Free Speech from Those Who Would Submit Beneficiaries to Some Politically Correct Litmus Test Time is of the essence. The case goes to Court September 10. Our lawyer has had to devote a good deal of time (and our money!) getting up to speed on this case, We are being billed weekly! We anticipate that the intervention could cost up to $20,000. WE NEED YOUR HELP AND, NOT TO BE PUSHY, WE NEED IS QUICKLY! CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3 __ Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ's autumn programme, including the intervention in the McCorkill legacy case. __ Please renew my subscription for 2013 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15). Please charge ______myVISA#________________________________________________________________ Expiry date: __________ Signature:_______________________________________________________________ Name:____________________________________________________________________________________ Address:__________________________________________________________________________________

Marc-Antoine Chiasson, Isabelle McCorkell’s lawyer has said: “Hate speech in Canada is criminally prohibited. Secondly, Canada has signed on to numerous international conventions with the specific goal and aim to get rid of hate speech, hate groups and the financing of hate groups.” We signed on to some poxy agreement preventing donations to groups the biased SPLC says are “hate groups”?

” The National Alliance is a perfectly legal group in the U.S.” Paul Fromm points out.  “The New Brunswick Attorney General is arguing that the bequest is contrary to the public good or public policy. Abortion on demand is the laws of the land. Would a bequest to a pro-life group be ruled contrary to the public good? The implications of this case are frightening!”

Interestingly, neither of the parties, the petitioner Isabelle McCorkell or John Hughes lawyer for Fred Streed, executor of the estate, were in Court this morning, CAFE lawyer Andy Lodge reported. Mr. Hughes had written to the Court giving his consent to CAFE’s intervention.

Lawyers for the other three interveners did attend Court. The New Brunswick Attorney General indicated that he neither consented nor opposed CAFE;s participation. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs indicated it did not oppose CAFE’s intervention, but did “want to go on the record as opposing any substantive evidence CAFE might submit and CAFE’s arguments.” It might be noted that these arguments are still to be filed.
____________________________________________________________

Please Help CAFE Defend Free Speech from Those Who Would Submit Beneficiaries to Some Politically Correct Litmus Test

Time is of the essence. The case goes to Court September 10. Our lawyer has had to devote a good deal of time (and our money!) getting up to speed on this case, We are being billed weekly! We anticipate that the intervention could cost up to $20,000. WE NEED YOUR HELP AND, NOT TO BE PUSHY, WE NEED IS QUICKLY!

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s autumn programme, including  the   intervention in the McCorkill legacy case.
__  Please renew my subscription for 2013 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge ______myVISA#________________________________________________________________

Expiry date: __________ Signature:_______________________________________________________________

Name:____________________________________________________________________________________
Address:__________________________________________________________________________________