Are We Coming to the End of the Age of Woke?

The Canadian Association for Free Expression Proudly Present

Paul Fromm

·         Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression

·         Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994

Are We Coming to the End of the Age of Woke?

·         Jews now find their events cancelled  – the deflatformers are now being deplatformed


·         Jews now find their events cancelled  – the deflatformers are now being deplatformed

·         Finally, a leftist charged under the “hate law”

How the “Hate” Case Against the Late Arthur Topham, Political Prisoners Ended

B.C. man faces strict conditions after breaching sentence for anti-Semitic hate crimes


November 23, 2020·2 min read

A B.C. man convicted of an online hate crime is facing strict new rules on his public expression after breaching his sentencing conditions.

Arthur Topham, who ran a publication from his rural home near the central Interior city of Quesnel, was convicted in 2015 of communicating online statements that wilfully promoted hatred against Jewish people.

As part of his sentence, Topham was forbidden from publishing or publicly posting information about “persons of Jewish religion or ethnic origin.”

But In October, a provincial court judge ruled Topham had breached that condition by creating new posts throughout 2018.

Late last week, the judge sentenced Topham to a 30-day conditional sentence and three years probation for the breach, placing strict new conditions on Topham’s public posts.

B'nai Brith/Contributed
B’nai Brith/Contributed

For the next three years, Topham is forbidden from publishing or printing publicly any reference to or information about the Talmud, Zionism, Israel, and the Jewish religion, ethnicity or people.

Topham is also forbidden from publicly posting the names of people he knows to be of Jewish origin.

According to court documents, he will still be allowed to publicly name his wife and her family, but not to mention their ethnicity or origin. During his original trial, Topham told the court his wife is Jewish.

In addition to the terms of his three-year probation, Topham will serve a 30-day conditional sentence, with a nightly curfew and a requirement to remain in B.C. He’s also prohibited from having weapons, liquor, or alcohol.

“Justice has been served,” said Ran Ukashi, National Director with B’nai Brith, a Jewish advocacy group that’s been closely following the case.

“It serves as a deterrent for others, to realize there are consequences, there’s a price to pay,” said Ukashi.

Betsy Trumpener/CBC

Betsy Trumpener/CBC

“There are limits to … free speech and promoting hatred against identifiable groups is not on,” he said.”This person has been given opportunity after opportunity to not behave this way.”

A retired teacher now in his 70s, Topham was first charged in 2012. A website he produced featured frequent posts with anti-Semitic conspiracy theories and demonized Jewish people, according to evidence at his trial.

Wil Fundal/CBC News

Wil Fundal/CBC News

At his original trial in 2015, Topham’s lawyer argued the posts were political satire, did not incite violence, and included materials that could easily be ordered on Amazon.

Topham’s case was the first hate crime prosecution in B.C. in almost a decade.

It drew support from the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, which champions free speech, as well as from self-proclaimed “white nationalists,” who attended Topham’s jury trial in the Quesnel courthouse, 700 km northeast of Vancouver.

Paul Fromm helped to fund Topham’s defence and covered his trial through video blogs from Quesnel. Monika Schaefer, who served jail time in Germany for Holocaust denial, also attended court

A Country Invaded, A People Gagged: The Dominion of Canada Today — A Talk Given By Paul Fromm to Pastor Tom Robb’s Faith and Freedom Conference in Harrison, Arkan

A Country Invaded, A People Gagged: The Dominion of Canada Today — A Talk Given By Paul Fromm to Pastor Tom Robb’s Faith and Freedom Conference in Harrison, Arkansas

Arthur Topham RIP –

pril 28, 2024


Arthur Topham – 25 February 1947 – 23 March 2024
The thought police tried to silence this courageous Canadian. They failed.

March 2017–No jail time for Canadian man convicted of online anti-Semitism

Arthur Topham barred from internet for 6 months, says he has a duty to alert the public to ‘imminent threat of Jewish lobby’

by Monika Schaefer

Sadly, we have lost a great thinker, writer, teacher, courageous truth-teller, and brave warrior who always fought for what is right. Arthur Topham passed on after an illness with cancer on the 23rd of March, 2024 in Quesnel, BC. He was 77 years old.
Many people will remember Arthur through his brilliant writing and creation of memes and articles on his site Radical Press. This began in 1998 as a print publication called The Radical with a subtitle “Digging to the root of the issues”, and a few years later he switched from print to solely online production. The subtitle was a direct reference to the etymology of the word “radical” – the root. Digging to the root of the issues was what Arthur Topham did brilliantly. He had long been an activist who wrote frequent letters to political figures and to editors of newspapers, and over the years, as he dug down deep to learn about true history, his writings became ever more dangerous to the “establishment”. There were complaints from Jews about the contents of his Radical Press website, and a dozen or more years of legal harassment, persecution and conviction followed.
I was first introduced to Arthur Topham in about 2013, and I became an avid reader of his Radical Press on-line publication. In subsequent years Arthur published several articles in which he featured content from me. Later when I was thrown in jail, Arthur worked tirelessly to publicize my case. He created memes and posters, he informed the public about whom they could write letters to on my behalf, and he wrote excellent letters pushing for my release. He was so effective in fighting for me,in fact, that at some point he was accused of breaching his own sentencing conditions which resulted in more years of legal harassment for him.
I am forever grateful to Arthur Topham for all that he did, for all of us.

monika-schaefer-believes-holocaust-was-a-lie.png(Holocaust skeptic Monika Schaffer) 
This was how Arthur finished one of his emails to me a number of years back, before my incarceration. I include it here as a message of inspiration to us all.
“Be strong my friend and keep on loving, living, making music and speaking the truth! And may God protect you always. (My theme has always been Psalm 23 since I began this quest and I find great comfort in it. The table is just about prepared!)
Mehr Licht!”
[More Light!]

Although he at various times occupied various parts of the political spectrum, Arthur Topham was a consistent free speech warrior. He paid dearly for his outspoken courage. CAFE supported him at his 2015-2016 “hate trial” in Quesel. An eclectic group of free speech supporters attended the trial and rallied around him, people from as far away as Japan, England (expert witness Gilad Atsman), the U.S., Ontario, Saskatchewan, Alberta and, of course, British Columbia. 

In cross-examination, we learned many interesting things, especially from Len Ruidner, the Canadian Jewish Congress’s “expert” witness. Some of the problematic and horrific, yes, hateful, verses from the Talmud, for instance, justifying sex with little children, he didn’t disavow, except to suggest that these passages were merely rabbis “speculating.” The jury, in a typically Canadian half-and-half decision, convicted Arthur of one count of promoting “hate” and acquitted him of the other. Juries in Canada don’t give reasons. So, we never learned which writing they deemed “hate” and which was merely opinion. — Paul Fromm, Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression.

Arthur attended Simon Fraser University back around 1969. He became a school teacher and taught in Quesnel for a while.

For a long time, he published a hard copy tabloid called The Radical. It was a lot of fun — an old fashioned hippy paper advocating decriminalizing marijuana and all sorts of alternative ideas.
He/the Radical was put through the meatgrinder of Court because he printed the scandal about Indian Chief Ed John being accused as having committed sexual assault. At that point in time, Ed John had been appointed to the Cabinet of British Columbia, even though he was not an elected MLA! 
Arthur wound up in the Supreme Court of BC at Vancouver, along with Kevin Annett. The judge, James Taylor, issued an Order that Arthur was prohibited from publishing anything about the scandal. I was there. Arthur stood up in Court. Mr Annett was there, lurking around, but lacked the courage? to go into the Courtroom. The thing was just begging to break wide open as an important test of Freedom of the Press but Arthur did not have the means to pursue it. Years later, his own people called-out Ed John.
The turmoil Arthur went through after being charged with “hate speech” demonstrated how the meatgrinder process of the criminal justice system is a punishment unto itself. 

The cops / the Prosecutors did things that were blatantly ILlegal. For instance, they walked in with a very suspect Warrant to Search, seized everything in sight, especially his computer, which was crucial to him being able to prepare his Defence. Then they kept his computer for years.
Lawyer Doug Christie relished the case, because it gave him the opportunity to test his question about “if something happens in cyber-space, alleged to be a crime, where does it actually take place?” 

Sadly, Doug died in 2013 prior to Arthur’s trial.
At Arthur’s trial, the judge took Judicial Notice that the material at issue, Arthur repurposing the book Germany Must Perish”, into a perfect parallel entitled Israel Must Perish” was satire. 

I thought that what he had done was very witty.I am pretty sure that Arthur had composed his piece of Art ( satire) at his home in Quesnel British Columbia. Then sent it via the internet to a website with a server in the United States of America.
At that point, anyone who accessed that website, in order to view it on a computer screen, was “operating’ in the territory of the U.S. of A.The point being no-one ever did an act in the real world anywhere in the Dominion of Canada, which contravened section 319 of the Canadian Criminal Code. 

In the US, that material is not a criminal offence. In the US the concept of Free Speech, includes the reciprocal … the right to listenI was in communication with Arthur all that time. I got Dr Henry Makow to agree that he would take the witness stand for the Defendant. But Arthur’s lawyer never called him. 

As well, I was adamant that Arthur take the witness stand in his own defence. But his lawyer Barkley Johnson prevented him doing so. A jury wants to see the Defendant. They make up their mind whether or not they like him. Then they decide if he’s guilty or not.
The black humor at the end of the trial was there were two charges identical except for the dates of the allegations. The jury convicted him of one, but acquitted him of the other! The sentence was UN-believable: he was ordered not to talk about anything to do with the Jews for yearsHe was pretty de-moralized for years after. — Gordon Watson, Justice Critic, Party of Citizens Who Have Decided To Think for Ourselves & Be Our Own Politicians,

CAFE Attends Shelburne Freedom Rally — Lynne Brooks Interviews Political Prisoner Bill Whatcott

On April 6, a number of CAFE associates took part in the bi-weekly freedom rally in Shelburne, Ontario. Videographer Lynne Brooks did an interview with political prisoner Bill Whatcott (at 14 minutes in the video).

Axe the carbon tax and opposition to Internet censorship Bill C-63 were major themes.

Paul Fromm Interviewed by James Edwards for American Free Press

What follows is an interview conducted by James Edwards with Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression. It was originally published by the American Free Press.

James Edwards: As one of Canada’s most internationally well-known dissident activists, you have spent a lifetime fighting at the intersection of free speech and immigration reform. How did you first arrive at this destination?

Paul Fromm: Forty years ago, I saw planned massive Third World immigration as a policy to replace Canada’s European founding/settler people. In 1965, just as immigration laws were changing in Canada and the United States, the Canadian government began to consider “anti-hate” legislation. I could see that, among other things, as Canadians woke up to what was being done to them, it would be used to quell or silence opposition to the great replacement. Thus, for over 20 years, I’ve introduced myself to audiences as being about free speech and immigration: not enough free speech and too much immigration. The Canadian Jewish Congress had lobbied Ottawa for several decades for a “hate law”; that is legislation, to mute or silence criticism of them. By 1965, their lobbying power pushed then Prime Minister Lester Pearson to strike a Royal Commission to inquire into “hate” propaganda. It was stacked so that it would deliver the desired opinion. Its chairman was Dean Maxwell Cohen of McGill University Law School, a former head of the Canadian Jewish Congress, and Saul Hayes, also a former head of the Canadian Jewish Congress. A third member of the seven-man Royal Commission was a then-obscure leftist professor from Montreal, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, an admirer of both Mao and Castro, who would become Prime Minister in 1968. In 1965, the newly created Canadian Nazi Party gained a lot of headlines and short-lived notoriety. It was heavily influenced by operatives from the Canadian Jewish Congress. The Cohen Commission had trouble finding much “hate propaganda” in Canada. So, the sudden appearance of a “Nazi” party with young Canadians, not old European immigrants, was convenient to provide a “justification” for limiting free speech. The Cohen Commission’s report provided the outline of what would become the “hate law” (Sec. 318 & 319) of the Criminal Code which would be introduced as legislation by Pierre Trudeau and passed into law in 1971.

Edwards: A particularly alarming and Orwellian piece of legislation has been proposed in Canada. What is the so-called Online Harms Bill?

Fromm: John Carpay, Director of the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, calls this proposed law “a full-on frontal assault on free expression, the worst in Canadian history. Full stop.” Current Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has longed to further censor the Internet. He blamed the Internet as a source of misinformation. He was outraged at the Trucker’s Freedom Convoy protest which lasted for three weeks in Ottawa in early 2022. The Liberal elite despises working class Canadians and describes White working-class men and women as “deplorables”, backward, bigoted ignorant people. That these much-despised people organized such a formidable protest drove the globalist elite crazy. They invoked the Emergencies Act (a war measures act) piece of legislation which stripped people of their civil rights and allowed the tyrants to freeze bank accounts. Trudeau saw that much of the organizing occurred over the Internet. Also, both the Zionist lobby and the increasingly shrill Moslem lobby are complaining of “hate” on the Internet. The Online Harms bill seeks to make Internet service providers responsible for censoring people. The Act adds Stalinist era punishments for online “hate”. In Stalin’s Soviet Union anti-semitism was punishable by death. Canada pretends to be more civilized. So, advocacy of “genocide” – whatever that is – can get you up to life imprisonment for mere words! Also, any branch of the Criminal Code, say assault, if motivated by hate against a privileged group (but not Whites), religion (but not Christianity), sex, or sexual orientation can increase the sentence to up to life in prison.

Edwards: This bill has received global attention and a significant amount of pushback. Has this surprised you and, in your opinion, how likely is it that this might become law?

Fromm: International attention is welcome. Many foreigners are surprised how, under Trudeau, who like his father also admires Red China, Canada has become such a totalitarian state. The likelihood of passage is a good question. Groups like my own Canadian Association for Free Expression, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, and the Canadian Civil Liberties Association are determined to fight it right from the get-go. The Parliamentary agenda is crowded, and the hope is that, if we can alert enough freedom-minded Canadians, the bill may never get to a vote.

Edwards: In what ways would this potential law further stifle free speech and expression in Canada?

Fromm: Well, a person who fears that another person may commit a “hate crime” can go before a judge and seek an order that could force house arrest, the wearing of an electronic bracelet, prohibition of drugs or alcohol, forced testing for such substances, and restriction on movement. This would all be preemptive. We know the anti-Whites portray themselves as endlessly afraid and vulnerable. This could result in massive abuse of our liberties. In addition to the Criminal Code provisions, the Canadian Human Rights Commission could now receive complaints about online expressions of “hate” as being a discriminatory practice. At human rights tribunals, really kangaroo courts, where the appointed member (judge) is chosen for a special sensitivity to human rights (they don’t include freedom of speech), and the truth is no defense, the victim has little chance. Also, if the accuser is fearful of retaliation, his/her/its identity may be kept secret from the defendant and the press. In other words, a millennium of Anglo-Saxon individual rights – in this case, the defendant’s right to face his accuser – would be tossed out the window.

Edwards: How would you compare punishment for so-called “hate speech” violations in the United States and Canada, and even European nations like the United Kingdom and Germany, where dissidents receive harsh prison sentences for having politically incorrect points of view?

Fromm: When it comes to speech, America is still a largely free country in terms of legal sanctions. Canada is now attempting to join wretched thought-control regimes like Germany in its eagerness to jail dissidents.

Edwards: Immigration is your other signature issue. Compared to the United States, how advanced has the Great Replacement become in Canada?

Fromm: America is worse off than Canada but we’re catching up. Our population is still 78% White, but massive Third World immigration engineered and enabled from the top is replacing us fast. Toronto, 98% White in 1960, is now majority Third World, as is Vancouver. This is the result of a cold-blooded and deliberate policy of replacement, collaborated in by all political parties except the populist People’s Party of Canada, and by big businesses and banks which have eagerly adopted the anti-White policies of diversity (fewer Whites hired), equity (inferior results and mediocrity), and inclusion (but not of White Christians).

Edwards: What interests drive the open border policies of the United States and Canada?

Fromm: There are several motives. One cabal wants to see Whites replaced. Greedy businessmen always bemoan a labor shortage. They mean a cheap labor shortage. They don’t care whether the potential worker is legal, illegal, Black, Yellow, or Purple, as long as he’s cheap.

Edwards: Though 90% of the population lives within an hour of the border, to many Americans, Canada still appears to be the Great White North. Does homogeneity exist in some of the more remote provinces of your expansive continent more so than in places like multicultural Toronto?

Fromm: Rural areas and small towns are still relatively White, especially in Quebec and the Maritimes. Most of the Third Worlders flock to the big cities – Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Vancouver, Hamilton, Calgary, and Edmonton.

Edwards: I read that the Canadian courts recently ruled that many of the overreaches during the Covid-era were unconstitutional. What can you tell us about that?

Fromm: Yes, in a stunning pro-freedom ruling, the Federal Court ruled that many of the federal government’s COVID restrictions were a violation of individual rights.

Edwards: As an avid observer of American politics, what are your thoughts on the upcoming elections in the United States?

Fromm: I pray for the election of Donald Trump to make America great again. I hope he has learned from his first term the bitter opposition and vile tactics of the deep state and will move swiftly and with determination to build that wall and deport, as Dwight Eisenhower did, millions of illegal aliens.

This article was originally published by American Free Press – America’s last real newspaper! Click here to subscribe today or call 1-888-699-NEWS.

Paul Fromm is Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression.

Paul Fromm Explains the Dire Threat to Free Speech — Up to Life in Prison! — of Trudeau’s Bill C-63 – The Online Harms Act

Paul Fromm Explains the Dire Threat to Free Speech — Up to Life in Prison! — of Trudeau’s Bill C-63 – The Online Harms Act

With host James Edwards & Keith Alexander on “The Political Cesspool” out of Memphis, Tennessee

CAFE Endorsed & Supported Freedom Fighter Adam Skelly’s New Year’s Even Toronto Fundraiser

CAFE Endorsed & Supported Freedom Fighter Adam Skelly’s New Year’s Even Toronto Fundraiser

The Canadian Association for Free Expression had a number of associates, including Director Paul Fromm, at a Scarborough fundraiser for freedom fighter Adam Skelly New Year’s Eve.

The City of Toronto and Province of Ontario came down on Adam Skelly like ten tonnes of bricks.  The government brought six, separate legal proceedings against him for daring to dissent.

Why? To single him out. To make an example of him. To punish him for just saying NO. Adam was the first person in North America to be arrested for disobeying public health orders. In the age of COVID-19 tyranny and totalitarianism, dissent and debate are no longer permitted.

The government hit. And we hit back.  Last year, CCOC helped Adam retain new counsel. We are determined to be heard – and will be heard. 

We are challenging the Reopening Ontario Act, its lockdown regulation 82/20, and Toronto’s Medical Officer of Health authority on legal and            constitutional grounds.   Here is a link to our Notice of Application:

We retained six PhD experts to submit evidence that strongly challenges the Great Lie. This evidence has yet to be heard in court.  It is irrefutable.  All the legal documents, including the expert evidence, are as follows: