View Full Version : An Interview With Paul Fromm

Wednesday, July 21st, 2004, 09:41 PM
Northern Tradition, White Rebellion, part 1 Posted on: 2004-07-17

An Interview With Paul Fromm

by Kevin Alfred Strom
American Dissident Voices broadcast of July 17, 2004 listen to the
(mp3) <http://www.natvan.com/internet-radio/ts/071704.pls >

Indefatigable Canadian free speech and pro-White activist Mr. Paul
Fromm is
shown here speaking before the audience at one of his recent protests.
for his political views in 1997 after a 25-year career as a teacher,
Fromm has since that time devoted himself full-time to the defense of
people and his native land, becoming one of the leading patriots in
This week you'll hear his story and his insights on American Dissident


TODAY WE'RE PLEASED to welcome to the American Dissident Voices
one of the leading advocates for European people in Canada, Mr. Paul
Mr. Fromm is one of the most active campaigners for the preservation of
cultural and genetic heritage in that country, and he is also an
activist for the free speech rights of Canadians threatened by Jewish
supremacist and Politically Correct censors. He is the head of the
First Immigration Reform Committee, Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform
and the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE).

KAS: Welcome to the program, Paul.

PF: It's very good to be on your program, Kevin.

KAS: I remember meeting you for the first time ten years ago at a
memorial service for the late Revilo P. Oliver in Urbana, Illinois.
were some consequences for you for participating at that service,

PF: Yes. I must be somewhat unique in recent history: I was fired a
of years later, in part for having attended a funeral, actually in this
a memorial for Professor Revilo Oliver. This was held up as one of my
'crimes,' falling under the accusation of 'showing persistent contempt
multiculturalism and ethnocultural equity,' which apparently are 'core
values' of my former employer, the Peel Board of Education.

KAS: One can't show contempt for multiculturalism?

PF: No -- readin' and writin' and 'rithmetic, they're not so important.
multiculturalism and 'ethnocultural equity,' that's serious stuff.

KAS: (laughter) Unbelievable. With your publications, your public
your Internet bulletins -- with all your work on behalf of traditional
Canada and real Canadians and their free speech rights -- you sound
like a
one-man dynamo. How many online and print publications do you issue?

PF: We have three regular newsletters; one on foreign aid and
affairs generally, called the C-FAR Newsletter, which comes out
monthly; we
have the Canadian Immigration Hotline, which comes out ten times a year
is larger, and which deals exclusively with immigration issues; and
then we
have the Free Speech Monitor, which is also a newsletter that comes out
times a year, and which deals with attacks on free speech in Canada.
And I
do have two online email lists, one dealing with immigration and one
free speech. So altogether I have five. I'm lucky to have several
help me, two of them on a full time basis. This work in Canada is
beyond the abilities of one person; our problem is we need a lot more

KAS: Very good. Even in 1994, when I first met you, your career as a
speech and patriotic activist was already well established, wasn't it?

PF: I have been politically active, in terms of organization, since the
1970s. So you're right, I was already something of an activist. Now
Peel Board of Education fired me in 1997, I became almost a full-time
activist, except for some work on the side -- I still have to pay the
So I've been very active for quite a while.

KAS: Can you tell us a bit about your history, and how you came to be
for your race and nation?

PF: It goes back quite a long way. I was always interested in politics,
before I became a teenager. I did a lot of reading, reading about World
II, and in those days I became quite a strong anti-Communist. During
Vietnam War the left here, as I suppose the left in the United States
elsewhere, were very much against the war. So I formed a group along
with a
number of other anti-Communists called the Edmund Burke Society, and we
active in protesting in favor of the Vietnam War in those days, and
various other Communist initiatives. We had a broad range of beliefs,
simply anti-Communism, but we were pro-free enterprise and so on. What
did that was somewhat unusual was that we were able to span the age
barriers: Most of our leadership were young, in their late teens and
twenties and early thirties, but we also had a fair number of older
A lot of groups elsewhere tended to be composed of just the older set,
maybe just young people. We were actually quite successful. For me it
was a
real training ground. Now the reasons behind the Edmund Burke Society
eventually fell apart, but it was a very useful training ground.

I must say that, if I'd had the knowledge I have today, I would
have been against the war in Vietnam -- but obviously for very
reasons than those of the Communist agitators who were making such a
back then.

When the 70s came along, I got involved in a number of other groups.
Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform was founded in 1979 to try to counter
guilt-mongering of the churches and others who suggested that we had to
spend far more on foreign aid and that somehow the Third World was
to it because we'd ripped them off. We thought that this was just a
lot of nonsense and an utter bill of goods.

And from that, we began to get more and more into the immigration area.
become concerned about immigration back in 1972, when the Canadian
government allowed in thousands of Ugandan Asians after Idi Amin
them. And I thought that was wrong. But the really pernicious effects
massive Third World immigration to Canada didn't become obvious until
late 70s. So about that time we began to publish material on
And as the years have gone on, that's become more and more of a focus
of a
lot of our activities here.

In 1982, the Canadian government adopted a document something like your
of Rights, called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a really
impressive-sounding thing, guaranteeing all sorts of wonderful rights
freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom
belief... blah blah blah. And I welcomed it at the time. But I also was
aware, as were a number of others at the time, of certain people we
used to
run into in the late 60s and early 70s, known as the Maoists -- or,
officially, the Communist Party of Canada, Marxist-Leninist. They were
little bit like your SDS; they were very violent. They would break up
wing meetings and protest against right wing professors. And their
was 'Racists and fascists have no right to speak or organize.' I began
notice, though, that we were hearing very very similar ideas from those
the upper reaches of government and from policy people who were charged
developing what would soon be called 'anti-racist' policies and
So we felt there was a real necessity for a group that would try and
up for the free speech and free expression provisions of the new
Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. So the Canadian Association for Free Expression

We now have over 20 years under our belt with this Charter, and we find
it is in many ways meaningless. The free speech protections have been
by the judiciary. You could drive an absolute Mack truck through them.
really find ourselves fighting two parallel battles. One is the battle
free speech. And the other is the battle to maintain Canada as a

KAS: Yes. Speaking of foreign aid, the whole idea seems absurd to me,
as an
American observer looking at Canada. Here you have, physically, one of
largest countries on Earth, with a fairly small but highly educated
population. No country on this planet is more in need of development of
natural resources than Canada. It seems ridiculous for you to give
Third World nations to develop theirs.

PF: Yes. And if it were just a matter of giving them money to develop
theirs, it mightn't be so bad. But in fact, what foreign aid generally
a transfer of wealth from the working people of a developed country
Canada or the United States to corrupt elite of some Third World
have proven again and again that most foreign aid doesn't even go to
intended recipients.

KAS: Indeed.

PF: It's just an utter waste for the most part.

KAS: Why should Canadians, and people of European descent worldwide, be
concerned about their future?

PF: There are two things going on simultaneously. One, we have this
Third World immigration that started out in the late 1960s in both our
countries, rapidly accelerated in the 70s and 80s, and by the 1990s
flood -- or I would say an invasion. So we have our population changing
through this government-planned and government-sanctioned invasion. At
same time we have a very low birthrate. I know a US demographer by the
of Leon Bouvier has estimated that sometime around 2050 your country
longer be a majority European or White country. And I was able to
from Statistics Canada exactly the same admission: They said that
around 2050, people of European descent will no longer be a majority in

One reason that we're declining more rapidly is that we have almost
the immigration per capita that you do. You started in a somewhat worse
position -- some 11 per cent. of your population was Black, and you
added heavy Third World immigration -- and we started with virtually no
non-Whites other than a small Native Indian population. For instance,
1961, the city I grew up in, Toronto, had only one per cent. non-White
population. A couple of years ago the New York Times reported it was 60
cent.! So in about 40 years we've gone from one to 60 per cent. We
essentially lost our city.

KAS: That's more like a tidal wave.

PF: Yes, it's a tidal wave. If people are concerned about their
their grandchildren, even if not for themselves, they should seriously
consider that by 2050 , if something doesn't change -- either the rate
immigration or the White birthrate -- this will no longer be a European
country. I would like to think that most people would find that a
matter of
some concern.

And it's not just racial; it's cultural. It's what these people bring
table in terms of values. I saw a really interesting story in one of
weekend papers here in Canada, moaning and groaning about the refugees
Pakistan who've come from Afghanistan, saying 'Oh the world doesn't
seem to
care about them,' et cetera et cetera. And the reporter noticed that
one of
the refugee families that was on its way back to Afghanistan had had,
other things, a roll of deodorant confiscated by the Pakistani
because they thought it was a sex toy.

KAS: Ha!

PF: And the reporter, who was a female, was on several occasions
by one of the Afghan males for trying to talk to his wife, who was of
wrapped up in a bag, or burka. He said the neighbors wouldn't think
well of
them if she was seen talking to a Western woman who might be trying to
corrupt her with Western ways. Now imagine bringing people like that to
Canada. People whose attitude is such that they fear that a roll-on
deodorant might be a sex toy, and who have so much contempt for our
and our way of life that they're afraid that their women will be
'corrupted.' Now I would say that they're certainly entitled to their
of the world, but to bring people like that into a modern First World
country is to create a clash of cultures that isn't any good for us.
And to
further hobble us, our government has adopted this insane policy of
multiculturalism, which says that all cultures are equal and no culture
any better than any other. And it says that we're not supposed to
ways on others -- that's 'cultural imperialism,' et cetera et cetera.
if you bring large numbers of people who have values like those of
Afghanis into our country, it's absolutely a prescription for chaos.

KAS: One of the most memorable descriptions of modern, Politically
Canada I've heard is the name you gave it: Absurdistan. What did you

PF: (laughter) Well, it's sort of a subtle reminder to a lot of
that we have a very large number of people from the Indian subcontinent
here. So it's a play on that, but also a reminder that what we have
here is an absurdity. We had a healthy mix of European people that had
a really fantastic country here. And, for reasons that still need to be
fully explored, sometime in the mid-1960s powerful forces in our
decided to change it -- essentially to throw it all away. We had a
vibrant mix of European peoples: the original settler founding peoples,
French, English, Scots, and Irish; supplemented by a lot of European
immigration in the latter part of the 19th century and the first half
20th century from the Ukraine, Germany, Italy, Iceland, and so on. We
developed what was essentially a wilderness into a really vibrant
Canada, with a population of a little over 12 million people, had the
largest navy in the Second World War. We had made our mark, small as we
were, on the world. And we were, with the coming of this technological
really about to come into our own. But that began to be frittered away
as a
result of this immigration and population policy.

KAS: Well, I would call it absurd if I didn't see it as criminal and

When I was a boy, our family lived in Alaska. And we traveled most
from Alaska to Minnesota and back through Canada for summer vacations.
also visited Quebec for Expo 67. So I have many memories of the natural
beauty of Canada and the qualities of her people -- I remember them as
friendly, optimistic, hard-working, handsome, and the possessors of a
culture. I could sense that, even at that young age, looking at the
buildings and monuments of your land. They inspired me. It seems such a
crime to throw away that heritage for a Third World mélange -- for

PF: You read it exactly right. Expo 67 was the 100th anniversary of the
founding of Canada. It was our centennial. The spirit of optimism that
alive during Expo 67 -- the World's Fair that was held in Montreal --
absolutely electric. I was 18 in 1967 when I went up there. There was a
spirit in the air of optimism -- that we had built a lot and that we
just on the verge of even greater things in the future. Unfortunately,
was really the last hurrah.

Most people didn't realize that decisions had already been made to
the makeup of the country. Our immigration law changed in 1965, which
ironically or coincidentally exactly the same year your country turned
back on its European heritage.

KAS: Isn't that an interesting coincidence?

PF: I was just sufficiently politically aware then to know that the
weren't filled with people demonstrating and saying 'We're sick of
being a
European country; we want to make Canada look like the antechamber of
United Nations.' There was no popular agitation or demand for this.
entirely an elitist decision from the top. I do find it an interesting
coincidence that both our countries changed at exactly the same time.

KAS: The same sort of anti-White bias came into existence in Europe
the same time; the British Commonwealth began importing its non-Whites
tiny Britain around the same time. So it's very difficult for me to
that as a coincidence. It seems to me like a coordinated plan.

PF: Yes, I agree with you.

KAS: Another thing I remember from our trips across Canada was the red
ensign flag of Canada, flying everywhere; the flag with the Canadian
in the main red section, and the British Union Jack in the upper left.
flag symbolized a connection, a common heritage of our two countries,
Anglo-Saxon heritage which is still commemorated in Hawaii's flag and
was also used in the American 'Grand Union' flag as well. Now that red
ensign has been replaced by the maple leaf flag in Canada, yet you, at
protests and at your meetings, still use the red ensign. What's the
for that? Can you explain the symbolism of that flag?

PF: That flag, as far as we are concerned, is the flag of the real
And as a technical point, it was never actually delisted as Canada's
They added the maple leaf flag, and most people consider that the new
of Canada, but the old red ensign was never decommissioned or delisted
it is also an official flag. This change was made in 1965 -- isn't that
coincidental? -- the year they changed the immigration policy.

My analysis of that is that when you're about to utterly change a
you don't want the old symbols around, because the symbols will clash
the new order you're trying to create. Their criticism of the old red
was that it stressed our European heritage -- you've got the Union Jack
the top left, which correctly emphasized the fact that our legal system
our political system derives from Britain. Of course, multiculturalism
very uncomfortable with that: We're supposed to believe that everybody
contributed equally; the natives of the Congo, the denizens of Samoa,
contributed every bit as much to Canada as the founding European
people. So
the old symbolism was inconvenient.

Also the crest was filled with reminders of our European heritage -- it
contained the crests of the French, the Irish, and the Scots; and then
three maple leaves joined together at the bottom of the crest, which
originally green maple leaves, symbolized the founding European
This can be read a number of ways, but the founding European peoples --
French, the English, and then the others who came later, all united to
create the one.

It was a very powerful and very dramatic flag. I believe that the real
reason it was changed in favor of the new one was not to have a
there of what Canada was.

KAS: Does the red ensign still fly anywhere in Canada?

PF: Oh, yes. We fly it at all our protests, we fly it at meetings, and
of our members wear it as a cap badge or a jacket badge. We've got a
lot of
young people, and it's become the symbol you'll see from coast to
other young people who look at it know what it means. And it's
that it is most popular among people who were born long after it had
being used as Canada's flag.

KAS: So, in a way, it's a symbol of both tradition and rebellion.

PF: Yes, exactly. A symbol of tradition and rebellion. A little bit
battle flag of the Confederacy is in your country.

KAS: And some people say the same thing about the Betsy Ross flag in
United States, the thirteen-stars-in-a-circle flag...

PF: Right.

KAS: Paul, you've been very active in protesting the outrageous
Canada's most famous, and obviously and unquestionably innocent,
prisoner: Ernst Zundel. We've interviewed official Zundel spokesman
Weber many times on this program, so our listeners are probably
with the case, but they may not be familiar with your role in
organizing on
Mr. Zundel's behalf. What have you and your supporters been doing

PF: I have kind of a mixed role. I was his first legal representative.
he was deported to Canada and faced an immigration hearing, he had not
been able to secure a lawyer, so I represented him. I'm not a lawyer,
I've had a fair deal of legal experience. Since then, the Canadian
Association for Free Expression has been helping to line up witnesses,
making sure that there's always a good contingent of supporters in the
courtroom. Every time he makes an appearance, we fill the court with
supporters as silent witnesses to the injustices that are being done.
been involved in raising money for him, and of course we've also put on
protests. We've had demonstrations outside the prison on a fairly
basis. In fact, another one is coming up on the 25th of July. Those
among supporters to some other cities: We've had protests outside the
of the minister in charge of security in Edmonton on several occasions
past spring and winter.

A lot of my work is to try and inform supporters across Canada and also
the United States about the case, in person. It's one thing to read
and quite another to have someone explain it to you live and be able to
answer your questions. I've made by my count six appearances in the
six months of this year, 2004, in the US, and possibly three dozen
across Canada in that period of time on this topic. I see myself as an
information source for people who are interested in -- and may be
likely to
support -- Mr. Zundel.

KAS: How can people find out more about your efforts, and also about
protest coming up on the 25th of July?

PF: They can visit our Web page, which is
<http://www.canadianfreespeech.com/ > , or they can contact me

KAS: What about people who don't have access to the Internet?

PF: For people who want to contact us by mail, it's:

Box 332
M9W 5L3

Donations to Ernst Zundel's defense may be sent to the same address.


Be sure to be listening next week to the conclusion of this interview
Paul Fromm, in which Paul and I will be discussing the tragic effects
non-White immigration, the attacks on freedom of speech and freedom of
thought in Canada, and the precedent-shattering 'Hands Off the
protest which Paul organized and which took place outside a synagogue.
That's all next week, on American Dissident Voices.

Wednesday, July 28th, 2004, 08:20 PM
Northern Tradition, White Rebellion, part 2
An Interview With Paul Fromm
by Kevin Alfred Strom

American Dissident Voices Broadcast of July 24, 2004

Welcome to American Dissident Voices. I'm Kevin Alfred Strom.

This week, we continue our interview with Canadian free speech
and pro-White activist Mr. Paul Fromm.

KAS: What changes has immigration brought to Canada so far?

PF: It has cost untold billions of dollars to try to get the
newcomers to adapt. Almost 50 per cent. of the people now coming
into Canada speak neither English nor French. So they're in many
cases virtually unemployable. So they're a huge drain on various
social programs, on welfare programs. We, of course, have
Medicare in Canada, and many of the newcomers are a tremendous
burden on that system.

There's also a huge price to paid in crime. We're the unfortunate
victims of very well organized Chinese Triads, who operate
effectively in many of the urban areas of the country. They're
deeply involved in all sorts of crimes: credit card fraud,
narcotics, organized car theft, and of course -- and of
particular interest to your country -- human smuggling. They are
among the major 'snakeheads' who bring in large numbers of
illegals from China, many of them through Canada to their
ultimate destination -- big cities in the United States like New

KAS: Well, it sounds like that, by mere biomass alone, by mere
expansion, they're taking your country. They're occupying space,
owning land, and it's simply no longer Canadian.

PF: Yes, I think we suffer from the North American 'business
curse,' and that is that many of our people, like unfortunately
many businessmen, only look to the next quarter -- what will
happen in the next 90 days. Can I make a buck? And unfortunately
there have been a lot of Canadian businesses and government
people who have a vested interest in this that take a very short
term view of it.

One businessman told me "Oh, immigration's good for Canada. I'm
in the real estate business, and we can sell a lot more houses."
And, from an extremely narrow short-term point of view, he's
probably right. And many government folks say "More immigration?
That's great -- we'll need more ESL teachers and I am an ESL
teacher," or "I'm a social worker and these people come with all
sorts of problems, so I've got it made in the shade for a couple
of decades."

We don't take a look, though, at the long-term effects. And the
long-term effects are the changing population. And that's what we
have here.

KAS: Instead of the next quarter we ought to be looking at the
next century.

PF: Yes -- or even the next 50 years.

KAS: Indeed. What are the differences between Canada and the
United States when it comes to freedom of speech?

PF: My American friends tell me that your First Amendment isn't
nearly as strong a guarantee as at least I imagine it is, but I
would say that we are a more repressive country. When I run into
a problem with Customs, I always try to twit these humorless
people by saying, "You know I only thought I missed my flight to
North Korea."

KAS: (laughter)

PF: They don't get it. So I say, "You know. A police state." They
get really upset about that.

We are a much more repressive country in terms of free speech.
For one thing, while we're not able to control immigration of
terrorists up here, our contribution to 'fighting terrorism'
under our 'anti-terrorist' legislation in 2001 was to crack down
on the Internet. So we have turned over control of the Internet
in Canada to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, where truth is
no defense. So they can prosecute a person for making remarks
against privileged groups -- and that would be race, religion,
sex, sexual orientation, et cetera -- if the remarks are 'likely
to expose' that person to 'hatred or contempt.'

'Likely' is a pretty broad term, and as for 'contempt,' I would
argue that it's hard to criticize anybody without holding him up
to contempt. And this legislation was in response to agitation
for years from groups like the League for Human Rights of B'nai
B'rith and the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Simon Wiesenthal
Center. So the government now makes dissent on the Internet
risky. Though it's not impossible, it's a risk, and I think it's
a risk you don't face down there.

KAS: So by publishing on your own Web sites, by doing this
interview and having your views appear on this radio program,
which is presented not only on radio but on the Internet, you are
taking the chance of running afoul of these Politically Correct

PF: Yes. You have to be careful what you say. And I'm probably
not nearly careful enough. This is a demeaning position for free
men and women to be in. I just don't think that's what proud and
thinking Europeans were made to do, watching every word. Our two
countries have been healthiest when there was broad, brawling
public debate, where the price of offending someone was a shout
that you're a horse's ass -- not "Fire him!" -- "Lock him up!" --
"Shut him down." A society where there can be open debate is a
healthy one. And we have not seen that for at least two decades
in Canada. The number of topics that are debatable become fewer
and fewer. Immigration is a very hard subject to debate, at least
politically, in Canada.

KAS: Even though your country's Customs and border officials are
completely unable and perhaps even uninterested in stopping the
importation of terrorists from foreign countries, they are very
very careful about what books they allow to cross the border. You
never know what sort of terrorist acts these books might commit!

PF: Yes. There is a Puritanical fixation on ideas. These Customs
people -- the censors, I would call them -- are supposed to be
basically looking for two types of things: so-called pornography
and "hate" -- hate in quotation marks. Every three months they
publish a list of books, even booklists, tapes, CDs, et cetera,
that they have seized in the past 90 days. And they also indicate
the disposition: Whether they were seized and then deemed to be
OK; or seized and then deemed to be either pornographic or

For one 90-day period a couple of years back, several of the
books published by Dr. Roger Pearson in Washington -- really
solid academic books like Shockley on Eugenics and Race and Fear
and Loathing in Academe, which is about attempts by censors on
campus to attack or shut down people who were doing research on
race, people like Shockley, or Philippe Rushton in Canada -- were
deemed, despite being purely academic and scholarly, to be
"hate." At the same time, videotapes which had titles like 'Anal
Sluts' or 'Oriental With an Anal Touch' were deemed not to be
pornographic. Now, I am really not in favor of censorship
regardless of content, but it struck me that unless the titles of
those videotapes were utterly misleading, they probably were

KAS: Unbelievable. Well, the company which sponsors this radio
program, National Vanguard Books, sometimes has its shipments of
books to customers in Canada intercepted by the thought police.
And isn't it true that they even stopped some books of German
fairy tales?

PF: Yes. I've had German Fairy Tales confiscated a couple of
times. In the end I got them back, but that's not even the point.
The point is the mindset that is so twisted that it sees 'German'
and 'fairy tales' and thinks that there could be something wrong
there. This is very, very unhealthy.

One of our subscribers had a copy of David Duke's new book,
Jewish Supremacism, seized. And it was deemed to be "hate
propaganda," despite the fact that the book is absolutely
scholarly and based on very well-documented research. And so he
asked them "Well, what's going to happen to it?"

"Oh," he was told, "when the appeal period ends in 90 days, it
will be destroyed." So he said "How?" "It gets burned," they

Not too many weeks later, there was a firebomb thrown at a Jewish
elementary school in Montreal, and part of their library was
burned. And that was an opportunity for all sorts of politicians
to get in on the act and bemoan the "rise of anti-Semitism," et
cetera, et cetera. The Minister of Justice, who is Jewish, a
fellow by the name of Irwin Cotler, pulled a big mournful face on
TV and said something like "What sort of country is it where they
burn books?" So we put out a press release saying that if the
minister really is worried about people who burn books, he might
whisper across the cabinet table at his counterpart who deals
with Customs, because we have an official policy in this country
of burning books.

KAS: Now I see why you call it Absurdistan.

PF: Yes.

KAS: Late last year, you and your supporters held a number of
Hands Off the Internet protests -- one of them apparently outside
a synagogue. What were those protests all about?

PF: Oh, yes. That caused an immense stir. There was a group of
speakers announced -- all of them in favor of censorship of the
Internet -- by a British Columbia group that's a long-time
opponent of free speech. The meeting was held in a synagogue, and
we thought we'd hold the protest right outside the synagogue in
Victoria, British Columbia. It got quite a bit of local press,
and the participants were just furious, just outraged that people
would dare come out and protest in front of a synagogue. And, as
far as I know, that was the first time that had been done --
certainly in my memory. It was a very disciplined protest. We
had, of course, the red ensign; we had placards; we had people
who had come from up to a couple of hundred miles away to join
us. The message was very clear and simple: Give freedom a chance
-- Hands Off the Internet.

But the very word 'freedom,' which inspired a generation back in
the 1960s, now is almost a dirty word. Kevin, one of the things
I've noticed in twenty years working on the free speech front is
that, twenty years ago, when we would argue against one of the
Jewish lobby groups and say "What you are suggesting would
involve censorship and deny free speech," they would be on the
defensive. They would be saying "We're in favor of free speech,
but...." Now, what we find more and more is that people who
support free speech are labeled, as in "So and so says he's a
'free speech' supporter," with "free speech" in quotation marks,
as if free speech is somehow not quite legitimate. In fact, we've
often been told "Well, you have a hidden agenda; you're not
really for free speech, you're just for Nazism or something."

KAS: Hats off to you for the protest. What were the people inside
the synagogue trying to do? What were they lobbying for?

PF: They were going over various things that had been done to try
to crack down on the Internet, to restrict freedom of speech on
the Internet. There were a number of the announced speakers who
didn't show up for their meeting, but of those who did, one was a
spokesman for the Wiesenthal Center, which has been very active
in Canada trying to restrict free speech on the Internet, and
another was a fellow who is now a government lawyer with the
Canadian Human Rights Commission, Richard Warman. Warman has been
like a one-man censorship machine. He has filed numerous
complaints about the Internet, even though he was at that time a
government official. And then, when people like me criticize him
on the Internet for what he's doing, he sues us for libel. It
reminds me of the fate of people during the Cultural Revolution
in China: It was bad enough to be executed by the government as a
revolutionary or whatever, but then your family was sent a bill
for the cost of the bullet to shoot you.

KAS: Is Warman some sort of official censor?

PF: No. He was an investigator with the Canadian Human Rights
Commission. We called him the high priest of censorship.

KAS: But he does go around and try to get ISPs to shut down Web
sites and that sort of thing?

PF: Oh, yes. And he had no hesitation to write to ISPs in the
United States that were hosting various people in Canada that he
didn't like, and threatening them. The man behaved -- and I've
said this, and this is even the subject of a lawsuit -- as a

KAS: Is the lawsuit still ongoing?

PF: Oh, yes. It's been in motion since February of this year, and
it's still trundling along.

KAS: So, because of his censorship activities, you called him a
censor. And he's suing you for that?

PF: Yes, he says that will damage his reputation. Our position is
that if you don't try to take away the people's right to free
speech, no one will call you a censor. It's your own dreadful
behavior that's going to damage your reputation.

It's typical of a country heading for Third World dictatorship
that the State doesn't want its activities under scrutiny. In
fact, in the Zundel case -- and on some days, it's almost
laughable -- in a country that very seldom invokes national
security, just about everything is supposedly a matter of
national security. There are two parallel trials going on with
Zundel. One is the public one, where he's present and his
supporters are present and he has a defense lawyer. The other is
a series of private hearings that go on with just the government
prosecutor and the judge present. And we're not allowed to know
what the evidence is, or who the witnesses (if any) are, or even
exactly what the accusations are. So Zundel is in the situation
of many people in Third World countries in the legal system. He
can't really mount a defense, because he doesn't really know what
he's accused of.

KAS: It's a secret trial. I thought that was abolished when they
abolished Star Chamber proceedings.

PF: This is something that I think we have to make not just
Canadians, but also Americans, understand: What is going on in
Canada sets us back five or six hundred years. These are rights
that were hard-won in Britain before they were established here:
the right to face your accusers; to be able to face the witnesses
and the evidence against you (and therefore answer it); and the
right to know what you're charged with. Mr. Zundel is being
charged under a blanket charge; that he's a "threat to national
security" and because he's a "terrorist." That's all he knows.

Anybody who knows him or who has studied his career at all knows
that that is completely preposterous. Zundel, whatever else he is
or isn't, has been a lifelong pacifist.

KAS: Indeed. We have a parallel situation in the United States,
with the Patriot Act being used to introduce the precedent of
secret trials.

Now, Paul you were an English teacher for 25 years, is that

PF: That's right. Yes.

KAS: In 1997 you lost your job due to an alliance of Communists
and members of B'nai B'rith, who successfully lobbied to have you

PF: Yes.

KAS: On that day, you told the world that "This precedent sends a
chilling message to teachers. If you think about the issues of
the day, if you have any political views, keep your mouth shut if
you want to keep your job." How did you feel on that day, and
what did you decide to do about it?

PF: In terms of my personal situation, I had to -- I'm not
independently wealthy -- quickly work out other forms of income
to support my family. I decided I would fight the firing, and I
grieved through the union, grieved the Board of Education. That
process went on from April Fools' Day 1998 until 2002, and
eventually arbitration went against me 2 to 1. I'm now in a
position where I can seek judicial review in the courts. The only
problem is that it will be very very expensive. I have never let
this go.

I felt disappointed, certainly, for myself. I felt that the
education system had radically changed in the 20 some years I'd
been involved in it. New teachers would face a situation pretty
much like that in a Third World dictatorship: You'd better be
awfully careful what you say that could, in any way, shape, or
form annoy powerful people in the State. You can still criticize
the government as a political party; we still have that right.
But if you criticize anything to do with multiculturalism, or
immigration policy, or the powerful enemies of free speech --
basically the enemies of free speech in Canada are the organized
Jewish lobbies, like the B'nai B'rith and the Canadian Jewish
Congress. If you criticize them, you're in real trouble.

I got a bit of a laugh the other day. A friend of mine was
telling me about a woman who had been hired by the municipality
down in Niagara Falls, Ontario a few years back as their
'Anti-Racism Coordinator.' Apparently she got fired two or three
years ago because she appeared at a pro-Palestinian protest.

KAS: Unbelievable.

PF: The Canadian government likes to pat itself on the back in
the international forums about what a progressive country we are
and all the rights our citizens have, blah blah blah. I think the
world should be made very aware of the fact that that's mostly
hot air.

KAS: It seems to be a constantly-repeating pattern that those
pushing for the political imprisonment of Ernst Zundel, those
forcing you out of your teaching job, and many other cases, are
connected to international Jewish groups, like the B'nai B'rith.
And the extremely slanted media coverage of these events also
comes from Jewish-controlled newspapers and networks. These
people seem deathly afraid of open debate about history, and of
any assertion of identity or unity on the part of European
people, whether those people are Canadians or Americans or
Germans or any European nationality.

PF: You're quite right. The main threat to freedom of speech in
Canada -- and we've emphasized this for the last decade or so --
is organized Jewish groups. They are the ones that have lobbied
fanatically for government censorship of the Internet, for the
various 'hate laws' we have, and, almost as pernicious, the Human
Rights Commission censorship laws, some of which are federal and
some of which are provincial. And before a Human Rights
Commission, often truth is not even considered a defense. So a
person pulled before a Human Rights Commission on some so-called
'hate' violation has very little defense that can be offered --
if you can't say that what you said is true, then it's only the
'hurt feelings' that matter, and you really don't have much of a
defense that you can mount.

KAS: Paul, are there any changes on the horizon for freedom of
speech in your country, and is there any hope, in your view, for
the men and women of the West in Canada.

PF: I don't think there is going to be a turnaround in Canada
until we develop a much larger hard core of informed people who
want to do something. People fall into one of two categories:
They're uninformed and don't see the big picture, or they may see
that there's a problem, but they're not prepared to do anything
about it. They may have bought the argument that it's hopeless;
or that they're too old and will just have to coast to the grave
and then it's somebody else's problem. Or they may simply have
not seen any real leadership that they can rally around. I see
our task as being twofold. One is to inform more people -- let
them see just how dire the situation is; and secondly to organize
and motivate people to get involved.

KAS: That's what we're trying to do in the United States, and I'm
proud to say that our news Web site, nationalvanguard.org, has
prominently featured many of your articles and news dispatches.
And I can also tell you that we're getting well in excess of
300,000 page views per month. There are people who are awakening,
who never thought about these issues before -- or who did think
about them but were discouraged and thought that they were the
only people who felt that way.

PF: That's one of the great things about the Internet. It's
helping to break down the isolation that censorship and state
suppression and very biased media have imposed on so many people.
Many people have felt that they were the oddballs, that nobody
else shared their views. But the Internet opens them up to the
fact that there are a lot of people who share their views -- not
just in their own country, but maybe even in their own

KAS: Paul, we're running out of time for the broadcast. I want to
thank you for all of your sacrifices for freedom and for truth,
and I want to thank you for being a guest on American Dissident

PF: Thank you very much Kevin for having me. If people want to
contribute to the Zundel defense fund, they can send donations to
CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3, Canada -- and just mark
it 'for Zundel.'

KAS: Very good.