Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: An Interview With Paul Fromm

  1. #1
    Senior Member
    cosmocreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 18th, 2007 @ 06:36 PM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Politics
    Living in the real world
    Posts
    3,850
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    17 Posts

    An Interview With Paul Fromm

    Northern Tradition, White Rebellion, part 1 Posted on: 2004-07-17
    06:19:58

    An Interview With Paul Fromm

    by Kevin Alfred Strom
    American Dissident Voices broadcast of July 17, 2004 listen to the
    broadcast
    (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.
    Fired
    for his political views in 1997 after a 25-year career as a teacher,
    Mr.
    Fromm has since that time devoted himself full-time to the defense of
    his
    people and his native land, becoming one of the leading patriots in
    Canada.
    This week you'll hear his story and his insights on American Dissident
    Voices.



    _____


    TODAY WE'RE PLEASED to welcome to the American Dissident Voices
    microphones
    one of the leading advocates for European people in Canada, Mr. Paul
    Fromm.
    Mr. Fromm is one of the most active campaigners for the preservation of
    our
    cultural and genetic heritage in that country, and he is also an
    outstanding
    activist for the free speech rights of Canadians threatened by Jewish
    supremacist and Politically Correct censors. He is the head of the
    Canada
    First Immigration Reform Committee, Citizens for Foreign Aid Reform
    (C-FAR),
    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
    private
    memorial service for the late Revilo P. Oliver in Urbana, Illinois.
    There
    were some consequences for you for participating at that service,
    weren't
    there?


    PF: Yes. I must be somewhat unique in recent history: I was fired a
    couple
    of years later, in part for having attended a funeral, actually in this
    case
    a memorial for Professor Revilo Oliver. This was held up as one of my
    great
    'crimes,' falling under the accusation of 'showing persistent contempt
    for
    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.
    But
    multiculturalism and 'ethnocultural equity,' that's serious stuff.
    (laughter)


    KAS: (laughter) Unbelievable. With your publications, your public
    protests,
    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
    government
    affairs generally, called the C-FAR Newsletter, which comes out
    monthly; we
    have the Canadian Immigration Hotline, which comes out ten times a year
    and
    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
    ten
    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
    with
    free speech. So altogether I have five. I'm lucky to have several
    people
    who
    help me, two of them on a full time basis. This work in Canada is
    clearly
    beyond the abilities of one person; our problem is we need a lot more
    people
    involved.


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


    PF: I have been politically active, in terms of organization, since the
    late
    1970s. So you're right, I was already something of an activist. Now
    when
    the
    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
    bills.
    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
    active
    for your race and nation?


    PF: It goes back quite a long way. I was always interested in politics,
    even
    before I became a teenager. I did a lot of reading, reading about World
    War
    II, and in those days I became quite a strong anti-Communist. During
    the
    Vietnam War the left here, as I suppose the left in the United States
    and
    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
    were
    active in protesting in favor of the Vietnam War in those days, and
    against
    various other Communist initiatives. We had a broad range of beliefs,
    not
    simply anti-Communism, but we were pro-free enterprise and so on. What
    we
    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
    people.
    A lot of groups elsewhere tended to be composed of just the older set,
    or
    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
    probably
    have been against the war in Vietnam -- but obviously for very
    different
    reasons than those of the Communist agitators who were making such a
    noise
    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
    the
    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
    entitled
    to it because we'd ripped them off. We thought that this was just a
    complete
    lot of nonsense and an utter bill of goods.


    And from that, we began to get more and more into the immigration area.
    I'd
    become concerned about immigration back in 1972, when the Canadian
    government allowed in thousands of Ugandan Asians after Idi Amin
    expelled
    them. And I thought that was wrong. But the really pernicious effects
    of
    massive Third World immigration to Canada didn't become obvious until
    the
    late 70s. So about that time we began to publish material on
    immigration.
    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
    Bill
    of Rights, called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a really
    impressive-sounding thing, guaranteeing all sorts of wonderful rights
    like
    freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, freedom
    of
    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
    a
    little bit like your SDS; they were very violent. They would break up
    right
    wing meetings and protest against right wing professors. And their
    slogan
    was 'Racists and fascists have no right to speak or organize.' I began
    to
    notice, though, that we were hearing very very similar ideas from those
    in
    the upper reaches of government and from policy people who were charged
    with
    developing what would soon be called 'anti-racist' policies and
    legislation.
    So we felt there was a real necessity for a group that would try and
    stick
    up for the free speech and free expression provisions of the new
    Charter of
    Rights and Freedoms. So the Canadian Association for Free Expression
    was
    born.


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


    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
    the
    largest countries on Earth, with a fairly small but highly educated
    population. No country on this planet is more in need of development of
    its
    natural resources than Canada. It seems ridiculous for you to give
    money
    for
    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
    is
    is
    a transfer of wealth from the working people of a developed country
    like
    Canada or the United States to corrupt elite of some Third World
    country.
    We
    have proven again and again that most foreign aid doesn't even go to
    the
    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
    massive
    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
    became
    a
    flood -- or I would say an invasion. So we have our population changing
    through this government-planned and government-sanctioned invasion. At
    the
    same time we have a very low birthrate. I know a US demographer by the
    name
    of Leon Bouvier has estimated that sometime around 2050 your country
    will
    no
    longer be a majority European or White country. And I was able to
    obtain
    from Statistics Canada exactly the same admission: They said that
    somewhere
    around 2050, people of European descent will no longer be a majority in
    Canada.


    One reason that we're declining more rapidly is that we have almost
    twice
    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
    then
    added heavy Third World immigration -- and we started with virtually no
    non-Whites other than a small Native Indian population. For instance,
    in
    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
    per
    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
    children
    and
    their grandchildren, even if not for themselves, they should seriously
    consider that by 2050 , if something doesn't change -- either the rate
    of
    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
    to
    the
    table in terms of values. I saw a really interesting story in one of
    the
    weekend papers here in Canada, moaning and groaning about the refugees
    in
    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,
    among
    other things, a roll of deodorant confiscated by the Pakistani
    authorities
    because they thought it was a sex toy.


    KAS: Ha!


    PF: And the reporter, who was a female, was on several occasions
    chastised
    by one of the Afghan males for trying to talk to his wife, who was of
    course
    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
    culture
    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
    view
    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
    is
    any better than any other. And it says that we're not supposed to
    impose
    our
    ways on others -- that's 'cultural imperialism,' et cetera et cetera.
    Well,
    if you bring large numbers of people who have values like those of
    these
    Afghanis into our country, it's absolutely a prescription for chaos.


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


    PF: (laughter) Well, it's sort of a subtle reminder to a lot of
    Canadians
    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
    created
    here is an absurdity. We had a healthy mix of European people that had
    built
    a really fantastic country here. And, for reasons that still need to be
    fully explored, sometime in the mid-1960s powerful forces in our
    country
    decided to change it -- essentially to throw it all away. We had a
    really
    vibrant mix of European peoples: the original settler founding peoples,
    the
    French, English, Scots, and Irish; supplemented by a lot of European
    immigration in the latter part of the 19th century and the first half
    of
    the
    20th century from the Ukraine, Germany, Italy, Iceland, and so on. We
    had
    developed what was essentially a wilderness into a really vibrant
    country.
    Canada, with a population of a little over 12 million people, had the
    fourth
    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
    age,
    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
    immoral.


    When I was a boy, our family lived in Alaska. And we traveled most
    years
    from Alaska to Minnesota and back through Canada for summer vacations.
    We
    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
    great
    culture. I could sense that, even at that young age, looking at the
    great
    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
    nothing,
    really.


    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
    was
    alive during Expo 67 -- the World's Fair that was held in Montreal --
    was
    absolutely electric. I was 18 in 1967 when I went up there. There was a
    real
    spirit in the air of optimism -- that we had built a lot and that we
    were
    just on the verge of even greater things in the future. Unfortunately,
    that
    was really the last hurrah.


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


    KAS: Isn't that an interesting coincidence?


    PF: I was just sufficiently politically aware then to know that the
    streets
    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
    the
    United Nations.' There was no popular agitation or demand for this.
    This
    was
    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
    around
    the same time; the British Commonwealth began importing its non-Whites
    into
    tiny Britain around the same time. So it's very difficult for me to
    view
    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
    shield
    in the main red section, and the British Union Jack in the upper left.
    That
    flag symbolized a connection, a common heritage of our two countries,
    the
    Anglo-Saxon heritage which is still commemorated in Hawaii's flag and
    which
    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
    your
    protests and at your meetings, still use the red ensign. What's the
    reason
    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
    Canada.
    And as a technical point, it was never actually delisted as Canada's
    flag.
    They added the maple leaf flag, and most people consider that the new
    flag
    of Canada, but the old red ensign was never decommissioned or delisted
    --
    so
    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
    country,
    you don't want the old symbols around, because the symbols will clash
    with
    the new order you're trying to create. Their criticism of the old red
    ensign
    was that it stressed our European heritage -- you've got the Union Jack
    in
    the top left, which correctly emphasized the fact that our legal system
    and
    our political system derives from Britain. Of course, multiculturalism
    is
    very uncomfortable with that: We're supposed to believe that everybody
    contributed equally; the natives of the Congo, the denizens of Samoa,
    all
    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
    the
    three maple leaves joined together at the bottom of the crest, which
    were
    originally green maple leaves, symbolized the founding European
    peoples.
    This can be read a number of ways, but the founding European peoples --
    the
    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
    reminder
    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
    a
    lot
    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
    coast.
    And
    other young people who look at it know what it means. And it's
    interesting
    that it is most popular among people who were born long after it had
    stopped
    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
    like
    the
    battle flag of the Confederacy is in your country.


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


    PF: Right.


    KAS: Paul, you've been very active in protesting the outrageous
    treatment
    of
    Canada's most famous, and obviously and unquestionably innocent,
    political
    prisoner: Ernst Zundel. We've interviewed official Zundel spokesman
    Mark
    Weber many times on this program, so our listeners are probably
    familiar
    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
    recently?


    PF: I have kind of a mixed role. I was his first legal representative.
    When
    he was deported to Canada and faced an immigration hearing, he had not
    yet
    been able to secure a lawyer, so I represented him. I'm not a lawyer,
    but
    I've had a fair deal of legal experience. Since then, the Canadian
    Association for Free Expression has been helping to line up witnesses,
    and
    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.
    I've
    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
    frequent
    basis. In fact, another one is coming up on the 25th of July. Those
    spread
    among supporters to some other cities: We've had protests outside the
    office
    of the minister in charge of security in Edmonton on several occasions
    this
    past spring and winter.


    A lot of my work is to try and inform supporters across Canada and also
    in
    the United States about the case, in person. It's one thing to read
    about
    it
    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
    first
    six months of this year, 2004, in the US, and possibly three dozen
    talks
    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
    this
    protest coming up on the 25th of July?


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


    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
    Rexdale
    Ontario
    M9W 5L3
    Canada

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

    IHR Revisionist Conference, April 24, 2004, internet broadcast:

    http://www.internationalrevisionistconference.c om/

  2. #2
    Senior Member
    cosmocreator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Last Online
    Thursday, January 18th, 2007 @ 06:36 PM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Age
    57
    Politics
    Living in the real world
    Posts
    3,850
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    17
    Thanked in
    17 Posts
    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
    York.

    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
    censors.

    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
    "hate."

    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
    pornographic.

    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
    said.

    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
    fanatic.

    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
    correct?

    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
    fired.

    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
    neighborhood.

    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
    Voices.

    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.
    .

    IHR Revisionist Conference, April 24, 2004, internet broadcast:

    http://www.internationalrevisionistconference.c om/

Similar Threads

  1. Paul Fromm to Run for Mayor of Mississauga
    By Nachtengel in forum Canada
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Thursday, September 16th, 2010, 05:37 PM
  2. Paul Fromm Loses Teaching Ticket
    By Gefjon in forum Canada
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: Wednesday, April 8th, 2009, 12:05 PM
  3. Job Interview
    By Brynhild in forum The Hearth
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: Friday, April 25th, 2008, 05:09 AM
  4. Jewish Condom-Maker Julius Fromm (1883-1945)
    By Liberator Germaniae in forum Modern Age & Contemporary History
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Monday, March 12th, 2007, 06:04 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •