Communist Party member David Lethbridge is claiming credit for having persuaded the Peel Board of Education to dismiss populist activist Paul Fromm from his teaching position. “Salmon Arm’s Coalition Against Racism is chalking up another win in a war against racism. SACAR was recently credited with having an Ontario adult-education teacher fired. …

The decision to fire Paul Fromm … took days of deliberating, including many in-camera sessions. In the end, his termination was final but may not have been had it not been for a videotape given in evidence by SACAR’s David Lethbridge. … ‘The tape was just the straw that broke the camel’s back, There was a lot of work done for quite some time to have this man fired from his teaching position,’ said Lethbridge.”

(The Shuswap Sun, March 13, 1997) The communist professor said: “I think most would agree that it is best and important that known white-supremacists and neo-Nazis not pollute classrooms.” The Communist Party’s People’s Voice (February, 1997) reported: “Much of the new evidence was gathered and turned over to B’nai Brith by David Lethbridge, director of the Salmon Arm Coalition Against Racism.”

B’nai Brith Relied on Communist Lethbridge for Info. to Smear Fromm

Most of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith’s case against Paul Fromm was guilt-by-association. Speaking of which, information obtained by Paul Fromm’s lawyer Doug Christie showed that B’nai Brith spokesman Rochelle Wilner read directly from a memo received from Lethbridge giving his slant on a video of Paul Fromm addressing a private memorial for the late Prof. Revilo P. Oliver. B’nai Brith is also claiming credit for having Fromm fired.

“‘We were assisted in launching our complaint and gathering evidence by Alan Dutton, David Lethbridge and several members of B’nai Brith lodges in British Columbia and the Halton/Peel lodge, Har Tikvah,'” said B’nai Brith national director Karen Mock. “‘We commend the Peel Board for having the courage to stand up for their convictions. … They are to be applauded for their precedent-setting decision,’ said Rochelle Wilner, national chair of B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights.” (The Canadian Jewish News, March 6, 1997) Wilner is right about that.

The firing of a teacher merely for expressing his political viewsd — with no finding of any harm to students or the learning situation — is certainly a disturbing precedent an another nail in the coffin of free speech in Canada. It is clear from evidence obtained during the hearing that B’nai Brith has long lobbied to have Fromm fired. A December 11, 1996 letter from Karen Mock to Peel Board Director of Education Harold Brathwaite stated: “Further to our conversations on the issue of Paul Fromm, we are enclosing a synopsis of a video tape that is currently in our possession.

The tape features Paul Fromm at a symposium in memory of Revilo Pendleton Oliver.” The attached synopsis was provided by communist David Lethbridge. In a February 7, 1997 letter to the Board, Karen Mock and B’nai Brith sought to intervene at the Board’s hearing into Fromm. “As experts in human rights, we would like to be able to offer you our perspective on the issues raised by the facts of this case. We would also like to bring to your attention new and relevant information which has recently come to light.”

B’nai Brith Smears Populist Leaders

B’nai Brith’s annual survey of so-called “hate crimes” has found a 26 per cent drop in 1996 over 1995. However, all is not well, says B’nai Brith executive vice-president Frank Dimant. “There is increasing evidence that elements in Canada’s extreme right are active in cyberspace. … Dimant says the far right has become more organized and sophisticated. ‘Such well-known names in the hate movement as Ernst Zundel, Paul Fromm and Doug Christie have established sites on the World Wide Web that are updated regularly to disseminate their propaganda, raise funds, provide instructions and recruit new foot soldiers for their cause,’ Dimant said.” (Toronto Star, March 8, 1997) The comment from a spokesman for an “anti-defamation league” smacks of defamation. None of these people has ever been charged or convicted under Section 319 of wilful promotion of “hate”. Thus, they are not part of any “hate movement.”

A Look At B’nai Brith’s Finances

B’nai Brith Canada is one of the biggest anti-free speech lobbies in Canada. Amazingly, this blatant political lobby group is considered a “charity” by Revenue Canada. Material obtained through access to information requests reveals that, according to its audited financial statements for 1994, B’nai Brith had assets of $31,021,180, up from $29,928,192 the previous year. In 1994, B’nai Brith soaked up $255,541 in government and foundation grants. It netted $1,088,578 from gaming [gambling] operations and lodge fund raising. Its total revenue was $4,535,308.

Doug Collins to Face B.C.Human Rights Tribunal, May 12

“The provincial Human Rights Tribunal has granted permission to the B.C. Press Council to intervene on behalf of the newspaper industry in the North Shore News’ upcoming tribunal hearing. The press council’s action is aimed at defending the constitutional principle of press freedom and the right of journalists to do their job of keeping the public informed without fear of government interference. The move marks the first time in Canada that a press council has been compelled to seek intervenor status before a provincial human rights body. … The hearing is slated to begin May 12. It involves a complaint filed May 26, 1994, against the North Shore News and columnist Doug Collins by the Canadian Jewish Congress. The CJC argues that a movie review written by Collins and published in the News on March 9, 1994, violates section 2 of the new Human Rights Code and ‘discriminates against Jewish persons and is likely to expose those persons to hatred and contempt on the basis of race, religion and ancestry.’ The North Shore News maintains that section 2 of the Human Rights Code violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms by infringing upon the newspaper’s right of free expression. The code restricts the publication or open discussion of material that ‘indicates discrimination’ or is ‘likely to expose a person or group of persons to hatred or contempt.’ Under human rights legislation, an unelected Human Rights Council is empowered to apply hefty penalties upon those ruled to have violated the legislation. … Press Council chairman Robert Yanow said: ‘This is an important occurrence for the press council because the powers created in the revised Human Rights Code are, in our opinion, unconstitutional and unwarranted. This will give the press an opportunity to hopefully have the offending parts of the code declared unconstitutional and unwarranted.’ … The News has waited almost three years for a decision from the tribunal on the complaint and for a hearing date to be set. The process has been extremely time consuming and has thus far cost the newspaper close to $70,000 in legal fees. The case could cost the News up to $200,000.” (The North Shore News, March 14, 1997)

Brutal Penalties Imposed for Election Advertizing in B.C.

The political elite wants to corner the right to campaign and influence people during elections. Independent citizens having their say is just not to be tolerated. Nowhere is this tendency more obvious than in socialist British Columbia. “Some hefty penalties have been levied by B.C.’s Chief Electoral Officer for violations of third-party advertising provisions of the Election Act. A commercial fishermen’s lobby group, the B.C. Fisherman’s Survival Coalition, must pay $220,481, as outlined in certificates filed earlier this month in B.C. Supreme Court. Accountant Garry Nixon owes $13,294 as a result of the third-party provision, which says so-called third parties can spend only $5,000 during an election campaign. Mr. Nixon, a Vancouver tax consultant, bought air time from a radio station and ads in newspapers to attack Premier Glen Clark and the New Democratic Party. The legislation provides for a penalty to be paid to the Chief Electoral Officer of ’10 times the amount by which the value of the election advertising sponsored by the sponsor exceeds the limit.'” (Globe and Mail, March 18, 1997)