QUICKLINKS: Malcom Ross Case, Paul Fromm Case, Media Concerns, Farber and the CJC, Conclusions The politically correct are a fanatical minority dedicated to imposing their views upon society. Freewheeling debate and discussion are the last things they want. Their tactics are highly inimical to freedom of thought and free expression. Contrary opinions, as they see it, must not be argued with. Those who dare express such views — whether the issue is feminism, so-called pornography, or issues of immigration or historical interpretation — must be severely punished by being jailed, having their literature banned or seized by cutoms, or being fired from their place of employment.

Indeed, Rodney Bobiwash of the Canadian Native Centre, who is one of Toronto’s most ouspoken censors, declared on CBC radio, March 27, 193: “Part of the great sickness of Western society is that individual liberty has gotten out of hand.” (Mackenzie Newsletter, April, 1993) One of the major targets of the politically correct is teachers. Here we must distinguish between those teachers who misuse the classroom as a soapbox for their own ideas and who teach a curriculum contrary to that set out by their employers and those teachers with independent views who do their job, and keep their views out of the classroom. It is the latter with whom we are concerned. The growing attacks by the politically correct on such teachers seeks to punish them for their religious or political views by having them fired.

Toronto publisher Ernst Zundel. “We must determine if the silencing of Mr. Ross’ anti-Semitic views is such an important public objective that his constitutional rights to freedom of expression and speech can be overridden. … In my opinion, the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in [the Zundel case, 1992], … although dealing with the false news provision of the Criminal Code, bears on the issue here. Writing for the majority, [Madame Justice] McLachlin said: ‘Justification … requires a specific purpose so pressing and substantial as to be capable of overriding the Charter’s guarantees.’ Therefore, the purpose of the Order being reviewed here, namely, Mr. Ross’ removal from the classroom, must be ‘so pressing and substantial’ before the constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression can be overriden by section 1 of the Charter. Viewed in that context and considering the evidence, it is my opinion that the Order cannot stand. Prof. Bruce found that Mr. Ross did not attempt to further his views in the classroom. …

The evidence does not disclose that Mr. Ross ever used or contended that he was free to use his teaching position to further his religious views. Nor did he suggest that the School Board acquiesced in his views. … In such circumstances, I do not conclude that this remedy, which violates Mr. Ross’ constitutional guarantee of freedom of expression, meets the requirement of being ‘a specific purpose so pressing and substantial’ that the guarantee should be overriden. To hold otherwise would, in my view, have the effect of condoning the suppression of views that are not politically popular [at] any given time.” (p.12-14) Malcolm Ross expressed quiet vindication at the decision: “I’m pleased with the decision. Hopefully, it lessens the power [of] the Human Rights Commission, which has tremendous powers to harass and persecute people with views they don’t like.” (Toronto Star, December 21, 1993) On the other hand, the president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, the foremost pro-censorship lobby in Canada, was outraged and demanded that the decision be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. Congress president , a glum Irving Abella, said: “We don’t want him in the classroom. We’re sending a self-admitted racist back into the classroom. We teach tolerance. How can we teach tolerance with an intolerant teacher?” Regrettably, the New Brunswick Human Rights Commission decided to appeal its two court defeats to the Supreme Court of Canada, thus putting Mr. Ross, A man of modest means, to further horrific expense to secure his right to earn a living. Ross, who is a proud Celt, would have his fate decided by the Supreme Court of Canada in a hearing commencing October 31, 1995 — Hallowe’en, the beginning of the new year in the old Celtic tradition. “The Malcolm Ross battle is heading towards a final showdown. The New Brunswick Human Rights Commission has decided to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada a lower court ruling that said Ross should be allowed to teach.’They felt it was too important an issue not to follow up,’ said Janet Cullinan, the commission’s director of compliance. …

A human rights inquiry [in 1991] said that the board, by employing Ross, was fostering a harmful environment. The inquiry ordered Ross be given a non-teaching job with the board. The New Brunswick Court of Appeal overturned that last month. Cullinan said the commission must ask for leave to appeal by mid-February. The Supreme Court will then decide whether to hear the appeal. That could take months. If the court refuses, the case comes to an end and the New Brunswick court’s decision stands.” (St. John Telegraph-Journal, January 22, 1994) Minority spokesmen opposed to freedom of speech have stridently attacked the New Brunswick Court of Appeal’s decision and urged the appeal to the Supreme Court. “The Court has thus totally disregarded the concept of the teacher not only as a pedagogue but also as role model. By re-instating a teacher who both holds and promulgates views which mendaciously villify Jews, … the Court has lent … an endorsement, however indirectly, to those views.

Whether Ross teaches his sick ideology in the classroom is totally irrelevant. The message communicated by the Court is that a teacher is entitled to hold any views, no matter how abhorrent and perverse — and to disseminate them in print — as long as he does not articulate them in the classroom. … Ross’s rights, in infringing on the rights of others, must be overridden in the interest of the public good.” (The Jewish Western Bulletin, January 6, 1994) The leaps of logic are breathtaking. Because a man’s views offend a minority, somehow their rights are being violated by his very presence! Apparently, only those with politically correct views should be allowed to teach.

CAFE Homepage

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.