White Rebellion, Part 2,
Interview with Paul Fromm
American Dissident Voices broadcast
July 24, 2004
by 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
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
KAS: Instead of the next quarter we ought to be looking at the
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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
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.