|
|
|
|
|
|
BENDING TO JEWISH PRESSURE
1. After reading the Paul From story, below, don't rush in to shout about Jews
who do evil things. Pause a moment and reflect on the situation. Jewish groups,
like any other interest group, participate in the human enterprise - battle of
the wills.
2. It is up to those who come face-to-face with such Jewish, or other, pressure to resist it on firm moral and intellectual values/principles.
3. If clear moral and intellectual principles and ideals are carried within an individual's world-view, then it is possible to resist that pressure. In the Fromm case, below, it is clear that a moral failure of nerve occurred all along the chain-of-command, and that ultimately Paul Fromm was sacrificed to satisfy the never-satisfied individuals who get their self-identity only through scapegoating - playing the victim to excess.
4. In Australia Mrs Joyce Steele, OBE, was subjected to Jewish pressure - B'nai B'rith member and barrister, Alan Goldberg, wrote her a typical letter that illustrates how pressure is exerted on any public figures that refuse to follow the dictates of the Jewish lobby. Some would call this kind of written pressure a conspiracy/blackmail.
5. Mrs Steele did not bend to Alan Goldberg's pressure because she was secure enough about her own identity. She did not worry about what others would think of her having endorsed a book written by Mr John Bennett, of being labelled a 'hater', a 'Holocaust denier', an 'antisemite', a 'racist', a 'neo-Nazi', etc.
6. Mr Alan Goldberg is now a judge at the Federal Court of Australia- FCA.
7. The same pattern has just been exposed in the Jeremy Jones v Fredrick Töben case before the FCA on Tuesday, 27 November 2007, where Consent Orders resolved the dispute - until the Australian Jewish News started gloating about the settlement, that >>Töben gives Holocaust denial apology in court<<. This now needs to be clarified whether such an inference can be drawn from the 27 November 2007 Consent Orders - and even if it cannot, then the whole matter needs to be aired in open court so that a detailed response can be made to each one of the 144 items complained of.
Fredrick Töben
Adelaide
2 December 2007
This is the Alan Goldberg letter of 1 July 1985
The
following article also illustrates the same mechanism of pressure as used by
Alan Goldberg in his letter. In a 1991 article >Holocaust Revisionism in Australia
____________________
Paul Fromm Stripped of His Teaching Certificate by Ontario College of
Teachers
It was a Soviet-style politically correct kangaroo
court, plain and simple. The hostility toward me from the panel of three
Discipline Committee members was palpable and remarked on by supporters who,
from time to time, attended at the hearings which were held listlessly from
January, 2005 to June, 2007. In the end, the decision was harsh, the punishment
brutal and the decision meant as a message to other dissidents who might be
teachers.
First, a bit of history:
1991. Fellow
teacher, conservative Christian Malcolm Ross is removed from the classroom in
New Brunswick after Canadian Jewish Congress complaints about his writings and
letters-to-the-editor which are highly critical of Zionism.
1991.
Now, it’s my turn. The Canadian Jewish Congress starts agitation to have me
fired from my position as an English teacher for my immigration and pro-free
speech stands, taken on my own time, off school property. Bernie Farber says:
“The next day, we got on to our friends in the press and told them who Paul
Fromm was.” The CJC made my profession an issue.
1992. The
CJC buys a videotape of a private Heritage Front meeting and shops it around to
the press. The Toronto Sun – yes, that’s correct, the “rightwing”
Toronto Sun, does a front page expose, “Teacher Addresses Neo-Nazi Rally.”
There’s a huge media frenzy with the CJC leading the pack howling for my job.
No one denies that I’m a first rate teacher. Robert Lee, then Director of
Education for the Peel Board, tells the press I’m “an exemplary teacher.”
My evaluations are first rate and I’m in demand for summer school and night
school teaching assignments, because the proper authorities know I’m a capable
and competent instructor in English and writing.
1993. After
a 7-month investigation, lawyer Jeff Cowan concludes that I have never
discriminated in the classroom. A long and confusing report is the result of
what my union, the Ontario Secondary School Teachers’ Federation, says is the
most intensive investigation ever of a teacher in this Province, in a
non-criminal matter. The NDP (socialist) Minister of Education receives this
report and, although he has the power to suspend or revoke my teaching
certificate, he does nothing. The Canadian Jewish Congress complains to the
Ontario Teachers’ Federation. They have the power to hold hearings if someone
complaints about a teacher. They hold no hearings, as my outside activities
clearly do not constitute professional misconduct.
1993. I
am transferred into Adult Education with a stern warning that repetition of
these or similar incidents – my crimes include having stood up for historian
David Irving’s right to speak and having called multiculturalism a threat to
free speech – may lead to my firing. My union lawyer phones and writes the
Peel Board for clarification asking just what it is I can do or say. They refuse
to answer.
1996. The
Supreme Court scoffs at Malcolm Ross’s defence of freedom of religion and
belief and upholds his removal from the classroom. Now, it’s my turn again.
The Peel Board of Education hires anti-racist professional Alan Dutton of the
Canadian Anti-Racism Education Research Society in Vancouver to conduct a secret
investigation of me. I am told nothing about this.
1997. January opens with a Happy New Year from the Board’s
Bardadian Director of Education Howard Brathwaite. I am to be terminated after a
24 year careers as an English instructor. My sins? “On
November 19, 1994, the Member participated in the 1994 Revilo P. Oliver Memorial
Symposium in Urbana, Illinois, organized by the National Alliance, a white
supremacist organization run by William Pierce, a former member of the American
Nazi party, [THIS IS A LIE AND A SMEAR. SAM DICKSON, NOT THE NATIONAL
ALLIANCE, ORGANIZED THIS MEMORIAL.] at which symposium Mr. Oliver, a
recognized racist, was honoured. At this event, the Member: shared the
stage with David Duke, a former head of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States of
America; publicly described Mr. Oliver as a ‘giant in his field’ and
as a ‘man greatly admired’” My second sin: “The Member organized the
March 1996 British Columbia Second Canadian Free Speech Symposium in Surrey,
British Columbia, and at that symposium, consorted publicly with known racists,
speaking publicly about their right to make racist statements.” So, going to a
memorial service and organizing a free speech conference were proof to the Peel
Board of my disrespect “for multiculturalism and ethnocultural equity”
which, they said, are “core values” (nor reading, writing, math, or
computer literacy) of the education system.
1998-2002.
A long grievance slowly works its way through over 20 days of hearings. The
hearings open April Fools Day, 1998 and a decision arrives March 8, 2002 by a
2-1 vote upholding the firing.
2003.
The Peel Board in a final act of spite files a complaint of professional
misconduct against me with the Ontario College of Teachers.
2005.
Hearings begin. There will be 12 days of hearings in all.
2007.
April 19, a Jewish Defence League protest is held outside the
hearings. A JDL member attempts to choke me and is arrested. June 13 hearings
conclude. Samhain (Halloween) the Discipline Committee issues its decision that
I lose my teaching certificate and that this decision and my name be published
as a warning to others who dare think for themselves outside the politically
correct box and dare express those thoughts.
The
Committee’s decision did not dismiss a single accusation against me or find a
single incident complained of to be a legitimate exercise of free speech. I was
found guilty of professional misconduct – a very subjective term, but one
usually associated with incompetence or mistreatment of students – for
opposing massive Third World immigration, criticizing multiculturalism and
defending free speech. “The Committee finds the Member guilty of professional
misconduct under the Ontario College of Teachers Act and Regulation
Made Under the Teaching Profession Act in
effect before the establishment of the Ontario College of Teachers (1996)
because the Member’s activities commenced prior to the College’s
existence.”
It’s
a huge relief to learn that the case is not about freedom of speech. “This
case is not about the Member’s right to hold political views that are
unpopular, or to participate in legal political activities. It is about whether
a teacher who publicly expresses views which are contrary to the values of the
profession and the education
Among
my crimes were the following:
*
“In 1979, the Member co-founded and was research director for Citizens for
Foreign Aid Reform Inc. (C-FAR), an organization which espouses beliefs
*
“In 1981, the Member co-founded the Canadian Association for Free Expression
(CAFE), an organization which espouses beliefs and values contrary to the
principles of multiculturalism and tolerance.” So, free speech is contrary to
“tolerance.” Umm, and the earth is flat.
*
“On March 11, 1989, the Member addressed a crowd of about 60 persons at a
speaking engagement sponsored by C-FAR. The Member’s speech discussed
The
Discipline Committee concluded: “When the Member chose to engage in political
activities of an intensely public nature – writing articles, delivering
speeches, attending provocative rallies – he opened the door to creating an
effect on the school community that jeopardizes it as a viable learning
environment, by its affect on the students, teachers and staff, and the public
more broadly.” Yet, I received a glowing evaluation of my teaching from my
principal in 1992 during the media frenzy caused, not by my trying to be a
publicity hound but by the Canadian Jewish Congress. There was no evidence of
students being unable to learn in my class or, indeed, of any significant
student complaints about my political views.
“There
is no doubt that the Member’s conduct is itself in conflict with the values of
the education system. His expressed views that deny the basic equality and
dignity of every person go to the very heart of the public education system.”
On the contrary, I treated all students fairly and equally and with dignity and
there was no evidence to the contrary.
The
punishment provisions of this harsh decision made it quite clear that I was
being punished for my political views. “The Registrar of the Ontario
College of Teachers is directed to revoke the Certificate of Qualification and
Registration of the Member, which Certificate the Member is to surrender
immediately to the Registrar. … The Member’s participation in meetings and
rallies, where racist and anti-multicultural views were expressed, brought
significant media coverage to him and to the school with a resulting negative
impact on the school community. This behaviour continued despite numerous
written reprimands from his employer that his activities were inconsistent with
board policies and his duties as a teacher. Throughout the hearing, the Member
never indicated that he recognized the negative impact of his conduct on members
of the school community and the Committee saw no evidence of any remorse by the
Member.”
The
decision goes on the make a sweeping claim: “The Member expressed his views,
antithetical to the policies and values of the society, of the community, of the
Board and of the profession, in public forums that included known racists and
racist organizations. The Member’s pattern of conduct, which persisted over
many years.” What society? Freedom of speech and immigration reform are
supported by vast numbers of Canadians.
Of
course, because I wouldn’t cringe and grovel like the average teacher at a
discipline hearing who is there for sexual misconduct, the Committee noted with
resentment my bad attitude: “The Committee saw no evidence of any remorse by
the Member.” Henceforth, teachers are to be mere propagandists for some vague
state ideology: “A penalty other than revocation would send a message to
other educators and to the public at large that the College is unwilling or
unable to ensure that its members will work to implement legislated policies
based on shared public values.” There is apparently no right to dissent from
government policy on one’s own time as a teacher or to attempt to change of
modify legislation.”
Like
a Soviet “people’s court,” the public humiliation of the dissenter is to
serve as a grim warning to other would be free thinkers: “The Committee has
determined in this case, that due to the nature of the Member’s misconduct and
the revocation of the Member’s certificate, publication of the Member’s name
is warranted. Publication of the nature of the misconduct in which the Member
engaged will deter members of the profession from similar off duty conduct.
Publication of
I
contend that the decision is filled with errors of procedure and law.
Prior
to 1997, Ontario teaching certificates were issued by the Minister of Education
and could only be revoked or suspended by him, after a hearing of the Ontario
Teachers' Federation (OTF). I was the most investigated teacher in a
non-criminal matter ever in this Province. In 1992-1993, the NDP Minister of
Education appointed lawyer Jeff Cowan in investigate my political activities.
His report was a mixture of recommendations, but he did not recommend my
dismissal. The Minister accepted the report and did nothing. The Canadian Jewish
Congress loudly complained to the OTF and they didn't even hold a hearing -- for
the good reason that, in those days, the OTF would only recommend the loss of
one's teaching certificate for a serious, and I mean, serious criminal
conviction. There was no precedent for taking away a teaching certificate for
the non-violent expression of one's political opinions on one's own time.
I
argued at the hearings that this case was res judicata; that is, it had
already been dealt with by the then competent authority, the Minister of
Education.
The
OCT was trying to nail me under the far more nebulous rules of the 1997
College of Teacher's Act. In July, 2005, they suffered a major setback in
the Kalin case. Kalin clearly held that teachers accused of
misconduct prior to 1997 must be governed by the old OTF rules and precedents. Kalin
v. Ontario College of Teachers, from which leave to appeal was sought
by the College and denied, found: " The principles applied by this Court in
Cresman are nevertheless applicable. Prosecuting Mr. Kalin under a 1997
definition of misconduct for acts that are alleged to have occurred in 1991
offends the rule against retrospectivity. ... Certainly the College has
jurisdiction to proceed with complaints against those who are alleged to have
been guilty of misconduct prior to 1996, but the College cannot judge that
conduct based on 1997 standards."
When
the high prices McCarthy Tetrault firm of College lawyers presented their book
of authorities before their final summation, I was amazed to find no cases from
the old Ontario Teachers Federation cases. It was to be those precedents that
should be used to judge me.
In
preparing my final submissions for this case, I sought access to rulings of the
Ontario Teachers' Federation which had previously dealt with profession
misconduct and discipline, prior to the coming into force of the College of
Teachers' Act in 1997. I was unable to find any responsive material on the
Internet nor through a search conducted on my behalf through Quicklaw.
I, therefore, phoned the Ontario Teachers' Federation. I spoke to and
wrote to Paul Howard of the OTF on June 10 to advance my request for access to
the decisions of the Relations and Discipline Committee, having learned that the
OTF still occasionally deals with cases. On his instructions, I wrote to Rhonda
Kimberley-Young, General Secretary of OTF also requesting access to the
decisions of the Relations and Discipline Committee. At the final day of my
hearing, I sought an adjournment to obtain access to these crucial decisions. In
its submissions on June 13, the College advised the Discipline Committee that it
was not in possession of decisions by the old OTF Relations and Discipline
Committee and, obviously no such references were in the College's "Book of
Authorities."
So
eager was the Committee to rush to judgment that it denied me the adjournment I
sought. “At
the conclusion of the hearing on June 13, 2007, the Member requested an
adjournment of six months in order to provide him with time to access any
records that the Ontario Teachers’ Federation might have that would impact on
the outcome of his hearing. The Member had only made initial contact with OTF on
June 11, 2007. It was the Member’s view that matters
Previously
dealing with professional misconduct and discipline by OTF prior to coming into
force of the Ontario College of Teachers Act would have a significant influence
on the deliberations of the Committee. The Committee denied this request on the
basis that it was incumbent on both parties to bring forward all appropriate
materials prior to the completion of the hearing. It was the College’s
position, that should the Member receive something from OTF that he thought to
be relevant to the Committee’s deliberations and provided that the Committee
had not yet made a decision, then it would be possible for him to make
Submissions
in writing to the Committee. Following the Member’s request, and subsequent
communications with OTF counsel, a binder was located at the College entitled
“Relations and Discipline Precedents – Ontario Teachers’ Federation”.
This binder had been sent to the College in the very early days of the
College’s
existence to assist its members in how the OTF Discipline and Relations
Committee received considered and disposed of complaints of professional and
unethical misconduct. By letter dated July 6, 2007, College counsel notified the
Committee and the Member that the binder had been located. Consequently, the
Committee granted an adjournment in order for the Member to review the contents
of this binder and provide written submissions by September 14, 2007, based on
information contained in the binder.”
The
discovery of the binder of cases provided almost a decade ago during the
transition from the OTF regime to the Ontario College of Teachers was a scandal.
Apparently, neither the college nor its high priced lawyers knew of its
existence, yet, this binder contained the case law that the courts had directed
the Discipline Committee to use in its determination. I was blamed for not
having found this material earlier. Yet, it was the College and its lawyers
whose duty it was to argue this material.
Having
examined these sample cases, I now know why the College and the Discipline
Committee was so reluctant to allow me proper time to study them.
So,
clearly the College did have these decisions and its counsel should have
referred to them in their submissions. Yet, I was entirely blamed by the
Discipline Committee for not being prepared and my motion for an adjournment
denied. With the new information, I was granted a very limited time extension to
September 16 to study these redacted decisions and make submissions.
The
Binder “Relations and Discipline Precedents -- Ontario Teachers'
Federation" contains a number of cases from the 1980s and early 1990s
arranged by offence from assault through to willful damage. The vast majority
had to do with inappropriate and usually criminal sexual contact with young
people. . Firstly, there are no cases in any way similar to mine. I found no
case of a teacher being charged with unprofessional conduct for expressing his
political or religious views on his own time off school property.
In
a letter dated July 8m 1992 from David Stock and Louis Lenkinski of the Canadian
Jewish Congress called on the OTF "to investigate and make a determination
as to whether Paul Fromm's racist activities are in possible violation of your
Act. ... We are confident that the Ontario Teachers' Federation will deem it
appropriate to launch an investigation in this most serious matter."
Whether or not an investigation was launched, I cannot say, but the OTF never
convened a discipline hearing, strongly suggesting that the interpretation of
professional misconduct under the Teaching Professions Act is that the
expression of political views did not constitute professional misconduct.
This
supports my previous submissions that the Minister of Education, in 1992,
requested an extensive investigation into my conduct. This resulted in the Cowan
Report. The Minister, Dave Cooke, received the report and took no further
action. Nor did he refer the matter to OTF for the good reason that, under the
regulations then in place, my political views expressed on my own time would, in
no way, have constituted misconduct. An examination of the cases in
"Relations and Discipline Precedents -- Ontario Teachers' Federation"
reveals that to be found guilty of breaching Sec. 13 of the regulations The
Teaching Professions Act:
A
member shall strive at all times to achieve and maintain the highest degree of
professional competence and to uphold the honour, dignity and ethical standards
of the teaching profession
The
offending teacher had to have been convicted of a serious offence under the Criminal
Code or to have falsified his/her qualifications (and, therefore, be
ineligible for a teaching certificate anyway). For instance, one shows a teacher
convicted of aggravated assault contrary to Sec. 268 of the Criminal Code of
Canada and willful damage [Sec. 430(4)] and sentenced to six months in
prison. The Committee found the teacher in breach of Sec. 13 but felt that
"it is unlikely he will be a danger to his pupils and is unlikely to be
involved in this kind of criminal activity in the future." The Committee
recommended a four year suspension of his teaching certificate, but the Minister
of Education subsequently cancelled the certificate.
In
an other case a teacher is convicted of two counts of assault causing bodily
harm, contrary to Sec. 271(1)(b) and Sec. 266 of the Criminal Code and
sentenced to 14 days in prison. The Committee found the conduct a breach of
Sec. 13 of the Regulations, but concluded that "a reprimand is the most
appropriate penalty." Even a conviction for gross indecency under Sec. 157
of the Criminal Code, which resulted in three months imprisonment and three
years probation, did not result in the loss of the teacher's teaching
certificate in yet another case. The Committee found the behaviour "in
breach of Sections 13, 14(d) and (f) of the regulations and recommended a two
year suspension of the teaching certificate, noting that the teacher "is a
competent and talented teacher of Music."
Another
teacher was convicted of stealing $200 worth of meat. The teacher was fined $400
and placed on one year's probation. The Committee found the teacher "to
have not been in breach of Section 13" and recommended that the Minister
take no action with regard tot he teacher's certificate.
In
the matter of a teacher who pleaded guilty to seven counts of indecent assault
on a male, two of sexual assault and one count of buggery and who was sentenced
to two years less a day in prison, the Committee found the teacher in breach of
Sec. 13 because "children were involved" sand the teacher "had
breached a professional trust placed in him as a teacher." For that reason
the Committee recommended to the Minister that the teacher's certificate be
cancelled.
A
finding of a breach of Sec. 13 under the rules prior to 1997 required conviction
for a serious offence under the Criminal Code. I have never been charged
much less convicted of any offence under the Criminal Code. . There are no
instances in the OTF jurisprudence of a teacher being punished for expressing
his political views on his own time. For these reasons, applying the
jurisprudence of the time, all charges against me should be dismissed. The
College was negligent in not knowing that it possessed this binder of OTF cases
sent to them precisely to assist them in knowing the pre-1997 OTF jurisprudence.
The College was further negligent in making no effort to find pre-1997
precedents or to argue these in their submissions. Instead the Committee blamed
me for having left inquiries into such precedents to such a late date.
Yet,
amazingly, in its decision the Discipline Committee ruled: “The Member offered no judicial authority for that
proposition and nothing in the plain
Paul
Fromm,
Canadian
Association for Free Expression,
P.O.
Box 332,
Rexdale,
ON.,
CANADA
©-free 2007 Adelaide Institute
