Written by Paul Fromm
Friday, 19 April 2013 03:56
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:



Recent news reports state that RBC (The Royal Bank of Canada) has
displaced about 40 of its Canadian IT workers by bringing in IT
Temporary Foreign Workers from India. The Royal Bank, which made a
record $7.5 Billion profit in 2012, is now back-peddling. It is
claiming that iGATE, the labour contractor involved, not RBC, hired
the TFWs and that only a small number of workers are involved.
However, the CBC has discovered that RBC paid iGATE $100 million last
year for iGate's services, a sign of a much deeper relationship
between the two.

The RBC incident is probably the proverbial tip of the iceberg.
According to the CBC, employees from the following banks (RBC, TD,
Scotiabank, CIBC and the Bank of Montreal) all report that these banks
replaced Canadian workers with TFWs. Other sectors of the economy are
involved. A former Loblaw IT worker has stated that last fall, Loblaw,
which is one of Canada's largest grocery chains with about 1000 stores
and around 134,000 employees, also brought in replacements from India
for its IT work-force.

Canada's Temporary Foreign worker program now allows over 300,000
Temporary Foreign Workers to work here every year. This is in addition
to the 250,000 immigrants Canada has taken every year for the past 22+
years, the highest per capita intake in the world.

Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of Canadians have no jobs. Our
official unemployment rate is over 7%, but the real one is probably
much higher. Our youth, in particular, have an official unemployment
rate of about 14%, but probably a real rate of well over 20%. The
evidence shows that the TFW program is contributing to unemployment.

The most important point to see is that the Temporary Foreign Worker
program is out of control and is being widely abused by employers who
are looking for cheap labour from outside Canada.

What can you do?

(1) Please sign this petition and ask others to sign.

(2) If your bank is one of the culprits, either tell your bank to
re-hire the displaced Canadians or tell it that you are moving your
account elsewhere.

(3) Tell Canada's government to defend Canadian workers' jobs and our
standard of living by reducing the TFW program from a flood to a
trickle. Canadian workers need to be defended from employers like RBC
and from predators like iGATE. Here are three appropriate gov't
e-mail addresses : [email protected], [email protected],
[email protected] . Include your own MP. Send all of them the
title and the first 4 paragraphs in this message.

*Please note: After clicking ''Sign now'', your signature will be
added to the petition. Although the website may ask you for a
donation, donations are not necessary. The request for donations comes
from iPetitions, the organization that operates this petition web
site. Immigration Watch Canada is not making this request.


Fields marked with * are required
Name: *

Email: *


Display options
Show my name in the online signature list
Keep me informed on this and similar petitions
Post to Facebook
Sign now


Immigration Watch Canada .org


Help promote this petition with a widget on your site ( )

) ( )

Unsubscribe / Change Profile:
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
Obituary: The Death of America
Written by Paul Fromm
Tuesday, 16 April 2013 01:05
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:

Obituary: The Death of America

The American Dream ended (on November 6th) in America. The second term
of Barack Obama will be the final nail in the coffin for the legacy of
the white Christian males who discovered, explored, pioneered, settled
and developed the greatest Republic in the history of mankind.

A coalition of Blacks, Latinos, Feminists, Gays, Government Workers,
Union Members, Environmental Extremists, The Jew Controlled Media,
Jewish owned Hollywood, uninformed young people, the "forever needy,"
the chronically unemployed, illegal aliens and other "fellow
travelers" have ended Norman Rockwell's America.

The Cocker Spaniel is off the front porch...the Pit Bull is in the
back yard.

The American Constitution has been replaced with Saul Alinsky's "Rules
for Radicals" and Chicago shyster, David Axelrod, along with
international Socialist George Soros will be pulling the strings on
their beige puppet to bring us Act 2 of the New World Order.

The White side ran two candidates who couldn't even win their own home
states, and the circus fattster Chris Christie helped Obama over the
top with a glowing"post Sandy"tribute that elevated the
"Commander-in-Chief" to Mother Teresa status.

People of high culture are completely politically irrelevant in the
face of the aforementioned coalition which has surrendered the
American culture, heritage and traditions without a shot being fired.

Americans will never again out vote these degenerate people. It will
take individual acts of defiance and massive displays of civil
disobedience to get back the rights that were allowed to be taken
away. It will take iron willed Zealots, not moderates--not
reach-across-the-aisle RINOs to right this ship and restore/ revive
the beloved country to its former status.

The posterity to follow will have to risk their lives, their fortunes
and their sacred honor to bring back the Republic that this generation

has timidly frittered away due to "white guilt" and political

Unsubscribe / Change Profile:
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
The Occidental Observer -- Paul Fromm on the Demise of Free Speech in Canada
Written by Paul Fromm
Sunday, 14 April 2013 17:35
This email newsletter was sent to you in graphical HTML format.
If you're seeing this version, your email program prefers plain text emails.
You can read the original version online:

The Occidental Observer Paul Fromm on the Demise of Free Speech in
Posted: 13 Apr 2013 12:17 PM PDT

Paul Fromm, a pro-White activist who writes for his CAFE (Canadian
Association for Free Expression) website, has an article on a recent
ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that once again indicates the
power of the cultural left at the highest reaches of Western societies
”The Whatcott Decision – A Grim Day for Christians and Freedom of

The case involves a $15000 fine (plus court costs likely to be north
of $150,000) imposed on an evangelical Christian who distributed
leaflets containing criticism of homosexuality based on Biblical
teachings. Some excerpts and comments: The decision is pure cultural
Marxism. It reflects the triumph of *Frankfurt School* social science
which has captured most Western universities. While economic communism
collapsed and was defeated, cultural communism was spread by the
*Frankfurt School*. Basically, it sees the world divided up into two
classes: oppressors – those would be White Christians, and
especially sexually healthy White males – and the oppressed –
those would be women, homosexuals, Jews, and certain other racial
minorities. To overthrow the “oppressors” and to establish
universal equality – not of opportunity but results – the
*Frankfurt School* targeted loyalty to family, country and religion.
There began a concerted campaign of “deconstruction” whereby
political heroes, cultural heroes – the dismissal of traditional
English literature as the writing of dead, White males – and
traditional Christianity were mocked and attacked. These ideas have
captured the upper echelons of Canada’s judiciary and bode poorly
for freedom of speech.

The Whatcott decision holds that in human rights cases:
· Truth is no defence;
· Intent is no defence;
· No harm needs to be proven to have been caused to a
“vulnerable” minority;
· A minority is designated as “vulnerable” not because of any
evidence – the court admits concrete evidence is often lacking, but
on the mere say-so of a human rights commission or court;
· Christians are not protected from hatred as they are not a
“vulnerable minority.”

The Court depicts Mr. Whatcott as having the power to intimidate
homosexuals. The reality is far different:

Well, where’s the evidence that in the decade since Mr. Whatcott
handed out his flyers critical of homosexuals, that “dialogue”
wasshut down and homosexuals were unable to respond? For nearly 20
years, the powerful homosexual lobby has been pushing for same sex
marriage – a revolutionary anti-family retreat from tradition. In
2001, Parliament overwhelmingly voted to endorse the traditional
definition of marriage – one man and one woman. The lobby continued
its pressure, apparently not intimidated or silenced by the lonely Mr.
Whatcott’s leafleting. A cowardly Jean Chretien referred the
“question” as to whether the traditional definition of marriage,
accepted by almost all but the fringiest elements of Christianity, and
by Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, was “discriminatory” to the
judicial revolutionaries on the Supreme Court. They collapsed and gave
the homosexual lobby what it wanted. Canada has same sex marriage.
Despite being a Catholic, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario
forced even Catholic schools to promote the homosexual agenda in the
schools and have Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs, even though the practice
of homosexuality violates Catholic teaching. (So much for religious
freedom!) The homosexual agenda has triumphed in almost every battle.
It successfully pressured to have “sexual orientation” added to
the privileged groups protected by Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code,
Canada’s notorious “hate law.” In fact, there’s no evidence
that Mr. Whatcott’s pathetic little leafleting operation ever
intimidated any homosexual from promoting his cause.

The only one excluded from the debate is Mr. Whatcott! Mr. Whatcott
and strong critics of the homosexual agenda are all but excluded from
the mainstream media. Pro-homosexual commentators bray their views
from the CBC and the Globe and Mail is virtually a mouthpiece for the
homosexual lobby. The only voices marginalized are critics of the
homosexual agenda.

Fromm targets the Frankfurt School, a Jewish intellectual movement
discussed in Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique: Despite calling
themselves a “School of Social research,” the Frankfurt School
feared any objective research that might challenge their ideology.
Like the Supreme Court, they defined the world ideologically, and
facts would not be allowed to get in the way: The Frankfurt School
never set out to find out the truth about human behavior and
institutions. Instead, its members viewed empirically oriented social
science as an aspect of domination and oppression. Horkheimer wrote
in1937 that “if science as a whole follows the lead of empiricism
and the intellect renounces its insistent and confident probing of the
tangled brush of observations in order to unearth more about the world
than even our well-meaning daily press, it will be participating
passively in the maintenance of universal injustice.” Rather than
find out how society works, the social scientist must be a critic of
culture and adopt an attitude of resistance toward contemporary
societies. The unscientific nature of the enterprise can also be seen
in its handling of dissent within the ranks of the Institute—a trend
that is a common feature of Jewish intellectual and political
movements Erich Fromm was excised from the movement in the 1930s
because his leftist humanism opposed the authoritarian nature of the
psychoanalyst-patient relationship. This was not compatible with the
pro-Bolshevik stance championed at the time by the Horkheimer-Adorno
line: Fromm “takes the easy way out with the concept of
authority,without which, after all, neither Lenin’s avant-garde nor
dictatorship can be conceived of. I would strongly advise him to read
Lenin…I must tell you that I see a real threat in this article to
the line which the journal takes. (See Chapter 5 of The Culture of

One of the most shocking revolutionary conclusions of the Court is
that truth should not be a defence, at least in human rights cases:
“The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the
provision. Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would
meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements
must be free from restriction. …

Fromm emphasizes the Jewish role in this decision: Finally, and this
is a delicate topic in oppressive, minority-ruled Canada, let’s look
at the makeup of the six judge panel who heard this crucial case about
the rights of Christians. Three, yes three, or fully one half of the
panel were Jews. Under the regime of employment equity, a Canadian
version of anti-White “affirmative action”, invented by, guess
who? Madame Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, who was on the panel,
“systemic discrimination” is evidenced by an over-representation
or under-representation of a group. It must be remembered that Jews,
at about 310,000, constitute less than one per cent of Canada’s
population, but made up half of panel in Whatcott! Did their personal
views interfere?

Ironically, had Justice Abella applied her own “employment equity”
she’d have removed herself from the panel in Whatcott as her
minority was already heftily over-represented.

The author of this freedom trashing opinion was Mr. Justice Marshall
Rothstein of Manitoba. His biography on the Supreme Court website
notes: “He served as an adjudicator under the Manitoba Human Rights
Act from 1978 to 1983 and as a member of the Canadian Human Rights
Tribunal from 1986 to 1992.” In other words, he was, for more than a
decade, part of the whole repressive “human rights” industry he
was now being invited to critique. In his case, there was more than a
“reasonable apprehension of bias.” Perhaps, no surprise he found
state censorship and strong criticism of privileged minorities
perfectly justified in a “free” [do words mean nothing!] and
“democratic society.”

At least two Liberal senators, Robina Jaffer and Jim Munson (a former
journalist happily at ease with state censorship), in speaking against
Bill C-304, which would repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the
Canadian Human Rights Act quoted Justice Abella and her emphasis
on“vulnerable minorities”: to wit: “In a 2009 speech entitled
Human Rights and History’s Judgment, Justice Rosalie Abella said: We
were supposed to have learned three indelible lessons from the
concentration camps of Europe. First, indifference is injustice’s
incubator. Second, it’s not just what you stand for, it’s is what
you stand up for. And third, we must never forget how the world looks
to those who are vulnerable.’” Justice Abella was also part of the
human rights industry having served on the Ontario Human Rights

Her biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “She married
Canadian historian Irving M. Abella on December 8, 1968.” Irving
Abella is a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, a
pro-censorship intervener in Whatcott. The CJC has been a long-time
and strident supporter of anti-free speech “hate laws”. Again, one
might wonder why Justice Abella did not recuse herself from this case
is there is more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” It is
certainly true that the organized Jewish community has been a strong
voice supporting laws curtailing free speech, not just in Canada, but
throughout the Western world (see “The Hate Crimes Prevention Bill:
Why Do Jewish Organizations Support It?“).

Irving Abella’s book was cited in my chapter on the Jewish role in
promoting immigration. Although the chapter emphasizes the Jewish role
in altering U.S. immigration policy in favor of non-Whites, the Jewish
community played a similar role throughout the West, including Canada:
In the case of Canada, Abella (A Coat of Many Colors: Two Centuries of
Jewish Life in Canada; 1990, 234–235) notes the important
contribution of Jews in bringing about a multicultural Canada and, in
particular, in lobbying for more liberal immigration policies.
Reflecting this attitude, Arthur Roebuck, attorney general of Ontario,
was greeted “with thunderous applause” at a 1935 convention for
the Zionist Organization of Canada when he stated that he looked
“forward to the time when our economic conditions will be less
severe than they are today and when we may open wide the gates, throw
down the restrictions and make of Canada a Mecca for all the oppressed
peoples of the world” (in M. Brown 1987, 256).

Abella also co-authored a book, None Is Too Many that was critical of
Canada for not admitting Jewish refugees in the World War II era. The
title comes from a statement of a senior Canadian immigration official
that summed up Canadian policy. Thus we have Jewish activists involved
in academic research on Jewish issues. And perhaps more importantly,
Jewish activists are involved in court decisions that reflect
consensus views within the Jewish community on issues related to free
speech, multiculturalism, and immigration. The hostile elite in

Unsubscribe / Change Profile:
Powered by YourMailingListProvider
<< Start < Prev 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 Next > End >>
Page 84 of 454
Powered by MMS Blog