College revokes extremist's licence to teach in Ontario
Discipline panel draws on Supreme Court ruling that suggests `a teacher is a teacher all the time'
Nov 10, 2007 04:30 AM
A controversial Peel Region teacher has been stripped of his licence for unprofessional conduct – outside of the classroom.
In a first for the body that oversees Ontario's teachers, Paul Fromm's membership in groups that "espouse beliefs and values contrary to the principles of multiculturalism and tolerance" – as well as his presence at white supremacist events – though on his own time, violated the standards expected of teachers.
Neither Fromm's teaching ability, nor his behaviour in the classroom, were at issue.
"This case is not about (Fromm's) right to hold political views that are unpopular or to participate in legal political activities," reads the decision by a disciplinary panel of the Ontario College of Teachers. "It is about whether a teacher who publicly expresses views which are contrary to the values of the profession and the education system and which have a negative impact on the education system, is entitled to be a member of this college."
Fromm, who was not aware of the ruling when contacted by the Star yesterday, said he's been "very unfairly treated" by the college and called the decision "an outrage."
Note - What the "H E double hockey sticks" is this supposed to mean? It just doesn't make sense (well if you're left of the political spectrum I'm sure it makes perfect sense to you). Apparently Fromm is allowed to hold "unpopular" political views however he is not allowed to express those "unpopular" political views. How is that democratic? What makes this all the more disconcerting is that the revocation of Fromm's license to teach in Ontario was apparently revoked in his absence.
Fired by the Peel public board in 1997, Fromm said the decision sends a clear warning to teachers: "If you have any controversial political views, just shut up. They said it's not about free speech, but it is."
The panel found Fromm was a member and co-founder of organizations that are intolerant, and took part in events organized by the Heritage Front, including a celebration of Adolf Hitler's birthday.
Fromm said he's always had a "completely clear conscience" about his outside activities and that his views are legal.
Read the whole article at The Toronto Star.
Anyone who believes in freedom of speech, freedom of association, and freedom from harassment for possessing "unpopular" political views should find this story unnerving. Whether or not you agree with Paul Fromm the man is right in stating that he did nothing illegal except posses and express views that are considered heresy to Canada's officially sanctioned state religion known as multiculturalism as well as associating with other "unsavory" types.
I am familiar with some of Paul Fromm's writing and even I find him to be "extreme" at times (which is why I don't link to his CIRC website) but he does make you think and this is the problem. We are not supposed to think beyond officially sanctioned points of view. In regards to multiculturalism and mass immigration (mostly mass third world immigration to Canada)there is only one acceptable opinion any true Canadian would hold: the government's. This is fine with the left because the left's views on immigration and multiculturalism and Ottawa's are pretty much the same thing. That's because the modern version of these policies are rooted in the liberal influences of the Trudeau government of the 1960s which Canada has adopted with an irrational zeal comparable to religious fundamentalism. And it continues to this day albeit mostly in political circles and elite opinion coming out of Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver.
That's why any critic who challenges official policy regarding immigration and multiculturalism are vehemently attacked by the left oftentimes in the most undemocratic of ways. One can expect their character to be assassinated as a means to snuff out dissent. If this fails then other forms of punishment may be utilized like lawsuits or a hearing before a Human Rights Tribunal at great cost to the accused which is tantamount to a financial assault. Others may be calls for removal from committees or, in Fromm's case, loss of employment and a license to teach. These are scare tactics, heretics be warned.
I do not agree with Fromm's association with white supremacist groups and holocaust deniers but I do find his treatment by the Peel public board equally disgusting. His removal had little to do with his effectiveness to teach and more to do with his political views. Freedom of speech is the allowance of opinions we don't agree with. If you do not agree with them then debate it but don't seek to silence it before the discussion starts. That's cowardly and outright totalitarian. Sadly this seems to be the choice tactic of many on the left. On the one hand they claim to be champions of democracy, freedom, and equal rights yet on the other hand they are enemies of them. So I guess the lesson learned here is on key issues you better agree with them or else, the stuff that would make any apparatchik proud. Hypocrisy has always been a strong point for the left.
Indo-Canadians attack a Canadian's freedom of speech or Why I Support Bruce Allen.