The title of the Star article says it all: (This is not the whole article, just the highlights, The part in brackets is my addition)
(Freedom took a blow the other day when) the Peel Board of Education fired teacher Paul Fromm for "activities which brought the boards multi-cultural policies into disrepute". The B'nai Brith had presented evidence of Mr Fromm's continued association with "undesirable groups", specifically individuals and organizations that promote white supremicist or anti-Semitic viewpoints. Mr Fromm had been under a caution since 1992 to refrain from such activity. It is interesting to note that neither now or in 1992 did the board claim that Mr fromm's activities had affected his classroom duties.
The League of Human Rights of B'nai Brith last December demanded the board fire Fromm. It supplied documents and videotape to show Fromm had violated the boards ruling in 1992 not to join in activities that brought the boards multi-cultural policies into disrepute.
The board found that although Mr Fromm did not take his views into the classroom, his values were "inconsistent" with what teachers should pass on to students.
Mr Fromm said he will appeal the firing
What we have is vague charges about vague policies, vague values,and vague activities. Did the Peel Board ever say "You can't associate with or speak at functions hosted by specific named groups"? Of course not. If they had, Mr Fromm could have challenged through his union, or through the courts this assault on his freedom of association. However, when you make the cautions vague enough, there is nothing you can grab on to and oppose.
It's similar to the Soviet Union under the Communists. If they couldn't get you for something specific, They could always charge you with "anti-Soviet activities". What does that mean? Anything they want it to mean!
So, Mr Fromm is charged and convicted of "activity which brings the multi-cultural policy of the board into dispute". What does that mean? Anything they want it to mean. A policy like that covers nothing, and it covers everything. This is just one example of the new type of offence in the politically correct Canada. Criminals on parole have limits on their freedom, but when their parole is up they are free to come and go as they please. Mr Fromm was on life-time parole, and he had never been convicted of anything.
How many rights were trampled in the campaign to fire Paul Fromm? freedom of association, freedom of speech, mere trivialities to the forces of political correctness.
Allegations are made, hearings are held behind closed doors. Who knows what the motives behind his accusers are. The B'nai Brith has been trying for years to get Mr. Fromm fired. Is it because of his activities, or is it because they see him as a threat to their self-interest. The B'nai Brith presents themselves as crusaders for truth and justice, but there's a lot of money to be made promoting truth and justice. Mr Fromm is currently trying to get the B'nai Brith's charity status revoked (with some success) One has to consider the self-interest of all the parties involved in a situation such as this. Are the B'nai Brith's motives entirely honourable, or are they just trying to silence a critic?
If Mr Fromm was engaging in objectionable activities in his classroom, if he was creating an oppressive atmosphere in his classroom, then fire him. But he wasn't. This is simply a political action of one group trying to silence an opponent. The Peel Board was a willing participant in this charade.
In this article I have dared to question the honor and motives of the B'nai Brith. So now I guess we all know what that makes me. NOT!
I'm sure S.H.A. is rubbing her hands with glee and saying "I knew it all along!" Sorry Susan, I believe in freedom for every one, not just people who think the same way I do.
To get the story right from the source check out Mr. Fromms website:
Canadian Association for Freedom of Expression
It seems Canada isn't the only place you can be fired
for having "improper" opinions.
CLICK HERE to see what happens to Cuban teachers who don't conform to the party line.