The Hatewatch blog is managed by the staff of the Intelligence Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, an Alabama-based civil rights organization.

FOX News Channel’s ‘Free Speech Activist’ is Infamous Racist Activist

By Heidi Beirich on August 7, 2008 - 2:13 pm, Posted in Holocaust Denial, Media Extremism, White Supremacist

On Aug. 4, FOX News aired a segment about the Canadian prosecution of conservative author Mark Steyn for alleged anti-Muslim human rights violations. Steyn, the author of the No. 1 Canadian bestseller, America Alone: The End Of The World As We Know It, has had three complaints lodged against him for human rights violations by the Canadian Islamic Congress. Two cases have been dismissed, but the Human Rights Tribunal of British Columbia is still investigating a charge that Steyn’s work amounts to hate speech against Muslims.

Steyn’s book, which was serialized in the well-known Canadian newsmagazine Macleans, contends that Western democracies, particularly in Europe, may become fertile ground for Islamic extremists because of rapidly growing Muslim populations.

While there are many individuals and groups that think the prosecution of Steyn harms free speech in Canada — including PEN Canada and the Canadian Association of Journalists — Fox News correspondent Steve Brown chose to interview a decidedly odd source: Paul Fromm, who was very sparingly identified on the broadcast as a “Free Speech Activist.” That’s a pretty weak, not to say completely misleading, description of Paul Fromm. As anyone who lives in Canada or who has access to Google should know, Fromm is Canada’s most notorious extremist, whose views form a trifecta of hate: he’s a white supremacist, a Holocaust denier and an anti-Semite. And he’s got a history of extremism a mile long.

“What we are seeing is an effort by minority groups, including in this case radical Muslims, to shut down criticism and that’s what it is,” Fromm, who habitually mocks Muslims, once calling a Muslim woman “a hag in a bag” while participating in a conference put on by former Klansman David Duke, told FOX about the Steyn investigations. At a 2007 meeting of racists and Holocaust deniers in Atlanta, Fromm pulled the Muslim hate card again, labeling Democratic Presidential candidate Barack Obama “a crypto-Moslem of mixed parentage.”


Fromm’s been a source to news reporters before — but not the type who most American news operations would want to brag about. In 2005, Fromm told the Iranian Mehr News Agency that Hollywood is “controlled by Zionists,” discussed “the story of the ‘Holocaust’ … [that] has allowed the Jews to acquire many billions of dollars,” and described the Nazi genocide as “a religion created by the Jews for non-Jews.”

Fromm, whose Canadian teaching certificate was yanked in 2007 because of his racist views and activities, is a stalwart of the American white supremacist and anti-Semitic scene. He has attended dozens of white supremacist events, including one held to mark the anniversary of Adolf Hitler’s death.

Besides running his own extremist group in Canada — the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee — Fromm is a national director of the white supremacist Council of Conservative Citizens, a group that believes in “racial integrity” and views blacks as a “retrograde species of humanity.” Fromm is also a signatory to a 2004 hate group protocol calling for an alliance between various racist and anti-Semitic groups, including David Duke’s European-American Unity and Rights Organization and the neo-Nazi National Alliance.

Tags: , , , ,
  • Larry B.

    Yes, FOX was not smart in having anything to do with Paul Fromm. However in the conservative bash above, the intolerant lefties missed that Paul Fromm did get one thing right— “What we are seeing is an effort by minority groups, including in this case radical Muslims, to shut down criticism and that’s what it is” I hope the publisher has the backbone to keep on publishing potentially upsetting books. Long live free speech, even if it is offensive to someone! Truth is often politically incorrect and at first seems offensive and hateful.

  • Chet Scoville

    This article contains a major, crippling error. Steyn is NOT, repeat NOT, being prosecuted for anything.

    The Human Rights Commissions are CIVIL bodies, not criminal ones. They have NO power to charge anyone with a crime or to sentence anyone to prison. Private citizens, NOT the state, bring complaints against them in cases of discrimination. In this case, the complaints are against Steyn’s publisher, NOT against Steyn.

    Furthermore, the Commissions are, as you note, dismissing the complaints; what is happening is that the Commissions are ruling and recognizing that the regulation of journalistic expression is NOT within their mandate; this is a test case which is establishing that fact.

    Please, please, please stop spreading these right-wing falsehoods. Steyn is NOT being prosecuted. He is NOT even a named respondent in the complaints. The HRCs do NOT regulate journalistic expression.



  • jay

    Bill O’Reilly a white supremisist and a holocaust denier?!?!

    Listen…. I don’t like Bill O’Reilly but my opinions are not even that jaded where I would say that…. I mean that is getting crazy… We all have to stop blaming things like Fox news for all of our problems and issues. I mean….. we are all adults… Simply pick the news that you want to watch. Who cares?

  • ccollina

    “so-called illegal immigrants”?

    Looks like you are trying to make the issue fuzzy. Blurring legal immigration with illegal immigration.

    They are illegal immigrants—not “so-called” illegal immigrants. I don’t see a problem with discussions and commentaries on Fox News about the frustrating issue of illegal immigration. People are concerned. Illegal immigration is a PROBLEM.

  • Bob

    If you want honest debate, Fox News needs to be upfront with viewers and listeners about that fact they are in bed with arch-racists, holocaust deniers, and individuals who actually direct their listeners to attack people in the street.

    Fox News can start by telling Bill O’Reilly himself to stop doing that on his radio program.

    Or, they can come out publically and say “yes, we at Fox News encourage our viewers and listeners to attack Muslims, so-called “illegal” immigrants, and anyone else our pundits are told to target on-the-air by Fox management. This is the logical outcome of our Constitutionally-protected right to free speech.”

  • Jonathan

    Dear Brendan,

    “Isn’t a little weird that a defender of racists (Jonathan) posts on the SPLC website?”

    It’s not weird at all, it’s great fun. You do support exercising the first amendment, don’t you? And I’m sure that you also support a “diversity” of opinions!


  • Brendan M.

    Isn’t a little weird that a defender of racists (Jonathan) posts on the SPLC website?

    Anyway, Sean Hannity is old friends with a white supremacist radio talk show host in New Jersey and Bill O’Reilly is a known racist, and anyone who has watched FOX coverage of Barack and Michelle Obama knows they aren’t exactly progressive on racial issues, so this shouldn’t be a surprise.

  • Jonathan

    “‘inciting hatred’ against any ‘identifiable group’”.

    Typical deranged, leftist thinking by basing laws of “feelings”. How do they measure “hate”, have a bunch of teenage girls tell how they “feel” about the topic at hand?

    God help us, having touchy-feelies writing laws!

  • Ron

    Bene D,
    HI. I don’t know. If no one is perhaps they should be (according to the law). In Canada, ‘inciting hatred’ against any ‘identifiable group’ is an indictable offense with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. I think it must be public.

  • Bene D

    “On the other hand, people in the Canadian Goverrnment puts people IN JAIL for writing letters.”


    If you are referring to Zundel, he was a publisher.


    Who is sitting in a Canadian jail, charged, tried and convicted in a provincial, territorial or federal court for writing letters?

  • David E. Cum(m)in-gs

    Defined in 1828 Noah Webster Dict. of the “AMERICAN”: English Language (N. Web. knew 26 languages & was admitted to practice law in the U. S. Supreme Court!)
    BIG’OT, n.
    1. A person who is obstinately and unreasonably wedded to a particular religious creed, opinion, practice or ritual. The word is sometimes used in an enlarged sense, for a person who is illiberally attached to any opinion, or system of belief; as a bigot to the Mohammedan religion; a bigot to a form of government…
    ILLIB’ERAL, a. [See Liberal.] Not liberal; not free or generous.
    1. Not noble; not ingenuous; not catholic; of a contracted mind. Cold in charity; in religion, illiberal.
    2. Not candid; uncharitable in judging.
    3. Not generous; not munificent; sparing of gifts.
    4. Not becoming a well bred man.
    5. Not pure; not well authorized or elegant; as illiberal words in Latin.

    CATHOLIC, a.
    1. Universal or general; as the Catholic church. Originally this epithet was given to the Christian church in general, but is now appropriated to the Romish church, and in strictness there is no Catholic church, or universal Christian communion. The epithet is sometimes set in opposition to heretic, sectary or schismatic.
    2. Liberal; not narrow minded, partial or bigoted; as a catholic man.
    3. Liberal; as catholic principles.
    Catholic epistles, the epistles of the apostles which are addressed to all the faithful, and not to a particular church.
    CATHOLIC, n. A papist.
    1. Adherence to the Catholic church.
    2. Universality, or the orthodox faith of the whole church.
    3. More generally, liberality of sentiments.
    This is the renowned seat of Catholicism.
    CATHOLICIZE, v.i. To become a catholic.
    CATHOLICLY, adv. Generally; in a catholic manner.
    CATHOLICNESS, n. Universality.

    LIB’ERALIZE, v.t. To render liberal or catholic; to enlarge; to free from narrow views or prejudices; as, to liberalize the mind.
    LIB’ERALIZED, pp. Freed from narrow views and prejudices; made liberal.
    LIB’ERALIZING, ppr. Rendering liberal; divesting of narrow views and prejudices.
    LIB’ERALLY, adv.
    1. Bountifully; freely; largely; with munificence.
    If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, who giveth to all men liberally, and upbraideth not. James 1.
    2. With generous and impartial regard to other interests than our own; with enlarged views; without selfishness or meanness; as, to think or judge liberally of men and their actions.
    3. Freely; not strictly; not literally.
    LIB’ERATE, v.t. [L. libero, from liber, free.]
    1. To free; to release from restraint or bondage; to set at liberty; as, to liberate one from duress or imprisonment; to liberate the mind from the shackles of prejudice.
    2. To manumit; as, to liberate a slave.
    LIB’ERATED, pp. Freed; released from confinement, restraint or slavery; manumitted.
    LIB’ERATING, ppr. Delivering from restraint or slavery.
    LIBERA’TION, n. [L. liberatio.] The act of delivering from restraint, confinement or slavery.
    LIB’ERATOR, n. One who liberates or delivers.
    LIBERTA’RIAN, a. [L. liber, free; libertas, liberty.]
    Pertaining to liberty, or to the doctrine of free will, as opposed to the doctrine of necessity. Remove from their mind libertarian prejudice.
    LIB’ERTINAGE, n. Libertinism, which is most used.
    LIB’ERTINE, n. [L. libertinus, from liber, free.]
    1. Among the Romans, a freedman; a person manumitted or set free from legal servitude.
    2. One unconfined; one free from restraint.
    3. A man who lives without restraint of the animal passion; one who indulges his lust without restraint; one who leads a dissolute, licentious life; a rake; a debauchee.
    LIB’ERTINE, a. Licentious; dissolute; not under the restraint of law or religion; as libertine principles; a libertine life.
    1. State of a freedman. [Little used.]
    2. Licentiousness of opinion and practice; an unrestrained indulgence of lust; debauchery; lewdness.

  • Hume’s Ghost

    This further illustrates how insane it was last year when Bill O’Reilly cited a SPLC report about a rise in hate crimes and tried to link that to the Daily Kos.

    For one of the previous commenters who missed the point: the subject of this post is not the merit of Canada’s hate speech laws (I’m categorically opposed to them.) The point is that when you bring on Fromm and describe him as a free speech activist without at the least providing in what context he’s an activist for free speech (i.e. that he wants to disseminate white supremacist hate-mongering) you legitimize the man’s message to some extent.

    Given that Bill O’Reilly routinely attacks and demonizes people with whom he disagrees by calling them Nazis and Klansmen and attacking persons such as Chris Dodd or Al Gore for ennabling “evil” when they attend Daily Kos conventions, you would think he might be inclined to addresss having Fromm on Fox

  • Ken Mier

    That Obama Comment is a very important issus.

    Mark….throw that one out there letz see how many respondants to the Post.

    Call it ‘ Ken Mier’ Challenges double Medis Standards.

  • Ron

    Heidi says Steyn “speaks” and “contends”.

    She says Fromm “is” (a white supremicist), “denies”, “has” (a history of extremism). Fromm “mocks”, “calls”, “tells”, “labels”, “tells”, “discusses”, “describes”, “attends”, “runs a group”, “directs a group” that “believes” and “views”, “is a signatory to a protocol” that “calls for”.

    On the other hand, people in the Canadian Goverrnment puts people IN JAIL for writing letters.

  • Jonathan

    If you have politically-incorrect views you then aren’t “allowed” to be a defender of free speech?

    So we’d all agree here that since Obama went to a “racist” church he’s not qualified to be president?

  • Brian Cook

    Yes, poor research from Fox.

  • Blazingcatfur

    Clearly a case of poor research by Fox.

  • IludiumPhosdex

    And let’s not forget where Michael “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder” Savage is fond of pandering to the crudest and basest of nativist and “patriotic” feelings–the “Paul Revere” angle, as it were–in especially the vulnerable and socioeconomically-marginalised as make up his radio show’s audience.

    Or what remains of it, what with no less than 11 radio stations (eight of them being a statewide network across Mississippi) having pulled Mr. Savage’s radio programme in recent weeks after rather smarty remarks about autism-spectrum disorders.