Strike Three! Crown’s third attempt at imposing draconian bail conditions on fails By Arthur Topham


Strike Three! : Crown’s third attempt at imposing draconian bail conditions on fails


Arthur Topham

On Friday, November 20th, 2015 publisher Arthur Topham returned for the third time to the B.C. Supreme Court in Quesnel to attend another bail hearing in the wake of the November 12th, 2015 guilty verdict in Count 1 of his two count indictment.

Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnson was seeking what turned out to be a series of extremely harsh conditions that would have seen Topham charged with an additional criminal offence for allegedly publishing Crown disclosure documents as well as severe restrictions that would have prevented him from operating his website. In addition to those added Orwellian features Crown was also seeking unconstitutional conditions that would have prevented outside media from speculating on the reasons for the jury’s decision to find Topham guilty of Count 1.  And finally, new conditions that were ostensibly meant to protect jury members from being subject to criticism or harassment.

Both Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler and Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson appeared via telephone from Vancouver and Victoria while Topham attended in Quesnel along with Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnson.

Crown made its presentation to Justice Butler followed by Defence counsel Johnson who countered all of Crown’s arguments with reasoned facts. When the smoke finally cleared it was apparent that Justice Butler wasn’t buying into Crown’s arguments and declined to impose any new conditions besides those already in effect with the exception of one small concession related to the safety of the jurors.

Crown, in its submission, argued that a photo of the potential jurors lined up in front of the courthouse on the snowy morning of October 26th (the first day of the trial) had been published on and it potentially posed a possible threat to the safety of the jury members (the photo, upon inspection didn’t show the faces of any of the people who were actually on the jury). Justice Butler was willing to concede to Crown’s request that it be removed and rather than have it written up in the new conditions Crown stated that if Mr. Topham would give the court his word that it would be remove then she would be happy with that. I assured Justice Butler that I would remove the photo as soon as I returned home and that was the end of it.

My wife and I and body guard Frank Frost left the courthouse feeling rather elated about the decision and knowing that had been victorious once again in retaining its right to carry on publishing until the Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2) was heard. The date for the Charter application has been tentatively set for the week of January 25th, 2016.

Stay tuned folks!


Why I Stand for God, Canada and Free Speech, not Israel By Arthur Topham


Why I Stand for God, Canada and Free Speech, not Israel


Arthur Topham

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:27 a.m. in the British Columbia Supreme Court, city of Quesnel, I was pronounced “Guilty” by a jury of twelve men and women of the following criminal offence, also known as Count 1:

“Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 28th day of April, 2011 and the 4th day of May, 2012, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

Immediately following I was pronounced “Not Guilty” of a second and identical criminal offence, known as Count 2:

“Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 29th day of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

Within moments of the jury leaving the courtroom Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnson was seeking new bail conditions that would restrict even further my fundamental rights as contained in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson immediately objected suggesting to Justice Bruce Butler that if Crown wants changes to my bail conditions then due process should be followed and Crown must file an application to that effect. Justice Butler agreed and the date of Thursday, November 19, 2015 was set for a hearing on Crown’s application. Later it was set for Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 10 a.m.

Given the fact that Crown has attempted on two earlier occasions to have stringent bail conditions imposed upon my freedom to operate it must be assumed that in this instance too Crown will be calling for either removal of my site from the Internet or else a total ban on my ability to operate it until final sentencing which is tentatively scheduled for late January of 2016.

In the event that Crown is able to accomplish either of its objectives, November 20th, 2015 could, theoretically, be the last day that I am able to communicate the status of my case on the Internet pending the outcome of my Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2).

It therefore behooves me to make a few comments and observations before the hearing takes place.

Our collective dilemma

Only someone in a comatose condition or willfully blind to any form of self-reflection could deny the fact that the global state of affairs today has reached an extreme state of critical disharmony.

War, and the threat of war, environmental degradation, cancer rates of epic proportions, fear levels at an all-time high and an endless array of bureaucratic and media machinations all designed to confuse and obfuscate any remedial efforts on the part of the people to rectify this imminent threat to our collective condition are the order of the day. Then, coupled with all of these Orwellian conditions, is the growing threat by Zionist infiltrated nation states to introduce illogical, totalitarian, communist tactics such as “hate crime” legislation in order to penalize those who attempt to define and interpret the present narrative of negativity.

Numerous individual writers from the past have warned us repeatedly of what would happen if we didn’t get off our collective fanny and do something about what was happening but, as is the human condition, the general populace is too busy making a living, paying off their plastic, raising families and mesmerized by Big Brother’s “Eye” tv to find the time to address and dismantle these specious, serpentine moves of the Zionist lobbyist to put in place their anti-free speech “hate” legislation.

Now that the proverbial fecal matter is hitting the fan suddenly the truth revealers are getting broad-sided by this legislation and falsely accused and dragged before Stalinist “Show Trial”courts in order to plug the failing dams of deception that are currently crumbling before their very eyes.

Holding the reins


In term of my own situation I’ve spent a lifetime searching for answers to this perennial problem of endless conflict and environmental destruction and now, at the ripe young age of 68, I can honestly and rightfully declare that all of my years of research and writing, coupled with the past 9 years of ‘harrowing’ legal hassles, only further corroborates and confirms that censorship of individuals who earnestly try to give warning to their fellow citizens and censorship of the Internet via the unscrupulous use of “hate crime” legislation must be stopped if we are to remain free to think, reason and peacefully protest against any form of oppression.

The final step in this ongoing process of ridding our country of the last remaining legal barrier (Sec. 319(2) of the criminal code will be a Constitutional challenge using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec. 2b which states:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Israel and the Zionist agenda

All of the hate crime legislation in the world has been created by one group, the Zionist Jew lobby, working through B’nai Brith International and other similar orgs. They’ve set themselves up in every nation of the West and their primary purpose as agents of the state of Israel is to silence any and all criticism of the Zionist ideology and its debilitating effect upon human rights and freedom of expression. This fact is now beyond dispute and case after case where individuals are charged with these duplicitous “hate” crimes the complainants inevitably are dual citizens of the foreign state of Israel or else goy sycophants in the pay of these same lobbyists.

To support Israel is to support racism, apartheid, murder of innocents, theft of other nation’s land, the destruction of other cultures, war, destruction and endless terrorist acts and media deception on a scale never before witnessed in human history.

Any Western government that “stands with Israel” is admitting to and condoning and complicit with all of these barbaric and uncivilized actions that comprise the whole of what political Zionism entails.


My first duty as a human being is to acknowledge, revere and do the Will of the Creator – source of all life. God = Love = Truth. If I don’t include God in every equation related to my work and my life then it all becomes meaningless and devoid of that one fundamental principle which governs both the physical and spiritual realms. Any attempt at addressing the evils that men do which omits the Truth is futile. God gave man Free Will which ultimately implies the right to express himself without fear of state repression. The atheistic Zionist agenda would end that freedom of the mind and soul and for that reason alone it must be resisted all costs.


My purpose in all that I’ve done over my lifetime has been to shed light upon the machinations of those who would enslave us and silence us so that we’re not at liberty to express our thoughts and ideas. Censorship now remains the #1 threat to our global survival in that without the freedom to challenge the state (any state) and its dictates and demands we’re left bereft of the ability to speak the Truth. In this sense my struggle is every person’s struggle who desires to remain free and live in peace and harmony with their fellow human beings and all other life forms.


So much Canada, so little time by Jerry MacDonald, former Publisher & Editor of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer

Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 8.11.42 PM


Jerry MacDonald
February 26th, 1997
So much Canada, so little time!
[Editor’s Note: My hometown newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo Observer has been in the news a lot lately thanks to the ongoing court case involving yours truly. As a result of the guilty verdict in Count 1 of the Sec. 319(2) criminal charge, many supporters unfamiliar with the local area where I’ve lived now for the past 45 years are rather upset over the fact that the 12 person jury of my peers had reached such a guilty verdict, concluding that I’d been betrayed by my fellow community members. I don’t believe this is the case but rather a result of Crown’s deliberate strategy of unloading thousands of pages of “evidence” upon an unsuspecting group of jurors who, in all likelihood, had never before had to deal with such a monumental (thought crime) issue and were totally unprepared for the volume of materials they were suddenly given to read and deliberate upon. That, coupled with Crown’s over-riding insistence throughout the trial that my satire of Germany Must Perish! which I titled Israel Must Perish! was, in fact an actual book; one which I personally had written with evil intent to promote genocide of the whole of the Jewish population, obviously prejudiced the jury into believing Crown’s false accusations against me.

But, even so, the fact that I was found guilty in Count 1 isn’t reflective of the attitude and feeling toward myself by the community of Quesnel as a whole. And this is why I want to share with you an opinion piece by the late Publisher and Editor of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer, Jerry MacDonald who wrote the following article back on February 26th, 1997. Tragically, the following year on January 29th, 1998, just five months prior to the start up of my publishing business The Radical Press, Jerry MacDonald died of a heart attack at the early age of 44 years. Today, 21 years after his untimely death, his prophetic words regarding freedom of expression and the fear of people to speak out take on a prescient quality of their own. Jerry’s mention of myself in his article, is, I believe, a more true reflection of the sentiment of the bulk of the people here in the Cariboo who have known of my work for many decades.]

So much Canada, so little time!

“Journalism has taught me that, for the most part, the people who speak out in their youth … are the ones who will continue to speak their minds when their Canada Pension Cheques bounce.”

~ Jerry MacDonald

AS YOU READ this, I should be skating my way through the Rockies in my newer-old four-by-four Ford truck.

I’ll be in full retreat from those damned daily deadlines we were talking about earlier this month. Stan Rogers will be belting out tunes on the stereo – oh, maybe Barrett’s Privateers. And as I slip the front axle into four-high in anticipation of that black-hearted black ice, Stan and I will be wailing the chorus at the top of our respective lungs: “Goddam them all!…”

You’ve got to know Stan Rogers to follow what it is that I’m talking about here. And that’s part of what is wrong with this country of ours: too few people know of Stan Rogers.

His a guy with a voice that could make a cod fisherman smile – even today. Stan’s dulcet tones capture the energy of Canada, its solitude, our triumphs, our pain.

Had he been a separatist, his songs alone could have rallied Quebec to votez oui long ago. But Stan’s dead now. A great nationalist, a poet and a bear of a man with a Quaker’s beard and a Mop ‘n Glo pate. He had a voice from heaven. And that’s where its gone, presumably.

But he’ll be with me in the Rockies as I think about you. About Quesnel.

As Stan leads and I do an acceptable job of backup Highway mumble-harmony, what left of my mind will reflect on home and the people who make it special. And those who don’t.

So in a round-about way by introduction, this is one of those “thank you & good night” columns. And one of those “be warned” pieces too.

Journalism has taught me many things. Some of which I have actually, consciously retained.

It has taught me that if we are lucky enough, we will grow old enough to be bold enough.

In other words, most of us go through life pretty much afraid in this free society of ours to speak our minds. We’re afraid for two reasons:

In rural Canada if you speak your mind at a meeting of some kind you’re apt to be elected president. That alone is a practical inducer of self-censorship:

“You, Mouthy One! We the membership find you guilty of opinionationextravaganzi. You are hereby sentences to a two-year term as president of the Quesnel Teacher’s Association …”

You could plug in the name of your own outfit here, but the point is taken.

And so Murphy’s Law being what it is, the “intelligent members” stay home and the wannabes of the world, with the anaemic anatomy complex, take over. Now this is not true in all cases, but from politics to unions to management – it’s scary sometimes to consider just how prevalent it is.

I ramble. But you’re used to it, otherwise you wouldn’t have read this far.

When it comes to really important issues in life, however, the biological verbal governor kicks in out of fear: We’re afraid if we speak out because it could affect our jobs; the possibility for promotion; our social standing; our kids’ chances of playing on the rep team; of being branded a racist; a sexist; a capitalist; a red neckist; an environmentalist…

We’re so paranoid of being branded some kind of an ‘ist’ we’ve forgotten the ‘s’ altogether. And that’s what we’ve become: the most free society in the world, afraid to speak out because it might cost us something.

So, like a smoker waiting for a pack of butts to hit $20 before she quits, we wait to be ‘old enough to be bold enough‘. We wait for that time when we’re beholden to no-one.

Trouble is, when that day dawns most of us are dead, or too old to give a damn. Rather we spend what energy we have at the time squeezing the remote or chewing our apple sauce.

Journalism has taught me that, for the most part, the people who speak out in their youth (Youth: Any age between 30-64, a definition which changes as the amount of ear hair in the definer increases) are the ones who will continue to speak their minds when their Canada Pension Cheques bounce.

So I’d like to thank the following people for speaking out over all these years – even when it wasn’t politically correct to do so.

Arthur Topham, Bert de Vink, Judy Campbell, Jude Davis and Doug Gook: Think what you like of their politics, priorities, or values – these people often served as the conscience of the area during the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Right or wrong, they spoke their minds. They stood up for their beliefs.

In a generation that vowsd to be different from our parents, how many of us can truly say that today? They will always have my admiration because right or wrong they are people of conviction.

To Joan Huxley, Harvey Bryant, Susan Maile, John Maile, Andy Sear, Mary Glassford, Gloria Lazzarin, Bob Taft, the late Albert Johnston, the late Alex Fraser, former mayor Mikey Pearce, Ted Armstrong, former Rec Director Dale MacDonald … to all of these people we owe a debt of gratitude. Because they are been the builders in these past 20 years.

The $15 million hospital expansion; River-front Trail; building of the Rec Centre; expansion of the Civic Arena; Alex Fraser Park; the Senior’s Centre; Golden Centre – they were the eyes of the vision that has become our reality. They spoke out.

Politically, Quesnel has been assigned Lepper Colony status since Alex Fraser’s death. We are lacking not only in vision, but in integrity, credibility and – most of all – brain-pans.

Clenched in a ‘what’s in it for me’ and ‘this will look good on my portfolio’ mentality, our current  collection of potential senators have a hard time managing their own cheque books. But we’ll elect them to office and as spenders of the public purse.

MLA John Wilson is a possible exception – but John’s inability to speak in public is why guys like Dale Carnegie are billionaires.

These are the things one ponders while dodging big horned sheep and docile elk as Stan warbles away in the background, something about the Northwest Passage.

As long as the Lance Leas, and Brian Rankins, and Herb Bardens and Bob Normans and Betsy Van Haldrens and Collin Almonds of the community stay home at nomination & election time, we’ll continue to send the political equivalent of War Amps to the front lines in our battle for our future.

The sad part is we’re really no different than the rest of Canada.

We have a great community, an unbelievably beautiful province and an extremely special country. While we collectively seem to be doing our best to screw it all up, having apparently signed a long term mortgage, with the Bank of Stupid, we survive despite ourselves.

Maybe when we’re all old enough and bold enough, we’ll look back and chuckle and shake our heads at our paranoia. Cuz everything works out in the end. Cuz nothing really matters much anyhow. Maybe.

Then again, maybe we’ll all be sitting in our wheel chairs, our grey pony tails plagued by split ends, our bony shoulders littered with dandruff … and finally we’ll all join Stan in toothless harmony:

“Goddam them all…!”



 Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 10.19.15 AM


Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 10.18.58 AM
Trudeau’s victory showed failure of Harper’s Muslim bashing. (CBC photo)

Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 10.17.57 AM

By Anthony James Hall (Special to Truth and Shadows)

After taking his vow of office, Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau introduced his new cabinet. Canada’s triumphant leader rightfully boasted that the new face of his government authentically reflects Canada’s multicultural population.  Moreover half of his appointees are women. One of them, Jody Wilson-Raybould, is a member of the Kwakwaka’wakw First Nation as well as Canada’s first Aboriginal Minister of Justice.

Another striking appointment is that of Maryam Monsef. Age 30, Ms. Monsef is the youngest Minister as well as the first Muslim ever to hold a cabinet position in Canada’s executive branch. Monsef emigrated from Afghanistan when she was 11 years old. Trudeau assigned to the youthful cabinet inductee the Democratic Institutions portfolio.

The elevation of a young Muslim woman to high office in the core of the Canadian government represents a good beginning to start repairing the enormous damage wrought by the defeated former Prime Minister, Stephen Harper.  In the recent election campaign Harper brought to radical extremes his attempt to gain political advantage from bashing Muslim people, Muslim religion, and Muslim dress. He had hoped to ride to a new electoral mandate by energizing a wave of Islamophobia.

Harper’s campaign began under the guidance of Lynton Crosby, an Australian Wizard of Oz with considerable political experience turning anti-immigrant, anti-Aboriginal policies to the political advantage of his prior client, neoconservative Australian Prime Minister John Howard.  Crosby tried to help Harper refine his image as Christian warrior with a passion for vanquishing Islamic infidels. The defeated prime minister attempted to cultivate his crusader personae by dramatizing a federal prohibition on the wearing of the niqab—a feature of Islamic dress adopted by some Muslim women—during citizenship ceremonies. This ban was ruled unconstitutional by the courts, but Harper promised to take the case to the Supreme Court of Canada if re-elected.

A Muslim himself, Calgary Mayor Naheed Nenshi condemned Harper’s tactic as “disgraceful.” Nenshi explained that under the auspices of former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, “the label of terrorism is thrown around in Ottawa with disturbing regularity… It’s targeted language that always describes an act of violence by someone of my faith.” The popular municipal politician continued, “To tie violent action to a religious group,” is “incredibly dangerous stuff.”

Of course there is nothing new in the attempt by the ousted prime minister to incite and exploit fear of Muslims as a religious wedge issue deployed in the service of political gain. The harnessing of Islamophobia for the advancement of neoconservative agendas goes back at least to 1979 when the basic ideological framework of the Global War on Terror was outlined at an international conference in Jerusalem organized by Benjamin Netanyahu.

Islamophobia and dog whistle politics

Perhaps the outcome of the Canadian election suggests that the pendulum of popular public opinion in the West is shifting. Perhaps the failure of Harper’s party to hold onto power by trumping up fear of Muslims marks the beginning of the end of the Global War on Terror. Perhaps this crack in the neoconservative edifice is like the early stages of the public assault on the Berlin Wall whose toppling marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War.

By identifying Islam with “barbaric cultural practices” and “medieval tribal customs,” the former Harper government may have exposed too much about the structure of neoconservative lies, deception and spin. Harper’s crusader zeal may have drawn unwanted scrutiny to the manipulations malevolently deployed in constructing the psychological prisons of synthetic fear thrown up by the War on Terror’s busy contractors.

For a time it seemed the niqab issue had set the trap that would turn the election in Harper’s favour. Fearing this outcome, Sheema Khan chronicled in the Globe and Mail some of the experiences of those on the receiving end of the Islamophobia. She wrote, “The government’s open hostility has given license to bigots to vent xenophobia. A pregnant Muslim woman is attacked in Montreal. A niqab-wearing woman is attacked while shopping with her daughters in Toronto. Mosques are taking precautions. Identifiable Muslim women feel less safe, and Muslim youth face difficult questions about identity and acceptance.”

Fifty years after arriving in Canada as a toddler Khan felt compelled to announce that she was made to feel like “a second-class citizen.” She added, “the Conservative message is: You are Muslim, you are the ‘other,’ you can’t be trusted and you will never belong.”

In the Huffington Post Hassan Arif characterized Harper’s failed divide-and-conquer strategy as follows, “Stephen Harper is campaigning on fear using the niqab as a wedge issue scapegoating Muslims. It is no coincidence that a senior adviser on the Conservative campaign is an Australian strategist known for dog whistle politics against cultural minorities. This is an attack on a longstanding consensus in Canadian politics in favour of multiculturalism and diversity, a consensus that had been upheld by the Liberals.”

Fear of terrorism, fear of Muslims

Trudeau’s success in the campaign was based in part on his spirited defense of the principles that “a Canadian citizen is a Canadian citizen,” that the principles entrenched in the UN Declaration of Universal Human Rights as well as in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms must prevail.

In one of the most significant moments in the Canadian election campaign, Trudeau evoked the words of former U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt on the subject of fear. He declared, “Having failed to help Canadians where it matters, what is Stephen Harper left with? Fear. The politics of fear and division. Franklin Roosevelt said we have nothing to fear but fear itself. Well, Stephen Harper has nothing to offer but fear itself. Fear of terrorism. Fear of the world beyond our borders. Fear of each other.”

Trudeau put in context his references to “fear of terrorism” by indicating, “We all know what is going on here…. It is nothing less than an attempt to play on people’s fears and foster prejudice, directly towards the Muslim faith.”

There are important international implications in the identification by the new Canadian Prime Minister of the prior government’s incitement and exploitation of Islamaphobia in the quest to gain, hold and extend political power. But Trudeau’s begs the question of what will happen next in addressing the great wrongs done to all Canadians through the long years when our government purposely inflamed public opinion against Muslims.

Paid mercenaries under Islamic flags

For the last 14 years since 9/11 the world has been delivered an onslaught of media imagery and commentary depicting Islamic terrorism as the world’s worst scourge. After two generations of being saturated in the intense psychological operations of the Cold War, we in the West were subjected to a shift from the propaganda of anti-communism to the propaganda of anti-terrorism. A key part of this propaganda has been to depict Islam as a religion of violence, as a seedbed of radicalization, murder and mayhem.

The biggest lie in the Global War on Terror is that the forces of Islamic jihad are totally independent, self-directed and self-financed. In fact there is a long history of the Western powers infiltrating the Muslim world and instrumentalizing Islamic sectarianism for imperial advantage. This trajectory of exploitation continues yet. It was on full display throughout the recent Canadian election campaign.

It is a matter of record that the CIA created al Qaeda as hosted within the mujahedeen and Taliban. The goal of this U.S.-financed and armed operation was to remove the Soviet-backed government of Afghanistan. The Western creation and sponsorship of mercenary armies said to be operating various Islamic flags has continued in a large arc of covert intervention. This arc of instrumentalized Islam extends from the breakup of the Balkans to the overthrow of Gaddafi’s government in Libya to the current campaign aimed at displacing Assad from power and dividing Syria and Iraq into easy-to-manipulate statelets.

There is a large and compelling body of serious scholarship on the history of this process emphasizing the close connection between Western intelligence services and groups regularly identified in the media as Islamic terrorist groups. The prolific scholarship on these subjects of, for instance, Ahmed Nafeez, Peter Dale Scott and Michel Chossudovsky comes immediately to mind.

This is not to say that there are not real zealots, as there are in every religion, that are prepared to commit violence to advance what they see as their sacred cause. In the context of the inner workings of the Global War on Terror, however, such individuals are likely to become prized assets to be funded, armed and manipulated by Western intelligence agencies in the hope they will participate in acts necessary to generate the political currency of fear. We know that the forerunner to this type of transaction was Operation Gladio, a NATO-run series of violent episodes concocted to turn public opinion against Europe’s left-wing parties.

The Terror Factory

By design, the Global War on Terror merges the empowerment of police state and surveillance state at home, military aggressions abroad. In Terror Factory, Trevor Aaronson describes the role of the FBI agents and infiltrators in encouraging pliable Muslim individuals to commit violence, only to be apprehended at some point in the entrapment process. His research leads Aaronson to conclude that these same procedures of FBI manipulation are re-enacted in almost every case of reported domestic terrorism in the United States.

Body in Ottawa

Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 10.18.29 AM

The Harper government took full advantage of Ottawa shooting.

The evidence is strong that a similar process was at play in the Ottawa shooter event of October 22, 2014. On that day, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau was identified by the FBI and CBS News as the killer of a soldier at the National War Cenotaph in the Canadian capital of Ottawa. Several hours later the armed Zehaf-Bibeau, now described by U.S. sources as “a recent Muslim convert,” was reported as having been shot dead after entering the nearby Parliament Building.

In retrospect this episode can be seen as the commencement of the Harper government’s campaign for re-election. As on 9/11 an elaborate interpretation was delivered almost immediately without any formal investigation whatsoever. The Canadian media fell in line and refused to ask any skeptical questions. The Harper government predictably exploited the occasion to put through Parliament pre-prepared legislation and policies setting up then-Prime Minister Harper for his campaign for re-election conflating Muslim “barbarism” with his war against “jihadi terrorism.”

Professor Graeme MacQueen has evaluated the government and police accounts of what transpired and has found many internal contradictions and holes in the official narrative. He has identified 34 unanswered questions that must be addressed. The first is, “When and by whom was the FBI first informed of the perpetrator’s name?” MacQueen’s Report for Democracy International is entitled The October 22, 2014, Ottawa Shootings: Why Canadians Need a Public Inquiry. MacQueen devotes one of his sections to address the question, “Was Zehaf-Bibeau a Managed Terrorist?”

The managers of the New York-based Canadian newspaper chain Postmedia seem to have worked quite closely with Lynton Crosby and the operatives in the re-election war room of Stephen Harper. They obviously collaborated closely to generate a flood of evocative images depicting ghoulish impressions of jihadi terror in the run-up to the Canadian election.

Throughout the campaign Paul Godfey’s monopolistic Postmedia chain, including the Ottawa Citizen, the Calgary Herald, the Vancouver Sun and the National Post, filled their front pages with collages of mask-wearing Arab faces, hooded Islamic men, countless real or faked pictures of the gun-toting kaffiyeh-wearing Zahef-Bibeau, and headlines like “The Radical Reality: Canada and Homegrown Terrorism,” or “The Terrorist and the Imam.”

On October 3, about two weeks before the election, the Postmedia papers released a series of pictures purporting to show wide shots of Zahef-Bibeau at the National War Memorial in the very act of murdering his victim. There is no compelling evidence presented to interpret the images as anything other than rather crude photoshopped fabrications. About the “French tourist” who supposedly captured the images, reporter Shaamini Yogaretnam indicates that “Jean Paul asked the Citizen to use only his first name.”

Trying to explain the origins of the prior grainy image that was quickly published in the media in order to convict Zahef-Bibeau in the court of public opinion, Yogaretnam came up with nothing but weasel words and indeterminate phrases. In the process she produced a classic example of really bad or even malfeasant journalism. “It is believed,” she wrote, “that several Ottawa police employees forwarded a zoomed-in picture of the gunman to civilian email addresses. The leak of the photo onto the Internet is believed to have originated from law enforcement sources, but it’s not clear whether it was Ottawa police, OPP (Ontario Provincial Police), RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police), or one of the forces in Canada or the United States that had access to the photograph that started the chain that led to its being posted online.” Who was it precisely that did this believing? How does such a confusing mishmash of words prove anything except an intent to deceive and obfuscate?

The day before the federal election, Paul Godfrey’s Islamophobia-inciting Postmedia chain gave new meaning to the term yellow journalism. The front pages of all the Postmedia newspapers brandished giant ads. Against plain yellow backgrounds the newspapers proclaimed, “Voting Liberal will cost you.”

Restoring public confidence

MacQueen is right. Canadians do need a public inquiry into the inconsistencies permeating the official accounts of the Ottawa shootings of October 22, 2014. But we need more than that. The new Trudeau government must address the broad and deep implications of his election campaign pronouncement that Stephen Harper has incited and exploited Islamophobia by conflating fear of Muslims with fear of terrorism.

It is a good start to have appointed Maryam Monsef to a cabinet post. But that alone does not repair the tremendous damage that has been done to the civil condition of Canadian society after almost a decade of Harper’s media-enhanced promotion of Islamophobia. How did Harper take power in the first place? He first took control of the prime minister’s position in 2006 riding a wave of neoconservative empowerment connected to now-hotly-contested interpretations of what really happened on 9/11.

Whatever happened, the Canadian government should not have made Canadian anti-terrorist policy after 9/11 by depending exclusively on a very flawed U.S. report. The 9/11 Commission Report was based on a heavily politicized investigation whose co-chairs acknowledge was “set up to fail.” There should have been a Canadian investigation into the Canadian aspects of 9/11 including Canada’s involvement on the fateful day in the failures of NORAD, the North American Aerospace Defense Command.

Moreover no officials in the government and Parliament of Canada should have sanctioned policies and laws based on a foreign report whose main conclusions were based on evidence obtained through illegal torture. The result of this failure of due diligence is that many Canadian officials made themselves complicit in prohibited torture and therefore violators of international criminal law.

To be consistent with his condemnation of Harper’s fostering of fear and prejudice towards Muslims, Trudeau must help us come to terms with what is real and what is concocted in the former Canadian government’s so-called war on “jihadi terrorism.” What, for instance, are Canadians to make of the reports in the Canadian media last March that an agent or asset connected to Canada’s embassy in Jordan was caught in Turkey helping with ISIL recruitment?

It would be a travesty for Prime Minister Trudeau to follow in the footsteps of U.S. President Barack Obama by simply maintaining the same fictions intertwined with the Global War on Terror that the both men inherited from the neoconservative administrations that preceded them. To restore Canada to civil health we need a transparent public process get to the root causes of the Islamophobia, including the systematic identification of all Muslims with the heavily engineered imagery of terrorism. This investigation could be characterized as part of the process of restoring evidence-based policy making to police work and military operations. Only thus do we have a chance of regaining some balance between the requirements of liberty, democracy and transparency with the imperatives of security.


Anthony James Hall is currently Professor of Globalization Studies at Anthony James Hall University of Lethbridge in Alberta Canada. He has been a teacher in the Canadian university system since 1982. Dr. Hall has recently finished a  two-volume publishing project at McGill-Queen’s University Press entitled “The Bowl with One Spoon.”


Special NoticeThankYou

Wailing Wall-‘Wrecking Ball’ by Miley Cyrus Parody – Shiksa Goddess


TRUTH JIHAD: Gilad Atzmon bears witness to the trial of Arthur Topham by Dr. Kevin Barrett


TRUTH JIHAD: Gilad Atzmon bears witness to the trial of Arthur Topham
By Kevin Barrett on November 14, 2015

Trial was Alice-in-Wonderland meets Franz Kafka – judge, jury & crown unable to grasp concept of “satire”

GILAD&BARCLAYGilad Atzmon, expert witness, with Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson

Canadian publisher Arthur Topham will likely be appealing his conviction on one count (accompanied by an acquittal on the other) of “promoting hatred toward the Jewish people.” The conviction appears to have been the result of the prosecutor, judge and jury’s inability to understand the concept of satire. Check out Arthur’s article “Guilty/Not Guilty” for details. If and when Arthur appeals, I will be happy to volunteer my services as an expert witness. I have four advanced degrees in literature (three MAs and a Ph.D.) and have done extensive work on the literary theory of Bakhtin, whose work provides the best possible basis for an accurate understanding of what satire is and how it works.

Meanwhile…Shortly before the verdict came in I recorded this interview with ex-Israeli philosopher-musician Gilad Atzmon, who may be the world’s leading expert on Jewish identity politics. When Arthur Topham was charged with “willfully promoting hatred against the Jewish people,” hauled into court, and menaced with a possible two-year prison sentence, Gilad flew to Quesnel, British Columbia to appear as an expert witness. (Read Gilad’s description of his testimony, “The Expert Witness“).

Arthur Topham (who has appeared on Truth Jihad Radio) is a kind, decent person without any apparent hatred in his heart. It is his love of justice, not his hatred of anyone, that led him to criticize Zionism and the dark side of Jewish identity politics. Arthur and his wife Shasta, who is Jewish, have behaved with amazing restraint and decorum during their eight-year ordeal, during which their remodeling business was destroyed.

What was Arthur Topham’s alleged crime? Parodying Zionist Jew Theodore Kaufman’s book “Germany Must Perish!” by changing “Germany” to “Israel” throughout the text. This tiny change produced the satirical masterpiece “Israel Must Perish!” – and led Canada’s Zionist Power Configuration to have him jailed on “hate crime” charges!

Who is the REAL hater here – Arthur Topham, or the Zionists like Kaufman who wanted to commit genocide against Germany, and are now committing genocide in Palestine with the full support of the governments of the US and Canada?

And how has Jewish identity politics morphed into genocidal Zionism? If anyone can explain that, it would be Gilad Atzmon.

Also check out my interviews with Arthur Topham:

Arthur Topham puts Zionist double-standards & hypocrisy on trial! (December 17, 2013)

Persecuted writer-editor Arthur Topham: “Zionists assault free speech” (January 21, 2015)
Related Posts:
Arthur Topham vs. Theodore Nathan Kaufman
Outlawing Free Speech on Jewish Identity
Gilad Atzmon’s Expert Witness Testimony at Arthur Topham’s criminal trial – Part 1
Gilad in the USA- May 15th
Ten reasons why I Support Alan Dershowitz, Not


For only $3.95 a month you can listen to shows on-demand before they are broadcast – and also get free downloads and other perks from Kevin! If you are a subscriber, just log in to the members area of to get early access to the shows. Help Kevin keep these shows on the air – become a subscriber today!

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham: Part 2 by Eve Mykytyn

Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 4.51.44 PM

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham: Part 2

by Eve Mykytyn / November 14th, 2015

Read Part 1.

On November 12th the jury found Mr. Topham guilty of ‘inciting hate.’ This leads to a few questions.

First, the jury found Mr. Topham guilty on Count 1 but not guilty on Count 2. Ordinarily, this is a result we are comfortable with since the state (the Crown) may have proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that a defendant committed an assault but not have shown sufficient evidence of battery. Mr. Topham’s case is different. He was charged with two virtually identical counts, both relating to his website but covering different periods of time, that is, count 1 was for the period from April 28, 2011 to May 4, 2012, and count 2 was for January 29, 2013 to December 11, 2013.

If Mr. Topham intended to incite hate, would he really have changed his mind in the brief period between counts 1 and 2? We will never know what the jury relied upon; in yet another abrogation of free speech, the jury was threatened that if they spoke to anyone about their deliberations, they would be committing a criminal offense. How is the public supposed to understand the mysterious machinations of the term ‘hate’ without knowing what caused a jury to convict a fellow citizen of such a crime?

Hate is a crime the essential elements of which have been left undefined. As a writer, one must not only discern from the miasma what constitutes ‘hate’ but also guess what elements a jury will find persuasive. If one of the main goals of the criminal law is to prevent certain behavior then clarity of what such behavior is, is essential. What can Canadians say? May they say they disagree strongly with a particular group? What evidence can one print in support of their disagreement? Surely, it is not the defendant’s responsibility that a particular political group is also associated with an ethnic identity and a religion. The Crown, by controlling website content through its ‘hate’ law, is controlling not only what Canadians may say but also what Canadians may read. Mr. Topham’s is not the only blog to criticize Israel and Zionism. Should Canadians then read political criticism only from other countries? Very troubling.

Second, the crown had almost 2 years to prepare its case. Its evidence was contained in 4 binders. Many of the pages were illegible and the Crown itself seemed to have extraordinary difficulties in citing to its own arguments. The defense quite properly objected. The Crown wanted to provide clear copies of the illegible pages in yet another binder cross referenced to the originals. The trial could have been an exercise in maze solving. Judge Butler ruled that the Crown had to provide legible copies. This seemed to present a large obstacle and endless court time was wasted in discussions of printing costs, etc. As a foreign observer it seemed ironic that the crown spent $190 an hour on its expert witness, who as an earlier independent complainant against Mr. Topham might have been willing to accept less, and I don’t know how much money on ‘security’ but had so much trouble producing legible copies.

I belabor this point because it is very odd for the prosecution to allow its evidence to be blurry. I would expect in proving an elusive crime like ‘hate’ they would want their evidence to be as clear and convincing as possible. Was the intent to confuse the jury? Was the Crown merely incompetent? This is not impossible. The judge spent much time instructing the crown’s representative, Ms. Johnston, on procedural issues. This gave me the impression (and perhaps the jurors as well?) that the judge was helping and thus favoring the prosecution. Surely this was unintentional on Judge Butler’s part.

Third, and this relates to point two, the jury was given 62 pages of ‘charges’ (or what Americans call jury instructions). Even if all twelve jurors, ordinary men and women, are speed readers, how are they to read and evaluate 62 pages of instructions and then apply them to four binders? The plethora of material leads me to suspect that the jury was not intended to read the material at all. This would tend the jury toward a guilty verdict.

There is not a sinister act by the jury. They were asked to sit through weeks of testimony about Jewish politics, history, religion, and identity. Jury selection would have excluded anyone who was actually interested in such topics. They were handed stacks of paper. Faced with these circumstances, they presumably decided that the Crown and the judge worked for their province and had British Columbia’s best interests at heart. It is actually a testimony to the weakness of the Crown’s case that Mr. Topham was found not guilty at all.

The battle is not over. Following the verdict, both sides indicated that they intended to appeal. (Here Canada differs from the United States where prosecutors can appeal only under very limited circumstances). The Crown asked that Mr. Topham’s bail restrictions be changed and that his website be taken down. Judge Butler did not decide these issues because first, as the defense pointed out, these requests were improperly made. Mr. Topham intends to present a Charter (constitutional) argument that the judge had stayed at the beginning of the trial so that the ‘facts’ of the case could be more fully developed at trial.

Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.

A Battle With No Front by Gilad Atzmon

Screen Shot 2015-11-14 at 7.42.59 AM

A Battle With No Front
November 14, 2015 / Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday morning, the news was broadcast of extensive ‘heroic’ allied drone attacks in Iraq and Syria in support of the battle for Sinjar. We also learned about the assassination of Jihadi John. We were told some revenge might be on the way. As promised, last night Paris was bathing in blood.

Welcome to World War III – a global conflict with unlimited battlefronts. We, as people of the world, are all caught in the middle in this disaster. We see that our universe is crumbling, we want peace, yet we don’t even know who the enemy is.

For some of us, this recent escalation is not a surprising development. We have been writing about it for years. We have been scrutinising the disastrous impact of the matrix of Ziocon immoral interventionist lobbies that have been relentlessly advocating more and more conflicts. The CRIF in Paris, CFI in London and AIPAC in Washington all push for escalation of the battle against Arabs and Muslims in accordance with the Israeli plan for a new Middle East.

We are forced to accept the fact that extremist Muslims are very upset and they can hit hard and in a very short time. Russia saw one of its planes falling out of the sky, killing more than two hundred innocent holiday makers. Paris has again suffered. We must ask, is it necessary? Do we have to live in fear from now on? Is peace an option?

The terror is a message that we have to understand. What is its message? ‘Leave us alone’ is what these homicidal terrorists are trying to tell us. Is that too complicated for the Western subject to take in? ‘Live and let others be,’ is what this is about. The pragmatic implication is obvious. The West must immediately stop serving Israeli and global Zionist interests. We must cease all operations in Arabia and the Mid East. For that to happen, and for a chance for peace, opposition to global Zionism and Israeli lobbying is imperative.

Here is some practical advice; next time Bernard Henri Levy, David Aaronovitch or Alan Dershowitz attempt to sell a new conflict-pack in the name of ‘human rights,’ we should politely advise them that we have learned our lesson – no more wars for Zion. Then, peace may prevail.


Topham Found Guilty Of Thought Crime by Brandon Martinez


GUILTY/NOT GUILTY! by Arthur Topham


The British Columbia Supreme Court trial of R v Roy Arthur Topham concluded today in Quesnel’s Supreme Court at 11:27 a.m. when the Jury Foreman responded to the two charges laid against Arthur Topham and his website

Both charges in the case were identical. Only the time period in which the evidence on the website was investigated differed. The charge itself read:

Count 1

Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 28th day of April, 2011 and the 4th day of May, 2012, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

Count 2

Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 29th day of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

When asked by the Court Registrar what the verdict was for Count 1 the Jury Foreman replied GUILTY.

When asked a second time by the Court Registrar what the verdict was for Count 2 the Jury Foreman replied NOT GUILTY.

After announcing to the court the verdict in both counts Justice Bruce Butler then thanked the jury for their time and dedication to the judicial process and following that he instructed them that anything they had discussed during the course of their deliberations was to remain secret and that to divulge anything that had taken place was a criminal offence. After that the jury was released.

Immediately upon releasing the jury Crown Prosecutor Jennifer Johnson attempted to have Topham’s bail conditions changed, presumably in order to have more stringent conditions imposed other than those already in place.

Justice Butler was not prepared to entertain the Crown’s immediate offer. Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson addressed the Justice stating that if Crown wished to alter Topham’s bail conditions then the proper procedure would be for her to file an application to that effect and a hearing take place. Justice Butler agreed and a hearing on the matter was set for Thursday, November 19th, 2015.

Following that court adjourned.

At this point in time the question remains as to why a guilty verdict was handed down for Count 1 and why a not guilty verdict was handed down for Count 2.

Speculation is that Count 1 included evidence which the jury felt wilfully promoted hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group. Count 1 also included the book Germany Must Perish! written by the Jewish author Theodore N. Kaufman as well as the parody/satire of Kaufman’s book by Topham titled Israel Must Perish! which Crown, from the onset of the trial, has adamantly claimed was a “book” that Topham wrote rather than merely a satire of Theodore N. Kaufmann’s book.

It is believed that the jury was convinced by Crown that Topham’s satire of the original book was in fact his own work and that Topham was therefore promoting the total destruction of the Jewish people which the jury felt was proof that Topham did “wilfully promote hatred toward an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

The next stage in this unfolding drama could conceivably be an appeal based upon a Constitutional challenge to the criminal code’s section 319(2); one which had already been attempted back in June of 2015 but failed. It was deemed at the time of Justice Butler decision that a Charter application challenge to the legislation would be more appropriate following the outcome of the trial. Now that the outcome has resulted in a guilty verdict in Count 1 the way is open to again challenge Section 319(2) under Sec. 2b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code must be repealed based upon a Charter challenge and the framework for such a challenge may finally be in place.


The Trials and Tribulations of Freedom of Speech in Canada by Arthur Topham


Remembrance Day has come and gone but the trial of Arthur Topham and continues on.

The jury retired once again Wednesday evening at 9:00 p.m. and will reconvene again this morning (Thursday) around 10:00 a.m. to carry on with their deliberations.

Given the vast amount of documentation that Crown entered into evidence and the fact that over the course of the 11 day trial the jury only got to catch snippets of articles and quotes from here and there, when the time came for them to retire and ponder over this vast array of materials they were undoubtedly faced with a monumental task, one that in all likelihood has taxed their minds.

On top of that Justice Butler handed them a 62-page Charge document that they were instructed to follow as a guideline in their deliberations and it also recommended that they take into consideration all of the materials submitted by Crown prior to coming to their decision.

When I reflect on the assortment of articles that have been published on my website and contemplate the task now set before these twelve individuals I can have but sympathy and respect for their efforts. It’s a daunting challenge and one that will have repercussions felt around the world. In some ways those twelve women and men will be holding  in their hands the fundamental right to freedom of speech and deciding whether or not Canadians will be able to retain and exercise that right.

God grant them the strength and discernment necessary to make the right decision.

I would ask that those who love their freedoms to continue thinking and sending good thoughts and prayers to these individuals and to keep their own spirits strong.

There is a war taking place on this planet between the forces of darkness who are trying to impose censorship on nations around the world. My case is but one of many battles now taking place. Should we be victorious the cause of freedom will move forward but if we should lose this battle it won’t signal the end of the global conflict that now looms before us.

Be strong and courageous. We WILL win this war eventually and the Light of freedom WILL continue to guide humanity into a bright and loving and peaceful future.

Arthur Topham – Publisher and Editor of


The Trial of Arthur Topham continues on Remembrance Day by Arthur Topham


Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 4.05.46 PM

Dear Readers,

Yesterday, Tuesday November 10, 2015 was a day marked by many long delays which prevented Justice Butler from charging the jury until 4:00 pm.

Once the jury was given their instructions they retired to deliberate and remained sequestered (and will remain sequestered) until such time as they come to a decision.

They stopped last night at 9:00 pm and will resume deliberating this morning again.

It is expected (by me) that they will come to a decision today. Here in Canada November 11 (aka 11-11) is a national holiday called Remembrance Day in honour of all those Canadians who died in all the wars and conflicts throughout the 20th century.

Today, therefore, would be a fitting occasion for the jury to pronounce a verdict of NOT GUILTY in my case. It would signal a new beginning where all Canadians will have the right and freedom to express their opinions and beliefs without fear of government censorship. It was for this basic freedom that so many believed in that they gave their lives to protect it.

God grant that those 12 women and men will see the wisdom of doing what is right to protect and carry on this sacred, democratic right.



Arthur Topham

Swan Song by Arthur Topham


The Golden Rule by Arthur Topham

TheGoldenRuleN.Rockwell copy

The Golden Rule


Norman Rockwell

Text by Arthur Topham

Tomorrow morning, Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 Justice Butler will charge the jury beginning at 10:00 a.m. and then they will go out to determine my fate. It’s been a long two weeks plus a day attending Supreme Court daily. It’s also been a long eight and half years of continual legal battles with those who would rather silence their critics with unjust legislation than openly discuss the issues that concern so many people around the world.

The support throughout these years has grown to amazing proportions as more and more individuals are coming to the realization that the world is neither a safe or a healthy or a just place in which to live and raise a family and simply get along and enjoy their lives.

The outcome of tomorrow’s decision by the 12 member jury will have repercussions around the planet. For Canadians it will be either a turning point in terms of increased justice and the freedom of the people to express their minds or else an indication that the powers now controlling our sources of information and our judicial system are still too powerful to be challenged.

My belief at this point is that we must never give up the struggle for equality before the law nor should we give in to man-made legislation that tries to limit our fundamental and God-given right to freedom of speech no matter what decision is made tomorrow. If we win it will be the beginning of a new chapter on the long road ahead, one that ultimately will see our rights and freedoms returned to us.

I would therefore ask my supporters and everyone who believes in the right to express themselves that they send out good thoughts to those 12 men and women tomorrow and that those who believe in the power of prayer pray that the Heavenly Father will guide their hearts and minds in the direction of freedom rather than down the path to greater restrictions and laws which will chain and bow us like slaves to the present Orwellian mind-set that we see around us.

That simple golden rule which Norman Rockwell embodied in his 1961 painting will only come into existence if we have the freedom to speak our hearts and minds and the freedom to worship in whatever manner touches our soul and harms no one.

Our thanks and gratitude go out to all of you who have worked or supported me in this long battle. Tomorrow we will see the results of this labour of love. Let us pray that it will signal a new beginning.

God bless us all.

Arthur Topham
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

Press Release: OCLA Denounces the Hate Speech Criminal Prosecution of Arthur Topham

From: Joseph Hickey – OCLA []
Sent: November 9, 2015 11:22 AM
To: ‘Joseph Hickey – OCLA’
Subject: OCLA Denounces the Hate Speech Criminal Prosecution of Arthur Topham

OCLA Hdr copy 3

OCLA Denounces the Hate Speech Criminal Prosecution of Arthur Topham

(Ottawa, November 9, 2015) – The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) denounces the criminal prosecution of Mr. Arthur Topham taking place in Quesnel, BC.

Mr. Topham is on trial for charges under the “hate speech” provisions of Canada’s Criminal Code (s. 319(2)). The Crown is expected to make its closing statements today.

These provisions criminalize belief, opinion, and expression of one’s beliefs and opinions, and are incompatible with the universal principle of free debate in a democracy.

No person should ever be subjected to a criminal prosecution without the state having the onus to show actual harm to a person and intent to produce the actual harm, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The “crime” in essence is in the abstract, regarding production of an emotional response “at large”. No actual effect or imminent danger need be demonstrated by the Crown. The Crown will not rely on showing actual harm or intent to harm.

Canada’s “hate crime” provisions require specific consent from the province’s Attorney General for a prosecution to proceed. This feature makes the state’s decision about whether or not to prosecute alleged “hate crimes” particularly susceptible to political influences. In the present political climate in Canada, cases where the expression can negatively impact public opinion about Canada’s diplomatic and military support for US and Israel policy and actions in the Middle East, or where state suppression of targeted expression supports the geopolitical goals of the US and Israel in the Middle East, are among those which are most at risk from being attacked using disproportionate means wielded by the state.

In September 2014, the OCLA launched a petition to the Attorney General of BC asking that she retract her consent for the criminal proceedings against Mr. Topham. The petition, which gathered over 1,400 signatures, can be viewed online at the following link:

All expression stems from the individual’s experience and perception, and is therefore of value to society, in that it reveals points of view for evaluation. Any individual’s expression of any view is needed content in the struggle for greater democracy and understanding. The OCLA defends Mr. Topham’s expression of his views, along with any other person’s expression of any view. The health of our democracy depends on freedom of speech.

The “hate speech” provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada are irreconcilable with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and should be repealed. They are an offence against decency and human rights.

 About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association

The OCLA vigorously advocates for authentic and unqualified freedom of expression of individuals, on all topics and in every form, in accordance with the right to free expression enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The OCLA also advocates for unimpeded civil liberties and civil rights of all persons, in dealings with public and private institutions and corporations.



Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

613-252-6148 (c)

The Expert Witness – Part 1 by Gilad Atzmon

Screen Shot 2015-11-09 at 7.05.41 AM

The Expert Witness – Part 1
November 09, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

The following is the first part of Gilad Atzmon’s Expert Witness Testimony at Arthur Topham’s criminal trial.  This part contains a brief summary of Atzmon’s perception of the Jews and their politics.  In the next part Atzmon will explain how these ideas serve to vindicate all forms of criticism of Jewish politics, ideology, symbols, rituals and so on.

Attorney Barclay Johnson: Mr Atzmon, can you please elaborate on the notion of Jewish Identity Politics.

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: Identity politics is a relatively new study that looks into the meaning and the means of identification of various groups. Instead of asking what is X or Y, identity politics delves into the question of what identifying as X or Y may entail.  I have gone through the court case documentation and detected a considerable lack of understanding of the complexity of the terminology related to Jewish matters: identity, religion, race and politics. In particular, I encountered confusion in the comprehension of the crucial distinction among:

A: Judaism (the religion)

B:  The Jews (the people)

C: Jewishness (the ideology)

In order to grasp these notions we must elaborate first on the meaning of Jewish Identity Politics.

Instead of asking what or who are the Jews, we will simplify the question. We will ask what those who identify themselves as Jews mean by that.

Years of studying of Jewish identity politics led me to the conclusion that we are dealing with three non-exclusive categories.

A: The Religion – people who identify as Jews because they believe and follow the Torah/Talmud. Ladies and gentlemen-this category is innocent. The history of hundreds of years of rabbinical Judaism proves that orthodox Jews have never been involved in a genocidal act against another people.

B: Ethnicity – people who identify as Jews due to ancestry and family lineage. Ladies and gentlemen, this category is also innocent. Having a Jewish mother doesn’t make one into a war criminal!

C: Politics – those who identify politically as Jews. Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, this category is far from innocent. Zionism-the promise to bring about a Jewish homeland in Palestine was executed at the expense of another people: namely the Palestinians. But Zionism is not alone. In fact all forms of Jewish politics are racially exclusive. Ask yourself, can Mr. Topham or any other ‘Goy’ (gentile, non-Jew) in this room join the group ‘Jews for Peace’ or ‘Jews for Human Rights’? The answer is NO. And why? Because the Goyim in the room are not racially qualified. The conclusion is inevitable. The 3rd category is racially oriented and to a certain extent, racist to the bone.   ‘Jews for peace’ is in practice as racist and exclusive as “Aryans for Palestine” or “Whites for free love.” And yet, most of us would react angrily to White only clubs but we are somehow forgiving when it comes to Jews only associations.

Attorney Barclay Johnson: Mr Atzmon, please make sure that we understand you correctly. Are Jews a race?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: Not at all. Jews are neither a race nor they are a biological entity, but Jewish politics is always racist or at least driven by racial orientation!

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  How does the model you sketched above help to understand Israeli politics, Jewish Identity or progress in this court case?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: In practice, every Jew who identifies as a Jew subscribes to one, two or three of the categories above.  Let’s examine the case of an American Jewish settler living in occupied West Bank. Yes he follows the Torah (1st category), yes he is Jew by ancestry (2nd category) and certainly, he identifies politically as a Jew (3rd category). But what about the Jewish Marxists who went as far as Spain to fight Franco in the name of the revolution? These revolutionary Jews didn’t follow the Jewish religion, they were not the 1st category. They only subscribed to the 2nd and the 3rd categories. What about Noam Chomsky? He is not a religious Jew. Again, he only subscribes to the 2nd and the 3rd   categories. He is a Jew by ancestry and also identifies politically as a Jew[1]. Albert Einstein? The Jury is out on that one but it would be reasonable to argue that he subscribes to the 2nd category.

I argue that it is the Jewish political element, the subscription to the 3rd category that leads towards some unsavoury acts whether they be the cold blood murder of Palestinian families or extensive Jewish Lobbying in the West.  Those acts deserve criticism, politically and ideologically.

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  But how does this model help this court to further its understanding the case of Arthur Topham or the accusation of hate speech?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: As I mentioned before, categories 1 & 2 are totally innocent. And indeed, no one really criticises Neturei Karta (Torah Jews) or Satmar Jews in related to Israeli crimes in Palestine. These two ultra orthodox Jewish groups made it clear that they oppose the crimes committed by the Jewish State and Zionism. Moreover, nowadays, no one really criticises Jews as a race, biology or ethnicity. What we do see is opposition Jewish politics and ideology. However and this is crucial. In the West we tend to believe that every politics & ideology must be subject to political and ideological criticism. My Lord, if every form of politics and ideology must be subject to criticism, this rule must be applied also to Jewish politics and ideology, and as far as I can tell, Jewish politics and ideology deserves a lot of criticism.

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  But it seems as if Jews are often feel hated if their politics is criticised.

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon:  Correct, yet, the fact that Jews feel hated doesn’t mean that anyone really hates them. It is also be possible that some Jews feel hated because they actually project their own hatred onto others.

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  I am slightly confused here it seems as if we are dealing with a sophisticated multi layered identity.

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: You are totally correct, this topic is indeed confusing and for a reason. Contemporary Diaspora Jewish politics struggles to maintain this confusion because it stifles any from of criticism of Jewish politics. In order to understand this construct we should imagine the following kosher trinity.


When we criticise Jewish politics (Israel, Zionism, the Lobby etc’) some Jews are“racially offended” in spite of the fact that race, biology, blood or ethnicity was never mentioned.   When we criticise Jewish racism some Jews hide behind the argument that we are criticizing their religion. When we occasionally criticise the religion or some obscene Jewish religious teaching we are quick to learn that Jews are hardly religious anymore (which is true by the way). The meaning of it is simple, yet devastating. The Jewish triangle makes it very difficult, or even impossible to criticise Jewish politics, ideology and racism because the Identity is set as a field with a tri-polar gravity centre. The identity morphs endlessly. The contemporary 3rd category (political) Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to supress any possible criticism.

Attorney Barclay Johnson: In the last 7 days this court learned about some very problematic segments within the Talmud and the Torah. Yet, you insist here that the religion is innocent. Can you please enlighten us about the role of religion?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: This is a crucial point. While I argue that the Jewish religion is an innocent category, this is far from saying that Judaism is clean of some very problematic teachings and even racist and supremacist preaching.

Here is the problem. The historical facts are plain. In spite of some very problematic Judaic teachings that are both Talmud and Torah related, rabbinical Jews have never been involved in any collective murderous attempt against anyone else. This fact suggests that in spite of some horrid segments, it was actually the Talmud that restrained the Jews for centuries. Such a view vindicates the Talmud despite its uncomfortable teachings. But things are about to get very uncomfortable now.

It is not a secret that in contemporary Israel, it is the orthodox Jews and the followers of the Talmud who lead the most racist and murderous abuse of the indigenous Palestinian population. Thus, we have a clear question to answer. If it was the Talmud that restrained the Jews for centuries, why doesn’t it restrain orthodox Israeli Jews now? The orthodox rabbis argue that it is the addition of political orientation that interfered with Judaic peaceful teaching.

Another possible answer is that we were wrong all along.  It wasn’t the Talmud that restrained the Jews, actually it was the ‘anti-Semitic’ church that repressed Jews. The collapse of the Church together with the rise of Israel and the influential Jewish lobbies in the West have led to a severe sense of impunity that is translated into a tsunami of violence and rise of Jewish supremacy that is religiously driven.

Here are some marbles taken from the Rabbi Ovadia Yossef, an Israeli Chief Sepharadi Rabbi.

On Goyim:

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”  Weekly Saturday night sermon in October 2010

On Muslims:

“They’re stupid. Their religion is as ugly as they are.”

— Weekly Saturday night sermon in December 2009.

I cannot judge whether this is indeed the case but I can clearly say that the only way to deal with these issues is to discuss them openly and to make sure that as much information as possible is available to all of us. Ladies and Gentlemen, I do believe that this is the principle that guides Arthur Topham, who for over 30 years has made some of the most important texts on the matter available to us all.

I wouldn’t know about‘Germany Must Perish’ unless Mr Topham had made it into a satire. Would you? Even the Crown Expert, Mr Rudner, admitted that he wasn’t aware of the text and actually confirmed by this admission the importance of the Radical Press. Two days ago Mr Rudner admitted that ‘Germany Must Perish’ is a hateful text. Congratulation to Mr Rudner. It took the Jewish world more than 7 decades to denounce one of the most horrible Jewish texts ever. Is not Mr Rudner long awaited denunciation the direct outcome of Mr Topham’s satire?

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  History. In your book, ‘The Wandering Who,’ you delve into the notion of History and Jewish history in particular. Can you please elaborate on the topic and its relevance within the context of ‘Holocaust denial’ and so-called ‘hatred?’

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: History becomes a meaningful adventure once we learn to narrate the past as we move along. This means that as we are changing constantly, our understanding of the past is also shifting. Accordingly, history, at its best, is the ability to visit, re-visit and revise our past as we progress in time. This understanding of history must be applied to any chapter in our past including the Holocaust.

It is no secret that Jewish institutions oppose the Holocaust being subjected to revision and the outcome of this opposition is tragic, especially for the Jews. Instead of letting the Holocaust become a dynamic universal ethical lesson it has been reduced into the new canonical Jewish religion. It has its shrines (museums) prophets, preachers and even a new God figure: ‘The Jew,’ the one who was forsaken by God, yet resurrected himself from the slaughter, and against all odds, made Israel into a nuclear super power that too often threatens world peace.

Once again, our duty to the Jews, to humanity, to Canada as well as to Israel is to fight this intellectual stagnation. To burst the bubble with an injection of refreshing and controversial thoughts. But isn’t that what Radical Press and Arthur Topham have been doing for the last 35 years?

Ladies and Gentlemen, one of the most disturbing images of National Socialist Germany’s persecution of the Jews are those old archive films of book burning. It is rather disturbing that in Canada in 2015 it is actually the Jewish lobby that leads the call for book burning. One would expect Jews to draw the necessary lesson from the Shoah. Freedom of speech and expression are our most precious assets. It is what made Athens into the core of universal thinking. It is down to us to keep this promise for the sake of our future generations and humanism in general.



[1] Professor Chomsky recently endorsed Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP):

Anti-Zionist Jew web postings about ‘synagogue of Satan’ at heart of Arthur Topham’s trial by Betsy Trumpener/CBC

Anti-Zionist Jew web postings about ‘synagogue of Satan’ at heart of Arthur Topham’s trial

Topham trial ‘the biggest waste of taxpayer money’ says his lawyer

CBC News Posted: Nov 07, 2015 9:19 AM PT Last Updated: Nov 08, 2015


Arthur Topham and his wife Shastah Topham leave the Quesnel courthouse Friday Nov. 6. (Betsy Trumpener/CBC)

Betsy Trumpener

Arthur Topham’s views on Judaism are far from “mainstream,” but his lawyer says his website is far from criminal.

The Quesnel man’s lawyer said Friday his client is the victim of an “inquisition” for espousing controversial views on a politically sensitive topic.

Topham is charged with willfully promoting hatred against Jewish people through his website

An expert Crown witness said Friday that Topham’s postings demonized and distorted Jewish people with phrases like “synagogues of Satan” and a satiric article calling for “the extermination of Israel and all Jews.”

Lawyer Barclay Johnson conceded that that his client’s views deviated from “the mainstream” but pointed to the fact that Topham did not hate individual Jews, and in fact, his own wife is Jewish.

In closing arguments Johnson said B’nai Brith and the former Canadian Jewish Congress alerted authorities about Topham’s website, describing them as “lobby groups for a foreign government trying to shut down a Canadian web site for criticism of Israel and Jews.”

Johnson then called the trial “the ultimate insult to freedom, and the biggest waste of taxpayer money.”

The crown is scheduled to deliver its own closing arguments Monday, Nov. 9.


Report on week two of  Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham    by  Arthur Topham

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM


EDITOR’S NOTE: Once again, please feel free to use whatever information is contained in this Report in order to spread the news concerning this important trial further afield.

To date only the local Quesnel Cariboo Observer, and CBC Prince George have given coverage to the story so it’s now firmly established that Canada’s major news networks (all of which are either controlled or heavily influenced by the foreign Zionist lobby) have no intention of informing the general public on this matter.

As I previously stated in the first report it’s up to the alternative news media to do its best to cover this important historic event in Canadian jurisprudence and bring it to the attention of internet readers around the world.

The original time period allotted for the trial indicated that it would conclude by Friday, November 6th but such is not the case. It will now carry on into week three and likely conclude on Tuesday, November 10th one day prior to Canada’s federal holiday known as Remembrance Day.
Thank you.


Arthur Topham
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

To Alternative Media Sources
Report on week two of
Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham

Arthur Topham

The second week of Canada’s Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial R v Roy Arthur Topham got underway Monday morning, November 2nd, 2015.

Witness #1 former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team

During the fourth day of the first week of testimony (October 29, 2015) Defence attorney Barclay Johnson had cross examined former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson the lead investigator involved in the current Sec. 319(2) charge, arrest and incarceration of Mr. Topham back in May of 2012. Throughout his questioning of Wilson it was clearly shown that the former detective was not an “expert” on what constituted “hate” and that Wilson was solely relying upon only one definition of “hatred” which appeared in the Keegstra case from back in the 1980’s. It was also evident from the former Hate Crime Unit investigator’s statements that after the second complainant had filed his complaint to the BC Hate Crime Team back in May of 2011 Wilson traveled over to Victoria, B.C. to interview the complainant who, during the course of the taped conversation, told Wilson that he’d also been involved in laying an earlier complaint against Topham back in 2007 as a representative of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. That earlier Sec. 13(1) complaint on the part of B’nai Brith Canada, fortunately for Topham, was stayed in 2010 pending the outcome of a Constitutional challenge to the Canadian Human Rights Act (where the legislation existed); one that ultimately resulted in the repeal of Sec. 13(1) in June of 2012.

In the course of their interview the complainant told Wilson that his organization, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, didn’t think they had any evidence strong enough to gain a conviction under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada until Topham published his “book” Israel Must Perish! on his website May 28th, 2011. The complainant, upon reading what was in actuality a satire that Topham had written of the actual book Germany Must Perish! concluded that he now had sufficient evidence to prove to a court of law that Topham was proposing the total annihilation of the Jewish population and would therefore qualify as a candidate for a Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” complaint with the BC Hate Crime Team.

Under cross examination Defence attorney Johnson suggested to Wilson that it wasn’t until the complainant had told him about the “book” that he made his decision to charge Topham.

Topham’s attorney also brought forth evidence clearly showing Wilson to have abused his police powers during the course of his investigation when he wrote a personal letter to Topham’s Internet Service Provider (ISP) back on November 21, 2012 informing them that Topham had been charged on November 5, 2012 with a Sec. 319(2) CCC offence of “Wilfully Promoting Hatred”. Defence pointed out to the court that Wilson had taken it upon himself to go to, read through their policy and then suggested to the company that Topham’s Sec. 319(2) criminal charge “may in fact contravene” said policy under section 4(b)(i). The result of Wilson’s letter to was that the ISP wrote to Topham the same day issuing what was basically an ultimatum stating, “We have been advised by a visitor to your web site that such web site contains content that is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature.

Accordingly, please remove such content within 48 hours of this notice. Failure to delete such content within such period will result in termination of your website.” It was signed by “Zach P Corporate Support”.

Given such short notice and not having the technical expertise to shift his website to a new (and more secure) server in the USA Topham had to rely upon an associate of his who also wasn’t fully proficient in downloading and uploading websites. The end result was that all the content on Topham’s website prior to November 21, 2012 ended up infected with computer code script that required hundreds of hours of labour to correct and to this day still hasn’t been fully repaired.

Defence also pointed out to the court that when Wilson wrote to on November 21, 2012 there had already been one attempt on the part of Crown to have Topham’s bail conditions changed so that he wouldn’t be able to carry on publishing until after the trial (should he be found not guilty). That attempt had failed and Crown was attempting a second time to change his conditions and a hearing on Crown’s application had already been set for January 2, 2013 but Wilson disregarded the court and proceeded on his own to try and remove before that date. Because of these independent actions on the part of former Det. Wilson, Defence suggested to the court that Wilson had acted in an extra-judicial manner and in doing so had attempted to circumvent whatever decision the court may have come to regarding Topham’s bail conditions (Crown’s application was unsuccessful). In other words Wilson had acted as judge and jury and concluded, prior to Crown’s application being heard, that Topham was guilty of the crime before having been tried. In other words, according to Defence counsel Johnson, Wilson’s testimony could not be taken seriously and ought to be disregarded by the jury.


Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner

The first week’s proceedings concluded Friday, October 30th, 2015 with Crown’s Expert Witness, Mr. Len Rudner, former Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress, completing his testimony. Week two commenced with Defence attorney Barclay Johnson’s cross examination of Mr. Rudner testimony.

Len Rudner copy

As noted in the first report the focus of Crown’s evidence was contained in four large binders of which Binder #1 and #2 composed the complete texts of the following online books posted on

1. Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann
2. Israel Must Perish! (erroneously labeled by Wilson and Crown as a “book” rather than a satirical article)
3. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
4. The Biological Jew by Eustice Mullins
5. The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling

Binder #2 was the complete text (580 pages) of Douglas Reed’s historic analysis of political Zionism The Controversy of Zion. Binders #3 and #4 were basically screen shots of all of Topham’s monthly postings on his website which Wilson had “captured” during the course of the Hate Crime Team’s investigation once the initial complaint was laid against Topham and his website on April 28th, 2011. As well, a number of Topham’s personal writings contained in the sidebar on the home page under the heading Arthur’s Court were also included.

Over the course of Len Rudner’s testimony Crown’s Prosecuting Attorney Jennifer Johnston led Rudner through all of the above online books and portions of the articles, most of which contained Topham’s “Editor’s Note” prefaces. It was mainly these prefaces to other writer’s work that Crown zeroed in on as they apparently were having great difficulty in finding anything in Topham’s own personal articles on the site that they felt would meet the stringent standards that the law required in order to prove, “beyond a reasonable doubt” that Topham was “wilfully” promoting hatred toward “people of Jewish ethnicity or religion”.

Fortunately, for the defence, Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner provided the court with some extremely revealing evidence while under cross examination which, ultimately, led to some damning conclusions.

Given that Rudner had told the court that during the period of his tenure as a Director for the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), which spanned the years in which Mr. Topham had been harassed and dragged through the whole of the Canadian Human Rights Commission Sec. 13(1) complaint process from 2007 until 2012, Defence counsel Johnson began questioning Rudner on statements he’d made under oath regarding his personal involvement in the laying of these Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” charges against Canadian citizens. What Rudner told the court, was most revealing and in some instances totally unexpected. As it turned out, in his capacity as a director of this foreign Israeli lobbyist organization, Rudner stated that as far back as 2007 he had been personally involved in an attempt on the part of the CJC to file a Sec. 319(2) “hate” complaint against Arthur Topham and his website with the British Columbia Hate Crimes Team (BCHCT). This was the very same RCMP unit that on May 16th, 2012 arrested Topham and charged him under the same Sec. 319(2) criminal code section. Rudner’s statements were corroborated by the evident from Crown’s disclosure which contained the following document shown below.

BCHCTFILE 2007-23814

While the document itself hadn’t indicated who, in particular, was responsible for filing the complaint, Rudner having sworn that he was personally involved in drafting a number of such complaints, admitted to having signed off on that one as well.

During the course of his testimony before the court Rudner also admitted to having had contact with Topham’s former Internet Service Provider (ISP) (now defunct) back as far as 2005 wherein he had complained to said company that Topham was publishing “anti-Semitic” materials on his website He admitted under oath that at the time he complained to the ISP he realized that it wouldn’t necessarily guarantee that Topham’s site would be removed from the Internet but that it would at least be an “inconvenience” for Topham! What Rudner and the court, including Defence attorney Barclay Johnson, didn’t realize was that the complaint by the CJC to Topham’s then ISP resulted in Topham losing all of the contents of his website, including a long and lively forum, that dated back to and included the period from 1999 to 2005 and constituted a valuable historic record of a section of history that has since dominated much of the narrative concerning the nascent period of the 21st Century and its reaction to the defining event now known as 911. At the time of the loss Topham had a strong suspicion that the person or persons responsible for filing the complaint to his ISP were most likely connected to either the Canadian Jewish Congress or B’nai Brith Canada (both of whom are admitted lobbyists for the foreign state of Israel), but his then server refused to divulge who had registered the complaint and had only given Topham 48 hours to find a new server. Now the truth regarding that premeditated event finally came to light ten years after the fact.

Given Rudner’s direct testimony that he had personally been involved in two previous attempts to have Topham’s website taken down, Defence attorney Barclay Johnson then questioned Rudner regarding the credentials used in determining his suitability to appear as an “Expert Witness” on behalf of the Crown. Johnson pointed out to the court that in order to qualify for such an esteemed position within the Canadian court system one had to be seen as impartial and unbiased and neutral in order for their “Expert” testimony to be considered credible. He then punctuated this scathing indictment of Rudner’s disingenuousness and confession of complicity by stating that Rudner had, in fact, “a horse in the race” all along and that his admission of these facts could only serve to discredit the worth of all of his testimony in the case before the court.

When Rudner attempted to justify his clandestine attempts to take down Topham’s website Johnson’s response was to suggest that it was nothing but “pure sophistry”.

Defence Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon


Gilad Atzmon is an Israeli-born writer, musician, and political commentator who has written extensively about global politics, and specifically the geopolitical role of the State of Israel. Atzmon is critical of the Israeli government and its approach to other countries in the Middle East. He moved to England in 1994 and became a British citizen in 2002.

Mr. Atzmon had agreed to take the stand on behalf of Arthur Topham and testify as to why he felt that the charge of “hatred toward the Jews” was inappropriate and his decision to do so was based upon his strongly held conviction that the vast majority of criticism being directed toward the Jews was in fact political in nature rather than personal or aimed specifically at Jews based upon either their religion or their ethnicity.

While the Crown had made a big display before the court of the fact that their Expert Witness Len Rudner was being paid $195.00 an hour to appear to testify when Mr. Atzmon appeared on the morning of November 3, 2015 Defence Barclay Johnson pointed out to the jury that Atzmon had volunteered his expertise without pay and that only his airfare and hotel accommodations and food were being covered by Topham’s defence fund.

After much to do about having his status as an Expert Witness accepted by Justice Bruce Butler when Gilad Atzmon stepped up to the podium and began to speak it immediately became apparent to the court that here was an Expert Witness to be reckoned with. Being an internationally recognized lecturer and in possession of the academic credentials to back up his philosophical approach to the issues being discussed in the courtroom, Mr. Atzmon’s quickly took control of the narrative and over the remainder of his testimony spoke with an unabashed air of certainty and conviction. Unlike Rudner whose quiet, monotone presentation lacked any overt sense of passion in what he was saying, Gilad’s outspoken oratory coupled with his obvious depth of knowledge concerning what he talked about left little doubt in the minds of anyone in the courtroom that here was a man of scholarly quality who unquestionably knew his subject.

Defence counsel Barclay Johnson then led Atzmon through the various online publications that were the subject of Crown’s evidence and Atzmon framed each book and quotation cited within his own analysis of the overall question concerning the Jewish Question and what Atzmon referred to as “Jewish Identity” politics. He went on to explain by means of visual aids (a graphic of a triangle with the three points headed by “Religion”, “Ethnicity” and “Identity or Jewish-ness”), all of which formed the basis of his thesis as contained in his internationally renowned book, The Wandering Who? which has been a best seller since it first came out in 2011.

Of particular note were Atzmon’s comments on the controversial satire which Topham had written in response to his reading of the actual book titled Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann which Topham then satirically titled  Israel Must Perish! This was the already noted article on Topham’s website that the complainant in the case told former Det. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team was sufficient evidence that Topham was promoting the total genocide of the whole of the Jewish population. When Gilad Atzmon addressed the issue he was adamant in his appraisal of the satire stating that it was an exceptionally important contribution to the overall discussion of Jewish identity in that it basically represented a mirror image of what Kaufmann’s book had said and that this mirror was now being held up before the Jewish people and in particular the Zionist state of Israel as a reminder for them to reflect upon their own actions and behaviour in todays political setting. He made reference to the plight of the Palestinians in his comments but Crown was quick to object (and Justice Butler was also quick to agree with Crown) that Atzmon wasn’t an expert on the Palestinian issue and therefore his testimony in that regard should be disregarded.

As Atzmon stated in his book, “As far as self-perception is concerned, those who call themselves Jews could be divided into three main categories:

1. Those who follow Judaism.
2. Those who regard themselves as human beings that happen to be of Jewish origin.
3. Those who put their Jewish-ness over and above all of their other traits.

Crown’s Cross Examination of Gilad Atzmon

Crown Prosecutor Jennifer Johnson commenced her cross examination of Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon at 2:00 p.m. on Wednesday, November 4th and it resumed the next morning of November 5th. It was basically on the second day of cross examination that the Prosecutor began her laborious efforts to try and get Atzmon to agree to the Crown’s position with respect to the term “Hatred” and also to many of the quotations cited throughout the trial that Crown felt showed evidence of Topham’s wilful promotion of hatred toward the Jews in general. Suffice it to say that every attempt at twisting Gilad’s words to conform to Crown’s preconceived mould of what “hatred” meant was met with not only dismissal but further testimony on Atzmon’s part as to what he actually was saying. This process continued on throughout his cross examination and it would not be unfair to say that the following exchange was typical of Crown’s approach and Gilad’s reaction:

Crown: Mr. Atzmon, I’m sure that you would agree that ….

Gilad Atzmon: No.

The jury and members of the public sitting in the gallery witnessed this scenario occurring over and over and the end result was that Crown was unable to refute any of Atzmon’s testimony nor discredit his presentation in any way.

Defence’s Summation to the Jury

Friday, November 6, 2015 was originally the final day scheduled for R v Roy Arthur Topham. But like most things the numerous delays throughout the past two week due to Crown’s own actions (which will be touched on at the end of this report) the only thing that happened on this day was that Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson was able to (after numerous interruptions by Crown and Justice Butler) finally sum up before the jury his arguments as to why they should find the defendant not guilty. That summation, in itself, was prolonged by the presiding Justice so that it wasn’t until 2:30 p.m. that Johnson finally was able to speak to the jurors. He ended at precisely 4:00 p.m.

The main thrust by defence was to speak to the jury about Crown’s two witnesses, former Det. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team and Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner. Johnson outlined for the jury the many instances of bias displayed by both these two individuals while testifying. In addition to that he also (after much wrangling with Justice Butler) presented to the jury some of Arthur Topham’s writings taken from an article which had been included in Crown’s disclosure. That article, titled KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by B’nai Brith Canada was originally posted on the website back in 2008 and dealt with issues related to the first complaint laid against Topham by B’nai Brith Canada under the former Sec. 13(1) Canadian Human Rights Act in the article were references made to the character of Topham which the defence wanted the jury to hear.

Defence then read out the following to the jury: [please note that the defendant is restricted by his current bail conditions from naming his accuser online and therefore the individual in question is simply referred to as “Mr. Z”]

“I have lived, uninterruptedly, in the province of British Columbia since December of 1956. After leaving high school I attended university (SFU) in 1965 and there obtained a Professional Teaching Certificate. I worked for a short number of years in this capacity both in the public school system and for First Nations school districts, all of which were located in the province of B.C., and taught grades ranging from Kindergarten to Grade 5. I left the profession in 1978 and worked for the Provincial Parks Branch for 8 years where I was a Supervisor and Park Ranger in the Quesnel District of the Cariboo region of the province. After losing that profession to government restructuring in the late 1980’s I returned to teaching for a couple of years and worked for the Nuxalk Education Authority out of Bella Coola, B.C. in 1991 – 1992 where I taught on reserve Grades 2 and 3. From there I returned to Quesnel and worked in a substitute capacity for the local School District (#28) until I resigned in September of 1998. It was also during the year 1998 that I established my publishing business known as The Radical Press. From June of 1998 until June of 2002 I published a monthly, 24-page tabloid called The Radical which sold in retail outlets throughout B.C. and across Canada and by subscription around the world. Due to financial challenges the hard copy edition of the newspaper ceased in June of 2002 and from that date I carried on publishing online with my website known as . In 2005, using my lifetime of personal experience in the log building trades and construction industry which I had developed in conjunction with my tenure as a school teacher I formed a carpentry business and have been operating said business up to this point in time. I have lived out in the country for the vast majority of my life, have build my own home, grown my own garden, and maintained a philosophy of independence both in thought and deed. Throughout the course of my life I have fathered four children and now, along with my dear wife of thirty years, also have been blessed with seven grandchildren.

In many respects my life has been an open book to the community in which I have resided since 1970. I began writing letters to the local Quesnel newspaper known as The Cariboo Observer, beginning in 1976 and have steadily contributed to that publication over the ensuing years both as a regular columnist and an inveterate contributor on matters of public concern. While I would describe myself as a very controversial writer (and most, if not all of my readers would agree) I nonetheless need to stress the fact that throughout all the years of presenting my ideas to the general public on a number of issues ranging from politics to religion to social justice and environmental issues, I have never made any racist, hate-filled remarks against any person of Jewish or any other religious or ethic grouping. All this I state with respect to the present allegations made against me by Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada; charges that they would fain convey to the public that insinuate I am a person who promotes hatred toward others, in this case Jews. The records of my writings would not, I suggest, indicate this to be the case….

There is one last, missing factor in this “hate” equation which Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada have accused me of which needs to be mentioned. I feel it poignantly illustrates the absurdity of what is going on with respect to the danger of abuse inherent in such laws as Sec. 13(1) when exploited for partisan purposes by people and organizations such as Mr. Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. It also epitomizes the spuriousness of all the allegations and contentions which they have used in their attempt to harass and intimidate me by falsely and publicly accusing me of the crime of promoting “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.” I now present this final factor to you Ms. Kozak and to the CHRC Tribunal as the culmination of my testimony to the frivolous and vexatious nature of these charges. For me to either admit to or accept that I am promoting hatred toward Jews would be tantamount to saying that I hate, rather than love and cherish beyond description, the one person in my life who has been wife and friend and companion to me over the last thirty years. For she too is Jewish.”

Final observations on Crown’s handling of evidence

Given that the total cost to Canadian taxpayers to proceed with this trial is likely over one million dollars throughout the duration of this two week trial the court has been witness to endless problems dealing with Crown’s disclosure materials. Given the fact that Crown has now had over three and half years to put together the evidence in a format that would easily facilitate the normal reading habits of the jurors and Defence counsel what we have witnessed throughout the trial is a disgrace to the supreme court system in British Columbia.

From the onset of the case (beginning in May of 20120), defence had to fight tooth and nail to get disclosure from Crown and to try and have Crown particularize the evidence so it was clearly evident what would be used in the actual trial. Instead Crown insisted that the case was an “ongoing investigation” and therefore they couldn’t provide the full disclosure until final weeks preceding trial. When they did send Defence counsel their Disclosure much of it was unreadable. Defence had to redo pages and pages of Crown evidence in order that it could be read in court, not only by defence but also by the jurors who would be expected to follow along in their own Binders. This aspect of the trial consumed hours of time and even after the trial was well underway it became blatantly obvious that the last two binders would have to be republished so the jury might have a readable copy to refer to. Those final two binders didn’t enter into the court until the morning of Friday, November 6, 2015!

Typical of the quality of the documents is the image below taken from one page of KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by B’nai Brith Canada It would not be a stretch of the imagination to conceive of the jurors being each given a magnifying glass in order to try and read the evidence. Given that it cost the taxpayers an additional $2000.00 to have them reprinted twelve magnifying glasses might have been a more cost effective measure.

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.13.33 PM

Still to come

Monday, November 9, 2015 will see Crown present its summation to the jury. On Friday Justice Butler asked the jury if they would be ready to have him charge them on Tuesday morning the 10th of November. He told them that if he charged them on Tuesday that in the event they couldn’t come to a decision by the end of the day that they would have to remain sequestered through to November 11th which is Canada’s Remembrance Day federal holiday. The jury went out and discussed this and returned to tell Justice Butler that they would prefer to be charged on the 10th. That meant they didn’t think it would take more than one day to make their minds up.

As it now stands Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 will conclude the trial and a verdict will be handed down on that day. Stay tuned folks!

Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham by Eve Mykytyn

Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 4.51.44 PM

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham

Part 1

by Eve Mykytyn / November 7th, 2015

Five security guards, members of the RCMP, two in bulletproof vests, all entrants pass through metal detectors, undergo a wand search, check all electronics including cell phones and have their bags meticulously scrutinized. Why all the security? The crown was presenting its criminal case against Arthur Topham, for the crime of “hate.’

The Law

Section 319 of Canada’s criminal code is an extraordinary law by most western standards. It reads, in relevant part: “(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The statute does not define hatred, but does provide 4 statutory defenses.

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

It is important to understand that the prosecution (the Crown), with all of its resources, need only prove ‘hate,’ and then the only available defenses are affirmative, meaning that the burden of proof switches to the defense.

This week I attended some of the extraordinary trial of Arthur Topham in the Supreme Court (the highest provincial trial court) in Quesnel, British Columbia. As a lawyer, the differences in procedure between American and Canadian courts were of interest to me. Ahead of the trial, I read a little about the Canadian legal system and found that on paper the differences appeared minor. I don’t know if the huge differences in practice that I observed in this trial has to do with the way trials are usually conducted in Canada, the understandable loosening of formality in a court in a small town and/or the nature of the trial.

The Background

The history of Mr. Topham’s travails can be found here.

It is sufficient to understand that this trial follows eight years of harassment. Mr. Topham has already had to close his successful remodeling business. This is a criminal trial, and Mr. Topham could go to prison for two years. Mr. Topham and his wife live on a remote property on which they maintain a chicken coop, grow vegetables and engage in other rural activities. But it is clear that Mrs. Topham could not live there alone. These are not wealthy people. Mrs. Topham told me that she is not a political person, but she loves and supports her husband and believes in free speech. The defendant and his wife have exhibited bravery, courtesy and calm to a degree that is awe inspiring.

The police arrested Mr. Topham for ‘hate’ after they received complaints from various Jewish people who found his writing hateful. Although the police clearly knew where he lived, they arrested Topham as he and his wife were driving, leaving his wife stranded and Mr. Topham in jail. While jailed, Mr. Topham’s house was searched and his computers, shotguns and other items were taken. (Shotguns are essential in an area where grizzlies often decide to take up residence on the porch.)

The Trial

I understand that before I arrived, the Crown presented the arresting and investigating officers. Clearly the officers are not qualified to establish ‘hate,’ so how does the Crown do this? There is no victim to present, no one whose injuries the jury must assess, instead it is to the jury to decide if ‘hate’ is present, no injury need be shown.

The Crown chose to use an expert witness to show hate, and qualified Len Rudner as an expert in Judaism and anti-Semitism. Mr. Rudner’s biography indicates that he is a ‘professional Jew,’ in that he has been employed for the last 15 years by the Canadian Jewish Congress and its successor organization, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). Prior to this trial, Rudner has attempted to force Mr. Topham’s internet service provider to shut down his web site, and has lodged civil complaints against Mr. Topham.

The crown used its questioning of Rudner to introduce what it considered to be the most damaging articles on Topham’s site, Radical Free Press (RFP). These included a list of books and articles, all of which are easily accessible on the internet and/or for sale at

Most of these publications accuse Jews of some pretty nasty politics. What at first appeared to be the Crown’s most damning evidence was a picture of a stereotyped Jew holding puppets that were Canadian politicians. On cross examination, it was hard for Mr. Rudner to counter what a careful viewing showed to be a clear political statement. I think the shocking picture of the Jew served to make the statement more powerful. But is it the job of the court to evaluate the strength of a political cartoon?

Without going to the truth of the matters presented, I am troubled that Mr. Topham is on trial for reprinting sources that are widely available in Canada. Again, on cross examination, Mr. Rudner had to admit that this was so. A quick google search for “the protocols of the Elders of Zion,” reveals hundreds of sources that display the protocols in full.

The procedure, at least in this court, was that all objections had to be heard outside the presence of the jury. This meant that each objection forced the jury to leave the room (not the judge and the lawyers) thus making an objection, even for the record, was a cumbersome and time consuming process.

In one of these interminable objection interludes, the Crown stated that ‘free speech is not on trial here.” Shockingly, Judge Butler echoed her sentiments. Legal fictions (such as that all lawyers are capable of providing an adequate defense) are generally employed to allow the system to work. In this case, the legal fiction went to the charge itself. Mr. Topham is on trial for writing and for publishing articles that presumably reflect his beliefs. What else is free speech if not that?

Mr. Rudner indicated under direct examination that he was the author of the written expert opinion he provided to the court. This was troubling, because the Crown had originally employed Bernie Farber as its expert, and Mr. Farber had provided an opinion that was word for word the same as Mr. Rudner’s. If Mr. Rudner did not commit perjury, he was at least deceptive in his presentation of his expert opinion.

The Defense

Barclay Johnson, defense attorney extraordinaire, gave an opening argument that was an impassioned call for freedom of thought and speech. Later the Crown objected, but the damage so-called had been done. Mr. Johnson endured a tongue lashing and a civil procedure lesson from the judge. The jury was instructed to ignore some of Mr. Johnson’s speech. I assume that this helped plant the speech more firmly in their minds.

Mr. Topham countered the charge of hate and argued as a defense that the writing was political with an expert of his own. Gilad Atzmon, the iconoclastic jazz musician, writer and philosopher volunteered his time to help. It seems wrong to enjoy a presentation when a man’s freedom is at stake, but it was delightful to watch Mr. Atzmon ignore or flaunt every rule of procedure and get away with it.

Atzmon was qualified as an expert on Jewish Identity Politics a topic that clearly few in the court had heard of. In his most amusing argument on the subject, Atzmon explained that there was a section on identity politics in every bookshop, and that topics included the LBGT community. Faced with political correctness, the court backed off and agreed to allow Atzmon in as an expert.

Atzmon began by explaining his system of characterization. He divides ‘the Jews’ into three non-exclusive categories. The first, Judaism, is made up of religious Jews. The second, Jews, are people who are Jewish by an accident of birth. The third, and most important category for this purpose is ‘Jewishness,’ those who identify politically as Jews. Mr. Atzmon described the first two categories as innocent. Objections were raised, innocent is, after all, a legal conclusion and if the first two are innocent, the third is, by implication, guilty. Judge Butler agreed with the Crown’s objection and then allowed Atzmon to proceed in describing the first two categories as innocent. From then on, the defense attorney, the prosecution and the judge adopted these categories for clarity of discussion.

Atzmon argued that contemporary opposition to Jewry is driven by political and ideological arguments; that no one criticizes Jews as a race or a biology. There is little criticism of Judaism, the religion, as a whole, but there has been some criticism leveled at a few aspects of the religion such as blood rituals and goy hatred. The thrust of his argument was that Jewish politics and ideology must be subject to criticism like all other politics and ideologies.

Like a rabbi on acid, Atzmon explained his philosophy, allowed few questions, and browbeat the attorneys. He dealt with his own philosophical approach to Jewishness and the dangers of believing oneself ‘chosen’ and then he got in a few swipes at categories one and two as well. The jury was mesmerized. Later, Atzmon told friends that he had directed his remarks to the juror sleeping in the first row. If he could be made to listen, presumably the others could as well.

Atzmon made the point that many of the most apparently anti-Semitic writings were made by the early Zionists. According to Atzmon, Herzl and others saw a problem with European Jewry and thought that the existence of a homeland could cure problems such as usury, discrimination against non-Jews, exclusiveness, etc. The take away is that if Jews are entitled to criticize Jews, why can’t other people? This is especially true because the Jews have a disproportionate amount of power in government, finance and the media. They clearly have the means to counter criticism if they choose to do so.

Part 2 will cover the closing arguments and the verdict.
Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8


Report on first week of Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham by Arthur Topham

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM










[EDITOR’S NOTE: Please feel free to use whatever information is contained in this Report in order to spread the word further afield. Now that the first week of the trial has ended and there’s been no mention of it in Canada’s mainstream media, other than the local Quesnel Cariboo Observer, I believe it’s fair to assume that the mainstream news outlets in this country have collectively decided to censor the case in order that the Canadian public remains unaware of the importance of what’s occurring in British Columbia.

Given the importance of this trial to every citizen of the nation who values their constitutional right to freedom of expression and also considering the wide-spread media coverage over the years leading up to the final repeal of the Sec. 13(1) legislation as contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act in June of 2012, it’s highly unlikely that the msm is unaware of the fact that this trial is happening.

It’s therefore up to the alternative news media to do its best to cover this important historic event in Canadian jurisprudence and bring it to the attention of internet readers.

Because of the nature of the case and for obvious reasons of strategy I’ve kept the details of the proceedings to a bare minimum. Rest assured though that at the trial’s end which could be at the end of the coming week (November 6th) a more thorough analysis of the trial will be forthcoming.

Thank you.]



To Alternative Media Sources 

Report on first week of 

Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham 


Arthur Topham

The Supreme Court “Hate Speech” trial of Arthur Topham and his website concluded its first week of deliberations on Friday, October 30th, 2015 in the small, central interior city of Quesnel, British Columbia.

Having elected to be tried by a jury of his peers rather than gamble on the Attorney General’s office selecting a potentially biased justice to oversee the proceedings and decide his fate the first order of business was to select twelve individuals from around the local community to sit on the jury. This process of selection meant that well over a hundred individuals were called to appear at the provincial government office on the morning of Monday, October 26th.

As well, and contrary to its normal behaviour over the past three and a half years, it was also at this time that Crown decided to initiate a rather Orwellian practise of setting up a RCMP screening process within the building which required every individual entering to have to go through a security check prior to gaining access to the courts. This entailed the removal of all of one’s personal possessions such as wallets, purses, cell phones, etc from their pockets and placing them in little plastic baskets and then walking through a scanner and having an RCMP officer go over your whole body with a hand-held wand to determine whether you might have a concealed weapon or possibly explosives(?) strapped to your body with the intent of committing an act of “terrorism”. Given the undue inconvenience of this intimidating process one can only imagine that it may have been designed by Crown to discourage the local citizenry from attending the trial and observing its proceedings.

Len Rudner copy

In addition, considering the fact that Crown’s star Expert witness was Len Rudner, former Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), it was highly likely that the additional security measures were part of the conditions upon which Mr. Rudner consented to appear. This was further corroborated by the fact that while Mr. Rudner was in attendance he was constantly accompanied by a police bodyguard.

Meanwhile the crowd of potential jurors were forced to line up outside and wait in the snow and sleet as each one of them went through the onerous security process.

The Show Begins

Crown’s first witness was now retired Det. Cst. Terry Wilson who, at the time of my arrest and incarceration on May 16th, 2012, was the lead investigator for the BC Hate Crime Unit located in Surrey, B.C., a suburb of Vancouver. Wilson, along with his partner Cst. Normandie Levas and a team of other police officers, had, after investigating complaints from two individuals back in 2011 that I and my website were contravening Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada by “communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin” decided to charge and arrest me for the promotion of “hate propaganda”.

Wilson&LevasPhoto copy 4

The focus of Crown’s evidence consisted of four large binders of which Binder #1 and #2 composed the complete texts of the following online books which are posted on

1. Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann

2. Israel Must Perish! (erroneously labeled by Wilson and Crown as a “book” rather than a satirical article)

3. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

4. The Biological Jew by Eustice Mullins

5. The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling

Binder #2 was the complete text of Douglas Reed’s masterful historic analysis of political Zionism The Controversy of Zion.

The remaining two binders contained numerous posts and Editorial comments by Topham. The majority of material being that produced by authors other than the accused.

It wasn’t until the end of Wednesday, October 28th that Crown completed her testimony from former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson. The following morning, Thursday, October 29th at 10:26 a.m. Arthur Topham’s Defence Counsel, Barclay Johnson had the opportunity to cross-examine Wilson on his three day of testimony.

Court adjourned at 4:05 p.m. and Mr. Topham, his Attorney Barclay Johnson and a number of supporters, including Mr. Topham’s wife proceeded across the street from the Courthouse to the Billy Barker Hotel where all of the out-of-town visitors were staying to await the arrival of Topham’s Expert Witness Mr. Gilad Atzmon, who was due to arrive at the Quesnel airport at 4:00 p.m. that same day.


Mr. Atzmon is an Israeli-born writer, musician, and political commentator who has written extensively about global politics, and specifically the geopolitical role of the State of Israel. Atzmon is critical of the Israeli government and its approach to other countries in the Middle East. He moved to England in 1994 and became a British citizen in 2002.


Day five of the trial began Friday, October 30th, 2015. Crown’s Expert Witness Mr. Len Rudner testified throughout the whole of the day. Cross examination of Mr. Rudner will begin Monday, November 2nd.


Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial that commences in one week on October 26th by making a donation.

Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address.

Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:

Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

Arthur & the Jews The controversy over freedom of speech By Arthur Topham, Publisher & Editor


Arthur & the Jews

The controversy over freedom of speech


Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor

October 23, 2015

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

~ Jesus Christ, John, Ch. 8, Verse 32

“For nothing is secret that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.”

~ Jesus Christ, Ch. 8, Verse 17

“If this book has any sombre look, that is the native hue of the story it tells, not the reflection of my own cast of mind. I have written with feeling: the feeling of a contemporary, participant, eye-witness and of a journalist thwarted in his calling, which in my belief should serve truth without fear or favour, not special interests. I have seen more of the events of our century and of the secret perversions of national purposes than most, and have discovered through this experience that it was not all chance, but design. Therefore I have written a protest, but it is a protest against the suppression of truth, not against life.”

~ Douglas Reed, The Controversy of Zion (1956), Epilogue, P. 568


Two days from the time of this writing, on October 26th, 2015, a trial in B.C. Supreme Court involving the case of Regina v Roy Arthur Topham will commence in the small city of Quesnel, located in the central interior of the province of British Columbia in an area known as the Cariboo.

In essence this isn’t just the trial of Arthur Topham based upon a politically motivated and spurious Sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada “Hate Propaganda” charge initiated by one of Canada’s largest Zionist Jew lobby organization, B’nai Brith Canada. It’s far more than that. What will be on trial from October 26th to November 6th is the legal entitlement of all Canadians to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression, both on and off the Internet –  as written in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec. 2b which states that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication“.

The outcome of the trial will determine whether or not Canada is, in fact, a truly open and free democracy or a nation whose sovereignty and freedom has been compromised by the wilful, premeditated actions of foreign lobbyists inimical to the country as a whole. In other words Freedom of Speech will be on trial.

The charge itself ought to be clearly understood by everyone concerned about their rights and freedoms as Canadians. Thus we see that the charge under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 28th day of April, 2011 and the 4th day of May, 2012, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Butler will preside and a jury of twelve men and women will make the final determination of guilty or not guilty.

EndHateCrimeLegislation 2 copy 2

Basically, to narrow it down to its core intent, I am being charged with willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin based upon the multitude of articles and online books which I have published on my website prior to and since April 28th, 2011 when the complaint was officially laid against me by Canada’s most controversial serial complainant in the history of the human rights industry. Within a month of the first complaint being laid a second individual, an agent working for the League of Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, also filed an identical charge.

Upon receiving the complaints, the head of the BC Hate Crime Team, former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson located in Surrey, B.C. along with his partner Cst. Normandie Levas, initiated an investigation into the allegations. What was unknown to me at the time was that all three of these individuals knew each other and had known each other in some cases for as long as fifteen years and all three of them were in the “business” of hunting down and attacking individuals and website owners who were being critical of the foreign Zionist state of Israel and/or its ideology known as Zionism.

In fact the two complainants in the Sec. 319(2) complaint were known to be friends and associates as far back as 2007 when one of the same complainants, a Zionist Jew working for B’nai Brith Canada first laid a similar complaint against my person and my website using the now repealed Canadian Human Rights Act legislation known as Sec. 13. In other words I have been attacked by this foreign Zionist lobby organization now for the past nine years and have been in a constant battle with them to retain my basic human rights.

The whole of Crown’s case rests upon the key terms “willfully” and “hatred”, which, in the case of the latter term “hatred”, any person of common sense will realize, is a word that, like its opposite, “love”, is imbued with multiple meanings, all of which are based upon subjective emotions of one type or another.

Now there are some serious problems that accompany an allegation which accuses a person of “hating” a whole “identifiable group” such as the “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin” based upon not only his own writings but also the written works of dozens of other writers, journalists, video producers, talk show hosts, artists, musicians and so on and these problems will undoubtedly come up during the course of the trial.


Without going into too much further detail surrounding the spurious nature of the charge of promoting “hatred” toward all the Jews of the world (an accusation arising from comments made to me by former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson during the time I was incarcerated after my arrest on May 16th, 2012) I would rather focus on letting readers know a bit about who I really am and what my life has been all about since at least the year 1967 when I first became involved in what is now commonly referred to as “political activism” or “social activism”.

I was twenty years old and in my second year of university at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C. in 1967. For those who were too young to remember the Sixties or weren’t born yet, it was a period of history not that different from the world we’re now living in. Wars were rampant then as they are now. Protests and civil rights and civil liberties were still in their nascent stages of development relative to today’s scene but people were demanding their rights in the Sixties just as they still are today. Police brutality and corporate crime and political corruption were as widespread then as they are now and the mainstream media in 1967 was basically just as controlled by the Zionists as it is today. The only fundamental difference really was the sudden and unexpected appearance throughout Western society of what became known as the Hippie Movement. It was that previously unheard of phenomenon that attracted me and countless others and became the focus of my life; one which has never ceased or abated since I first became involved with it.

The watchwords of the Hippie Movement were “Love” and “Peace” and our collective efforts to manifest those two positive, life-enhancing moral qualities throughout the war-torn society of our day were what inspired millions of my generation to work toward a world where violence and war and terror and hatred would end forever to be replaced by the fundamental Christian values and precepts taught by Jesus Christ, values that included learning to love each other and respect each other as well as caring for the Earth Mother that sustained us all. These were my guiding principles throughout my life and remain so to this very day.

With that in mind the accusation of the Zionist lobbyists, when it comes to dealing with their own hatred of anything or anyone who doesn’t support their ideological objectives or the actions of the foreign state of Israel and its parallel objectives, that every critic of their political agenda “hates” all the Jews in the world is utterly preposterous and beyond all comprehension. Having fashioned the term “hatred” into a twisted, Talmudic talisman of loathing and contempt through generations of endless propaganda emanating from their own controlled media and then inserting the word into Canadian jurisprudence via legal subterfuge and political influence, they now feel that they have the judicial wherewithal to attack their perceived enemies and somehow stem the unstoppable tide of political and spiritual awareness that was birthed in the Sixties and then embellished beyond comprehension and control in Nineties with the advent of the World Wide Web.

The controversy surrounding the Jews throughout history has now reached the point of culmination. Their mission to stop the truth from being revealed. whenever it applies to their own culpable actions, by using the criminal court system to attack the truth revealers is doomed to end in failure just as their efforts to stop the Internet from exposing their heinous acts of terror and murder and destruction perpetrated upon the defenceless Semitic people of Palestine has proven to be unstoppable.

The Age of Orwellian Censorship is coming to an end and it behooves all people of all races, nationalities, ethnicities and colour including the Jews to recognize that no single group of people has the right or the power or the ability to stem the tide of evolutionary consciousness that’s now happening on this planet.

It’s for these basic reasons that I have fought against the Zionist efforts to control our basic human rights over the past nine years. Now we will see if the country is willing to protect its most precious of gift – the freedom to speak one’s mind and express one’s views on whatever issues they deem of value to sustain our God given right to live in peace and happiness without fear and war.

I pray that God will grant us the wisdom to choose freedom over censorship and love over hate.


Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial that commences in one week on October 26th by making a donation.

Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address.

Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:

Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8


200 Years Together by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn A History of the Russians and the Jews


The first and only English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s final work in pdf format.

It’s highly recommended that readers download a copy of this important historical document and pass it around to friends and associates and post on other websites.

Netanyahu Denounced for Saying Palestinian Inspired Holocaust as published in the National Zionist Post, Oct. 22, 2015


Middle East

Netanyahu Denounced for Saying Palestinian Inspired Holocaust



[Editor’s commentary: It’s a well established truth that those who lie inevitably find themselves trapped by their falsehoods and unless they change their ways end up compounding one lie upon another in order to cover up their original sin. No better example of this fundamental moral principle of life exists than in this latest media false flag event by Israel’s PM Benjamin Netanyahu where he openly lies about Adolf Hitler and the Palestinian mufti Haj Amin al-Husseini in order to create a public outcry that then allows both he and the Zionist media to go off on another major PR rant wherein they regurgitate the LIE of all LIES – that Hitler and the National Socialist government of Germany actually planned and executed a plot to gas and burn 6 million Jews!

I’m hopeful that anyone who has been following the endless “6 Million Jew Holocaust” over the past 70 years will see through this latest farcical attempt to continue on with their unending mind-control efforts to brainwash the world into accepting this giant hoax of the 20th century as fact.

When psychopaths like Netanyahu and Merkel and countless other Zio-sycophants end up in positions of political power and lie their faces off about so-called “historical events” such as the “6 Million Jewish Holocaust”,which is in many countries a crime to even question, then the world must stop and consider the level of hypocrisy and deception that’s going on. These people are extremely sick in their minds and souls (assuming they still possess souls) and the media that caters to their sickness and promotes it is just as bad as the those who initiate these lies in order to continually vilify the German people and the true history of Adolf Hitler and the National Socialist government; the only nation in world history that exposed the liars and sacrificed so much to stop these maniacs from achieving the level of evil that they’ve now reached thanks to their media control, wealth and power which has allowed them to brainwash generations upon generations.

What were dealing with here is one of the most powerful, hypnotic and demonic spells of sorcery that’s ever been foisted upon the world. It reaches well beyond witchcraft to the very essence of Evil and Demonic Trance formation. Until this spell is broken the world will never achieve a level of peace and sanity for that can only come about through truth and honesty and love.

This lie must be resisted above all other lies for it forms the very foundation of the Zionist edifice that’s now destroying the planet as a whole.]


JERUSALEM — Israeli historians and opposition politicians on Wednesday joined Palestinians in denouncing Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel for saying it was a Palestinian, the grand mufti of Jerusalem, who gave Hitler the idea of annihilating European Jews during World War II.

Mr. Netanyahu said in a speech to the Zionist Congress on Tuesday night that “Hitler didn’t want to exterminate the Jews at the time, he wanted to expel the Jews.” The prime minister said that the mufti, Haj Amin al-Husseini, had protested to Hitler that “they’ll all come here,” referring to Palestine.

“ ‘So what should I do with them?’ ” Mr. Netanyahu quoted Hitler as asking Mr. Husseini. “He said, ‘Burn them.’ ”

Screen Shot 2015-10-22 at 3.52.42 PM

Prof. Meir Litvak, a historian at Tel Aviv University, called the speech “a lie” and “a disgrace.” Prof. Moshe Zimmermann, a specialist of German history at Hebrew University, said, “With this, Netanyahu joins a long line of people that we would call Holocaust deniers.”

Isaac Herzog, leader of the opposition in the Israeli Parliament, said the accusation was “a dangerous historical distortion,” and he demanded that Mr. Netanyahu “correct it immediately.”

Even Moshe Yaalon, the defense minister and a senior member of Mr. Netanyahu’s Likud Party, said in a radio interview that “history is actually very, very clear.”

“Hitler initiated it,” he said. “Haj Amin al-Husseini joined him.”

The controversy came amid weeks of spiraling violence in which Mr. Netanyahu and other Israeli leaders have repeatedly accused Palestinian leaders, including President Mahmoud Abbas, of lying, principally about Israel’s actions at a contested holy site in the Old City.

Diplomatic efforts to cool tempers led by Secretary General Ban Ki-moon of the United Nations, who visited with Mr. Netanyahu on Tuesday and Mr. Abbas on Wednesday, appear to have yielded little. Speaking at a news conference in Ramallah, West Bank, on Wednesday, Mr. Ban said: “Our most urgent challenge is to stop the current wave of violence and avoid any further loss of life.”

Mr. Abbas was the subject of scrutiny last week when he falsely claimed that Israeli forces had executed a 13-year-old Palestinian who had attacked Israelis with a knife, when the youth was alive and being treated in an Israeli hospital.

Many Israelis have vilified Mr. Abbas as a Holocaust denier because of a book he wrote that challenged the number of Jewish victims and accused Zionists of collaborating with Nazis to propel more Jews to what would become Israel. When Mr. Abbas issued a formal statement last year calling the Holocaust “the most heinous crime to have occurred against humanity in the modern era,” Mr. Netanyahu dismissed it.

Saeb Erekat, secretary general of the Palestine Liberation Organization, said on Wednesday that Mr. Netanyahu’s “regrettable statements have deepened the divide” and denounced them as “morally indefensible and inflammatory.”

“Mr. Netanyahu blamed the Palestinians for the Holocaust and completely absolved Adolf Hitler’s heinous and reprehensible genocide of the Jewish people,” Mr. Erekat said in a statement. “It is a sad day in history when the leader of the Israeli government hates his neighbor so much that he is willing to absolve the most notorious war criminal in history.”

73 copy


Mr. Netanyahu, who had also called the mufti “one of the leading architects of the Final Solution” in a 2012 speech, on Wednesday called the criticism of his remarks “absurd.”

“My intention was not to absolve Hitler of his responsibility,” he said as he left Israel for Germany, where he met with Chancellor Angela Merkel. “But rather to show that the forefathers of the Palestinian nation, without a country and without the so-called occupation, without land and without settlements, even then aspired to systematic incitement to exterminate the Jews.”

“Hitler was responsible for the Final Solution to exterminate six million Jews; he made the decision,” Mr. Netanyahu added. “It is equally absurd to ignore the role played by the mufti, Haj Amin al -Husseini, a war criminal, for encouraging and urging Hitler.”


Mr. Netanyahu, who is scheduled to meet Secretary of State John Kerry on Thursday in Berlin, said he would ask Mr. Kerry to demand that Mr. Abbas “stop the incitement that is the source of many attacks that we see here.”

After meeting with Mr. Netanyahu, Chancellor Merkel said Germany wanted to see an end to clashes and violence. “We want to see all sides contributing to the de-escalation of the situation,” she told reporters. Ms. Merkel also reiterated that Israel’s security and existence are fundamental for Germany.

There is broad agreement that the mufti, who helped instigate Arab pogroms against Jews in the holy land in the 1920s, collaborated with the Nazis as part of his virulent opposition to Zionism. Historians differ, however, on the significance of his relationships with Nazi leaders and the meeting with Hitler that Mr. Netanyahu described. The mufti’s promotion of genocide over mass deportation of Europe’s Jews was discussed in the Nuremberg war crimes trials, but he was never prosecuted and died in 1974.

Mark Regev, the prime minister’s spokesman, referred reporters to Mr. Netanyahu’s 1993 book, “A Place Among the Nations,” which details the mufti’s close ties to Nazis and uses Nuremberg testimony to buttress the argument that the mufti protested plans to expel Jews from Europe and promoted the Final Solution.

“The mufti was one of the initiators of the systematic extermination of European Jewry and had been a collaborator and adviser” in the “execution of this plan,” the book quotes Adolf Eichmann’s deputy, Dieter Wisliceny, as having testified. “He was one of Eichmann’s best friends and had constantly incited him to accelerate the extermination measures.”

But the book says that the mufti “met Hitler in person for the first time” on Nov. 28, 1941 — two months before the Final Solution was formalized and the construction of extermination camps accelerated, according to historians, but after the mass murder of Jews had begun, and roughly one million had perished.

Professor Zimmermann, the Hebrew University historian, said on Israel Radio that Mr. Netanyahu was “doing something he must not do,” and that in “the protocol” of the 1941 meeting between the mufti and Hitler, “the text that Netanyahu speaks of does not appear.”

“He moves the responsibility of the Holocaust, for the destruction of the Jews, to the mufti and the Arab world,” Professor Zimmermann said. “This is a trick intended to stain the Arabs of today because of the Arabs of the past. To pile on the Arabs of the past by easing up on the Germans of the past.”

Professor Litvak of Tel Aviv University said the speech was “the height of the distortion of history.”

“Hitler did not need Husseini to convince him,” he said on Army Radio. “Hitler spoke of the destruction of the Jews in his famous speech in 1939, in which he prophesied that if war will break out and the Jews started it, the result will be the destruction of the Jewish race. He repeated these declarations.”

Stefan Ihrig, a German historian at the Van Leer Institute in Jerusalem and the author of “Ataturk in the Nazi Imagination,” said that Mr. Netanyahu “is right in noting that there were connections between the grand mufti and the Nazis.” But he added that “this cannot be used to shift blame away from the Nazis,” and that it “does not provide us with new scapegoats.”

But Edy Cohen of Bar-Ilan University, an expert on Arab collaboration with the Nazis, said he supported Mr. Netanyahu’s take on history, though he said it was impossible to precisely balance blame for the extermination idea.

“What I can surely say is that both men mutually inspired each other,” Mr. Cohen said. “One can’t be in their heads and know who hated Jews more.”

Tzachi Hanegbi, a Likud leader in Parliament who is close to Mr. Netanyahu, came to the prime minister’s defense, telling Israel Radio, “He made no mistake.”

The mufti, Mr. Hanegbi said, “also tried to ensure that when the Germans reached Israel, as he hoped they would, they would also destroy the Jews of Israel.”

Correction: October 21, 2015 

Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article misstated part of the name of a book by Stefan Ihrig. It is “Ataturk in the Nazi Imagination,” not “Ataturk and the Nazi Imagination.”

FREE IRA ZBARSKY plus DETENTION IN TEXAS: IRA ZBARSKY’S STORY from the Feb. 2000 edition of The Radical

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 7.22.57 PM copy


The Radical  Vol. 2, No. 8  February, 2000

Innocent Canadian Citizen Held in Texas Prison

RPEdNew300 copy

[Editor’s Preface to the two following articles. One might call these articles on Ira Zbarsky oldies but goodies but my purpose in re-publishing them 15 years later is not merely out of nostalgia.

Ever since 2007 when the foreign Zionist Jewish lobby group B’nai Brith ‘Canada’ registered their first “Hate Crime” complaint against myself and my website they have been accusing me of using my website to promote “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or citizens of Israel.” Their rallying cry of “Hate! Hate! Hate!” has been ringing in my ears and the ears of millions of free thinking people around the world for decades now along with their other emotive, sorcery-style buzz words “anti-Semite” and “holocaust denier”, all of which are designed to create, via endless repetition, unconscious feelings of guilt and fear in their Gentile victims.

This will be their theme song as my long awaited Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial, scheduled to commence within the next week on October 26th finally commences in Quesnel, British Columbia. One can bet on it that if the Zionist dominated Jewish media monopoly now controlling all the major sources of news and information and opinion here in Canada decide to focus on this supreme court trial that we will be hearing the voices of “hate of the Jews” rising up once again across the land.

Well, I’m sorry to have to disappoint these false prophets and purveyors of lies but Arthur Topham and his website (the online version of the sole proprietorship known as The Radical Press) are not “haters” of Jews but rather, lovers of Truth and firm believers in their fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right to be able to express their opinions and ideas and beliefs without fear of being hauled into a courtroom because some foreign lobby organization representing a racist, supremacist apartheid foreign nation thousands of miles from Canada’s shore feels it’s their right and duty to libel, vilify, harass and criminally charge anyone who might have the honesty and courage to speak out online against that foreign nation.

The story of Ira Zbarsky is the story of a Jewish Canadian businessman who, back in 1999, ended up in a Texas jail because of a minor pot offence for which he had paid a $25.00 fine twenty years earlier in 1978. 

When I was alerted to Mr. Zbarsky’s plight by those in Vancouver, B.C. who were desperately trying to bring his story to the attention of the public I didn’t read the reports and say to myself, “Why should I come to the assistance of this person, he’s just another Jew and I couldn’t care less what happens to him because I “hate” Jews.” Why would I refuse to come to his aid by using my publication to advance his unjust plight? So he was Jewish. So what. He could have been Irish. Or German. Or African. Or whatever nationality or race. It wouldn’t have mattered a damn to me. My loving wife of 37 years also came from a Jewish family and I sure as hell wouldn’t stand by and allow her to be thrown in jail for months merely because her parents came from that same ethnic group.

And so, rightly, I did a front page story on Ira Zbarsky’s unjust treatment by the US authorities and the result was that his situation turned around and more and more media began to focus on him and before long he was released from jail and safely back in Canada.

There are dozens, if not more, other stories where I have used my publishing business to come to the aid of the oppressed and downtrodden and misrepresented and those without a voice to tell their story. Never once did I refuse to help those in need because of their racial or ethnic origins and that has been my practise since June of 1998 when I first entered the publishing business as an alternative news and opinion media outlet.

The real haters are those who will do anything in their power to silence the truth wherever it arises.]

VANCOUVER, B.C.:- Ira Zbarski, a Canadian citizen held in a Texas immigration prison since December 4, 1999, was was again denied a decision of release or deportation. He was called today before Judge Tovar at 10:30 AM local time. He was asked if he had evidence for his own case. He was told by the judge that he needed two additional copies of his evidence for the merits hearing scheduled for 1:00 PM this afternoon, with several hours specially set aside to hear his evidence. The judge would be in a position to offer Mr. Zbarsky’s release or deportation once Mr. Zbarsky had an opportunity to enter his evidence into the court’s record at the merits hearing.

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 6.58.56 PM

Mr. Zbarsky said that he had been held in solitary confinement for the last four days.He explained to the judge that he was not able to do photocopying during that time. He was permitted to leave his cell for only 1 hour three times per week for exercise.

Mr. Zbarsky offered to do the photocopying of the documents prior to the merits hearing at 1:00 PM. Judge Tovar refused. The prosecuting attorney also offered to do the photocopying prior to 1:00 PM but the judge refused this as well. Mr. Zbarsky then asked Judge Tovar for a written order that Mr. Zbarsky might present to guards in order to get the right to do photocopying, but the judge refused to that as well. Judge Tovar then rescheduled Mr. Zbarsky’s merits hearing for the third time, to Monday, February 7, at an unspecified time.

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 6.58.02 PM

Mr. Zbarsky has been at the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Port Isabel Service Processing Centre, Los Fresnos, Texas (aside from short periods in other jails) since December 4, 1999. Ira Zbarski has been detained for nine weeks as part of a US Immigration removal process based on a minor Canadian conviction that occurred 22 years ago.

Mr. Zbarski has stood up for his rights and the rights of others while detained. It appears that, in consequence, Mr. Zbarski is being subjected to unfair detainment based on technicalities.

Mr. Zbarski has protested the conditions and policies of the INS since he was arrested. He has called for remedies to beatings, unwarranted searches, unwarranted surveillance of females by male guards, and the lengthy removal process. He has written letters, participated in a petition, and gone on two hunger strikes.

The first hunger strike, in December, called for a tribunal process to hear and act on detainee complaints. The second hunger strike, in which other detainees participated, and which Mr. Zbarsky terminated yesterday, February 1 due to poor health, called for Mr. Trominski (202-425-7333) the INS District Officer in Harlingen, Texas, to speed up the removal process by which detainees are released, deported or freed on bail.

Mr. Zbarski’s reports on INS detention center abuses are being collected by Nathan Selzer of Proyecto Liberated, of Harlingen, Texas, and the American Friends of Service Committee, of Philadelphia.

Friends and associates of Mr. Zbarski who are connected with SAPED (Shuswap Association for the Promotion of Eco-Desarrollo [Development]) are calling for the unconditional release and return to Canada of Mr. Zbarski, the truck he was driving, and its contents.

As well SAPED is asking the Canadian government to continue to assist Ira Zbarsky, and, if necessary, assist him in an appeal once he is back in Canada.

SAPED is also asking the Canadian government to consider carefully its policies of sharing information with US police and immigration authorities, given that Canadian citizens can be detained in US prisons that violate United Nations principles on detainees and basic Canadian rights.

SAPED is also cautioning the Canadian government to ensure that it maintains policies independent of the US on criminal law, surveillance of citizens, and the sharing of legal and criminal information with the US.

They are calling on the US government to comply with United Nations standards and covenants for the treatment of all detainees, including migrants and asylum seekers.


(See Backgrounder Story on Page 11. Ed.)


Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 6.56.24 PM copy


By Suzanne Rose

The Radical 

Vol. 2 No. 8 February, 2000 Page 11


Ira Zbarsky is a Canadian citizen, who resides in Vancouver. He was raised in Montreal. As a young man he worked on a kibbutz in Israel. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, he organized the cooperative production and distribution of organic food in the interior of British Columbia. He has a special love for orchards and farming. Mr. Zbarsky has devoted many years to green issues: the permaculture, organic food, cooperative and bioregional movements, and Green politics. He has served as external secretary for the Green Party of British Columbia and for the Green Party of Canada. He has also supported aboriginal issues.


Mr. Zbarski has spent the last ten years working with Mayans in Guatemala and Southern Mexico. He is the project director for SAPED (Shuswap Association for the Promotion of Eco-Desarrollo [Development]), a registered Canadian charity formed in 1990 and based in Vancouver, B.C. SAPED’s goals are to promote community-based, ecologically-responsible and culturally-respectful development, using principles of mutual aid, appropriate technology, energy conservation and permaculture.

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 6.54.45 PM


For much of the year, Mr. Zbarsky is in the Western Highlands in Guatemala and Mexico, working with several Mayan coalitions, each serving many community groups of Mayans. These people are working on projects such as natural plant-dyeing, medicinal herb gardens, livestock shelters, hand-crank roof tiles, tree nurseries, greenhouses, pedal-powered grain grinders, energy-conserving stoves, sewing and typing academies. He is also assisting with setting up an indigenous rights and training centre and a natural agriculture centre in the region.

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 6.55.40 PM


Ira Zbarsky was returning from work in Guatemala and Southern Mexico when he was arrested and detained by US Immigration on December 4, 1999, at Roma, Texas. At that time, the truck he was driving was seized. It was carrying textiles from Guatemala and organic coffee from Souther Mexico, to be sold in Canada as part of a fair trade exchange. Although Mr. Zbarsky has traveled through the US many times, he was this time detained based on a conviction which appears in a computer database which the US immigration officers were using. Mr. Zbarsky was convicted in 1978 for possession of marijuana (for medicinal purposes). His fine in 1978 was $25.00, which is so low that it suggests there were mitigating circumstances.


Since December 4, 1999, Ira Zbarski has been detained by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). He is presently being held in Port Isabel Service Processing Centre, an immigration detention camp in Los Fresnos, Texas. He has legal advice but he is defending himself. He was willing to accept release or deportation at his first hearing, December 16, 1999. He wished to explain the nature of his 1978 conviction, because the 1978 judge was sympathetic to his use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. He requested bail December 16 and at a bail hearing January 7, 2000, this request was denied. He participated in a discovery trial January 12 and was to participate in the merits (final) hearing January 21. The merits hearing was canceled due to the judge’s illness. On January 24, Mr. Zbarsky was assigned a new merits hearing on February 2, 2000.

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 6.55.58 PM


December 8-15  After public complaint on his own behalf, Ira Zbarsky was transferred from jail to jail in shackles on arms and legs, and kept for 5 days in solitary confinement.

December 22  Mr. Zbarsky, plus 18 other detainees, submitted a letter requesting hot water, warm clothing, conjugal visits, among other concerns. He also requested help from outside the prison for a Muslim detainee from Burkina Faso, Fousseni Banao, and for visits by prison monitors. Mr. Zbarsky, after requesting access to his mail that day, was pushed by two guards against a metal pipe and sworn at. Mr. Zbarsky went on a hunger strike, requesting a written apology for gross disrespect and a general tribunal process for detainee complaints.

December 30  Mr. Zbarsky ended his hunger strike. Head supervisor Jesus Rosales agreed to the setting up of a tribunal process to hear detainee complaints.

January 7-10  Mr. Zbarsky learned of the beatings that had just occurred to Alex Seymour Kerr, a Jamaican detainee in the same facility.

January 10  Mr. Zbarsky submitted letters to head supervisors Jesus Rosales and Yza Guirre, calling for an inquiry into the beatings of Mr. Kerr, the recognition of the right of bail for Texas residents, and a complaint process for problems with health services. He threatened to go on a another hunger strike. Mr. Rosales agreed to the inquiry and to direct access to the medical chief Dr. Freeth for complaints.

January 14  Mr. Zbarsky submitted a letter to an INS guard for delivery to Mr. Rosales and Yza Guirre, requesting the ending of body searches when detainees leave the dining area. He was pushed around and yelled and sworn at by three INS guards. He also sent a letter to the head of the INS. Ms. Doris Meissner, asking for improved training of guards in order that they might treat detainees with respect.

January 24  Mr. Zbarsky has submitted with other detainees a letter requesting that male guards refrain from watching surveillance videos of female detainees. Mr. Zbarsky started another hunger strike to demand from authorities that they put in writing their earlier promise to set up a tribunal process for detainees, given that they had not conducted an inquiry process into the beatings of Mr. Kerr, who has since been moved out of the facility.

January 25  About 40-50 detainees held a public meeting to plan a protest to the slow deportation process.

January 26  About 30 detainees start a hunger strike plus start a petition to authorities, calling for either speedup of release, either deportation or access to bail, unless the person is considered a risk to the US government or a flight risk.

January 27  INS authorities promised to investigate thoroughly the cases of the strikers plus certain other cases.

January 28  Ira Zbarsky and one other man remain on the hunger strike, seeking that EM Trominski, a higher-level INS authority, investigate the systematically-long delays to hearings.

Mr. Zbarsky is documenting the incidents of abuse and disrespect that he is aware of. He is passing them on to Nathan Selzer, a detainee abuse researcher with the Prison Monitoring Program of the American Friends Service Committee, of Philadelphia, and Proyecto Liberated, of Harlingen, Texas. The Muslim Immigration and Refugee Service of New York is also supporting Mr. Zbarsky’s efforts on behalf of detainees.

If you wish more information, there is available from Suzanne Rose a summary of the relevant United Nations covenants and rules, and a list of websites pertaining to US INS prison abuses and violations of human rights.


Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Lloyd Axworthy
Fax: 613-996-5358
Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Hon. Anne McLellan
Fax: 613-943-0044
International Cooperation
Hon. Maria Minna
Fax: 613-996-7942
Citizenship and Immigration,
Hon. Elinor Caplan
Fax: 613-992-0887
Mail address for all Canadian MP’s:
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0A6
Doris Meissner, Office of the Commissioner,
U.S. Department of Justice and Immigration and Naturalization Service
435 1 Street, N.W. Washington, D.C.
Fax: 202-305-4823
Janet Reno, Office of the Attorney General,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20530 – 0001
Madelaine Albright, Secretary of State,
U.S. Department of State,
Washington D.C.,


You could write to your Member of Parliament or Congress and your Justice, Foreign Affairs and Immigration authorities. Zbarsky’s Canadian Case Number is 99 435832.

Ask them why a Canadian citizen must be held in an American prison for more than two months awaiting a judgment on whether to be released or deported from the United States due to having a 1978 marijuana possession charge, with a fine of $25.00. As them what would happen if an American showed up at the Canadian border with a similar conviction to Mr. Zbarksy’s. Would that person be arrested and jailed for months?

There is currently a movement in Canada to purge old minor Canadian convictions from the records. Will these convictions remain in US Immigration Lookout System computer database? Call on authorities to release  Zbarsky unconditionally, investigate the US INS treatment of Zbarsky and the people he has reported on, stop violating UN rules by mistreating non-US citizens in immigration facilities, and change the laws concerning the maintaining and sharing of old minor conviction records by Canadian and US authorities.



Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial that commences in one week on October 26th by making a donation.

Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address.

Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:

Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8