Regina v RadicalPress.com LEGAL UPDATE #20
April 16, 2014
April 16, 2014
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,
Tuesday, April 15th, 2014 was a good day for freedom of speech in Canada. B.C. Provincial court judge, the Honourable Judge Morgan, after due consideration of the arguments put forth at my bail hearing held on April 9th, 2014, decided in my favour, thus refusing all of the main arguments of Crown which would, in effect, have shut down RadicalPress.com until after the trial and also prohibited me from publishing on any internet site available to the general public.
Judge Morgan did concede on one point in Crown’s application and added an additional condition to my Undertaking. The gist of it was that I would no longer be permitted to publish on the internet the names of the two people who were responsible for laying the initial complaints against myself and RadicalPress.com with the B.C. Hate Crime Team and that I must immediately remove their names from any website that I control. While there are possibly some problems with complying with this condition which may have to be contested via another application, in the vast scheme of things it’s minor in comparison to the overall decision which, clearly states that (in the words of Judge Morgan) a “court ordered prior restraint on a person’s s. 2(b) Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, has the risk of being overbroad and should be granted only in clear cases.”
The fourteen page decision addressed the two main arguments which I brought forth during the bail hearing; first the jurisdiction of a judge to preside at a bail hearing to hear an application on varying the original bail conditions once the preliminary inquiry had ended and the case was committed to a higher court and second, the merits of my Charter rights. In responding to these arguments Judge Morgan, in Para. 4 of his decision stated, “Mr. Topham responded with well-prepared submissions by first raising the issue of whether I, as a Provincial Court Judge, continued to have jurisdiction to hear the Crown’s application. He also provides alternative arguments dealing with the merits of the application.”
One principal point which Judge Morgan brought up in his decision at Para. 33, was that of Crown’s main objective in attempting to find me guilty of promoting “hatred”; a contentious one which I have been attempting to draw the public’s attention to from the onset of not only this case but also the sec. 13(1) charge laid back in 2007. I refer here to the clear and present danger to all Canadians should Crown’s efforts prove successful and such a precedent established. In this regard Judge Morgan had the following to say:
 The primary remedy sought by the Crown if successful at trial will be to prevent Mr. Topham (and thereby perhaps others) from posting hate promoted material. [emphasis added]
I believe Judge Morgan’s decision is worthy of a close reading by anyone who has serious concerns about Canada’s current “Hate Propaganda” laws as they exist in Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code of Canada and so I am including a verbatim copy of it below. I will be posting the full decision on the website in pdf format and will link to it so interested parties can read the full contents.
This is now the second failed attempt on the part of Crown to impose harsh conditions on myself and RadicalPress.com prior to a trial. Whether or not Crown will try to make a third similar application at the Supreme Court level is an unknown at this time.
And so this decision on the part of Judge Morgan must be viewed as a precedent setting victory in the ongoing war to abolish all of Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” legislation and thus ensure our Charter rights to freedom of expression on the internet remain inalienable and sacrosanct.
Here then is the full text of Judge Morgan’s decision in R. v Topham:
 Considerations of bail in section 319(2) prosecutions (willfully promoting hatred) are somewhat different from the usual criminal prosecutions. This is because the central issue at trial will not be what occurred , but will be what effect resulted. The publicly communicated statements will have to be established by the Crown to promote ‘hatred’ as the word is defined in Canadian jurisprudence.
 The primary remedy sought by the Crown if successful at trial will be to prevent Mr. Topham (and thereby perhaps others) from posting hate promoted material. The Crown is, in effect, seeking the same remedy pre-trial through a cease and desist bail order. To be successful the court would have to be satisfied that on the test of a balance of probabilities all aspects of Crown’s case will be made out, including that the effect of the communications of concern will meet the threshold of promoting hatred. In effect, the court is being asked to decide the case on the balance of probability standard.
 On the other hand, it is an initially forceful consideration when dealing with material that is clearly repugnant and offensive, to ask what harm would result by simply shutting it down until the matter can be decided at trial. One can easily imagine situations where the material is so repugnant and offensive that even solely from the judge’s perspective and without direct evidence of harm, the likely risk of harm will be evident and outweigh a temporary curtailment of Charter rights.
 However, court ordered prior restraint on a person’s s. 2(b) Charter right to freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, has the risk of being overbroad and should be granted only in clear cases.
 In the case before me, the material of concern is primarily material written by others and allegedly posted by Mr. Topham on his website. The one document I was referred to that involved a minor amount of originality is entitled ‘Israel Must Perish’ and is based on a document written many years ago by someone else entitled ‘Germany Must Perish’. In ‘Israel Must Perish’ the accused is alleged to have replaced all references to ‘Germany’ with ‘Israel’ and all references to ‘Germans’ with ‘Jews’. Mr. Topham has published both versions on his website. Mr. Topham says – and is not contradicted by the Crown – that all of the material of concern is available on other internet sites not controlled by him, including notable sites such as Amazon.com and Archive.org.
 There is some evidence that Mr. Topham uses his website to publish other materials that are not alleged to foster hate, and to use it for other reasons, such as providing a voice to other fringe persons or groups. As of late, he has been using his website in an attempt to raise money to pay for a lawyer to defend him against the present charges.
 Although I give Crown credit for being open to finding ways to minimally impair Mr. Topham’s rights while at the same time addressing the concern of the publication of the offensive material, I find that in this case, ordering Mr. Topham to shut down his website may well be an over broad prior restraint and that, based on the evidence before me, the effect on reducing any harm caused may well be minimal given the material is primarily not original and is available from other internet sources.
 I agree with Ms. Johnston that ordering Mr. Topham to remove from his website any reference to people of Jewish religion or ethnic origin would be like having him pick out pepper. What I foresee from this is any effort to carve a fine balance would very possibly lead to breach related charges arising from confusion and misinterpretation.
 The Crown’s goal of stopping Mr. Topham from putting on his website offensive material will of course depend on whether Crown is successful at trial in establishing the offensive material has the effect of promoting hate. If the Crown proves its case, the sentencing judge will be in a much informed position in determining the appropriate breadth of restraint orders and other sanctions.
 Although I decline to order as a condition of bail that Mr. Topham stop operating his entire website or to order that he cease and desist from posting any materials referencing people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, I am satisfied that his Undertaking should be amended to include a condition that he not post on any internet site or otherwise publish the names of the two civilian complainants already referred to in condition 2. of his present Undertaking, and that he immediately remove their names from any internet site he has direct or indirect control of . I find that there may be a risk of harm or intimidation in posting the names of these civilian complainants.
My court battle has now moved on to an actual trial by judge and jury in the British Columbia Supreme Court. In doing so it now places a far greater emphasis on my having to obtain legal counsel and/or advice from legal counsellors, which ultimately requires funding.
The trial will be the first major battle in the upcoming legal war to rid Canada of all the “Hate Propaganda” legislation that has been inserted into the Canadian Criminal Code by pro-Zionist Jewish lobby organizations since the end of World War Two. The outcome of this trial will, in all likelihood, determine whether or not the rest of Canadians will retain their right to publish the truth on the Internet about any and all injustices that may befall our country.
I NEED YOUR HELP NOW MORE THAN EVER!!!
Please consider a donation to the Radical Press Free Speech Defence Fund.
My PayPal button is on my website at http://www.RadicalPress.com
If you can’t send a donation via PayPay please consider sending what you can through Canada Post to:
Remember that every bit helps (all of us).
For further information please visit:
April 10th, 2014
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,
The previous Legal Update (March 14th, 2014) covering The Radical Press’s battle with Canada’s unjust “Hate Propaganda” legislation, as contained in Sec. 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code, concluded on March 13th, 2014. It was then that Judge Morgan saw fit to commit me to trial by judge and jury in the B.C. Supreme Court.
Immediately following his decision, Crown requested that a bail hearing be held that very same day. This new bail hearing was a result of Crown having re-charged me in January of 2014 with the same Sec. 319(2) offence that had originally been laid against me back on May 16th, 2012. By laying new charges this gave the Crown an opportunity to file a new application which, in turn, would allow them another chance to vary the current conditions that were set in place back on January 3rd, 2013 by Judge Church.
Det. Terry Wilson and his BC Hate Crime Team down in Surrey, B.C. were not happy with Judge Church’s decision as it allowed me (as per my Charter rights) to continue publishing on RadicalPress.com. The RCMP would rather have had its position taken; one that presumes I’m already guilty of the alleged crime and therefore should be be prevented from publishing anything further until my trial is over.
The precise wording of the Crown’s proposed new conditions was as follows:(March 14th, 2014) on RadicalPress.com’s battle with Canada’s unjust Sec. 319 “Hate Propaganda” legislation as contained in Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code concluded on March 13th, 2014. It was at that point when Judge Morgan saw fit to commit me to trial by judge and jury in the B.C. Supreme Court.
Immediately, following his decision, Crown requested that a bail hearing be held that very same day. This new bail hearing was a result of Crown having re-charged me in January of 2014 with the very same Sec. 319(2) offence. By laying new charges this gave the Crown the opportunity to file a new application which, in turn, would allow them another opportunity to vary the conditions that were set in place back on January 3rd, 2013 by Judge Church.
Det. Terry Wilson and his BC Hate Crime Team down in Surrey, B.C. were not happy with those bail conditions as they allowed me (as per my Charter rights) to continue publishing on RadicalPress.com rather than taking the RCMP’s position that I’m already guilty of the alleged crime and therefore should be be prevented from publishing anything further until my trial is over.
The precise wording of the Crown’s proposed new conditions was as follows:
1) You shall not post any information on any internet site that can be read by members of the general public.
2) You shall not operate, post to, manage or allow anyone to operate, post to or manage any internet site owned by you that can be accessed by the general public.
3) You shall make RadicalPress.com unavailable to the general public. You shall not be in breach of this condition if you place a default page on RadicalPress.com, if the wording of the default page has been previously approved by this Court.
Also, as reported in the March 14th update, Judge Morgan declined to immediately grant Crown their bail hearing on that day and advised Crown and myself that I was to return on March 18, 2014 at 1:30 to fix a date. I came back on the 18th and the date of April 9th, 2014 was then set; one that would allow me time to prepare my arguments against this latest attempt on the part of Det. Terry Wilson and the BC Hate Crime Team to shut down RadicalPress.com prior to any determination of guilt.
There was a tremendous amount of work required to prepare for the hearing; an effort that never abated until the late evening of April 8th just prior to the hearing when, having assumed I had all of my documents prepared, I suddenly found myself having to deal with yet another bit of legal chicanery in the form of an email from Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston which suddenly arrived in my inbox at 4:29:06 p.m. that very same day. This type of behaviour on the part of the Crown has been an ongoing source of frustration from the time that my former counsel Doug Christie passed away in March of 2013. Crown, rather than furnishing me with essential documents in advance of any court appearance, apparently prefers to wait until I walk into the courtroom and then hand me whatever document(s) that she plans to use that day. To my way of thinking this is a highly unfair, unprofessional practise and I eventually brought it to the attention of Judge Morgan during the hearing.
The last minute email from Crown contained a newly revised set of bail conditions which read as follows [emphasis is mine. Ed.]:
Crown is requesting the following terms on an Undertaking to a Justice:
1) You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
2) You shall have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Richard Warman or Harry Abrams except as follows:
(a) while in attendance at court; or
(b) through legal counsel.
3) You shall not possess any weapon as defined in Section 2 of the Criminal Code expect[sic] for purposes directly related to your employment including, but not limited to, your mining operations.
4) You shall not distribute, circulate or share all or any part of the Crown disclosure material with any person or organization save and except for legal counsel who is assisting you in your defence.
5) You shall not publish or post all or any part of the Crown disclosure material on any internet site that can be read by the general public.
6) Except as set out in Conditions 8 and 9, you shall not post any information on any internet site that can be read by members of the general public.
7) Except as is set out in Conditions 8 and 9, you shall not operate, post to, manage or allow anyone to operate, post to or manage any internet site owned by you that can be accessed by the general public.
8) You shall make RadicalPress.com unavailable to the general public. You shall not be in breach of this condition if you place a default page on RadicalPress.com, if the wording of the default page has been previously approved by the Court or by your bail Supervisor and/or if you continue to pay your website provider for the RadicalPress.com site.
9) You shall be permitted to operate, post to and manage the following two websites:
a) Cariboominingassociation.com and
On the following conditions:
i) That none of the posts or links on RadicalPress.com be placed on either website and
ii) That you do not post anything about Richard Warman, Harry Abrams or Jewish religion and/or origin in any matter whatsoever.
There weren’t any delays in getting started this session and Crown, as per usual, again presented me with another packet of papers marked “Memorandum of Disclosure” just prior to commencing speaking to her application. I quickly perused the document and discovered that it contained photocopies of screen shots recently taken off RadicalPress.com by Det. Terry Wilson who monitors the site on a daily basis as he has little else to do with his time.
The first screen shot was my post, “A Dieudonne Salute to Zionism and the Forces of Darkness and Evil”. The second was John Kaminski’s latest article, The elderly are the lucky ones, and the third shot was of my post titled “Support the Radical Press Legal Defence Fund” .
Crown immediately launched into her argument that “Mr. Topham” was still committing the same offence that he’d already been charged with on three separate occasions and then proceeded to cited the example of my Dieudonne “la quenelle” gesture as proof positive. Crown’s argument was that I had given the salute/gesture to the “Zionists” and that meant, by association, the “Jewish people” and so it must be considered a further example of promoting “hatred” toward this ethnic group. Following that Counsel then went on to speaking about John Kaminski’s article and asked Judge Morgan to read specific paragraphs where Kaminski was making direct references to the Jews in America. This article, according to Crown, was further “proof” of my continuing disregard for the law.
The manner of Crown’s presentation to Judge Morgan, regarding these posts, might best be conveyed to readers if they were to imagine someone arguing that my posting every day on RadicalPress.com was synonymous with a bank robber who, while on bail, was going out every day and robbing another bank and nothing was being done to stop him.
Finally, after what for all intents of purpose was a thinly veiled tirade against my Charter right to freedom of expression, Crown then switched from bad prosecutor to good prosecutor and proceeded to tell Judge Morgan that Crown wasn’t trying to suggest to His Honour that everything published on RadicalPress.com was “hatred toward people of the Jewish faith or ethnicity”. Here is where she made reference to my appeal to RadicalPress.com readers in the post “Support the Radical Press Legal Defence Fund”. Posts such as these, in Crown’s opinion, were just fine but, of course, the problem was that RadicalPress.com was such a “huge” site and permeated throughout with so much “hatred” toward Jews and “Zionism” that it was virtually impossible for Crown to determine how to prevent “Mr. Topham” from publishing his “hate” posts along with all the other materials that didn’t fit into the Sec. 319(2) prohibitions and so the only logical choice must be to stop Mr. Topham from publishing anything on his website until the trial was over.
Judge Morgan listened to Crown’s arguments and then began to ask questions about Crown’s proposed conditions. Foremost in Judge Morgan’s mind was the notion of shutting down the whole website because of postings which Crown was alleging were contrary to Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code. The judge openly stated that he had never gone on RadicalPress.com to ascertain what was or wasn’t on the site but he suggested to Crown (again) that in all likelihood not all of the content on the website was probably about Jews and Zionism and that it was a concern for him shutting down the whole site because of these alleged infractions which, for the most part, amounted to a relatively small number of disputed posts given that the site was as “huge” as Crown was inferring.
Judge Morgan also had concerns about condition No. 9 and questioned Crown about the relevancy of trying to control other websites that I might own. At this point I notified the judge that Crown had erred in stating that I was operating the website http://www.cariboominingassociation.com. Back on March 13th when Crown first presented me with the initial conditions I informed her that my mining website was http://www.caribooplacers.ca but that she had mistakenly denoted another site which I am no longer operating. Crown quickly responded by telling the judge that she would change it but first would have to get her secretary contact Det. Wilson and have him check out the website and verify if there were any “hate” posts about Jews on the site or links to “hate” sites. If there weren’t then Crown would be willing to allow me to post mining business on it.
Crown, having made its pitch to Judge Morgan, I was now asked by the judge if I had anything to offer up in my own defence.
I explained to the judge that I had both a Defence Memorandum of Argument Regarding Crown Application to Vary Bail as well as an Oral Submission. The Defence Memorandum of Argument had been prepared by a very astute and competent law student and the Oral Submission was in the form of a written document which was basically a summary of my own thoughts on why I felt Crown’s application was a draconian attempt to circumvent my Charter rights. I told Judge Morgan that I wasn’t an orator and would prefer just to read it into the court record and he was fine with that. Both these two documents were then presented to Crown and Judge Morgan. Along with the Defence Memorandum of Argument I also submitted a binder to each of them with my List of Authorities which I had referenced in my Memorandum of Argument. It contained nine cases plus a copy of Judge Church’s bail decision from January 3rd, 2013. Each binder amounted to a total of 411 pages so they were a rather formidable contribution.
A total of 1233 pages had to be printed off in order to complete the Memorandum of Argument
Judge Morgan proceeded to read through the Memorandum of Argument and appeared immediately satisfied with the calibre of the presentation and how it was laid out. I was basically arguing two different positions; the first being the jurisdiction of Judge Morgan to actually preside over the bail hearing now that the case had shifted to the Supreme Court and an Indictment had been handed down on March 27th, 2014. The second argument revolved around a number of Charter issues dealing first with presumption of innocence, then prior restraint to my right to freedom of expression contrary to Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That was followed by the argument the conditions sought by Crown were not rationally connected to any pressing and substantive objective. The final arguments stated that the conditions sought by Crown didn’t minimally impair my right to freedom of expression and that the deleterious effects of the conditions sought outweighed any salutary effects that might be achieved.
Following some commentary by Judge Morgan I then read out my Oral Submission to the court and the judge thanked me. I will present one excerpt from the Oral Submission that pertains to the oft argued issue about the meaning of the word “hate” and its relation to Truth.
“The Truth, no matter how mortifying; how revealing; how awkward; how embarrassing; how shameful; how humiliating; how disconcerting; how ignominious; how upsetting; how distressing; how mortifying or how painful, can never be construed as being concomitant with the word “hate” no matter how much sophistry or contortions of meaning are applied to it. The Truth, simply IS, and no amount of pretence or subterfuge can ever negate that fundamental fact, even though during periods of history it has become temporarily amenable to usurpation by cold, calculating logic or other surreptitious means. Otherwise, taken to its logical conclusion, if Truth, in any context, were to be equated or aligned with the emotive term “hate” then by the same reasoning Falsehood or Lies would, in turn, become “love” and all rational discourse and communication would ultimately become moot and meaningless.”
Judge Morgan then decided around 11:00 a.m. to take a recess and said we would resume again at 1:30 in the afternoon. This would give both himself and Crown an opportunity over the lunch break to read through the materials that I had presented them with and also allow Crown some time to respond to the arguments.
We then left the courthouse and went for lunch.. Once again I was pleased that my friend and associate Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Freedom of Expression (CAFE), had traveled to Quesnel from Ontario to attend the hearing and offer support to myself and my wife. Paul and I had lunch and discussed a number of issues related to the case as well as other matters of a general nature and then returned for the afternoon session.
Crown, I believe, wasn’t expecting the argument which I brought forth during the morning session and had obviously scrambled during the time we recessed to recoup her position. She returned to the courtroom at 1:30 p.m. with a number of case law files which she then used to argue that the judge did in fact have jurisdiction to hear Crown’s application even though Judge Morgan was a provincial court judge and the case was now in Supreme Court. That was the main thrust of her argument and when she was through Judge Morgan then told Crown and myself that he was going to reserve his decision until April 15th, 2014 at 1:30 p.m. Court was then adjourned.
AS EASTER APPROACHES, when Christians reflect on the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, the Holocaust Hoax will be in our faces once again.
“Holocaust Remembrance Week,” (carefully arranged in the very same month Christians honor Christ’s resurrection), will be replete with tax-payer funded programs focusing on Jewish ’suffering’ and delusions of Jewish martyrdom.
Jews in Brooks Brothers suits and Calvin Klein dresses will shove down our throats their ‘Holocaust suffering’ that trumps the validated sufferings of tens of millions of Gentiles.
Who better to dish out this kosherized version of martyrdom than the self-anointed High Priest of Holocaustology, Elie Wiesel?
He describes in “Night” the death of a young boy he claims to have seen hanged.
He writes that he heard someone behind him say, “Where is God now?” ‘And I heard a voice within me answer him:’ “Where is He? He is hanging here on this gallows.”
In this passage, Wiesel blatantly equates Jews with Almighty God by claiming that God in the form of a Jewish victim of ‘nazis’ was ‘crucified.’
Here again he deifies Jews with his Talmudic blasphemy:
“Never shall I forget those moments which murdered ‘my God’ (the Jewish boy) and turned my dreams to dust.”
Wiesel’s agenda here is not difficult to understand. The Jews desperately want all non-Jews to worship them as God on earth.
They want us to believe that only their ’suffering’ is unique — that it offers ‘redemption’ by making the world a ‘better place’ by reminding us of our supposed collective guilt that must be ‘atoned’ for.
We are saved by feelings of guilt over the poor mistreated Jews. “Never again!” die Juden wail as they continue to dictate their agenda in the Press, in the Oval Office, and on Capitol Hill.
Wiesel reminds us that “Every Jew somewhere in his being, should set apart a zone of hate – healthy, virile hate for what the German personifies and for what persists in the German. To do otherwise would be a betrayal of the dead.”
With Wiesel leading their “hate campaign,” Jewry claims to be God incarnate, Auschwitz becomes Calvary, and Jewish ’suffering’ supersedes all others, even of Christ Himself.
And with tax-payer-funded Holocaust Remembrance Week soon to be in our faces, the Goyim are forced to make their obligatory ‘atonement’ to the corpses of the Jewish dead.
On Thursday, April 3, I was privileged to be present for one of the more interesting criminal proceeding in the Nanaimo courthouse. As I’ve noted in previous articles, justice can be perverted and circumvented by our court system, especially with respect to injunctions requested by corporations and governments ramming through unpopular developments.
Back in October, 2013 some of the people opposed to a 350-lot subdivision being inserted into one of the last coastal Douglas fir biogeoclimatic zones, inserted ourselves into the operation. We’d expected only to have a photo op for the media to express our concerns. When the “owner” became physically abusive to one of the demonstrators, the workers decided to honour our picket line, resulting in the owner preferring charges against us, singling out former realtor and sometimes political candidate Brunie Brunie.
The developer had her charged with interference, asked the court to award court costs and money to cover his losses at the stopped work, and an injunction to find people guilty of contempt of court who interfere with his future clear-cutting. The latter charge effectively does away with rights recognized as far back as the Magna Carta in 1215, the right to presumed innocence. With the contempt charge, a court is allowed to presume guilt, overriding all other considerations.
Brunie could have fought the charges, because they were wrong on several counts (dates and times, as well as actual events described on the charge sheet, were simply wrong). Various lawyers and liberals advised her to do so. But she decided on a much more daring and risky course. She counter-sued the developer and asked the court for an injunction against him.
Nanaimo Courthouse, Naniamo B.C.
Besides risking having to pay court costs and fines and do jail time, this meant spending many hours in the law library learning how to present her argument in court. Not surprisingly, no lawyers would consider the case without a fee.
Brunie based her case on three main legal points.
The developer’s lawyer had told the court there was no general opposition to the project. Brunie presented a petition gathered by the Linley Valley Preservation Society (LVPS), signed by over 6000 residents of Nanaimo, refuting that claim.
Secondly, the developer claimed they had done all the environmental studies necessary to show there was no harm to the ecosystem from inserting 350 fiberboard houses.
While noting the developer’s study had taken less than a week to complete, Brunie provided a study commissioned by the LVPS through the Duncan-based Ursus Environmental Consulting. Their baseline bio-inventory assessment studied the valley for over six months. They recorded at least four red-listed bird and plant species and a couple of blue-listed. The report also notes that the coastal Douglas fir biogeoclimatic system itself, because of extensive logging, is endangered. Ninety-eight per cent of it is gone.
None of these issues were considered in the developer’s required study.
The third argument was on the issue of trespass. As a descendent of Haida and Coastal Salish peoples, Brunie declared her right to enter her ancestral land. And that under the law, if a greater wrong is being committed she was within her rights to interfere with destruction of habitat. Her main point was there was never any consultation with the First Nations, two of which, the Sny-ny-meux and the Sna-na-was, have used the area traditionally. This consultation is required in the BC Environmental Assessment Act as well as in British and Canadian law.
After the judge listened to the developer’s lawyer explain for an hour and twenty minutes why he considered these arguments irrelevant, Brunie was allowed to speak. She attempted to give the judge her legal brief which she had prepared that explained these points, but he refused to accept them because he said he already had enough information from the developer’s lawyer (to render a judgment?).
About ten minutes into her presentation, the judge interrupted Brunie in mid-sentence to explain he didn’t need to hear any more, as he would not be granting her an injunction. He’d made up his mind so there was no reason to continue.
Brunie was able to argue that she at least had the right to present another few minutes of testimony, but the obviously bored judge made no attempt to question her further. Perhaps the six of us in the gallery with Brunie’s posters made him hesitate.
The judge didn’t jail her or order her to pay court costs. But as is usual in cases of contempt-of-court injunctions, only corporations or governments need apply.
Jim Erkiletian email@example.com
Criminalizing Criticism of Israel in Canada
Bill C-13, A “Digital Trojan Horse for the Surveillance State”
Global Research, April 02, 2014
The international campaign calling for boycott, divestment, and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, as a peaceful means of persuading that state to abandon its systematic violations of international law and its policies of apartheid dispossession, colonization, and blockade in the occupied Palestinian territories, has recently enjoyed a burgeoning number of successes.1
In early February 2014, The Economist noted that BDS “is turning mainstream,”2 and former Israeli Knesset Speaker Avraham Burg wrote in Haaretz that the “BDS movement is gaining momentum and is approaching the turning point [.... at which] sanctions against Israel will become a fait accompli.”3
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu made a point of indicating that he and his allies would respond vigorously to this trend. Some of the reports about a cabinet meeting where “tactics” were discussed revealed more about internecine divisions than about the substance of the meeting: “Netanyahu convenes strategy meeting to fight boycotts”—but he deliberately excluded some senior ministers:
“Left Ministers Kept Out of Secret Cabinet BDS Session.”4
Yet although Israeli media indicated “that ‘the discussion was held in secret’, with an imposed ‘media blackout’,” one source that reported this fact was able to give a fairly precise sense of what went on behind closed doors:
Ideas apparently discussed by senior ministers included lawsuits “in European and North American courts against [pro-BDS] organizations” and “legal action against financial institutions that boycott settlements … [and complicit] Israeli companies”. There is also the possibility of “encouraging anti-boycott legislation in friendly capitals around the world, such as Washington, Ottawa and Canberra”, and “activat[ing] the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S.” for such a purpose.5
This kind of “lawfare,” as it is sometimes called, is nothing new (nor, one can add, is the notion, also discussed at this meeting, of bolstering surveillance of pro-BDS organizations by military intelligence, the Shin Bet Security Service, and the Mossad). It’s also evident that the pro-Israel lobby has been active in mobilizing politicians in the “friendly capitals” of Washington, Ottawa, and Canberra for many years.
Recent fruits of that labour have included, in Canberra, threats made in June 2013 by Julie Bishop, a senior member of Julia Gillard’s incoming Australian government, that “supporters of an academic boycott of Israel” would have their “access to public research funds summarily cut off.”6 In Washington, a bipartisan “Protect Academic Freedom Act” that would deny federal funding “to colleges and universities that participate in a boycott of Israeli academic institutions or scholars”7 has been brought before Congress.
But what of Canada, whose Prime Minister is Mr. Netanyahu’s most faithful friend?8
This essay will argue that revisions to the Canadian Criminal Code proposed by the Harper government contain wording that is designed to enable lawfare prosecutions of human rights activists in precisely the manner desired by Mr. Netanyahu and his associates.
1. Bill C-13 and its deceptions
Bill C-13, the Protecting Canadians from Online Crime Act, received first reading in the House of Commons in November 2013. In a web page devoted to “Myths and Facts” about this bill, the Department of Justice rejects the “myth” that “Bill C-13 is an omnibus crime bill that deals with more than cyberbullying.”
Bill C-13 is not an omnibus crime bill. It combines a proposed new offence of non-consensual distribution of intimate images to address cyberbullying with judicially-authorized tools to help police and prosecutors investigate not only the proposed new offence, but other existing offences that are committed via the Internet or that involve electronic evidence. [....] The Bill does not contain the former Bill C-30?s controversial amendments relating to warrantless access to subscriber information and telecommunication infrastructure modification.9
However, Dr. Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, has observed that Bill C-13 does indeed retain provisions that permit an increased warrantless access to personal information, far beyond what is envisioned by the current Criminal Code.10 Criminal lawyer Michael Spratt has denounced the bill as a “digital Trojan horse for the surveillance state”:
most of C-13 has little to do with protecting victims [of cyber-bullying]. This bill would recklessly expand the surveillance powers of the state. It sacrifices personal privacy. It limits or eliminates judicial oversight. It is inconsistent with recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. It’s a dangerous bill.11
The Department of Justice’s claim that “Bill C-13 is not an omnibus crime bill” is transparently false. As another critic, Terry Wilson, has remarked, despite being promoted “as legislation to prevent online bullying, the bill actually has very little to do with bullies and has sections ranging from stealing cable, hacking, surveillance, to terrorism (cyberbullying accounts for 2 out of the 50 pages in the bill) [...]. The bill even includes ‘hate legislation’….”12
In this latter respect Bill C-13 incorporates, once again, a Trojan horse. The bill adds wording to the Hate Propaganda sections of the Criminal Code that seems, on the face of it, to do no more than to bring these sections into conformity with other parallel texts—with several important documents of international law, and with a sentencing provision later in the Criminal Code where the same wording already appears. But a second intention is also arguably at work in this part of Bill C-13, for there is good reason to believe that the new wording is intended, while deceptively avoiding any public debate over the matter, to make it possible to prosecute human rights discourse and advocacy relating to the oppressive treatment of Palestinians by the state of Israel as hate speech or incitement of hatred.
This view of the intention underlying Bill C-13 is supported by Prime Minister Harper’s speech to the Israeli Knesset on January 20, 2014 (which will be discussed below). It can draw support as well from the fact that an identical change to the wording of the French penal code made in 2003 by the so-called Lellouche Law has permitted the conviction of some twenty French human rights activists for incitement of racial hatred.13
The results in France have been paradoxical. France is, like Canada, a High Contracting Party of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949—whose first article states that “The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.”14 The people convicted for incitement of racial hatred under the Lellouche Law are participants in a movement that has been consistent in its firm rejection of antisemitism and all other forms of racism.15 This movement advocates a peaceful exertion of economic pressure with the aim of persuading the Israeli state to end its multiple and systematic violations of international law, including in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention, which Israel has been repeatedly been condemned for flouting by UN committees and reports, as well as by independent agencies such as Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. The facts of the matter are thus unambiguous: in enforcing the Lellouche Law, and redefining human rights activists as people guilty of hate crimes, the French state has simultaneously been violating its prior solemn commitment “to respect and to ensure respect for” the Fourth Geneva Convention “in all circumstances.”
One of the aims of Bill C-13 appears to be to place Canada in a similar situation of openly violating one of the central instruments of international law.
2. Alterations to the meaning of Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code
Section 12 of Bill C-13 proposes several small additions within that part of the Criminal Code (Sections 318-321.1) that carries the subtitle “Hate Propaganda.” Section 12 reads as follows:
12. Subsection 318.(4) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(4) In this section, “identifiable group” means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, or mental and physical disability.16
(The emphasis here indicates the wording being added to the current Criminal Code by Bill B-13.)
These proposed additions within Section 318 of the Criminal Code, which is concerned with the crime of “Advocating genocide,” also have an impact on the meaning and application of Section 319, which is concerned with the crimes of “Public incitement of hatred” and “Wilful promotion of hatred,” and in which—as Subsection 319.(7) states—“’identifiable group’ has the same meaning as in section 318”. The relevant clauses in Section 319 read as follows:
319. (1) Every one who, by communicating statements in any public place, incites hatred against any identifiable group where such incitement is likely to lead to a breach of the peace 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.
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully 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.17
The most noteworthy addition to the concept of “identifiable group” is that of the category of national origin, which has no evident connection to the ostensible purpose of Bill C-13, but may be understood as linked to another agenda that was forcefully enunciated by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in his January 20, 2014 speech to the Israeli Knesset—namely, that of re-defining criticism of the policies and behaviour of the nation-state of Israel in relation to its Palestinian citizens and to the inhabitants of the Occupied Palestinian Territories as hate propaganda.
As a February 2014 report in the leading Israeli newspaper Haaretz indicated, the hate-crime convictions in France several months previously of twelve human rights activists, supporters of the international campaign advocating boycott, divestment and sanctions (BDS) against Israel, were secured under the Lellouche Law, which “extended the definition of discrimination beyond the expected parameters of race, religion and sexual orientation to include members of national groups.”18
3. The Lellouche Law: another Trojan horse?
Whether intentionally or not, the Lellouche Law has functioned as a kind of Trojan horse. Dr. Jean-Yves Camus has remarked that this law, “passed on 3 February 2003, in the wake of an unprecedented wave of anti-Semitic violence, allows judges to impose harsher sanctions upon perpetrators of racist violence, than those they would normally receive in the case of a similar act of violence not motivated by racism.”19 As the Haaretz report on the criminalization of BDS activism in France indicates, the law’s ostensible purpose, at a time when the openly antisemitic, anti-immigrant and neofascist Front National of Jean-Marie LePen had been attracting increased support, in southern France especially, was “to strengthen French republican values and counter sectarian tendencies”:
The law was passed in 2003, shortly after unprecedented gains by the far right National Front party in the presidential election.
The measure was designed to respond to a social climate of not only mounting anti-Semitism, but also anti-Arab discrimination and xenophobia.20
The “Outline of motives” that prefaced the Lellouche Law when it was presented to the Assemblée Nationale in November 2002 was explicit in its repeated statements that the additions to the Penal Code proposed by this law were primarily intended to target openly racist violence:
“violences ouvertement racistes,” “actes de violence intentionellement racistes,” “violences à caractère raciste,” “agressions à caractère raciste.”21
Although this text specified that racist violence could be “moral” as well as physical,22 the two recent examples it offered to the deputies of the Assemblée Nationale were the “openly racist murder” of a young Frenchman of Moroccan origin in northern France in October 2002, and racist aggression directed against young students of a private Jewish school in the 13th arrondissement of Paris in early November.23 Noting that existing French laws already targeted racial discrimination, the incitement of hatred or violence, and Holocaust revisionism, the prefatory outline defined the purpose of this law as being to significantly enhance the penalties imposed in cases where attacks on people or property are racist in character—as when racism is involved in acts of torture and barbarism, violence resulting unintentionally in death, and acts leading to mutilation or permanent disability, as well as acts involving damage to or the destruction of property.24
Despite this explicit statement of intention, the Lellouche Law has been applied in another manner altogether—on the pretext that in eight of its nine articles it includes the category of “nation” in the definition of groups that can be understood as victimized. As the Haaretz report indicates, this law “has been invoked repeatedly against anti-Israel activists. France has seen 10 trials against BDS supporters based on Lellouche.”25
Pascal Markowitz, head of the BDS legal task force of the Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France (CRIF), is frank in his assessment of the Lellouche Law’s instrumental value. He is quoted by Haaretz as saying that “the law is ‘the most effective legislation on BDS today.’ ‘We had only one acquittal, so the statistics are looking good,’ he said.”26 But other political figures in France have taken a different view of the matter:
“These convictions are unconscionable,” Nicole Kiil-Nielsen, a French member of the European Parliament, said at a special session on the case in Strasbourg in 2011. “Governments are doing nothing to end Israel’s illegal occupation [of the Palestinian territories] and the French court is wrongfully denying citizens from acting through BDS.”27
It’s important to understand what is meant, in the present context, by a “Trojan horse.” In every version of the ancient story, from Homer to Virgil,28 the essential point is the same. The hollow wooden horse was a duplicitous stratagem used by the Greek army that had for ten years been besieging Troy; it succeeded because the horse was deceptively dual-purpose in nature. Pretending to abandon their siege, the Greeks left this huge artefact behind: its plausible overt function was as an offering to the gods, which the Trojans were persuaded to drag into their city in celebration of their supposed victory. But it also had a second concealed function—as a treacherous means of getting a body of armed Greeks inside the walls of Troy, so that they could open the city gates at night when the rest of their army returned.
The Lellouche Law has served as a Trojan horse because when it was passed it seemed an appropriate and plausible means of dealing with an increase in racially motivated violence in France that coincided with an upsurge in support for a frankly racist far-right political party. But the law has since been used for a quite different purpose: that of criminalizing the discourse of human rights activists who speak out in support of respecting and ensuring respect for international humanitarian law.
4. The insertion of “national” into Sections 318 and 319: just “housecleaning”?
According to a report by Paul McLeod of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, the addition of the word “national” to Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code is explained by the Department of Justice as being “designed to match the wording of a protocol from the Council of Europe, a human rights organization.”29 The reference is to the Additional Protocol to the Convention on Cybercrime, concerning the criminalisation of acts of a racist and xenophobic nature committed through computer systems, adopted in Strasbourg in January 2003. In Chapter I, Article 2.1 of this text the word “national” occurs in a definition of the groups understood to be victimized by “racist and xenophobic material.”30
McLeod indicates that some legal experts have proposed that the change is “likely a mere housecleaning amendment to bring the Criminal Code in line with the wording of other statutes.”31 The word “national” does indeed occur in similar contexts in the UN International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 20, and in Article 2 of the UN Convention on Genocide. Moreover, Bill C-13 brings Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code into conformity with the sentencing provision in Section 718, which already includes all the groups (national origin, age, sex, and mental and physical disability) that were not included in Section 318.(4) but have now been added.
A “housecleaning” explanation of the changes is thus entirely plausible.
However, the housecleaning has not actually been very thorough. In its current form, Section 318 of the Criminal Code, which defines the appropriate punishment for the crime of advocating or promoting genocide, is a somewhat peculiar text—for its subsection 2, while clearly derived from Article 2 of the UN Convention on Genocide, omits clauses (b), (d), and (e) of that article’s definition.32
David MacDonald and Graham Hudson have remarked that when Parliament ratified the Convention on Genocide in 1952, it excluded some of the clauses of Article 2 from Canada’s Criminal Code, on the grounds that matters such as the forcible removal of children are not relevant to this country. (Given the existence of Canada’s system of church-run residential schools, into whose custody native children were forcibly transferred, it seems obvious that the last clause of the Convention’s Article 2 was excluded in bad faith.) MacDonald and Hudson note as well that when in 2000 Parliament adopted the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act, it thereby made the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (which includes the Convention on Genocide’s full definition of genocide) a part of Canadian statutory law.33 Section 318 of the Criminal Code is thus anomalous in its current form, in that its definition of the crime of genocide excludes clauses which are nonetheless part of Canadian statutory law because of their incorporation into the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes Act.
In a thorough housecleaning of this part of the Criminal Code, the inclusion of the three omitted clauses from Article 2 of the Convention on Genocide would have been an obvious step to take.
I mention this not because it tells with any force against a “housecleaning” explanation of Bill C-13′s insertion of the word “national” into Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code: as noted above, that explanation remains wholly plausible. But what this example does suggest is that the framers of Bill C-13 may not have been single-mindedly focused on housecleaning.
Prime Minister Harper’s January 20, 2014 address to the Israeli Knesset leads us toward a second explanation of the purpose of Bill C-13?s insertion of the word “national” into the definition of groups that can be victimized by hate propaganda. In suggesting that this speech reveals with some clarity the thinking that underlies this addition to the text of the Criminal Code, I do not mean to imply that the primary and overt explanation of the change as a “housecleaning” matter is displaced by this second underlying intention—for that is not how Trojan horses work.
A Trojan horse is by its nature duplicitous, but that duplicity can only be successful to the degree that the horse’s overt and primary purpose remains plausible.
The elderly are the lucky ones
TIME IS RUNNING OUT ON A FUTURE THAT GETS SHORTER BY THE DAY
By John Kaminski
How can anybody who calls themselves a decent person support what the United States is doing, not just to unsuspecting innocents overseas, but to well meaning people inside America who have only tried to be good citizens and raise happy families. What have those people done wrong to merit such abusive treatment by those who are supposed to protect them?
There can be only one answer.
The USA is no longer run by Americans.
The furor over Barack Obama’s birth certificate is really just a karmic signifier — only an alien could totally erase Constitutional protections, canonize homosexual perverts, and murder people without ever explaining why he’s doing it. Unrestrained immigration has polluted the population with uneducated immigrants who believe free lunch is their God-given right. Our leaders deliberately spend so much money on ostentatious foreign vacations and get filthy rich on illegal under-the-table deals that Americans can’t help but learn that corruption is the American way.
Our children aspire to be drug-dealing pimps with yachts, and our universities and our entertainers back them up and urge them on, while misled mothers and absent fathers weep in a world and a country that have abandoned them.
There can be only one answer, and one name for the usurpers who have polluted every aspect of both American life, and the life of the world, where everyone now lives in fear of a government knock on the door, and worries when the moment will come when everything they have ever worked for will be snatched away on some trivial technicality — or even for no reason at all — as the powers that be use every unjust law at their disposal to impoverish every single person who has not agreed to be a sniveling pawn in support of their ruthless conspiracy against humankind.
That one answer can be nothing but the Jews, who dominate and pollute every aspect of human existence, from the self-destructive pig music that turns our children into rutting vandals contemptuous of everything that has provided them with good lives, to the empty words of politicians who force us to believe their obvious lies, and teach our children that this is the way to live — to conspire in the lies that rob others, as long as we don’t get caught. This is, after all, the Jewish philosophy.
The single most egregious lie I’ve ever heard in my life was Barack Obama, the current U.S. president turned overt dictator, describing Russia’s recent reuniting with Crimea as worse than the tragic U.S. invasion of Iraq. What a sacrilegious joke to tell about the thousands of American lives — and millions of Iraqi lives — that have been wasted over the lies that American citizens failed to challenge, even though they knew they were lies, but were too impotent and cowardly to oppose.
To start with, Russia’s reclamation of the Crimea, because Ukraine had been taken over by an illegal coup engineered by the U.S. New World Order, resulted in two deaths, one on each side. By comparison, the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq cost 2 million lives, at least.
Obama, whose legitimacy hinges on a falsified birth certificate that a corrupt judicial system will not address, criticized Russia for invading Crimea to steal its resources, while insisting that America did no such thing to Iraq. Everybody in the world knows the U.S. stole and is still stealing billions from Iraq by commandeering that shattered nation’s oil industry and imposing a permanent state of revolution fueled by well-paid American and Israeli mercenaries.
Obama’s feigned outrage over the failure of a Ukrainian coup that he himself engineered was the very opposite of the truth of the situation, something Americans and people all over the world have come to expect from a poseur politician who has shown himself totally incapable of acting like the commander in chief of a large nation.
But as with all American presidents, blaming a figurehead actor like Obama fails to identify the people who really run the country, and they are clearly the Jewish bankers who have bankrupted the American treasury and remain out of jail only because of the overwhelming U.S. advantage of sophisticated weapons against everyone else in the world, and by the grace of a corrupt judicial system that wreaks havoc on the poor while concealing the colossal crimes of the rich.
You could say this is what the world has become, but in truth this is what it has always been — no truth from anyone in an official position of power in the United States. By not grandiosely revolting against this criminal farce, the vast majority of Americans continue to demonstrate their despicable cowardice and unconsciousness for all the world to see.
They will get no sympathy from the rest of the world when it call comes crashing down, as it surely will.
You are not who you think you are
Do you really understand what’s going on? Do you realize that your thoughts are not your own. They’ve been installed in your head. Actual history is very different from what you think you know. In fact, you haven’t had a real clue about history for the past one hundred years.
Masquerading in breathless heroics and reverential rituals, America is the bloodthirsty Soviet monster it always accused Russia of being. America is making war all over the world and claiming that it is protecting the world. In the past 20 years, the U.S. has utterly destroyed three countries — Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. It has severely savaged three others — Syria, Pakistan and Yemen. And it has morally crippled every other country in the world, all of whom are scrambling to keep their money and keep their people from starving.
But there’s something both tragic and insane about these unwarranted attacks on all these countries that proves everyone in America has become intractably insane. America has invented the enemies it presumes to be attacking, as is most recently so painfully obvious in Syria. All the people tortured at Guantanamo and renditioned overseas to sadistic regimes that enjoy castrating people were innocent. America created all these crimes, then blamed innocent people for all of them, then tortured the innocent people they accused of committing all those crimes that were really concocted and very often executed by this evil American government, just like they are now torturing their own citizens by depriving them of the means to keep themselves alive.
Al-Qaeda is a deadly joke America has played on the world, and turned into a ubiquitous and deadly bad guy the villainous New World Order can use as either friend or enemy in each and every war it decides to start.
The people who run Al-Qaida also run the White House, they run Wall Street, they run every criminal cartel in the world. And they are about to take your life.
All because, as an American, you are not in control of your own mind.
All your life, you thought you knew what was going on, but you didn’t. You believed your authority figures. And they lied to you.
World War I was won after the British promised the Jews a homeland in Palestine, and Jews in the U.S. passed the income tax to fund it. There was no German monster. There were clever Jews who had taken over the U.S. political system with their lawyers, their newspapers and their bankers. The Federal Reserve and the income tax were created to guarantee funding for the war. Jewish newspapers like the New York Times praised the corrupt men who crafted this demonic legislation and led America into a century of endless wars and financial crashes.
World War II was started when the Jews declared war on Germany after Hitler has regained Germany from the Jews who had stolen it after World War I. With America mired in a Jewish created Depression and Germany thriving because Hitler had evicted the Jews from his economic formula, the Jews were forced to declare war to maintain their worldwide financial hegemony, which they maintain today. This Jewish declaration of war against Germany led to the greatest war in history, thanks to the Jewish leadership of the U.S. and England, and later led to the creation of Israel.
Fast forward past the significant assassinations of the 1960s, the shipping of all U.S. manufacturing overseas and the demolition of the Twin Towers and you have a throughly dysfunctional society run by homicidal maniacs intent on eliminating a large part of its population who aren’t eligible to be slaves in the new society they envision.
Now, because you have a homosexual president, homosexual Supreme Court justices, and homos throughout the government apparatus covering up God knows what, you have open recruitment of homosexuals in our elementary schools, with special ceremonies that promise rewards and special recognition if you will just decide to be gay. The larger reason for this is because it atomizes families and guarantees a lower population rate and deranged and sickly children raised by gay couples, just what the power brokers want to keep everyone dependent on the government.
You think you know what’s going on. I think it’s time you thought again, because these facts are very far from the most important issues.
The elderly are the lucky ones
While everyone is spending so much time fretting about geopolitical follies and insurance policy fiascoes, the big clock of human survival is ticking ever so much louder. While sophomoric social critics insist global warming is a hoax, the anguished analyses of Guy McPherson and Dane Wigington have created a debate category that renders all the other subjects of conversation utterly meaningless.
The comment you hear from so many astute observers these days is perhaps the saddest statement you will ever hear in your life. It is: “We are lucky to be old.” The sentence that usually follows that always explains how tough we have made the future for our children by our irresponsible treatment of the world we live in.
Many studies have already pointed out that future generations will come nowhere near attaining the relative opulence most of us in the Western world have enjoyed throughout our lives, but the geophysical observations of McPherson that conditions for the maintenance of life on this planet are likely to disappear before 2050, and the constant fire alarm messages of Wigington noting that geoengineering — those infernal chemtrails in everyone’s skies — are choking the life out of the planet, guaranteeing that your children will not achieve average lifespans and their children are most unlikely to even reach adulthood.
Factor in the worldwide Jewish Monsanto conspiracy that has created a food supply guaranteeing universal death and infertility in three generations, and then add in the deadly impact that Fukushima’s radioactive trail of death is having on the West Coast of North America, and you have the certainty that life for these next few sickly generations of humans will in no way compare to the generations of free humans that prospered before their own own poisons and their own greed overtook them.
McPherson, whose recent book “Going Dark” provides one of the most depressing reads you could ever imagine, frequently points out that nothing can be done about the conditions that have been created by the untrammeled profit motive, and that the only thing left to do is make peace with your family and friends before the world becomes too hot to grow anything.
Wigington holds out the faint hope that immediately stopping geoengineering MIGHT begin to remediate some of the damage that has been done.
In any case, the misery and difficulty facing the next generations will be much greater, much more daunting and much more lethal than any humans have ever faced this side of the great flood.
Top it all off with the fact that the powers that be want this kind of die-off so they can create the kind of plantation planet they desire and you have the worst possible environment in which to hope for a decent future for your children.
Yet this is what we have created, and our children will pay for it with their diminished lives.
There is no way to stop what’s going to happen, because our government is working for it to occur, fat cats getting rich off the tragic misery of the masses.
Those of us in the masses who don’t like how this picture has turned out owe it to ourselves and the people we love to see that the fat cats don’t get to enjoy one bit of their ill-gotten gain, and to that end, no vestige of this so-called government should be allowed to remain intact before nobody can breathe anymore.
The elderly are the lucky ones. They won’t be around to see when the world goes completely mad and the die-off begins in earnest. And the young are now tasked with saving the lives they have brought into the world under the worst possible conditions in human history.
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions from readers, please support his work by mail: 6871 Willow Creek Circle #103, North Port FL 34287 USA.
Putin Flushes the US Dollar: The Rise of the Russian Gold-Backed Ruble
By Umberto Pascali
March 30th, 2014
Russia “forced” by the sanctions to create a currency system which is independent from the US dollar.
Russia announces that it will sell (and buy) products and commodities – including oil – in rubles rather than in dollars. The move is towards the development of bilateral.
Putin has been preparing this move — the creation of a payment system in rubles completely independent and protected from the Dollar and the “killer speculations” (e.g. short-selling) of the big Western financial institutions — for a long time.
After sanctioning several Russian banks to punish Russia for Crimea, the Washington politicians were told by the financial power-to-be to step back because obviously, the Wall Street vampires understand that putting Russian banks outside the reach of their blood sucking teeth is never a good idea.
For Wall Street and the city’s financial services, countries like Russia should always have an open financial door through which their real economy can be periodically looted. So Washington announced that it was a mistake to enforce sanctions on all Russian banks; only one, the Rossiya bank shall be hit by sanctions, just for propaganda reasons and to make an example out of it.
It is what Putin needed. Since at least 2007, he was trying to launch an independent Ruble System, a financial system that would be based on Russia’s real economy and resources and guaranteed by its gold reserves. No tolerance for looting and financial speculation: A peaceful move, but at the same time a declaration of independence that Wall Street will consider as a “declaration of war”.
According to the Judo strategy, the sanction attack created the ideal situation for a “defensive” move that would redirect the brute force of the adversary against him. And now it’s happening. Bank Rossiya will be the first Russian bank to use exclusively the Russian ruble.
The move has not been done in secret. On the contrary. A huge golden ruble symbol will be set up in front of bank Rossiya headquarters in Perevedensky Pereulok in Moscow “to symbolize the ruble’s stability and its backing by the country’s gold reserves,” the official agency Itar-Tass explains quoting the bank officials.
In fact, the officials are very clear on their intention to punish the western speculators that have been looting their country for a long time:
“Russia, at its present stage of development, should not be dependent on foreign currencies; its internal resources will make its own economy invulnerable to political wheeler dealers.”
This is only the first step, declared Andrei Kostin, the president of VTB, another bank previously sanctioned:
“We have been moving towards wider use of the Russian rouble as the currency of settlement for a long time. The ruble became fully convertible quite a long time ago. Unfortunately, we have seen predominantly negative consequences of this step so far revealed in the outflow of capital from this country. The influx of foreign investments into Russia has been speculative and considerably destabilizing to our stock markets.”
According to Itar-Tass, Kostin was very precise and concrete:
“Russia should sell domestic products – from weapons to gas and oil – abroad for roubles and buy foreign goods also for rubles….Only then are we going to use the advantages of the rouble being a foreign currency in full measure.”
Putin himself lobbied for the new siystem in meetings with members of the Upper House of the Duma, the parliament, on March 28, overcoming the last doubts and indecisions: “
“Why do we not do this? This definitely should be done, we need to protect our interests, and we will do it. These systems work, and work very successfully in such countries as Japan and China. They originally started as exclusively national [systems] confined to their own market and territory and their own population, but have gradually become more and more popular…”
Alea Iacta Est!
Partisans of Israel: Canada’s Thought Police
By Brandon Martinez
Whatsupic — It is indelibly etched in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms: as Canadian citizens we are all granted the right to “freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication.”
However, some people in Canadian society don’t seem to respect Canada’s constitution and a number of them happen to be employees of the federal government. That thought worries liberty-minded Canadians like Marc Lemire, who knows all too well that the powers-that-be in this country do not share his enthusiasm for free speech.
In 2003, Lemire was faced with a “hate speech” complaint stemming from messages that someone posted on his online message board called Freedom Site. One of the postings was a poem that mildly mocked immigrants.
He was charged with violating Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which Lemire describes as the “Internet censorship provision” of a pre-existing law prohibiting what the government vaguely defines as speech that exposes an identifiable group to “hatred or contempt.”
As a result, Lemire was hauled in front of the Human Rights Commission, a quasi-judicial tribunal that presides over all Section 13 cases. “None of the comments were anything I wrote or approved of,” says Lemire. Despite not being the author of the comments in question, Lemire has been in and out of court for the past 10 years fighting the spurious charge and it has cost him close to $200,000 in legal fees. “Welcome to absurdistan,” Lemire jokes.
The experience has motivated Lemire to become an outspoken critic of Canada’s hate speech laws. The fanatical thought police who administer the Canadian Human Rights Commission are in the business of regulating opinions in Canada, says Lemire. He likens this to something out of George Orwell’s classic dystopian novel 1984, which depicts the animal-like existence of citizens living under a tyrannical police state.
“So-called ‘hate’ laws are tools used to stifle debate and criminalize your opponents — all risk free for the complainants,” Lemire says.
Until 2009, Section 13 cases had a 100 per cent conviction rate. In the quasi-judicial proceedings, defendants are not even allowed to present evidence in their defence, and are subjected to hefty fines and even lifetime speech bans. If they do not comply with the order to “cease and desist,” they can face up to five years in jail.
It does not matter if what you wrote or said is provably truthful, you’ll still be found guilty by the tribunal, Lemire says. It is reminiscent of Stalin’s show trials.
His ordeal with the self-appointed thought police awoke Lemire to the fact that Canada isn’t as free and democratic as our leaders claim. Since its inception in the 1970s, more than 100 Canadians have been targeted by the Section 13 legislation. These people include writers, publishers, website owners and participants on Internet message boards.
Another target of the dreadful law was Quesnel, B.C. native Arthur Topham, a former teacher who started a newspaper called The Radical in 1998, which now operates as a website under the name RadicalPress.com. In 2007, a Section 13 complaint was initiated against Topham by Harry Abrams of B’nai B’rith Canada, a Zionist group known for its staunch pro-Israel partisanship.
Topham, a critic of Israel, points out that pro-Israel lobbyists have essentially been using Section 13 as their own “personal bludgeon” against critics of the self-defined Jewish state and its policies.
“The censors here in Canada are predominantly composed of the Zionist lobbyists of whom B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Political Affairs Committee, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the Canadian Jewish Congress are the most influential,” Topham says. “These groups instigated a Section 13 complaint against my website Radical Press and in November 2012 I was charged with a ‘hate crime’ under Section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code.
|Topham rejects allegations of “hate” and says he is opposed to Zionism and what he sees as supremacist attitudes in the Jewish religion. One of the items on his website that Zionist groups took great umbrage to was a satirical piece entitled Israel Must Perish. According to Topham, the treatise was intended to mock a real book published in 1941 entitled Germany Must Perish. The author of that book was an American Jew named Theodore Kaufman, who publicly advocated the extinction of all Germans through a forced sterilization program. Topham took Kaufman’s exact text and simply substituted the words “Germany,” “German” and “Nazi” with “Israel” and “Zionist.” “I wrote an introduction clearly explaining that it was a satire of Kaufman’s hateful anti-German screed from 1941,” Topham says. “But this was completely lost on the RCMP who arrested and charged me essentially for committing the crime of satire,” he adds, laughing.|
Another critic of Israel from B.C., Greg Felton, had similar run-ins with pro-Israel lobbyists for his writings on the Israel-Palestine question. Once a full time writer for the Vancouver Courier, Felton took an interest in the conflict in the mid-1990s, and began writing columns about it for his paper. He explains that when he expressed sympathy for Palestinian victimhood in his column, Zionists threatened to boycott his employer.
“When I began to write about Palestine and Middle East, the Jewish lobby went crazy,” Felton says. “When the Courier was taken over in 1998 by a company owned by Conrad Black, I was told that I couldn’t write about the Israel-Palestine issue anymore.”
Not wanting to be censored, Felton parted with the paper and began freelance work. “When you write the truth or something that’s honest, you run into a brick wall,” Felton observes. “After 9/11, journalism in North America basically prostituted itself to the anti-Muslim hysteria, and I lost faith in the industry at that point,” he adds. “The ‘free press’ has been more of a myth than a fact. Most journalists are presstitutes who sell themselves to the owners, and do what they’re told.”
Felton opines that the Israel lobby has a “hammer lock” on the Canadian government and shuts down criticism of Israel through threats and intimidation.
Joshua Blakeney, a 28-year-old British-born journalist who now lives in Calgary, ran into similar problems while studying at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta. Blakeney is a skeptic of the official story of the September 11 attacks and was doing graduate work on the “origins of the global war on terror” when he found himself being assailed in the national media.
Because of his outspoken viewpoints on 9/11, Blakeney drew the attention of Jonathan Kay of the National Post who wrote several articles castigating Blakeney for his 9/11 skepticism.
“By attacking me, the media was seeking to send a message to other academics throughout the country: if you dare to question this one sacred event you will find yourself being ostracized in the press,” Blakeney says.
“At the time, I was writing very conservatively on the subject of 9/11, but I couldn’t help but notice that most of the people who were attacking me in the media were pro-Israel Zionists,” says Blakeney.
Blakeney explains that a Canadian-born former Israeli secret service agent named Michael Ross called his university to complain about him and cause him some grief. Blakeney points out that his primary media critic, Jonathan Kay, co-authored a book with Ross that glorifies the Mossad, Israel’s spy agency, called The Volunteer: The Incredible True Story of an Israeli Spy on the Trail of International Terrorists.
“I believe the main reason they attacked me is because Israel was involved in 9/11, and I started writing about it. It is a classic case of ‘thou doth protest too much,’” says Blakeney.
American lawyer Brian Woodbury is puzzled by Canada’s disregard for the principles of free speech, a concept that is ingrained in American political culture as a fundamental tenet of that country.
“We have a rich tradition of freedom of speech in the United States,” says Woodbury, who lives in New Orleans. “Our speech is protected by the First Amendment. Most Americans simply cannot fathom how our northern neighbour doesn’t have the same freedoms as us.”
But Americans are not immune from unconstitutional encroachments by their federal government. Shortly after 9/11, the Bush administration passed the Patriot Act, which Woodbury says “eviscerated the Fourth Amendment and privacy rights in this country.”
“Americans have always distrusted the federal government,” Woodbury observes, “but now anti-government sentiment is at a fever pitch with all of the violations of civil rights being revealed by [former NSA employee] Edward Snowden.”
Brandon Martinez is a freelance writer and journalist from Canada whose area of expertise is foreign policy, international affairs and 20th and 21st century history. His writing is focused on issues such as Zionism, Israel-Palestine, American and Canadian foreign policy, war, terrorism and deception in media and politics. Readers can contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org or visit his blog at http://martinezperspective.wordpress.com.
Other articles by the author on Whatsupic:
Israel closes embassies around the world as diplomats strike
Sun Mar 23, 2014
Israeli Embassy, Washington, D.C.
(Reuters) – Israeli diplomats launched an unprecedented strike on Sunday, forcing the complete closure of embassies around the world as they escalated a dispute over pay, officials said.
The industrial action has already threatened to postpone a visit by Pope Francis to Israel planned for May – one of 25 trips by foreign officials affected by a work slowdown the diplomats began on March 5 when wage talks broke down.
By escalating the action to a full strike – the first by the diplomatic corps since the country’s establishment in 1948 – the diplomats will close all of Israel’s 102 missions abroad, paralyzing most diplomatic work with other countries and the United Nations.
“We are completely shutting down the (foreign ministry) office and missions abroad. This is the first time ever,” ministry spokesman Yigal Palmor said.
Another ministry official told Reuters: “As of now, the foreign ministry doesn’t exist. It’s not possible even to submit complaints”.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman Called the strike “irresponsible” and “a wretched decision and a display of a loss of control on union’s part.”
“We shall do whatever possible to minimize the damage to the country and its citizens,” Lieberman said.
Diplomats said the strike – involving some 1,200 foreign service employees – was open-ended and had been called after the Treasury had failed to present any acceptable proposals.
They are demanding an increase in monthly salaries, which they put at 6,000-9,000 shekels ($1,700-$2,600), and want compensation for spouses forced to quit jobs due to foreign postings. They say about a third of their number has quit in the past 15 years due to poor wages.
Yacov Livne, spokesman for the diplomats’ union, said: “the Treasury is determined to destroy the foreign ministry and Israeli diplomacy.”
(Editing by Robin Pomeroy)
PRIVATE CENTRAL BANKS & THE SCHEME OF TREATY OBLIGATIONS
by Harry A. Rutherford, Sr.
March 22nd, 2014
If you do a search on FEMA CAMPS, FEMA COFFINS, you will find plenty of information about numerous detention centers being built in the USA, including many thousands of plastic coffins, with a holding capacity of several bodies, which are clearly designed for emergency storage of corpses.
YouTube has many videos on the subject, as well as footage of foreign troops on US soil; there is a video in which Polish and German soldiers are doing joint exercises with the US army in a residential area wherein the producer had commented about their national origin. They were side-by-side with the American soldiers, who were doing a training exercise in taking control of residential areas, doing such offensive things as breaking into the houses, pointing guns at the civilians and ordering them to lie down.
In another video it was alleged that the troops of the Russian Federation were doing similar exercises on US soil, moreover, they were apparently setting fires to the forests to provide justification for the orders to evacuate civilians from the neighbouring areas.
There are videos of armoured vehicles being moved around the USA. Those vehicles are clearly designed for urban policing and they have large bullet-proof windows. Such vehicles are not suitable for field engagement where artillery and grenades can be used.
The evidence of some massive preparations for dealing with large-scale public disturbances is clearly there and yet the media is strangely silent about it.
How do we make sense of it all? Is it really possible that some events are being planned, which would necessitate using all that military power and detention facilities against the American people?
Nowadays pretty much anybody can tell you something about the New World Order, however, people mostly perceive it as a long-range plan by the globalists to create one global, supra-national state. And many dismiss it as unrealistic by pointing to the obvious impossibilities, such as a union between Europe and Asia, or America and Asia; and if we try to imagine Africa in the same union, then we are really getting into the realm of the ridiculous!
Such schemes are likely to be a decoy, which is used by the globalist propaganda machine to mislead public opinion. The most practical goal of the globalists is to remove the money issuance out of the reach of the political process and to replace it with a treaty obligation; it is very realistic and it can be done in stages and it has already been implemented with the creation of the European Union.
If you do a search on YouTube on PRIVATE CENTRAL BANKS, FEDERAL RESERVE, you will find plenty of interesting information. All central banks in the western world are private, which means, they are owned by private shareholders and are NOT a branch of government. Even tiny Rhodesia, still during the UDI, had a private central bank.
The US Federal Reserve is a private institution, notwithstanding the fact that it has the word “Federal” in its name. It creates money OUT OF NOTHING, not supported by anything and then the “Fed” loans that money to the government.
There is a very informative video on YouTube, “All Wars Are Banker’s Wars” by Michael Rivero. It has lots of information about the private banking racket and is well worth watching.
The administration of Abraham Lincoln, rather than borrowing from the bankers, was printing interest-free money. Former President John F. Kennedy also printed some six billion dollars of interest-free money, which were called “United States Notes”. This was done in accordance with his executive order. The fate of both Presidents is well known. Congressman Louis McFadden was also murdered for speaking out against the Federal Reserve.
The US Federal Reserve was been created by an act of Congress in 1913 and it can be abolished by an act of Congress. If people knew the truth about this money issuance scheme they would have forced their elected representatives to pass appropriate legislation a long time ago, but apparently relatively few know, even though Americans work at least THREE months per year just to pay the interest on the so-called “National Debt”, which is interest on money created out of nothing by the bankers.
If you do a search for “NATIONAL DEBT”, “NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK”, “US DEBT CLOCK” you get a number over 17 trillion (at the time of this writing), which is a US “national debt”, this is the money we still owe to the bankers, even after the decades already spent repaying it! And it is truly shocking!
It is only reasonable to ask why do we need such a money issuance scheme, why do I need to work several months per year towards servicing the debt, which we would not have with the interest-free money, which can be printed by the government, just the way it was done by Abraham Lincoln.
Introduction of an honest money-creation scheme would give every citizen a three-month vacation every year! But most people, unfortunately, are busy watching ball games, following celebrity gossip and other nonsense.
Here is a good example to illustrate how brazen this racket becomes with the private ownership of central banks:
Imagine I am the owner of a farm, but instead of selling directly to the fruit wholesaler, I find some hobo on a street and suggest that he take my produce, get the money from the wholesaler, keep twenty percent and give me the rest. This would be an utterly idiotic arrangement and yet that’s exactly how we deal with the parties who have usurped the right to issue our money! We do not need them, we can manage without them very well, we can print our own means of exchange at no interest, no cost to us, except ink and paper, and those characters know it very well. That is why it is a matter of sheer survival for them to remove the money issuance from the reach of the political process and to impose it on us as a treaty obligation.
In addition to getting interest from loaning the money, the owners of the central banks can do other tricks, as well, to enrich themselves. One such trick involves printing lots of paper money, thus creating runaway inflation. A certain class of people then goes on a “shopping spree” buying real estate, land, industrial enterprises, works of art, commodities, etc. They get loans, immediately buy tangible assets and then repay those loans with depreciated money. He borrowed a million and he returns a million. The only “problem” is that with runaway inflation by the time the loan is due for repayment, that million is worth a small fraction of what it was worth when the loan was first taken.
This criminal scheme was implemented in many countries after the First World War. The reason for the runaway inflation, according to the bankers and their media, was “postwar devastation”.
This is a blatant lie! Runaway inflation is caused by a criminal emission of large quantities of paper money for the purposes of stealing the national assets through the scheme described above.
This means only one thing – that the people who carry out such schemes are criminals. But these same people own central banks in every country! The criminals have usurped the right to print our money!
The criminal nature of this money issuance scheme can be illustrated by a simple comparison – when some private party, an individual or a criminal enterprise, prints money, they are guilty of printing counterfeit notes and they will be charged, if caught, and given prison time and their possessions may be confiscated.
In the early stage of Civil War in Russia, when the communists got hold of the printing presses of the Department of Treasury, they unleashed runaway inflation by printing lots of money; the result was economic devastation and ruin of the productive segment of the population.
Peasants would sell their produce but a few weeks later the money they earned became worthless paper. And, of course, the catastrophic inflation was blamed on “postwar devastation”.
This criminal scheme is so brazen that these criminals need all the power of their media to maintain this legend that runaway inflation is caused by “natural causes”.
Exactly the same criminal scheme played out in Germany. At the time of the Armistice Agreement at the end of 1918, the German Mark was worth about a quarter of a US dollar, less than four years later, you needed several TRILLION Marks (TWELVE ZEROS) to buy one dollar! This is a remarkable example of the criminal emission of paper money!
And who was in charge of the German Central Bank in those days? It was under the control of the Allied Commission, the so-called “Dawes Commission”. They certainly knew a few tricks on how to plunder the national assets! (To be precise, there were seven members from the “Dawes” and seven with German passports, the owners of the largest German banks, who were all in cahoots with this criminal plan).
It’s very revealing of the criminal scheme, that during the period of catastrophic inflation, from the very beginning the interest rates on borrowed money were at FIVE PERCENT PER YEAR while inflation was raging at THOUSANDS OF PERCENT PER MONTH! The interest rates briefly rose to ten percent by the late summer 1923, then to twenty percent in September, and stayed there until October 1923 when the new currency had been introduced, a so-called “Rentenmark”.
This may seem incredible but it is nevertheless true! It was all reflected in the periodical press of the day, where the currency exchange rates were being printed on a daily basis. Their summaries from those years can be found in the literature.
On November 9th, 1923 Hitler, with a group of other National Socialists, staged a march on the Feldherrnhalle in Munich, which went down in history under the name “Hitler putsch” or “Hitler failed coup”.
But how could it possibly be called an “uprising”, considering the fact that those men were marching without weapons?
We should also keep in mind that the Feldherrnhalle was not a government building, but a simple German war veterans building, a place for the veterans to hold commemorative events. The police had opened fire nevertheless and sixteen participants of that march were killed and many others wounded.
The slant given by the mass propaganda media to that march was clearly an attempt to paint it as an idiotic plot, which had no chance of success. Really, you can read in any communist uprising manual that the main goals of an armed uprising should be the capture of key installations, such as bridges, railway terminals, telephone and telegraph stations and that Hitler was so stupid, he could not even figure out these basics!
Obviously, we can only guess, but the more likely purpose of that march was to call the public attention to the reality that the power in Germany had been usurped by a bunch of criminals, who plunder the country at will.
Coming back to the new currency, which was issued in Germany in late 1923 (the Rentenmark), the runaway inflation stopped OVERNIGHT and was replaced with an inadequate volume of money in circulation, which meant high interest rates; now the industrial enterprises were going bankrupt because they could not service their loans!
As we can see, the owners of central banks can fleece the populace in many ways.
The same scheme was also played out in the former Soviet Union after the collapse of communism. Inflation during at least one year had reached a THOUSAND PERCENT. This was considerably less than in Germany, but Yeltsin’s gang was using several other schemes to steal the national assets. All those billionaires who fled abroad with their loot, were taking part in those criminal financial schemes. Just think of it! he was an ordinary government bureaucrat somewhere and then he suddenly surfaces abroad as a billionaire! At the same time the people in the former Soviet Union were quite literally starving!
It was widely reported in the alternative media that Yeltsin had personally enriched himself to the tune of FIFTY BILLION. The fact that he was jetting around in his personal passenger jet is a sufficient indication of how big was his loot; no American president ever owned a jet, not even a private one for half a dozen people!
Since the owners of the central bank set the interest rates, they knew how they were going to set them months ahead and thus they could predict the trends of the stock market and make money there, as well. They also fully controlled the currency markets. Those, who “play” those markets blindly, are truly a naive bunch!
Shifting the exchange rate between the two European currencies was a very profitable game in the pre-Euro days; this was done with the “help” of governments who buy currencies in large amounts under the pretext of being forced to “support their sagging values”. First, one government does it, and when the currency “fluctuation” is made to go the other way, the other government does the purchasing, thus “returning the favor” while the people are watching the ball game!
You could hear such things in the news in the old days, but not any more. The financial racketeers are clearly getting worried that people are learning about this business; the total number of hits on Michael Rivero’s film under different submissions was over half a million as of early 2014.
You cannot deny that owning a central bank is a very profitable undertaking! However, the owners can never afford to forget that their bliss can come to an end if political pressure in a country is strong enough to dismantle that scheme of money issuance and introduce interest-free money.
There was a very big political movement in the West, in particularly, in Britain and Canada, to introduce Social Credit, an interest-free money issuance scheme. There are public movements in many countries, which work towards abolishing private ownership of central banks, and as the size of the so-called national debt is growing in every country, the awareness about this issue among the general public is also growing. Because of that, removing the money issuance out of reach of the political process has been a goal of the bankers ever since they got control of the first central bank.
They first achieved their plans by creating the European Union. The Euro is a hundred percent fiat currency, not supported by anything. It is created out of nothing, at the price of paper and ink, and is then loaned to the governments of the member countries in the Euro zone. Every country under the treaty obligation has to comply with the requirements of having the Euro in circulation and the treaty obligation supercedes all national laws.
You cannot deny, it was a great success for the bankers!
If you read honest reports about the life in the countries of the European Union, the standard of living has deteriorated considerably; according to some accounts, it has dropped to about a half of what it used to be when the countries were independent. The contributions by the member countries to the European Union are very substantial. I heard that Britain pays 53 million Euro PER DAY, but still, this is not enough to substantially maintain the standard of living.
The other major item, which entails expense, is the interest on the borrowed Euros. And even though the central banks in the old days were also in private hands, the bankers could never forget that, at least theoretically, they could be voted out of existence by the people’s elected representatives. But this “danger” no longer exists (in practical terms) and the appetites of the bankers have grown accordingly.
The next target of the bankers is to remove their money issuance scheme out of the reach of people in the US and Canada; this can be done through the creation of a common currency zone between US and Canada. They also want to “throw in” Mexico.
Alternative media have been warning the public about the plans of certain parties to collapse the economy, but they don’t always explain why. The economic depression is needed as a part of an overall calamity, which can then be used as a smoke screen to collapse the dollar and after that to move to a new currency, which is created under treaty obligations of a multi-national currency union. Treaty obligations would then supercede the national laws. After that the bankers would be safe.
But why all these preparations for massive public disturbances?
This seems to be a part of a universal scheme being played out by the ruling clans throughout human history; if you want people to go along with great hardships and deprivations, you first have to make them taste even greater hardships and deprivations, then the improved conditions will seem like a relief, even though they would still be much worse than it used to be.
Pretty much everybody knows the realities of life in Mexico; the prospect of opening the floodgates of the Mexican population movement to the north would never survive the political process in Canada or US, that is why the elites apparently want to do it differently, they want to create some national or regional calamity, maybe some sort of a pandemic, which would necessitate Draconian measures to control the population; after everything calmed down to some extent, the people would be too shell-shocked to be able to mount an effective resistance.
It is, of course, possible to imagine a currency union without open borders, but the total inaction of the US government on the matters of policing the Mexican border is a clear enough indication of their future plans.
Let’s now examine the visible part of all these preparations, namely, the construction of the vast network of detention centers, as well as storage of thousands and thousands of plastic coffins in various locations in US. Those coffins are a clear indication that some very sinister plans are in the making.
So what can we expect from all that?
First, it should be clear to any normal person that nobody in his right mind would go along with hostile designs against him, nobody would follow an order to commit suicide. By the same token, no system would self-destruct, where a bunch of thugs with guns would start killing the people in the country and everybody would be sitting quietly, awaiting their fate.
If a group of foreign soldiers start doing that, it would be enough for any military commander of a US Army unit to order his men into action to defend the American citizens and the Constitution. Such news would spread like wildfire, notwithstanding the fact that there is an executive order to place all means of communication under the presidential control.
You can find reports on the Internet and YouTube about the interviews being conducted with members of the US military, who were allegedly being asked if they would be ready to use weapons against the American population.
If such interviews are indeed taking place, it would be very naive for the architects of this whole plan to conclude that if a person had answered in the affirmative, then he would do what he is told.
A person, who has joined the army, does not automatically lose his brain, he may well decide to use whatever methods are necessary to stay in the system in order to be able to sabotage the criminal policies, criminal orders, to help his people, maybe even to turn the weapons against those in power, who have conspired to bring this calamity on their country.
There are quite a few videos on YouTube showing the US military conducting training in urban areas, breaking into the houses, terrorizing the population, pointing guns at people, ordering them to lie down.
The soldiers and police who are doing it, may well think that they are doing a good thing, following orders, but they will be thinking differently after they find out that some of their relatives have also been terrorized or even disappeared.
It is also easy to imagine how US soldiers on foreign soil or on board a navy ship, would feel after they find out that they can no longer establish contact with their relatives. Very soon the criminal design of all these policies would become apparent.
A human being is not a robot. If several dozen soldiers are exchanging opinions, there will be many thoughts and ideas, which correctly describe the situation and it may well be enough to result in a mutiny.
I have read one book about the Vietnam war, where it was written that the deck personnel on an aircraft carrier could give a “present” to a particularly nasty pilot by pasting a small metal object with duct tape in an air intake; after a few minutes of flight it would fly off right into the turbine and produce a nice explosion.
According to the author, these things were being done as an expression of a personal dislike towards some pilots, but who is here to say it was not done as an act of protest against the war or some other aspects of the administration’s policy? Who can say that the armed forces personnel would not start sabotaging the war effort after they learn about some staged calamity in US?
Everywhere you look, US veterans are uniformly against the globalist policies of the administration, they are at the forefront of many public protests, and yet it seems that the current administration assumes that the people on active service are blind to the realities that made the previous generation of soldiers switch sides.
Considering that the army and the police agencies in US are undergoing training designed to simulate large public disturbances, it cannot be excluded, that mass shootings may well be ordered by the architects of this massive police operation that is being prepared. These “zombie shooting” exercises are clearly psychological training designed to break the emotional barrier when shooting civilians at a close range and they are a very sinister indication of what is apparently being planned.
The fallout from such actions is impossible to predict, but one thing is certain, there would be a massive breakdown of public order, with devastating implications, especially considering the fact that the civilians have lots of weapons and that there are many organized para-military groups in US.
Those on the service of the regime may think they are safe in their armoured vehicles, but their families are in the open, vulnerable to frightful retribution.
The architects of the current plans should keep in mind that just two shootings of unarmed people by the army in Russia in 1905 resulted in massive protests, which quite literally turned the country upside down and paved the way for the revolution. That revolution was hijacked by the communists, but that is beyond the scope of what I am trying to say here.
In apparent desperation, the tsar had then decided to plunge his country into the war against Germany in order justify drafting the “active” men into the army and thus keep them “busy” and away from the streets.
Another thing to consider is the implications of a national calamity on the economy and the military capability of a highly industrialized country. Russia was a good illustration of it; after the collapse of communism, the country was quite literally devastated, the industrial enterprises were brought to a virtual standstill, unemployment soared, there was widespread hunger in the country and there were even cases of death as a result of malnutrition.
As one can well imagine, the effects of economic devastation spread like a virus. There were no resources to conduct proper maintenance of equipment and infrastructure. Everything fell apart. Accidents were happening everywhere with planes falling from the sky, ships sinking, boilers exploding and oil and gas pipelines beginning to leak with subsequent oil spills producing ecological disasters.
Corruption flourished. All kinds of criminal activities were on the rise and organized crime become a true national problem. Families broke up, the homeless filled the streets and alcoholism and suicide reached disastrous levels; and the list goes on and on.
When a country is in turmoil, all aspects of life are affected. Communist Russia again provides an illustrative example: they had several times more scientists and engineers, as compared to the US, and yet their scientific and engineering output was a small part of what the American scientists and engineers were producing; even with the massive theft and other forms of technology “transfer” from the West. That was the result of the lack of incentives, but the incentives would also disappear in the event of a national calamity and the United States would plunge into a true catastrophe!
It should be added here that the main driving force of the economic disaster in post-communist Russia was the corruption in the top government circles, which included massive criminal financial schemes, among them the creating of runaway inflation (criminal emission of paper money), as well as many other criminal schemes.
But let’s not forget that all these massive preparations for some national calamity in the USA are also driven by the corrupt designs of a small clique of international bankers who want to remove the money issuance out of reach of the political process and impose it on the American, Canadian and Mexican people as a treaty obligation.
Dear reader: if you find this article informative, you may want to consider putting a comment on this subject under one (or several) YouTube videos, which deal with the issues of the massive preparations for some national emergency in US. The most likely purpose of it is the planned imposition of a private central bank system on us as a treaty obligation under the framework of a tri-lateral monetary union between US, Canada and Mexico. Once this racket is removed from the reach of the political process, the bankers are safe and we are doomed.
Click below to view video:
Real News not reported by the Establishment
? He was born on this land
? But he decided to secede from the corporate entity called CANADA
? Then he opted out of the system which he says is bloated, inefficient, and corrupt
? He sent proper notice to the various levels of government regarding his decision
? He sent back his driver’s licence, SIN and Health Insurance cards
? He is a peaceful, non-violent and self determined individual
? He is a self-sustaining private entrepreneur
? He is strongly opposed to the income tax and property taxes, as these are a violation of the non-negotiable individual right to property
? The only law he is bound to by nature is summarized by three words: do no harm
? His first and foremost duty is to protect his fundamental, unalienable and inherent rights to life, liberty and property
? He is an expert in natural law, contract law and trust law
? He has uncovered what may be the mother of all scams: our enslavement to a corrupt system through the birth certificate and the legal name game
? He is teaching people how we have let public servants become our masters and how we can correct this situation
? The internet revolution has made him is well known all around the world
? He is very vocal about his CONVICTIONS, so governments are simply TERRORIZED by the information he is spreading around
? They have him detained in solitary confinement in order to prevent him from revealing important information to other inmates
? It is obvious that some Public Servants want him to be silenced
? The presstitute corporate media call him a Guru; they are completely wrong : he would be better described as a Canadian Gandhi
? He is a man of integrity, honesty, truth, law and justice
His name is : Dean Clifford
Dean Clifford – Internationally known Natural Rights Advocate – November 23, 2013
“The issue the politicians and bureaucrats would rather avoid is the natural law. The natural law is a term used to refer to human rights that all persons possess by virtue of our humanity. These rights encompass areas of human behavior where individuals are sovereign and thus need no permission from the government before making choices in those areas. (…) Since the freedom of speech, the development of personality, the right to worship or not to worship, the right to use technologically contemporary means for self-defence, the right to be left alone, and the right to own and use property all stem from our humanity, the government simply is without authority to regulate human behavior in these areas, no matter what powers it purports to give to itself and no matter what crises may occur. Among the rights in this category is the freedom of movement, which today is called the right to travel.” - Andrew P. Napolitano, Former US Judge of the Superior Court of New Jersey (1)
“We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion:
the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases,
while the citizens may act only by permission;
which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history,
the stage of rule by brute force”. (2)
De Facto Political Prisoner IN CANADA : Dean Clifford
by Sylvain Marc Boisvert
March 13, 2014
For the purpose of this post, the words De Facto mean: In fact, in practice, in actual existence, regardless of official or legal status.
On the evening of the 24th of November 2014, Dean Clifford had just finished a two-day conference at the Marriott Courtyard in Hamilton, which I personally attended. This seminar had ended thirty minutes earlier with a standing ovation from over 200 people, in a demonstration of appreciation for this exceptional speaker on fundamental and unalienable individual rights and natural law.
Then, at everyone’s surprise, he was arrested, on the spot, by unidentified agents.
Actual footage of Dean’s arrest in Hamilton CANADA on 11/24/14
Until today, he is still being detained in solitary confinement at the Brandon Correctional Center. He has been deprived of his liberty for more than 3 months and a half now, and in spite of his numerous and repeated demands, they have not answered yet his question: What is the cause of action? And, as I understand it, a cause of action is the heart of the complaint; without an adequately stated cause of action, the plaintiff’s case can be dismissed at the outset, normally. But, it is evident that something is wrong with the system. Very wrong.
The official reason and/or the pretext for his arrest: an improperly fasten seat belt…
“The Canada-wide warrant was issued by Winnipeg police, who allege Clifford assaulted police, resisted arrest and obstructed police in the province. The charges stem from an incident at a traffic stop in Winnipeg on July 13 (…)” (3)
Behind the scenes : Another motive?
Dean was incarcerated for nearly 3 weeks in February 2013, for another alleged traffic infraction, where all charges against him were stayed. At that time, here is what Robert Menard wrote, in a letter he sent to the Ombudsman, federal MP’s, the Press, and other group of Canadians who are concerned about such abuses of bureaucratic power:
“(…) although Dean is not charged with having certain political beliefs, it does appear he was targeted for them… Dean is in no way a threat to the public, nor a flight risk at all. To the contrary he is looking forward to his day in court. His being transferred to a maximum security prison is nothing less than an unlawful and inappropriate punishment for his beliefs. When asked why he was being transferred, one of the staff apparently let it slip it was due to him being deemed a threat to the staff and prisoners FOR HIS POLITICAL BELIEFS.
If someone’s political beliefs are justification for transferring them from a minimum security facility to a maximum security prison, then those same beliefs must justify transferring someone from non-incarceration to imprisonment. This however is Canada and beliefs which are unpopular to those who claim authority, are no reason to imprison someone nor are they reason to deny them due process when in the jail system on other matters. This is especially true when there is sufficient reason to believe he was targeted, assaulted and then arrested ostensibly for some driving infraction, but more likely for his political beliefs, which he is quite vocal about. (…) those who wear uniforms on the public’s dime, and who do not like the beliefs of other Canadians (…) have no right to abuse their office to punish those who question the source, nature and limits of their authority. ” (4) – emphasis added
Political Prisoner :
? A person who has been imprisoned for holding or advocating dissenting political views. (5)
? Someone imprisoned for holding, expressing, or acting in accord with particular political beliefs. (6)
Dean Clifford : An Individual Rights Advocate and a Whistle-blower
Dean Clifford is essentially a peaceful advocate for fundamental, inherent, and unalienable individual rights who is firmly standing up his grounds. He is a world-renowned expert on natural law.
At 37 years of age, he is earning his living as a house builder in Manitoba. He has already devoted 17 years of his life to the study, analysis and understanding of our fundamental rights as free individuals.
He is a man gifted with an exceptionally logical mind. With methodology and perseverance, through his own research and self learning, he has progressively become superbly knowledgeable in contract law, trust law, administrative law, statutory law and above all, natural law. His primary objective was to understand what’s wrong with our world.
And the internet revolution as made him renowned all over the world. Thanks to his excellent skills as a communicator, he has been a distinguished guest on several radio shows on the world wide web. In countries such as the United States, Australia, New Zealand, England, Ireland, and Sweden, everywhere more and more people are appreciating the way he manages to simplify such complex legal topics and issues, in order to make things accessible and understandable for the common man.
Last year, he was also interviewed twice on national Canadian TV (here), with a relatively negative tone, and he appeared also in two video interviews produced by Victoria Indy TV and by ShawTV (here and here), with a more positive attitude towards him and his different point of view.
Public servants have become our masters.
Former New Jersey Superior Court Judge Andrew Napolitano wrote:
“A sovereign is the source of his own powers. The government is not sovereign. All the freedom that individuals possess, we have received as a gift from God, who is the only true sovereign. All of the powers the government possesses it has received from us, from our personal repositories of freedom.”(7)
By studying other predecessors in the field, Dean Clifford embarked upon a journey which led him to discover what could be the mother of all frauds. Nothing less. A fraud that accompanies us from birth to death. A scheme that starts with the birth certificate.
He understands, better than anyone else, how governments have managed to get from their citizens – from their subjects – an uninformed consent. We were not provided with full disclosure. He comprehends as well how they are gradually gaining a total control over our legal persons – the legal name of the birth certificate which is like the shadow of our biological human entity through which they can interact and dominate us. The public servants have become our masters.
Back in the year 2012, Red Ice Radio – an independent radio program and news website headquartered out of the west coast of Sweden and hosted by filmmaker and researcher Henrik Palmgren – introduced Dean Clifford as follows:
“From Canada, Dean Clifford gives his opinion on government, law, freedom and the legal system, which we are forcefully born into. Dean has been providing resources and opinion to help guide the Freeman on the Land movement for a few years. His material and videos, primarily uploaded and featured on YouTube, have been well received and spread far and wide on the internet. The material has been an aid to many who want to come to a better understanding of a very complex and difficult law system. He has also proven to be helpful for the already existing and spontaneous Lawful Rebellion Revolution that is ongoing around the world. Clifford shares with us parts from his own journey, how he’s grown, awakened and come to a better understanding of the system around us.” (8)
“His journey with unraveling the legal system and finding freedom started over a decade ago when the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) came after him for not filing taxes in which they demanded him to pay over 3 times his annual earnings. This just wasn’t acceptable with him and so he set out to find out how they and Governments manage to force their policy onto the people with impunity.”
“What he discovered was mind blowing. The peoples position in a society has been turned upside down where they have been made the trustees which are made answerable to Government and Corporations (…) From then on, he has managed to correct his status and undo almost every deceitful contract that he was originally tricked into.” (9)
And he explains how we have been stripped of our natural rights, and how these fundamental rights and freedoms have then been replaced by a few rights better described as privileges. These privileges, which may be taken away at any time by that same government, are tied to the duty and obligation to live our lives under their internal corporate statutory laws, acts, codes and regulations, under their terms and conditions so to speak.
He wants to help as many people as he can to realize that right from birth, through the use of the birth certificate, we were sucked in by a political system that has made us, without us being fully aware of it, slaves until our death. German writer and politician Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) wrote:
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free”
How is he defending himself?
Dean Clifford doesn’t use the services of a lawyer. Because he is aware that, in doing so, he would then be granting the CANADIAN Corporation jurisdiction over him, something they are just desperate to get. The legal system does not appreciate his status as persona propria, and the fact that he uses Pro se legal representation – or if you prefer the word self-representation – rather than being represented by a lawyer.
He has been bringing to the court file various legal documents which, from what I understand, are documents that establish his correct status, which is totally independent from the governmental entity.
These documents are contractual in nature, and are showing that what he is claiming has been agreed by the parties. In justice, agreement of the parties is IT. That’s it. Contract law is a higher type of law that has superior power than all of the policies, rules, acts, codes, statutory law which are just internal to the state company and to those persons who fall under its jurisdiction. Judges are bound by these laws. Thus, it’s their duty to protect his fundamental rights. But it seems this time around, Dean says they are committing even bigger crimes in order to silence him.
He is setting quite an example. and more and more people are starting to understand what’s going on, all around the world.
“An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.” – Martin Luther King Jr. (1929-1968)
Court Hearings : Irregularities, Secrecy and Obstruction of Justice
“It is obvious to say the judiciary and the federal crown are purposefully dragging things out and trying their best to not afford Dean procedural fairness and purposefully ignoring filings and claiming ignorance. The transcripts procured to date are clearly not a true re-enactment of what transpires in these hearings in which much is omitted and manipulated.” (10)
During the past encounters he has had with the justice system, Dean Clifford managed to have his rights respected. Now, this time, Dean says that they are creating actual obstruction of justice by negating him the use of a Notary or a Commissioner of Oath, and by slowing the process through futile procedure requirements instead of relying on substance.
“The tactics that they relied on so far to keep me in here have been, number one, denying me all access to a Notary or a Commissioner of Oath (…) therefore, anything that I’ve filed, they refused to even listen to it or hear any of the motions or anything that I’ve filed, because nothing has been notarized (…) So they have just ignored everything. (…) Their job is to literally ignore you … and to continue on unabated, no matter what you say, and convict you. End of story.
They don’t care anymore. They are just ignoring everything people say and do. That’s their newest tactic as well. (…) they are just doing their utmost to violate every possible law they can, without getting busted, to try to deprive people of any possible remedy in the courts.
(…) The clerk of the court didn’t want to accept the documents because they were written on lined paper, the only thing I’m given in jail, and – get this – there was no exhibit tabs! There were no tabs for the exhibits! So, you know, of course, I have access to that from my jail cell as well…
(…) So that’s just how pathetic this is. They are using procedure to defeat your natural rights, which is actually a violation of your natural rights. That means it is a legislative encroachment on your rights where they make you to jump through legislative hoops to access your rights. (…) Common law has no forms or procedures.” (11)
Dean on the phone – his most recent update on the situation:
It is definitely possible that a decision may have been made behind closed doors. It would also seem that they are getting annoyed that Dean Clifford is becoming quite successful in seeking legal remedy in civil court, once a single right of his has been damaged. Once he has been harmed by someone in the system, one of the tools he is using, from what I understand, is the commercial lien, which is an extremely potent legal weapon in order to seek proper compensation for the harm done by the wrongdoers in position of authority.
Needless to say, they do not like that at all, because they have been used to enjoy the protection provided by a complete immunity. But, as I understand, they would have only a LIMITED protection and they would be liable in their private capacities. Few people know that all public servants may be sued in civil courts for damages, in their private individual capacity, which means that they may have no protection from liability for their own actions as individuals.
Jim Willie phD, a unique and excellent economic analyst, wrote:
“The historians all too well are aware that the final chapter of a capitalist nation is embedded in fascism, as its institutions suffer from profound corruption, as inefficiency depletes the wealth structures, as the system breaks down, as the rule of law vanishes.” (12)
In February 2013, Robert Menard said:
“I think they’re getting scared I think they’re starting to realize that people are sick and tired of their abusive power and authority and people are saying no to it.(…) and I think a lot of people are realizing the people in the government, the bankers, the politicians, and the cops they all think they’re above the law. (…) it’s not a far stretch to believe that this judicial system is being abused by a a few people in order to punish him for his views and his being vocal about it.
I mean you’re not going to be able to silence it, because people once they see it, they see it; and once you’ve seen it, you can’t don’t see it and their violence as a response to it just further supports our belief in it.
This is Canada, and people will not be imprisoned lightly or easily for their political beliefs. People who claim that someone’s political beliefs are a threat to the safety of others, and therefore imprisoning them is justified, are in fact the ones demonstrating the most dangerous political belief imaginable.” (13)
“Every man has freedom to do all that he wills, provided he infringes not the equal freedom of any other man.”
~ Dean Clifford
Let us remember again the fact that Dean Clifford does not promote violence, in any way, shape or form. He never has.
“The government attracts people who have what St. Augustine called libido dominandi, which is the lust for power. It’s just as strong a libido as any other kind of libido, and even though they’ll take an oath to uphold the Constitution, and even though they’ll say nice things about the natural law, they really just want to take more of your liberty and more of your property and give themselves more power.” (14)
And in the face of the government’s monopoly on the use of force, Dean Clifford is not afraid. He peacefully stands on his grounds. Armed with nothing, but his sovereign rational mind. He is using THEIR system against them, because they won’t leave him alone.
The right to be left alone
In an article entitled Violating our right to be left alone, Judge Napolitano wrote:
“the right to be left alone – the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men. If we permit the government to destroy that right, we will live under tyrannies similar to the ones we thought we defeated.” (15)
Life, liberty, Property and the Pursuit of Happiness
Now what we all have here is a game changer: the legal name game. Once they thought they had figured everything over, people like Dean Clifford are uncovering the inner functioning of the system and where it’s Achilles’ heel is to be found. As the gold market is the weakest spot of the entire financial system, this is a golden opportunity, a real game changer which echoes all around the world.
Dean brings to the world an extremely potent information that has ramification in all spheres of life, and in the geopolitical world, as well as in the financial world. This could even represent the major peaceful obstacle to the totalitarian order that wishes to establish itself over the entire planet.
Now, legally enslaved individuals of this planet are progressively waking up. A peaceful movement, like the one started by Gandhi is unstoppable. This is the movement of information which has the power to free each and every individual, one by one.
We all know that we are at a turning point in history. The issue that we are confronted with in this case is a fundamental one. We cannot stay silent.
This is why I hope you can contribute to spread this information around the planet so that unlawful actions be exposed for what they really are, and that with your help and that of popular pressure, a Canadian De Facto political prisoner by the name of Dean Clifford be released as soon as possible.
“They have no right to abuse their office
to punish those who question the source,
nature and limits of their authority. ”
– Rob Menard
Marc Sylvain Boisvert,
Creator and editor of CanadaNewsLibre.com
Owner, administrator and sole beneficiary
of the legal name known as : SYLVAIN BOISVERT
Marc Sylvain Boisvert earned a Diploma of Superior Studies in Music Composition from the Québec Conservatory of Music, and is a Doctor of Chiropractic graduated from the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College in Toronto.
His opinions expressed in this article reflect his private individual views; he is not speaking on behalf of any group or organization of licensed chiropractors and he is claiming his fundamental and unalienable right to free speech.
If you want to voice your concerns about what is happening to Dean Clifford write to:
The Honourable Peter Gordon MacKay
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0H8
If you want to write to Dean:
Brandon Correctional Centre
375 Veterans Way,
Canada R7C 0B1
“Learn the difference between law and legislation, the difference between lawful and legal, unlawful and illegal. Is there one? Discover the ambiguity of the rules government call law and forget to mention it needs your consent.”
Interview with Robert Menar
WorldFreemanSociety - Published on Sep 11, 2013
(1) Immigration and Freedom, by Andrew P Napolitano, LewRockwell.com, January 31, 2013
(2) We are approaching the stage of rule by brute force, Ayn Rand (1905-1982)
(4) WANT TO HELP CANADIAN POLITICAL PRISONER DEAN CLIFFORD?, by Robert Menard, mikiverselaw.blogspot.ca, February 8, 2013
(5) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company, Updated in 2009, published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
(6) Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003
(7) Liberty and Safety, By Andrew P. Napolitano, July 24, 2013
(8) Red Ice Radio – The Sovereign Non-Citizen, May 29, 2013
(9) Red Ice Radio – Dean Clifford – Hour 1 – Arrest, Victory & Natural Law, May 2. 2013
(10) Next Hearing on March 7, by Admin, DeanClifford.info, February 6, 2014
(11) Update Number 5, by Admin, DeanClifford.info, March 2, 2014 – Phone conversation with Dean Clifford posted on YouTube, partial and rough transcript by CNLib
(12) Corruption in Fascist Business Model, by Jim Willie CB, FinalSense.com, 02/01/2012
(13) Robert Menard on the arrest of Dean Clifford, by Truth TV, February 15, 2013
(14) Racism, Roe, and Natural Law, Judge Andrew Napolitano on the hard cases. by Bonnie Kristian
(15) Violating our right to be left alone, by Andrew P Napolitano, wnd.com, 12/11/2013
* The publishing of this image does not imply that the author endorse this article.
*** More articles and videos from CanadaNewsLibre HERE !
Disclaimer: The views expressed in these articles and videos are the sole responsibility of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of CanadaNewsLibre. The contents of these articles and videos are of sole responsibility of the author(s). CanadaNewsLibre will not be responsible or liable for any inaccurate or incorrect statements. The CNL grants permission to cross-post original CanadaNewsLibre articles and videos on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed. canadanewslibre.com may contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
?? Copyleft CanadaNewsLibre 2014
The Outrageously Criminal Example of Mark Marek: Alphabet Soup of Human Rights Abuses by Canadian Government
Alphabet Soup of Human Rights Abuses by Canadian Government
The political witch-hunt and state sponsored terror campaign against Canadian blogger and founder of Best Gore Mark Marek, which culminated in the ongoing reprisal lawsuit and the threat of further lawsuits brought against him, has been laced with one violation of his human rights after another. Although necessary in a democracy, Canadian legislation inhibits independent investigation and dissemination of information of public interest, leading to restrictions that impair the individual right of expression as well as the societal right to receive information. After all, it was Canada that spent 10 years persecuting Ernst Zündel – just to silence him for inspiring the masses to think for themselves.
Direct legal pressure exerted upon Mark Marek stifles the dissemination of information, but the fact that the authorities also resort to systematic human rights violations suggest that Canada is looking beyond just stifling free speech. Perhaps as far as to crush it completely.
Let’s take a closer look at the alphabet of human rights abuses Mark Marek has suffered in the clutches of the Canadian government for exercising his right to freedom of expression, and his duty as an investigative journalist to inform the public about the results of his research.
Right to Seek a Safe Place to Live
What do you do when you can’t rely on your own country for protection and fair treatment, because it’s your own country that is set on destroying you?
The international community has long recognized the need for protection of those who face persecution by their home states for political reasons. You would get nowhere asking state institutions for protection if it’s state institutions that hunt you. It is for that very reason why the right to seek asylum from prosecution is recognized as a fundamental human right by all international human right treaties.
After arresting Mark following the breach of bail fabrication, Edmonton Police Service Detective Andre Francois and Staff Sgt. Bill Clark harassed, threatened and imprisoned Mark because they had knowledge that while on bail, Mark visited a foreign consulate in Edmonton. More information about the incident can be found HERE.
This was in violation of Mark’s fundamental human rights guaranteed to every Canadian by the international treaties Canada is bound by, namely:
Article 14 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy, in other countries, asylum from persecution
and Article 27 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, adopted by the Ninth International Conference of American States, reprinted in Basic Documents Pertaining to Human Rights in the Inter-American System:
Every person has the right, in case of pursuit not resulting from ordinary crimes, to seek and receive asylum in foreign territory, in accordance with the laws of each country and with international agreements
This fundamental human right is respected even by countries like China (Chinese authorities recently granted Chen Guangcheng safe passage to leave China and live in the United States of America after he had sought refuge in a US Embassy).
Right to Freedom of Expressions
Mark Marek has been under full prior restraint since July 2013. Prior restraint is a government restriction imposed upon speech and other forms of expression in advance, aimed at preventing publication from taking place all together. Prior restraint is incomparably worse than censorship because it doesn’t even give expressions a chance of materializing. If censorship is burning books, then prior restraint is burning authors to ensure no books are written. If censorship stifles free speech, then prior restraint annihilates it. Prior restraint means none of what the author writes would be considered, as it is based on an underlying assumption that everything the author writes is by default illegal.
Only the pettiest dictators still enforce prior restraint today. In fact, you’d be hard pressed finding instances of prior restraint in countries commonly considered undemocratic. To my knowledge, not even Pakistan, Uganda or Saudi Arabia destroy press freedom as astringently as Canada.
It also must be considered that Mark Marek has not been put under prior restraint by being merely forbidden from publishing on Best Gore. He’s forbidden from publishing all together anywhere on the internet. He’s also banned from possessing a computer, cell phone, or any other telecommunication device and from accessing the internet. That includes a total ban on attending an internet cafe. In other words, Mark has not only been silenced as a journalist, but also prevented from using the means to survive in the 21st century world.
In democratic countries, the right to freedom of expression is not subject to prior censorship, only subject to subsequent imposition of liability. The Inter-American Court interpreted article 13 (2) – Prior Censorship in the American Convention on Human Rights – by establishing that abuse of freedom of information cannot be controlled by preventative measures, but only through the subsequent imposition of sanctions on those who are proven guilty of the abuses by an independent and impartial tribunal. Canada joined the Organization of American States in 1990 and promised to ratify the American Convention on Human Rights in short order. 24 years later, Canada has still not taken this step. Seeing that Canadian authorities like to put journalists under prior censorship, it is understandable why.
Persecuting Mark as a journalist who acted upon his duty to inform the public is a violation of his fundamental human rights contrary to:
Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers
and Article 4 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:
Every person has the right to freedom of investigation, of opinion, and of the expression and dissemination of ideas, by any medium whatsoever
and Section 2 (b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
When Mark was arrested following the fabricated breach of bail charge, it was like kidnapping and was carried out with an apparent intention to terrify and dishearten, i.e. to “teach” Mark a lesson and show him who the bosses were.
During the subsequent interrogation, detectives refused to investigate provided evidence and ignored information that proved the arrest was unlawful. Instead, the interrogation focused on intimidation and instilling terror in Mark’s mind. Staff Sgt. Clark reminded Mark repeatedly, in no uncertain terms, that he didn’t appreciate Mark’s disclosures that exposed the brutality of police, and made it clear that they would get their way with him no matter what, and that for his audacity to inform the public about the Police’s wrongdoings, that Mark was done for.
Like police, the prosecutors (Julie Roy and Cheryl Schlecker) appear to have really wanted to send a message of their own and ignored the evidence that the arrest was unlawful to ensure that Mark goes to jail. In a bid to keep him illegally in jail for as long as possible, the prosecutors opposed Mark’s release, but voluntarily withdrew their opposition after a threat of mainstream media finding out about Mark’s arbitrary arrest and unlawful imprisonment became too real. Unfortunately, because of the way it works in Canada, both police and prosecutors were able to have an open season on Mark, mistreating him and abusing his rights at will, because all it took for them to do after the illegality of the imprisonment became known, was to say: “Oops, did we get it wrong this time? We so sowwy!”
Arbitrary arrest and imprisonment Mark was subjected to after the smear campaign based on the fabricated breach of bail charge violated Mark’s fundamental human rights contrary to:
Article 9 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile
and Section 9 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned
Guilty Until Proven Innocent
Imposition of prior restraint is Mark being treated as guilty until proven innocent. He is basically not allowed to publish anything, whether on Best Gore or another website because he is presumed guilty by default. He may not be allowed to publish again unless he has proven his innocence.
To ensure that this doesn’t happen anytime soon, in order to prolong his detrimental state of being on the losing end by being presumed guilty until proven innocent, the authorities are delaying the trial by such dirty tricks as not providing full disclosure (which has still not been provided to this date) or by threatening further charges, but likely putting them off until later in order to make sure Mark remains under prior restraint for as long as possible. Future will show whether the suspicion of the abuse of process by new prosecutor proves right. I suspect it will.
Likewise, Mark’s arbitrary imprisonment after the fabricated breach of bail charge was the authorities presuming him guilty until proven innocent. In that case, it would however be more appropriate to say that he was presumed guilty despite the evidence that he was innocent. Said evidence was ignored, apparently to ensure Mark goes to jail as they imagined it was going to teach him a lesson about who the bosses are.
Having been treated as guilty until proven innocent is in violation of Mark’s fundamental human rights contrary to:
Article 11(1) of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone charged with a penal offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law in a public trial at which he has had all the guarantees necessary for his defence
and Article 26 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:
Every accused person is presumed to be innocent until proved guilty
and Section 11(d) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Any person charged with an offence has the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal
To really send a “message” that Mark is done for, the authorities launched a massive, international scale smear campaign with an apparent goal to ruin Mark’s life with character assassination. Because Mark has never in his life committed a single crime, not even anything as minor as not wearing a seatbelt, the authorities appear to have used the fact that in Canada the police and prosecutors can get away with almost anything and fabricated a crime to associate Mark with. The impunity they enjoy allowed them to smear Mark as a criminal who committed the crime, and once caught in the lie, they simply said they got it wrong this time, no harm done to them, but Mark’s name would remain smeared.
The smear campaign targeted all media outlets imaginable, but to ensure the damage is as huge as possible, rookie officers were tasked with contacting various establishments, such as hotels, shelters, car rental agencies, travel offices and similar businesses and warned them about Mark to have him blacklisted from their services and to establish Mark’s image as a dangerous perpetrator. More about Edmonton Police Service’s smear campaign against Mark HERE. Previous related smear campaign by Montreal police which was launched in response to Mark exposing their incompetence in mishandling the Luka Magnotta case is HERE.
The smear campaign and targeted character assassination violated Mark’s fundamental human rights contrary to:
Article 12 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks
and Article 5 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:
Every person has the right to the protection of the law against abusive attacks upon his honor, his reputation, and his private and family life
Cruel and Unusual Punishment
Mark made the arresting officers aware that he suffered painful kidney stones condition and frequent strokes that cause unbearably agonizing pains. After he was locked up in a cold cell with only a steel plate to sit on, the pain announced itself quickly. But after informing an officer in charge that he was experiencing an incredibly painful kidney stroke and needed medical attention, the officer barked back at him implying that Mark was making it up.
Similarly, already anticipating an imminent kidney stroke after his second arrest, Mark once again preemptively informed the officers that he suffered from painful kidney stones condition and having been aware that the holding cells were freezing cold and equipped with only steel plates to sit on, he asked if he could keep the blanket he had been provided due to insufficient clothing earlier. The officer refused to let him keep the blanket, once again condemning Mark to unbearable kidney stone pain.
Both these instances subjected Mark to pain comparable or exceeding medieval torture methods with all means to seek an end to this suffering denied to him. More info about authorities subjecting Mark to cruel and inhuman treatment can be found in the letter to the EPS Professional Standards branch intake officer Albert Lacher.
Refusal of medical attention during a kidney stroke, considered the worst pain a human being can experience, constituted subjection of Mark to cruel and unusual treatment. Letting a person suffer through kidney stone pain is equivalent to torture and is in violation of:
Article 5 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
and Section 12 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Everyone has the right not to be subjected to any cruel and unusual treatment or punishment.
and Article 26 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:
Every person accused of an offense has the right to be given an impartial and public hearing, and to be tried by courts previously established in accordance with pre-existing laws, and not to receive cruel, infamous or unusual punishment.
Right to Privacy
Regardless of how much the judge wanted to ensure that Mark remains under full prior censorship and unable to access the tools essential for his defense against the charges, because at least one member of the mainstream media was present in the court room (a reporter from the Edmonton Journal), the judge would make the persecution too obvious if she said Mark had no right to defend himself. So as much as she was adamant about not varying Mark’s excessively restrictive bail conditions, if she also openly denied him the ability to defend himself, that could have possibly jeopardize the mission. But to ensure she makes it as impractical, inconvenient and costly, she allowed Mark to access the internet but only for a limited use, only within the office of the lawyer and only under supervision.
Thus, Mark was able to have limited communication with his lawyer and supporters involved in his defense by email. But as the enemy continuously appears to be aware of the defense strategy, and as they appear to have advance knowledge of long term strategies Mark had shared with his supporters, a serious suspicion has arisen that Mark’s email communications, including communications within the “solicitor-client privilege” with his lawyer are unlawfully intercepted and spied on. How we put it to the test and had it confirmed with 100% certainty that all Mark’s incoming and outgoing emails are spied on is explained in more detail HERE.
We’ve been able to find a way to counter much of this unlawful violation of the right to be secure against unreasonable interference with one’s privacy and private correspondence, but the sole knowledge that such blatant violations occur sends a very chilling message about privacy of solicitor-client communications in Canada.
Interference with Mark’s email communications, spying on and hacking into Mark’s accounts are in violation of his human rights contrary to:
Article 12 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
No one shall be subjected to arbitrary interference with his privacy, family, home or correspondence, nor to attacks upon his honour and reputation. Everyone has the right to the protection of the law against such interference or attacks.
and Article 10 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:
Every person has the right to the inviolability and transmission of his correspondence.
and Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Right to Life
As reported in the previous section, after months under full prior restraint and being barred from possessing a laptop or cell phone or accessing the internet, Mark had a hearing scheduled with a goal to have his bail conditions varied, because they prevented him from being able to defend himself against the charges, and also made survival in the 21st century world that’s powered by the internet impossible (it is for example impossible to find a room for rent without the internet, as nobody advertises these in print anymore).
The judge made made the impression right from the start that she was aware of Mark’s case and that whatever the argument, she was not likely to vary his conditions. She argued that in the past, there was no such thing as the internet to enable the people to be informed or communicate instantaneously, yet they got by just fine. Apparently, according to this judge, just because something worked when the world was different, it should work just as well now that the world’s happenings move about much faster.
Yes, there was a time when people didn’t have the internet and were able to communicate by snail mail. There was also a time when they communicated by burning pyres, and a time when the furthest the communication got was to the opposite end of their cave. And… surprise – they got by just fine. Their means of communication back then were suitable for the time. They were suitable for the way the world was back then. But that doesn’t mean they are suitable for the way the world is today.
It’s as if I made an argument that I was gonna drive a vehicle without a driver’s license and an insurance, because in the past, people drove without licenses and insurances and got around just fine. That’s how utterly ridiculous and openly biased judges who handled Mark’s case so far were. The judge who ruled over the bail conditions hearing acted like she had made her mind about how she was gonna rule beforehand and whatever arguments were presented by the defense, it was not gonna matter. She only bent a little bit with regard to Mark’s inability to defend himself against the charges, seemingly because if she also objected to that, the bias would have been so obvious, even the mainstream media would notice.
Despite the fact that Mark is not charged with a violent crime, the system treats him as the most dangerous offender in Alberta. His persecution is a direct attack on his life, but it’s done in a sneaky manner – instead of destroying him directly, it’s tailored to make his basic survival impossible to sustain.
For example – Mark has been a webmaster since 2002 and has more than two dozen active websites. Various products and services associated with webmastering need to be regularly renewed or else the webmaster faces serious consequences. Each domain name, for example needs to have its annual registration fee paid for before the expiry date or else it goes back into the open and becomes available for registration by whoever gets it first. Domain names expire in various times throughout the year. If not renewed, the webmaster would lose all the work he put toward them. This loss is irreversible as expired domains snatchers are always on a lookout for domain names with traffic and history. Mark’s prosecutors and judges prevented Mark from being able to renew his expiring services, including domain names, thus conducting a serious attack on his life whereby work he put toward these services was under a threat of being lost for good.
Similarly, all active websites are constantly under a threat of various attacks. Those could result in defacement, redirects to unsafe zones, installation of Trojans, use as zombie botnets or spam disseminators, etc. Hackers are always looking for ways to find vulnerabilities in websites and exploit them. Webmasters must likewise always monitor activity on their servers and counter suspicious behavior or face a very realistic danger of having their website taken over and abused. It’s for the same reason why all software companies have whole teams dedicated to searching for security holes and issuing patches. Just how active and creative hackers are can be seen from how frequently updates for Microsoft Windows operating systems are issued. Mark’s prosecutors and judges prevented Mark from being able to monitor his websites for attacks against them, putting his work at further risk, making it just another methodical attack on his life and well being by proxying the tear apart of his life’s work.
Another example – Mark’s whole family lives overseas. He used to stay in touch by email because phonecalls were not only costly, but also difficult to arrange due to different time zones. By denying Mark the ability to keep his family up to date with how he is, and to deny his ability to hear from persons he trusts, the prosecutors and judges caused both parties emotional distress. It is a direct attack on life and well being of a person that serves no purpose but as a boost to the egos of those executing the acts of torture. To cause emotional distress seems to generate a great deal of personal gratification for the guilty parties.
After 8 months, Mark has still not been given his seized laptop and hard drives. On these devices there is evidence needed for his defense. There is for example email evidence that Mark put the public good before his personal gain and made contact with police on a number of occasions to serve the public interests. His attempts to serve and protect the public were however not met with the like interest from the authorities. Further evidence is in emails received from the members of the public who provided testimonies about how Best Gore has helped save lives of their loved ones, or helped them with their career, or helped them get rid of bad habits that were a time bomb waiting to go off and hurt them or others. Despite repeat requests, to this day, the laptop has not been provided to Mark or his lawyer, depriving him of evidence essential for his defense. This cannot be seen as anything other than an attempt to destroy Mark’s life.
We now live in a fast paced world that does business on the internet. By denying Mark access to the internet, the prosecution denied Mark the ability to find accommodation, to find employment, to maintain employment, to stay informed, and to grow with the demands of the growing world. Trying to find a room to rent if you don’t have one nor have anyone who can put you up until you find one is an impossibility. A person denied access to the internet is a person denied the ability to find accommodation. Similarly, while some employers still advertise in traditional media, most jobs involved some form of use of a computer. If you are banned from using a computer, not only do your options for finding a job lessen, your ability to actually become marketable is virtually nil. Worse yet, the computer world is fast changing. It changes faster than books can be printed. Staying up to date with computer technologies, such as web development, or learning new ones requires access to the internet. To be denied internet access is to be denied the opportunity to learn and grow as a person and a member of society.
With regards to the fact that Mark is not accused of a violent crime, as all he’s done was share stories and news of public interest with those who voluntarily elected to read them by accessing the Best Gore website and agreeding with the conditions of use, the fact that the prosecution and judges made it mandatory for Mark to turn himself in to jail before his trial and the preliminary hearing, is further a proof that they enjoy putting their victims in compromising situations so they can solidify their positions of power and boost their egos by humiliating harmless and defenceless men over whom they play Gods.
Put all of these little facts together and you get a very neat picture of the vicious attack on Mark’s life. He’s been deprived of all the means to sustain his life, the means to defend himself against the charges, and of his right to liberty and security of the person by means of malicious prosecution. It is essential to see this attack for what it really is, not for what it masquerades itself as. A tyrant who tells his people that he’s merciful because he could have executed his opponent, but instead he set him free may not be so merciful after all. Cause if you were to look closely and realize that he did set him free, but first he broke his legs and then he dropped him off in the middle of a desert with no water or shelter for 100 miles, then that seemingly merciful act of setting the opponent free is really an act of a psychopath prolonging his victim’s suffering for his own enjoyment.
We find the vicious attacks on Mark’s life and the excessively restrictive conditions imposed upon him so intentionally hurtful, they are in contravention of the principles of fundamental justice and are a severe violation of his human rights contrary to:
Article 3 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
and Article 1 of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man:
Every human being has the right to life, liberty and the security of his person.
and Section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Putin signs order to recognize Crimea as a sovereign independent state
March 17, 2014
Download video (14.52 MB)
President Vladimir Putin has signed an order that Russia recognizes Crimea as a sovereign and independent state. The Autonomous Republic of Crimea held a referendum on Sunday with over 96% voting for integration into Russia.
“According to the will of the peoples of the Crimea on the all-Crimean referendum held on March 16, 2014, [I order] to recognize the Republic of Crimea, in which the city of Sevastopol has a special status, as a sovereign and independent state,” the document reads.
The order comes into force immediately.
Crimea was declared an independent sovereign state, the Republic of Crimea, on Monday, the autonomous Ukrainian regional parliament’s website stated.
Crimea also addressed the UN seeking recognition as a sovereign state.
“The Republic of Crimea intends to build its relations with other states on the basis of equality, peace, mutual neighborly cooperation, and other generally agreed principles of political, economic and cultural cooperation between states,” the parliament said.
The Crimean parliament also unanimously voted to integrate the region into Russia.
The parliament’s resolution comes after Sunday’s referendum which resulted in over 96 percent of voters answering ‘yes’ to the autonomous republic joining Russia. The overall voter turnout in the referendum was 81.37%, according to the head of the Crimean parliament’s commission on the referendum, Mikhail Malyshev.
He also stressed that there were no complaints concerning the voting process. Those international observers who came to Crimea made an official statement on Monday that the vote was free and conformed to international standards.
“The documents on the referendum fully reflect international standards, including the secret ballot, open and transparent nature of the referendum, public and international observation. These acts have no discriminatory restrictions” said Mateusz Piskorski, former Polish MP who participated in the observation of the referendum. “There was freedom of speech and expression,” he added.
Deputy Chairman of the Parliament of Serbia Nenad Popovic stressed that during the plebiscite, equality of rights of referendum participants was consistently provided.
“The participants of the referendum were provided the opportunity to review the wording of questions in the languages of the main ethnic communities of the Republic of Crimea”, he said.
The international reaction to the Crimea’s referendum and its resolution was the implementation of sanctions. On Monday the EU and US slapped visa bans and financial restrictions against Russian and Ukrainian officials.
The White House stated that “the actions and policies” of the Russian government with respect to Ukraine “undermine democratic processes” and “threaten its peace,” sanctioning 11 officials. While the EU late on Monday introduced a list of 21 Russian and Crimean political figures that will be sanctioned for 6 months.
The decision to hold a referendum was sparked by the bloody Maidan protests that resulted in the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovich. Crimea refused to recognize the coup-imposed government. The people in the region also feared that the far-right Kiev authorities would not represent their interests. The Crimeans, the majority of which are ethnic Russians were particularly unhappy over parliament’s decision to revoke the law allowing using minority languages, including Russian.