Dear Radical Reader,

The speech below by Turkey’s President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan stands in bold relief to that of Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper as a speech emanating from the heart and filled with courage and conviction. Rather than prostrating himself before Zion like Canada’s groveling, pathetic, shabez goi Harper the Turkish leader has cut to the chase and pointed a fierce finger of rightful condemnation directly at the miscreant responsible for this latest international crime against humanity. Here is a world leader worth his salt.

In these days of waning political integrity it’s heartening to see at least one person in such a position lash out at this viperous state and demand that it suffer the consequences of its pathological behaviour. Were it not for the fact that the Jew Media shields the West from reading such speeches I’m certain the outcry here in Canada and the USA and elsewhere would be much more vocal than it already is.

Do pass this along to your friends and associates. The truth is finally growing legs and wings and soon it will rise above the diabolical deeds of pseudo-nations such as Israel and bring that much-awaited dream to humanity – peace. You can be a part of it by spreading the word.

Shine your Light for Love, Peace & Justice for All,

Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″
http://www.radicalpress.com
radical@radicalpress.com
——————————-

Full Text of Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s Speech!
June 2nd, 2010

Translated and transcribed from Turkish

by Güzin Bilgi for www.palestinethinktank.com

and Gulagnik Translators (www.gulaknik.wordpress.com)

English editing by Mary Rizzo.

Italian translation by Diego Traversa.

(Additional grammatical editing by Arthur Topham/RadicalPress)

Today I do not only want to speak to my dear people but to all of humanity.

I want to call to the conscience and hearts and minds of the whole of humanity, I would like to share courageously my feelings.

Yesterday, in the darkest moment of the night, two bloody attacks occurred.

The first of them was the terrorist attack against our military troops at the Iskenderun Naval Base. In this malicious, vicious attack six of our soldiers died, and have become martyrs. Seven of our soldiers have been injured.

The second, at dawn in the waters of the Mediterranean Sea, the heart of humanity has taken one of her heaviest wounds in history. The aid ships, from the humanitarian heart, these flowing aid ships have been hindered by guns, by violence, and by despotism.

They, who with mercy, compassion and humaneness, loaded aid onto these ships, could not reach their place of destination; they were wreaked in carnage.

Yesterday, beginning in the morning hours, armed elements of the Israeli Army stopped humanitarian aid being brought to the Gazan people. From more than 32 countries, with 600 people inside the Free Gaza Flotilla traveling in international waters, in an absolutely illegal way did they attack, spilling the blood of innocent humans.

During this violent attack, resulting in death, casualties and persons being wounded, the humanitarian aid ships were seized and sequestered. This inhuman attack against those women, young people and religious functionaries that the ship was carrying, I do one more time strongly, severely condemn.

I have declared this in Chile. Here I do stress it one more time. This bloody massacre by Israel, brought against the ships bringing humanitarian aid to Gaza is a massacre deserving of every kind of curse and condemnation. This is openly an attack upon international law, against the heart of humanity, against world peace. I say against the heart of humanity, for, on those ships were people from all nations, all religions. People alone and defenseless who were bringing humanitarian aid to those under blockade, embargo; the people in Gaza.

(more…)

Connie & Mark Fournier of FreeDominion.com accepting the Prestigious “George Orwell Award” at the 25th Annual George Orwell Dinner in Victoria, B.C. sponsored by lawyer Douglas Christie and the Canadian Free Speech League, August 2009.
___________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New Law Protects Internet Privacy Rights - Warman vs Fourniers and John Does

On April 8, 2010, a precedent-setting case regarding internet law was heard in the Ontario Divisional Court.

The case was an Appeal of a lower court motion decision in the case of Warman vs Fourniers and John Does. The ruling being appealed stated that the defendants were to turn over personal information such as IP addresses and email addresses for anonymous posters who were alleged to have defamed the plaintiff. The defendants’ position was that online anonymity should be protected until it is clear that there is a strong case that a “John Doe” has broken the law.

The Divisional Court decision that was released this afternoon changed the rules of disclosure in civil litigation so that plaintiffs must now prove a prima facie case against John Does before site administrators are required to turn over personal information about them. The ruling states, in part:

In addition, because this proceeding engages a freedom of expression interest, as well as a privacy interest, a more robust standard is required to address the chilling effect on freedom of expression that will result from disclosure….

…In the circumstances of a website promoting political discussion, the possibility of a defence of fair comment reinforces the need to establish the elements of defamation on a prima facie basis in order to have due consideration to the interest in freedom of expression.

The text of the decision can be read here: http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/appeal_ruling.pdf

This case is a huge step forward toward changing the law to accommodate new technology.

————-

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Connie Fournier
(613) 888-1169
connie@freedominion.ca
http://www.freedominion.com.pa

-30-

From Marc Lemire:

Freedom of Speech for Anonymous Posters upheld. Richard Warman loses appeal and ordered to pay $10k in costs

[44] Returning to the decision of the motions judge, it would appear that he did not have the benefit of the extensive submissions on these issues provided to the Court by the two interveners in this proceeding. Notwithstanding, it is clear that he was alert to the need to take into consideration that privacy interests of the unknown alleged wrongdoers. It does not appear, however, that the need to consider the interest in freedom of expression was raised by the parties or was otherwise considered by the motions judge.

[45] In addition, the motions judge did not take into consideration whether the Respondent had established a prima facie case of defamation before ordering disclosure of the documents sought by the Respondent. In our view, the omission to do so constituted an error of law.

[46] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to a different motions judge for re-consideration based on the principles set out above.

Costs

[47] The interveners do not seek costs in respect of this appeal. The appellants [Mark and Connie Fournier] are entitles to costs on a partial indemnity basis payable by the Respondent [Richard Warman] in the amount of $10,000 on an all inclusive basis in respect of the motion, leave to appeal and the hearing of the appeal.

CCLA welcomes Divisional Court decision to protect internet anonymity

http://ccla.org/?p=5338

The Divisional Court released its decision in the case Warman v. Fournier, Fournier and John Does 1-8, which dealt with anonymous internet commentators. The question before the Court was whether a party to a lawsuit should be automatically forced to disclose identifying information about an anonymous commentator simply because a statement of claim had been filed. The Court recognized CCLA’s concerns regarding privacy and freedom of expression, stating that “[if] disclosure were automatic, a plaintiff with no legitimate claim could misuse the Rules of Civil Procedure by commencing an unmeritrous action for the sole purpose of revealing the identity of anonymous internet commentators, with a view to stifling such commentators and deterring others from speaking out on controversial issues.”

CCLA had argued that, while the internet should not be used as a shield to allow individuals to break the law, neither should a simple request to the courts result in the disclosure of identifying information. Highly personal communication occurs online. Indeed, many use online anonymity as a way to explore difficult issues (political, legal, sexual, medical, etc.) that they might not feel free to explore publicly. The internet is a highly accessible democratic forum, with virtually limitless opportunities for discussion and debate. Court orders that force individuals to reveal the identity of those who choose to participate anonymously could chill this rigorous discussion, particularly on sensitive personal topics. Anonymity on the internet should not be compromised simply because a private individual has filed a statement of claim.

In a unanimous ruling, the Court set out four considerations which must be taken into account to determine whether disclosure should be ordered:

1. whether the unknown alleged wrongdoer could have a reasonable expectation of anonymity in the particular circumstances;

2. whether the Respondent has established a prima facie case against the unknown alleged wrongdoer and is acting in good faith;

3. whether the Respondent has taken reasonable steps to identify the anonymous party and has been unable to do so; and

4. whether the public interests favouring disclosure outweigh the legitimate interests of freedom of expression and right to privacy of the persons sought to be identified if the disclosure is ordered.

To read CCLA’s factum click here.

To read the Court’s decision click here.

Court Decision Protects Online Anonymity

http://www.cippic.ca/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=452&cntnt01origid=216&cntnt01dateformat=%25B%20%25e%2C%20%25Y&cntnt01returnid=54

The Ontario Divisional Court released a unanimous decision today that will protect the anonymity of online speakers.  The court held that before the identity of anonymous online users accused of defamation can be revealed, the plaintiff must convince the court there is an adequate basis for ordering such disclosure.  This overturns a lower court’s decision that identities must be disclosed automatically.

Warman v. Fournier
CIPPIC’s Factum

Doug Christie Takes Powerful Free Speech Message to the University of Ottawa

[Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) writes: Just 10 days after a rowdy mob of protesters, egged on by a university administration that admonished the controversial U.S. Ann Coulter against “inappropriate” or hateful speech, won the University of Ottawa, unaffectionately known as the U of Zero, a reputation for censorship, when Ottawa Police advised that the appearance be canceled rather than they preserve law and order and free speech, Canada’s foremost free speech lawyer, Doug Christie made a successful appearance before a packed standing room only meeting of 150. The meeting was organized by a number of free speech supporters and partially funded by the Canadian Association for Free Expression. Afterward, the audience listened with rapt attention and engaged the Battling Barrister in a lively discussion.]

       DOUGLAS CHRISTIE – CANADA’S FREEDOM OF SPEECH LAWYER

___________________________________________________________________________

Notes for Doug Christie’s Speech
University of Ottawa, April 8, 2010

I’m here to talk about free speech. I’m not here to practice it.

Unlike Ann Coulter, I don’t need a warning from the provost. I am a Canadian, trained by law in the way of silence, sullen silence, and code language. I have been trained by the Supreme Court not to engage in hate speech, even though no one can define it in advance, so I can avoid it.

There are general taboo topics which I must avoid or tread lightly around, like race, religion, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability or mental status. Then there are peripheral taboo topics like multiculturalism, immigration, affirmative action programs and a host of other ill-defined topics.

I have been trained to remain very sensitive to the broad political implications of these topics lest I face a very expensive lesson from the Human Rights Tribunal.

What the Supreme Court taught me when I appeared in Taylor and Zundel and Keegstra was that free speech has its limits in “hate” which means “extreme dislike.” So presumably I must like all races, religions, ethnic origins, etc. equally or at least dislike them only moderately. Or at least pretend to, which is more Canadian. I cannot denounce any one as evil.

The Law Society, through its decision of Harvey Strosberg taught me that if I speak in public, “law students” may tape some but not all of my words, and the Chairman of the Discipline Committee can issue a statement to the media condemning me as “identifying with a lunatic fringe,” even in the very act where he decides not to give me the benefit of a hearing where I could answer the allegation with evidence where both sides could be heard.

I learned in McAleer and Malcolm Ross, both of which went to the Supreme Court of Canada, that expressing your religious beliefs on your own time, is no defence and placing the messages in the United States where it is legal, is no defence if you mention where you can get the message to someone in Canada.

I learned that our parliamentarians of all parties love free speech so much that they banned someone from the precincts of Parliament who wanted to rent the parliamentary press gallery, a place anyone can rent for a press conference.

What was the press conference about? That the Human Rights Tribunal had ruled in Zundel’s case that “Truth was no defence,” and the truth of the statement could not be proven by any evidence. I know because that someone was me, the only lawyer in Canadian history to be banned by all party agreement from the precincts of parliament. Because in Canada truth is no defence. Orwell was right about double speak. Randy White a so-called Reform MP said he did not want me in his work place. Orwell was right about a lot of things.

I have learned and been carefully taught to avoid the taboo topics, to measure every word lest a tape recorder in the audience be taken to the Human Rights Commission, the police, the Law Society, or someone likes to complain to the Human Rights Commission.

I have learned to talk about free speech but never practice it. Never say anything like Ann Coulter would say, coming from a free society. And being in a university setting is all the more reason to be very careful about how you choose your words. The left-wing political giants who run most universities are able to let loose the mob with a wink and the students know their success with many professors depends on how successfully they can entrap a political foe.

Universities are the most dangerous place to practice free speech. Even topics like abortion which you would not normally think involve a taboo topic can quickly be spun into forbidden territory and sexism can result in expulsion or criminal charges. The civility of universities is accorded to those who can mobilize the largest screaming mob. No one listens.

I have to even be careful how I speak about Freedom of Speech.

(more…)

RadicalPress Publisher Arthur Topham will be appearing as a guest on RoadKill Radio with host Kari Simpson tonight, April 6, 2010 at 7:30 PST.

7:30 –8:15 pm:  ARTHUR TOPHAM, publisher of the Radical Press joins us to talk about his ongoing battle to exercise his (and mine and yours) right to Free Speech!  A battle that is costing Canadian tax-payers (us) millions of dollars!

8: 20 – 8:55 pm:  Then, one of our favourite healthcare advocates, DEE NICHOLSON will be here to talk about “post H1N1” and the flood of adverse reports that are still coming in daily on the Canadians for Health Freedom website.  Also, Is our Sovereignty “Enlightened” or “Endangered”?

8:55 – 9:30 pm:        Current happenings that will affect you and your family, including the “Day of Silence”, an event coming soon to a school near you!

Be Wise, Be Aware & Be Informed!!

It all happens tonight at 7:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m. Pacific. Listen live at www.roadkillradio.com or check out the archived show later.

CALL IN: On-air telephone: (604) 525-4167 or (604) 525-3974
WHERE: Listen live - http://www.roadkillradio.com
EMAIL THE SHOW LIVE: Roadkillradio@live.ca

Friends of Freedom
Write your Senator and demand an inquiry on the Erosion of Freedom in Canada.

Dear Friends of Freedom:

On March 30 2010, Senator Doug Finley rose in the Senate of Canada and publicly asked for an inquiry on the erosion of freedom of speech in Canada.

Freespeechers and Bloggers need to unite and make our views known to all Senators.  Freedom of speech is a fundamental right and we need to express our support for Senator Finley’s request for an inquiry.

Please put aside some time and write a letter to all senators demanding they proceed with calling the inquiry.

Senator Finey stated:

“Honourable senators, I call for this inquiry to accomplish five things: first, to reaffirm that freedom of speech is a great Canadian principle that goes back hundreds of years; second, to put Canada’s censors on notice that their days of infringing upon our freedoms with impunity are over; third, to show moral support for those who are battling censors; fourth, to inquire into the details of what went so desperately wrong at the University of Ottawa to ensure that those awful events never happen again; and, fifth, to inspire a debate that hopefully will lead to a redefinition of section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act.

Honourable senators, there are times for partisan debate when parties must naturally be at odds with one another. This is not one of those times. Freedom of speech and respect for differing views is a foundational principle of our entire parliamentary system — indeed, of our entire legal system, as well.”

The words by Senator Finley are a call to Canadians to get involved.   He went on to say that “If we can rededicate our Parliament to protecting this most important right, we will have done our country a great service, but if we fail to stop and indeed reverse this erosion of freedom, we will have failed our most basic duty, the duty to uphold our constitution and the rights in it, the rights it guarantees for all Canadians.”

Please find attached to this email, a complete list of Canadian Senators who have an email address. A complete list of senators can be found at:  http://parl.gc.ca

————————————————————

Sample letter written by Marc Lemire to all Canadian Senators:

April 3, 2010

To: Senator Doug Finley
The Senate of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0A4
Freedom of Speech in Canada

Dear Senator;

I am writing today to express my support for your March 30, 2010 statement in the Senate of Canada on the Erosion of Freedom of Speech in Canada.  I would welcome a Senate inquiry on freedom of speech.

By way of background, I have been battling the fanatical Canadian Human Rights Commission for the past seven years.  Back in 2003 a complaint was filed against my website, the Freedomsite [ http://www.freedomsite.org ] which alleged that my website promoted hatred and/or contempt in violation of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  In September 2009, after a 32 day hearing, I was completely exonerated for alleged hate speech, and Section 13 was found to be unconstitutional.  Although the case took 6 years, and in the end I “won”, I was not able to claim a cent of compensation for dragging me though the system.

As a result of my 6 year persecution, I have amassed the largest collection of critical material on the CHRC and their systemic corruption.  These documents show the abuse, totalitarianism and corruption of the CHRC.  If an inquiry is called, I would like to present some of this shocking information to the Senate.

The information which I have uncovered includes:

• CHRC theft of internet communications
• CHRC staff signing onto questionable websites and entrapping people
• CHRC staff’s contempt for freedom of speech, including their testimony that “Freedom of speech is an American concept”
• 99% conviction rate before the Tribunal
• The corrupt investigations of the CHRC, which includes dismissing a complaint because it was a “double-sided” fax
• CHRC exchanging information with Police and others, thus usurping safeguards in criminal law
• CHRC contravening the Canada Post Act, by setting up mail drops in Ottawa, to send out hate posters to receive mail under false names
• CHRC editing court transcripts to remove explosive testimony about the CHRC #1 complainer,  then distributing copies of the doctored transcripts to members of the media
• Decision from the Office of the Privacy Commission, chastising the CHRC for refusing to release information

The CHRC: an Affront to all Canadians

Canadians are sick and tired of the totalitarianism of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and their obsession to restrict freedom of speech on the Internet. Editorials from every major newspaper across Canada have demanded that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act needs to be scrapped.  The Canadian “Human Rights” Commission (CHRC) has become the single largest threat to freedom of expression, religion and personal beliefs in Canada’s History.

Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a direct attack on the freedom of expression guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of these sections allow the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to prosecute anyone alleged to have said or written something “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” whether there is a living, breathing victim or not.

Vague concepts such as speech or writing “liable to cause hatred or contempt” are the basis of expensive state-funded prosecution of individuals. The statute provides no objective legal test for “hate” or any objective means of determining what constitutes “contempt”. As a result, the CHRC is used by various groups and individuals, as a risk-free taxpayer funded method to silence their critics and those they disagree with. CHRC investigators have testified that that “freedom of speech is an American concept” and therefore not valid in Canada. Such statements are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but are standard operating procedure at the CHRC.

Commissioners of the Canadians Human Rights Tribunal, who are not judges and are often not even lawyers, have held that “truth” is not a defence against prosecution under Section 13.  Intent or fair comment are also not defenses.  In fact, there is not a single listed defence under Section 13! Because of the lack of any defenses, the Tribunal has a 99% conviction rate since 1978. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal routinely ignores the principles of fundamental justice, such as the rules of evidence, and these kangaroo courts, even allow hearsay evidence.  The CHRA provides for each Tribunal to make up the rules as they go.

Every journalist, writer, Internet webmaster, publisher and private citizen in Canada can be the subject of a Human Rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth. Given the ambiguity of Section 13, it is virtually impossible for any individual to determine if they might be in violation of Section 13. Arbitrary censorship and punishment are wrong, and cannot be justified in a free society.

“Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.”

(Stephen Harper BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)

Hallmarks of Suppression

1: The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal are not fair, and make arbitrary decisions based on who an accused is rather than on a fair and impartial application of the statute they enforce. High profile accused, such as Macleans, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are given a free pass, while others, less prominent and lacking the resources to hire legal council are relentlessly prosecuted. This creates a chill on the freedom of expression since there is no discernible “line” between speech that is prohibited and speech that is “acceptable” to the CHRC.

2: The CHRC pays no heed to constitutionally protected rights such as Freedom of Expression. In place they use imaginary “rights” such as the “right to be free from contempt”. There is no such right in our Charter. Both the CHRC and the Attorney General’s office considered freedom of speech to be an American concept that does not apply to Canadians. The CHRC only believes in “group” rights, and not the rights of individuals to “speak truth to power”, hence the 99% conviction rate.

3: The CHRC is out of control and is currently under three investigations. CHRC investigators are under criminal investigation by the RCMP for the criminal theft of telecommunications services; the Privacy Commissioner is investigating complaints of CHRC breaches of personal privacy; and CHRC investigation techniques are under review by the Parliamentary Justice Committee. In the meantime, the CHRC continues to apply the law in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

4: The CHRC engages in clandestine spying on Canadians including using aliases to engage others in conversation and writing questionable material while asking for support for views of the alias for use in a subsequent prosecution.

5: The entire process is paid for by taxpayers on behalf of the complainants. The defendants must pay their costs personally. There is no legal aid and there is no way to claim costs, even if the defendants are found innocent.

Over the past few years, the CHRC has tried to bump itself up into a quasi National Security type agency.  Shamelessly, this politically motivated outfit operates in almost complete secrecy, with no rules, no public oversight and continually deflects Access to Information requests over their activities with absurd claims of “security”.

The CHRC has employed some very shady and possibly illegal tactics including;

• Hijacking a private citizens Wireless Internet connection to connect to neo-Nazi websites and print of material and post messages
• infiltration and spying operations on Canadians
• the use of private police databases such as CPIC, (which holds records of millions of Canadians, including data such as dental records, known aliases, addresses, last contact with police, etc)
• infiltration of internet message boards

• telephone record searches

• motor vehicle record searches

• search warrants

• and even tenancy agreements for rental properties.

Because the CHRC is exempt from parliamentary oversight and doesn’t report to a minister, in enjoys carte blanche to do exactly as it pleases.  Inside the CHRC, there are no guidelines on how they need to investigate complaints.  Nor are there any rules on what CHRC employees can do in the course of investigations.  This includes even the totally unacceptable practice of trying to entrap respondents dragged before the CHRC.

Furthermore, to Canada’s great shame, in any Human Rights Commission case, truth is no defence!  It’s a slap in the face of 200 centuries of jurisprudence as intent, malice, effect, fair comment – none of these factors are taken into account by CHRC Tribunals. In fact, if you argue the truth of your statements, it is then used as proof of your guilt, and a rational to increase the amount of fines! Under the legislation there are no defences available. Is it any wonder that from 1977 to 2009 not a single person in over 32 years has ever won?

Tribunals and political inquisitions have no place in Canada. Recently, David Warren writing in the Ottawa Citizen called the Tribunal a “Kangaroo court” and “Star Chamber”. Others have compared them to the Communists, the Nazis, and the medieval Inquisition.  We need to stop the censorship enforcers and let freedom of speech reign. It’s time to abolish the Canadian Human Rights Commission and pack off this shameful censorship outfit to the “embarrassing lapses” dustbin of history.

I hope to hear from you on this pressing issue.

__________________________
Marc Lemire

Email:  marc@lemire.com

Members of Parliament who have openly stated their support for a repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act:

Liberal MP Keith Martin
Liberal MP Dan McTeague
Conservative MP Brad Trost
Conservative MP Rob Anders
Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber
Conservative MP John Baird
Conservative MP James Rajotte
Conservative MP Bruce Stanton
Conservative MP Lee Richardson
Conservative MP Russ Hiebert
Conservative MP Kevin Sorenson
Conservative MP Helena Guergis
Conservative MP Nina Grewal
Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre
Conservative MP Rick Dykstra
Conservative MP John Williams
Conservative MP Rick Casson
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson

Canadian Senators support Freedom of Speech and slam “Human Rights” Censorship

Canadian Senator Doug Finley slams “Human Rights” Commissars
_______________________________________________________________

Canadian Senators support Freedom of Speech and slam “Human Rights” Censorship

“…our own Canadian Human Rights Commission has egregiously violated freedom of speech without any shame. In a censorship trial in 2007, a CHRC investigator named Dean Stacey testified that, “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” He actually said that. The Canadian Human Rights Commission actually admits they do not give free speech any value. That is totally unacceptable.”

Senator Finley – Senate of Canada – March 30, 2010

———————————————————–

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

3rd Session, 40th Parliament,
Volume 147, Issue 13

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

http://parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-E/013db_2010-03-30-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3#52

Erosion of Freedom of Speech

Inquiry—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Doug Finley rose pursuant to notice of March 25, 2010:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to the issue of the erosion of Freedom of Speech in our country.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to call the attention of the Senate to the erosion of freedom of speech in Canada.

There can scarcely be a more important issue than this one. Freedom of speech is, and always has been, the bedrock of our Canadian democracy. The great Alan Borovoy, who was the head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association for more than 40 years, calls freedom of speech a “strategic freedom” because it is a freedom upon which all other freedoms are built. For example, how could we exercise our democratic right to hold elections without free speech? How could we have a fair trial without free speech? What is the point of freedom of assembly if we cannot talk freely at such a public meeting?

Freedom of speech is a most important freedom. Indeed, if we had all our other rights taken away we could still win them back with freedom of speech.

Benjamin Franklin once said: “Without Freedom of thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech is embedded in Parliament’s DNA. The word “Parliament” itself comes from the French word “parler,” to speak. As parliamentarians we guard our freedom jealously. No member of the House of Commons or the Senate may be sued for anything that is said in Parliament. Our freedom of speech is absolute.

Yet, only last week, a few miles from here, censorship reared its ugly head. Ann Coulter, an American political commentator, had been invited to speak at the University of Ottawa. Before she even said a word, she was served with a letter from François Houle, the university’s vice-president, containing a thinly veiled threat that she could face criminal charges if she proceeded with her speech.

On the night of her speech, an unruly mob of nearly 1,000 people, some of whom had publicly mused about assaulting her, succeeded in shutting down her lecture after overwhelmed police said they could not guarantee her safety.

Honourable senators, it was the most un-Canadian display that I personally have seen in years. It was so shocking that hundreds of foreign news media covered the fiasco, from the BBC to The New York Times to CNN. It was an embarrassing moment for Canada because it besmirched our reputation as a bastion of human rights — a reputation hard won in places like Vimy Ridge, Juno Beach and Kandahar.

More important than international embarrassment is the truth those ugly news stories revealed. Too many Canadians, especially those in positions of authority, have replaced the real human right of freedom of speech with a counterfeit human right not to be offended.

An angry mob is bad enough. That may be written off as misguided youth, overcome by enthusiasm. However, such excuses are not available to a university vice-president who obviously wrote his warning letter to Ms. Coulter after careful thought.

Ann Coulter is controversial, she is not to everyone’s taste, but that is irrelevant because freedom of speech means nothing if it applies only to people with whom we agree. To quote George Orwell: “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

In a pluralistic society like Canada, we must protect our right to peacefully disagree with each other. We must allow a diversity of opinion, even if we find some opinions offensive. Unless someone counsels violence or other crimes, we must never use the law to silence them.

Freedom of speech is as Canadian as maple syrup, hockey and the northern lights. It is part of our national identity, our history and our culture. It is section 2 of our 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, listed as one of our “fundamental freedoms;” and it is in the first section of Canada’s 1960 Bill of Rights.

Honourable senators, our Canadian tradition of liberty goes much further back than that. In 1835, a 30-year-old newspaper publisher in Nova Scotia was charged with seditious libel for exposing corruption amongst Halifax politicians. The judge instructed the jury to convict him. At that time, truth was not a defence. The publisher passionately called on the jury to “leave an unshackled press as a legacy to your children.” After only 10 minutes of deliberations, the jury acquitted him. That young man, of course, was Joseph Howe, who would go on to become the premier of Nova Scotia.

Our Canadian tradition of free speech is even older than that. It is part of our inheritance from Great Britain and France.

[Translation]

Quebecers are heir to article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789. This article states:

The free communication of thought and opinion is one of the most invaluable rights of the man; any citizen can thus speak, write, [and] print freely. . .

France has produced some of the most well-known defenders of free speech in the world.

(1650)

François-Marie Arouet, better known by his pen name, Voltaire, was a polemicist who used satire and criticism to press for political and religious reforms. He paid a personal price, facing censorship and legal threats.

[English]

Voltaire put it best when he famously wrote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” His passionate advocacy helped shape liberty on both sides of the Atlantic.

English Canada has an impressive legacy of free speech, too. Like Voltaire, John Milton, the great poet who wrote Paradise Lost, was constantly hounded for his political views. His 1644 pamphlet on free speech, Areopagitica, perhaps the greatest defence of free speech ever written, is as relevant today as it was 350 years ago. In it, Milton wrote, “Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worst, in a free and open encounter?” and, “He who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, but he who destroys a good book kills reason itself . . .”

Yet, despite our 400-year tradition of free speech, the tyrannical instinct to censor still exists. We saw it on a university campus last week, and we see it every week in Canada’s misleadingly named human rights commissions.

This week in Vancouver, a stand up comedian named Guy Earl has been on trial before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for the crime of telling jokes that someone did not find funny. An audience member who heckled him is suing him for $20,000 because she found his retorts offensive. They may have been offensive, but what is more offensive is that a government agency would be the arbiter of good taste or humour. Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn was sentenced to eight years of hard labour for telling a joke about Stalin’s moustache. It is a disgrace that Canada is now putting comedians on trial.

There is not a lot that the Senate can do about the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, but our own Canadian Human Rights Commission has egregiously violated freedom of speech without any shame. In a censorship trial in 2007, a CHRC investigator named Dean Stacey testified that, “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” He actually said that. The Canadian Human Rights Commission actually admits they do not give free speech any value. That is totally unacceptable.

Freedom of speech is the great non-partisan principle that every Member of Parliament can agree on — that every Canadian can agree on. I will never tire of quoting the great Liberal Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier when he said that Canada is free and its freedom is its nationality. I will readily give credit to Keith Martin, the Liberal MP from British Columbia, who two years ago introduced a private member’s motion to repeal the censorship provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Honourable senators, I call for this inquiry to accomplish five things: first, to reaffirm that freedom of speech is a great Canadian principle that goes back hundreds of years; second, to put Canada’s censors on notice that their days of infringing upon our freedoms with impunity are over; third, to show moral support for those who are battling censors; fourth, to inquire into the details of what went so desperately wrong at the University of Ottawa to ensure that those awful events never happen again; and, fifth, to inspire a debate that hopefully will lead to a redefinition of section 13.1 of the [Canadian] Human Rights Act.

Honourable senators, there are times for partisan debate when parties must naturally be at odds with one another. This is not one of those times. Freedom of speech and respect for differing views is a foundational principle of our entire parliamentary system — indeed, of our entire legal system, as well.

I look forward to the constructive comments of my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to build on the bipartisan history that Canadian free speech enjoys. If we can rededicate our Parliament to protecting this most important right, we will have done our country a great service, but if we fail to stop and indeed reverse this erosion of freedom, we will have failed our most basic duty, the duty to uphold our constitution and the rights in it, the rights it guarantees for all Canadians.

I know that, like so many generations of Canadians before us, we will meet the challenges of our time and live up to our responsibility to pass on to our children the same freedoms that we inherited from our parents. God keep our land glorious and free.

———–

http://www.stormfront.org/posterity/13texan/1001ndx.htm

1001 Quotes By and About Jews

Compiled By: Willie Martin

001

VOLTAIRE (Francois Marie Arouet) 18th century French philosopher, writer:

“Why are the Jews hated? It is the inevitable result of their laws; they either have to conquer everybody or be hated by the whole human race…”

“The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous - cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity.” (Essai sur le Moeurs)

“You seem to me to be the maddest of the lot. The Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and the Negroes of Guinea are much more reasonable and more honest people than your ancestors, the Jews. You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.” (From a letter to a Jew who had written to him, complaining of his ‘anti-Semitism.’ Examen des Quelques Objections…dans L’Essai sur le Moeurs.)

002

“You will only find in the Jews an ignorant and barbarous people, who for a long time have joined the most sordid avarice to the most detestable superstition and to the most invincible hatred of all peoples which tolerate and enrich them.” (”Juif,” Dictionnaire Philosophique)

003

“I know that there are some Jews in the English colonies. These marranos go wherever there is money to be made…But whether these circumcised who sell old clothes claim that they are of the tribe of Naphtali or Issachar is not of the slightest importance. They are, simply, the biggest scoundrels who have ever dirtied the face of the earth.” (Letter to Jean-Baptiste Nicolas de Lisle de Sales, December 15, 1773. Correspondance. 86:166)

004

“They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.” (Lettres de Memmius a Ciceron, 1771)

005

CANNOT, E. 19th century French reformer. In La Renovation,journal of the socialist school of CHARLES FOURIER: “Jews! To the heights of your Sinai…I humbly lift myself. I stand erect and cry out to you, in behalf of all my humble equals, of all those whom your spoliation has brought to grief, who died in misery through you and whose trembling shades accuse you:  Jews! for Cain and Iscariot, leave us, leave us! Ah, cross the Red Sea again, and go down there to the desert, to the promised land which is waiting for you, the only country fit for you; o you wicked, rude and dishonest people, go there!!! (”Israel”)

006

“I participated with Herzl in the first Zionist Congress which was held in Basle in 1897. Herzl was the most prominent figure at that first Jewish World Congress. He worked to achieve an object which had been fixed beforehand. Just as Isaiah foresaw, decades before the event occurred, the victorious power of Cyrus before anyone else, so did Herzl foresee twenty years, before we experienced them, the revolutions brought about by the Great War, and he prepared us for that which was going to happen. He foresaw the splitting up of Turkey, and he foresaw that England would obtain control over Palestine. ‘We may expect important developments in the world.’ These were the words spoken by Herzl twenty years before the Great War. He added that the events would offer the Jewish people fresh opportunities.” (The Judisk Tidskrift, No. 6, Aug.-Sept., 1929, written by Dr. Ehrenpreis, Chief Rabbi of Sweden).

007

“Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced into it, not this year but later…” (The Jewish Emil Ludwig, Les Annales, June, 1934)

008

“Whenever an American or a Filipino fell at Bataan or Corregidor or at any other of the now historic spots where MacArthur’s men put up their remarkable fight, their survivors could have said with truth: ‘The real reason that boy went to his death, was because Hitler’s anti-Semitic movement succeeded in Germany.’” (The American Hebrew, July 24, 1942).

009

“Kill the Germans, wherever you find them! Every German is our moral enemy. Have no mercy on women, children, or the aged! Kill every German — wipe them out!” (Llya Ehrenburg, Glaser, p. 111).

010

“The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end.” (The Jewish newspaper, Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939)

011

“Germany is the enemy of Judaism and must be pursued with deadly hatred. The goal of Judaism of today is: a merciless campaign against all German peoples and the complete destruction of the nation. We demand a complete blockade of trade, the importation of raw materials stopped, and retaliation towards every German, woman and child.” (Jewish professor A. Kulischer, October, 1937)

012

“Step by step, I have arrived at the conviction that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and fatal. At the Nuremberg Trials, I, together with my Russian colleague, condemned Nazi Aggression and Terror. I believe now that Hitler and the German People did not want war. But we, {England}, declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of Balance of Power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans’{Jews} around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler’s pleading, not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany: instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Empire. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentless pursued now, only under a different label.” (Ashamed and Humiliated The British Attorney General, Sir Hartle Shawcross, said in a speech at Stourbridge, March 16/84 (AP)).

013

“Our fight against Germany must be carried to the limit of what is possible. Israel has been attacked. Let us, therefore, defend Israel! Against the awakened Germany, we put an awakened Israel. And the world will defend us.” (Jewish author Pierre Creange in his book Epitres aux Juifs, 1938)

014

“Judea declares War on Germany.” (Daily Express, March 24, 1934)

015

“Germany must be turned into a waste land, as happened there during the 30-year War.” (Das Morgenthau-Tagebuch, The Morgenthau Dairy, p. 11).

016

“The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany…” (Valadimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934)

(more…)

Famous English war painting ‘Merry-go-round’ by Mark Gertler painted after the Somme, 1916

___________________________________________________________________________

AND THERE THE JEWS!
from A PROPHET AT HOME, Chapter 5
by Douglas Reed. 1941

Editor’s Preface: It was my intention to have this chapter from Douglas Reed’s 1941 book, A Prophet At Home typed up and published online for November 11th to coincide with Remembrance Day. It didn’t happen but readers will still benefit from what the author has to say about conditions in Britain in 1939-40 as they relate to those of today in Canada and the USA as well as elsewhere in Europe, etc.

Reed returned to England in 1939 from the Continent after spending a number of years in Berlin, Vienna and Prague working as Chief correspondent for the London Times. In that capacity he was privy to a panoramic view of the political landscape in Germany, Austria and Czechoslovakia leading up to the resumption of the World War in 1939.

This particular chapter from his final book of a three-part series that began in 1938 with Insanity Fair followed in ‘39 by Disgrace Abounding is extremely relevant to our own times and bears close reading. Seventy years have passed yet the information contained in this chapter appears to be in a time-warp as if the conditions which precipitated it somehow were frozen in time. As such it now stands as a striking historical record, clearly illustrating the degree of power and influence which the Zionist Jews of his day wielded over the British parliament and the British press.

Concomitant with this fact and more important in terms of today is the evidence which Reed provides that shows how the Jews of the 1930s were already consummate masters of the immigration game.

It has been a contention of mine for a number of years that the Zionist Jews who control Canada’s PM, House of Parliament and Judiciary are using their illegitimate influence over government to manipulate and control immigration policies; ones which have been having a detrimental effect upon Canadian society for decades and which also dovetail fully with the Zionist agenda of destroying all nation states in the world in order to facilitate the implementation of their Zionist one world government.

Immigration, like the control of the media, banking, pharmaceutical conglomerates, major corporations including oil and gas and water and cultural and educational institutions, is a vital part of the program to destroy the democratic framework upon which sovereign nations are built and the Zionist Jews have been working this tool here in Canada and elsewhere with deftness and surgical precision for many, many decades. This thesis that immigration policies are being exploited for partisan Zionist purposes should become obvious to any reader who takes the time to study what Reed has to say about the invasion of England by the Jews of Eastern Europe, or as the Jewish media of the day was wont to call them, ‘friendly aliens’; an endearing term to describe the hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees who flooded into Great Britain during the years leading up to the second act of the World War to take advantage of the precarious political conditions then existing in the British Isles.

There is much more though in this chapter that helps to explain some of the current behaviour on the part of today’s extremist Zionist Jews who are going to great lengths to deflect the growing criticism of their doctrine of supremacist discrimination and racism that is now becoming almost rampant on the one venue for free information still not entirely controlled by their excessive and pervasive power – the Internet.

Reed explains how the Jews of his day used their “anti-Semitism” card to full effect whenever anyone challenged the government’s and the media’s blatant discrimination aimed at the English and the Arabs while all the while consistently favouring the ‘friendly alien’.

Given the fact that today, seven decades later, Canadians in the majority still haven’t grasped the fact that their “mainstream” media and their government are absolutely controlled and manipulated to suit this extremist Zionist Jew agenda, Reed’s prophetic warning of 1941 stands forth in even greater relief as a hallmark to be heeded by anyone concerned with knowing the truth about who is really pulling the strings of our Members of Parliament in Ottawa.

The parallels between Reed’s description of the behaviour of the Members of the British Parliament respecting the ‘friendly aliens’ during a period of critical danger to the nation as a whole and that of our own parliament today is as uncanny as it is frightening to contemplate. It begs the question as to whether the term “change” is in fact a reality or merely a ruse to soothe the ignorant citizenry who still are brainwashed by the Zionist Jew tube.

Read Reed and you will discover why censorship and draconian legislation like sec. 13 today are of such paramount importance to the Zionist Jews and why the extremist Zionist Jew must continually re-create this false illusion now being coined as the “new anti-Semitism” by such Zionist Jew zealots as our former federal Liberal Attorney-General Mr. Irwin Cotler and being flogged upon an unsuspecting public by the likes of B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress and even committees formed from our Members of Parliament.

Anyone wishing to access what remains of Reed’s works is encouraged to go to http://www.abebooks.com where you will still find a few of his works available. His most highly recommended work of course is the 1956 edition of The Controversy of Zion which readers will find online at RadicalPress.com.
—————-

AND THERE THE JEWS!
from A PROPHET AT HOME, Chapter 5
by Douglas Reed. 1941

DOUGLAS REED

A provoking thought: if Rupert Brooke, whose poetry, as Lord Halifax said in his ‘This is a conflict of youth against youth’ speech, so inspired the generation of 1914, if this Rupert Brooke had not died, with about a million other Britishers, in the 1914-1918 section of the war which has now been resumed, he would have needed to revise the poem he wrote in the Cafe des Westens, in the Kurfurstendamm in Berlin, in 1912. He wrote that poem sitting at the same table with a friend of mine, Rothay Reynolds, who in the years between the two sections of the World War struggled hard to fulfill the difficult task of being Berlin Correspondent of Lord Rothermere’s Daily Mail, and when Rupert Brooke had finished he turned to Rothay Reynolds and said, ‘I have made this cafe famous’, which was true.

I well remember how that song of England wrung an Englishman’s heart, that is, the heart of a very young and fervent Englishman, who took on trust nearly everything he was told about his native country, of which he had seen but little, in the 1914-1918 war. But if Rupert Brooke had lived in 1939, or thereabouts, he would have found himself out of touch with the taste of the times. For his poem, ‘Grantchester,’ begins:

Du lieber Gott!
Here am I, sweating, sick and hot,
And there the shadowed waters fresh
Lean up to embrace the naked flesh.
Temperamentvoll German jews
Drink beer around – and there the dews…

Well, well, well. How times have changed. Rupert Brooke is dead; the war-to-end-war has gone and the war-to-continue-war is simmering nicely; but the relative position of Jews and dews seems to have been reversed, or have we now both? Rupert Brooke, the singer of the generation of 1914, seemed to find the Jews in Berlin a thought unsympathetic and none took it amiss of him that he said so; indeed, the thought of those temperamental beer-drinking Jews in Berlin helped to fortify the faith of the young Englishman of 1914 in ‘the things he was fighting for’. Now we, he thought, have dews, and we are going to keep them.

But if Rupert Brooke had written twenty-five years later he would have known that those two lines must come out, or else he would have had to find a fresh rhyme for dews, for by the time the World War in which he died was resumed no Englishman of his class and kind would have thought of writing anything which would set the critics yelping the dread name ‘anti-Semite’.

             RUPERT BROOKE - BRITISH POET

By the time the World War was resumed, indeed, the general understanding had come to be that the Jews of Berlin were the most valuable citizens of that town and that we were very lucky indeed to have them, because they were so much cleverer than ourselves. By some further process of reasoning which was a little outside my comprehension, the general understanding seemed also to be that we should fight Germany to enable these people, whom we had been fortunate enough to obtain, to return there as soon as possible; this, as far as I could gather, was among ‘the things’ we were about to fight for.

When I returned to England, on the eve of the new war which had become almost inevitable, I brought back with me a particular interest in this question, because for many years, since 1933, I had noticed, with growing misgiving, that, chiefly through the very great influence which the Jews in all countries exercised in the interest of their co-religionists, this relatively small aspect of an enormous problem was being set out of all proportion to the whole, that the entire wood was disappearing behind one tree.

(more…)

Lisbon And The Zionist Nightmare

By Mike James in Germany – 8 November 2009

You make me laugh. You make me cry. You are fighters. You are natural-born rebels. You are my people.

You are, by virtue of your Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Frankish, Teutonic, Alpine, Old Mediterranean and Scandinavian ancestry, one whole bunch of contentious, argumentative, reactionary, swing-a-fist after one too many beers, sons of proverbial bitches.

You are the scum of the earth. You are an utter disgrace.

You are largely ignorant, dumbed-down, manipulated, deceived, naive, easily duped by The International Tribe and their grotesque quasi-religious fables and their International Money System.

But you are heroes. And I love you.

Upon the burden sufficient to the strength of your shoulders, all things depend.

(more…)

http://www.truthtellers.org/alerts/adlcampaignstotrain.htm
ADL CAMPAIGNS TO TRAIN HATE PROSECUTORS

By Rev. Ted Pike

October 11, 2009

For the past ten years, the Anti-Defamation League has introduced its federal hate crime bill into Congress five times – and lost. ADL claims to have the purest intentions—concern that federal power is needed if a state does not have a hate crimes law or is unwilling or unable to punish a hate crime. ADL insisted passage of a federal hate crimes law would change little: the vast majority of prosecutions of hate crimes will be initiated by states.

But in its exultant press announcement yesterday, ADL reveals the real reason it has never given up its struggle to make its hate bill the law of the land: ADL wants an army of “anti-hate” prosecutors who can go after those ADL considers guilty of bias-motivated crimes. After giving itself credit as chief architect of hate crimes laws on the state and federal level, ADL says:

The end of the legislative path for the hate crimes bill also marks the beginning of the next campaign – training prosecutors and law enforcement officials about the new law. ADL stands ready to help lead that continuing effort.

ADL is clearly beginning a second phase – to train lawyers and law enforcement nationwide on prosecuting hate criminals. In ADL-speak, “haters” are those who oppose homosexuality, allege Jews dominate media, government, finance, or are guilty of “strong” criticism of Israel or its leaders.

ADL is already the primary source for hate crimes education for the US Justice Department, FBI and all local law enforcement. In 1990, through passage of its Hate Crimes Statistics Act, ADL granted itself such empowerment. But ADL wants much more.

Entirely staffed by Jews, ADL is headed by a devoutly religious Orthodox Jew, Abe Foxman (See, ADL’s Foxman: Man of Faith?). Like its sister Jewish attack group, the Southern Poverty Law Center, ADL has a focused religious objective: to revive ancient Jewish persecution of Christians, begun 2,000 years ago and recorded in the New Testament. The true intent of ADL’s federal and 45 state hate laws is to empower the legal, systematic, and ruthless persecution of Talmudic Judaism’s greatest rival, Christianity. To this end, ADL now calls for a national “campaign” to train an army of federal and local hate crimes prosecutors.

Already, ADL and SPLC–through their Missouri Police MIA Directive as well as warnings from ADL sycophant Janet Nepalitano and her Department of Homeland Security–stereotype Christian and conservatives as unstable bigots and potential terrorist threats. ADL’s Office of Global Anti-Semitism in the US State Department says anyone who believes the New Testament claim that Jewish leaders masterminded the crucifixion is a “classic anti-Semite.” (See, U.S. State Department Says New Testament is ‘Anti-Semitic’?)

ADL’s new campaign to train an army of prosecutors to enforce the federal hate crimes law will usher in progressive arrest of Christian “haters.”  These could well be destined to occupy FEMA prison camps in the years ahead. Ultimately, many could be delivered up, as Christ prophesied, to be tried, convicted and imprisoned in the courts and synagogues of Jewry (Matthew 10:17). Their “crimes against the Jewish people” would include criticism of matters Jewish (anti-Semitism) and questioning the accuracy of the sacred 6 million figure of Holocaust victims (Holocaust denial). However, most will likely be indicted under Jewish Noahide laws for heresy – the “idolatry” of affirming the deity of Jesus Christ, the second member of the Trinity. (See, Coming Jewish ‘Utopia’ Ruled by Noahide Laws)

The Book of Revelation prophesies that the garments of the Great Harlot (Israel and international Jewish control) will be soaked with the blood of the martyrs of Jesus (Revelation 17:6). (See, Israel: On the Way to Empire in the Mideast)

Jewish world dominion will fulfill Biblical prophesy but also a number of predictions by modern Jewish leaders:

“The Jews energetically reject the idea of fusion with the other nationalities and cling firmly to their historical hope of world empire…” (Max Mandelstam, World Zionist Congress, July 1898.)

“Jerusalem is not the capitol of Israel and world Jewry: it aspires to become the spiritual center of the world…” (David Ben-Gurion, Jewish Chronicle, London, Dec. 16, 1949)

“In Jerusalem,  the United Nations (a truly United Nations) will build a Shrine of the Prophets to serve the federated union of all continents; this will be the seat of the Supreme Court of Mankind, to settle all controversies among the federated continents, as prophesied by Isaiah…” (David Ben-Burion, Look Magazine, Jan. 16, 1962)

“The Jewish people cannot ever be destroyed, but rather they and their G-d of History will emerge in days to come triumphant over the evils and the foolishness of all other nations. Zion will and must emerge as the mount to which all other peoples turn.” (Rabbi Meir Kahane, Jewish Press, Brooklyn, New York, Nov. 9, 1973.)

Will Christian America silently allow President Obama to sign ADL’s hate bill as early as this week, accelerating arrival of the Zionist New World order? Incredibly, all major Christian and conservative organizations remain oblivious to the tactic of pressuring Obama to keep his promise to veto a wasteful defense authorization bill–one that includes $100 billion funding for extra F-35 jet engines. Only the National Prayer Network proclaims that we can still defeat the hate bill through presidential veto.

ADL now considers passage of the hate bill a virtual reality. It’s not.

The Senate has yet to give final approval, which will probably take place early this week. Pres. Obama still has to sign the defense bill with the hate bill attached. Obama doesn’t like this defense authorization bill. I believe he’s burned that Congress has defied him. It forces him to approve what he has steadfastly vowed he would not approve –thousands of F-35 engines he says squander taxpayers’ money.

It is up to Christian America NOW to exert greater pressure on Obama than is now being applied by ADL. We must demand he stays true to his promise and vetoes the defense bill. If he vetoes it, the hate bill will be dead in this session of Congress. ADL will have to cancel their second “campaign” to create a federally-authorized army of prosecutors against Christians.

Take action NOW! Don’t be distracted by more controversy about healthcare. Pressure Obama to keep his word.

Email these two messages to the President immediately:

Mr. President, I will vote out Democrats at midterms if you sign the freedom-destroying federal hate crimes bill.

Mr. President, I expect you to keep your promise to veto any military authorization bill that wastes $100 billion of taxpayers’ money on unnecessary F-35 jet engines.

Send these two messages in separate emails.  You may cut and paste them in at www.whitehouse.gov/contact .
This week may decide if America still has hope, or will begin descent into impending slavery. The hate bill could be on Obama’s desk by Tuesday.

Your emails should be there first thing Monday morning.

Endnote:

Modern or “rabbinic” Judaism continues unaltered the teaching of the ancient Pharisees who killed Christ. In my 345-page book Israel: Our Duty…Our Dilemma (available at www.truthtellers.org), I thoroughly document that deep within the teachings of the Pharisees, as contained in their Talmud and Kabbalah, is the oft-repeated assertion that Christianity and its belief in “three Gods” is idolatry; if the world were put right, Christians, as heretics and idolaters, should be killed. After the apostle Paul was converted, he realized that a new “age of grace” made obsolete any duty to kill “heretics,” but before that, as Saul of Tarsus, he, in all good conscience as an Orthodox Jew, killed and hailed into prison as many Christians as possible.

For Talmudic Judaism, no new age of grace ended the ancient duty to cleanse the land of idolaters. Instead, Talmudic, kabbalistic literature, (the highest religious and ethical guide to Orthodox Jews) teaches that when the messiah (Antichrist) comes, he and the righteous of Israel will follow the precedent of Joshua and the Hebrews entering Canaan and annihilate all “idol-worshippers” – Christians– from the earth.

If you don’t think Jewish supremacists today are capable of such horror, just remember what Jewish supremacists unleashed in 1917. Conquering Russia, they set in motion the eventual slaughter of more than 100 million Gentiles, many of whom were Christians (See, Jewish Activists Created Communism).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Let the Anti-Defamation League teach you how they have saddled 45 states with hate laws capable of persecuting Christians, and spearhead attempts to pass the federal hate crimes bill: http://www.adl.org/99hatecrime/intro.asp .

TALK SHOW HOSTS: Interview Rev. Ted Pike on this subject. Call (503) 631-3808.

The freedom-saving outreach of Rev. Ted Pike and the National Prayer Network is solely supported by sale of books, videos and your financial support. All gifts are tax-deductible.

NATIONAL PRAYER NETWORK, P.O. Box 828, Clackamas, OR 97015
www.truthtellers.org

Harry Abrams: Big Mouth Singer or Just a Gaby Haas Wannabe?
By Arthur Topham
October 5, 2009

“There is nothing that the International Jew fears so much as the truth, or any hint of the truth about himself or his plans.”
~Henry Ford Sr.,The International Jew, Vol. I, p. 200. originally published in The Dearborn Independent.

Back in the 70s when the kids were in their early years the grandparents used to buy them the latest plastic Fisher-Price toys. Their parents, being Hippies, weren’t into plastic so whenever they got something brand new from the grand-folks they usually took a shine to it. One toy in particular that I’ll always remember with fondness was a musical one that sang songs. It consisted of a number of variously-colored, bright plastic heads all lined up in a couple of rows like a chorus of singers and when you pushed the right button their mouths would all suddenly open in unison and a particular electronic sound/song would blare forth. I believe it’s brand name was “The Big Mouth Singers.”

Well, after reading some of Harry Abrams’ postings on FreeDominion.com, where he has taken up residency since July 22, 2009, I’m beginning to think that he and B’nai Brith Canada may possibly have been the prototype the creator of this delightful toy had in mind.

(more…)

[Editor’s Note: RadicalPress.com was just notified by Marc Lemire of this latest decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to file an application today (Oct.1, 2009) for a Judicial Review of the Warman v. Lemire decision of Sept. 2, 2009.

As in my previous post regarding the Commission’s decision to persevere in recommending that the hearing between B’nai Brith Canada and RadicalPress.com proceed, this new development is but further evidence of the viciousness of this Bolshevik group of malcontents who refuse to accept the wishes of the Canadian public.

Judging from the context and wording of this Judicial Review application I would venture to guess that it was written in full by B’nai Brith Canada and given to the Commission to rubber stamp.

I feel bad for Marc Lemire and Barbara Kulaszka as this will mean having to strap on their guns once again and join in the battle that doesn’t appear to be ending soon.

God grant them courage to continue on!]

http://www.chrc-ccdp.ca/whats_new/default-en.asp?id=570

What’s New

01/10/2009

Judicial Review Application in the Warman v. Lemire case

On Thursday, October 1, 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Commission applied for Judicial Review of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s decision in the Warman v. Lemire case before the Federal Court.

The Commission applied for Judicial Review so that technical but important legal issues raised by the decision can be clarified. These issues go beyond this particular case and could have an impact on other administrative tribunals. As a result, the uncertainty created by the decision is not in the public interest and merits a binding decision by a higher court.

The application is based on two grounds. It is the Commission’s view that:

The Tribunal erred in law when it found that the manner by which the applicant exercises its statutory mandate could render section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act unconstitutional; and

The Tribunal’s findings of unconstitutionality also resulted from the adoption of subsections 54(1)(c) and (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, subsequent to the Supreme Court of Canada’ s decision in Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892. The Tribunal erred in law when it refused to apply section 13 of the Act because a refusal to apply subsections 54(1)(c) and (1.1) would have provided a sufficient remedy in respect of this ground.

The Commission endorses the Tribunal’s narrow interpretation of section 13, which is consistent with the Supreme Court and Tribunal’s jurisprudence as well as with the Commission’s 2009 Special Report to Parliament. The Commission accepts the Tribunal’s finding that the penalty clause is unconstitutional. In fact, the Commission itself has recommended that this provision be repealed in its Special Report to Parliament.

The Commission is a servant of Parliament and considers that Parliament’s statutes must be applied unless they are found to be unconstitutional. In this case, it is the Commission’s view that the Tribunal went too far in refusing to apply section 13 in its entirety when the constitutional concern could be remedied by refusing to apply the penalty clause in 54(1)(c).

————

The famous Bird-head Haggadah, produced in the Upper Rhine about 1300 A.D.
__________________________________________________________________________

[Editor’s Note: Elizabeth Dilling, all things considered, was a prophetess in her own time. Her various works, which include her exposure of the Zionist Jewish infiltration of the United States of America and her analysis of Bolshevism, Communism and Zionism as one Beast with numerous names, are a testament to her courage and her foresight in revealing the truth during a period of American history when to speak out was to risk the inevitable attacks by the Jewish establishment. Groups like the American Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith International and their attack-dog the Anti-Defamation League, were always ready and willing to vilify anyone who dared to speak out about their plans to implement their one world government and Elizabeth Dilling was forced to deal with their Talmudic tactics from the moment she picked up the sword of truth.

Each chapter of her book is preceded by the Forward and an Introduction. Readers who go beyond Chapter One will find it convenient to just scroll down the page until the start of the new chapter.]

—————

Foreword

Elizabeth Dilling Stokes was born, raised, and educated in Chicago. After attending the University of Chicago she married, and for many years devoted her life to her children, social activities on the North Shore of Chicago, and being a concert harpist. After hearing of the great “humanitarian experiment” in Soviet Russia, she traveled there in 1931, and was able to go behind the scenes. She was shocked at the forced labor, the squalid living quarters, and deplorable living conditions, and the atmosphere of fear created by the Soviet dictatorship.

She was most shocked by the virulent anti-Christianity of the atheist Communist regime.

Following her return to the United States she lectured and wrote about what she had seen, realizing from the opposition which immediately arose that a substantial Marxist movement was active in the United States.  In 1934 her first book The Red Network was published, an expose of the persons and organizations furthering Red causes in the United States. In 1936, her second book, The Roosevelt Red Record and Its Background, was published. Almost immediately after these books were published, she was attacked as “anti-semitic,” although she had actually offered her anti-Communist services to Jewish organizations, and knew nothing of organized Jewish involvement in the Marxist movement.  After researching and studying, however, in 1940 she published her third book The Octopus, which dealt with these subjects.

After World War II commenced, Mrs. Dilling became convinced that, despite President Roosevelt’s protestations that not one American boy would ever again fight on foreign soil, there was a movement afoot to involve the United States, with the result that a substantial part of the world would be communized later.

In 1941, she led a Mother’s March on Washington to oppose the “Lend Lease” bill, proclaimed to help keep us out of war by its sponsors, but proving the last step for our involvement.  The bill passed by only one vote.  A few months later, the United States went to war.

In 1944, Mrs. Dilling’s views involved her in the now infamous mass “sedition” trial.  The case was ultimately dismissed  by a Federal Court as “a travesty on justice.”

She was later remarried to Jeremiah Stokes, a Christian anti-Communist writer, and she continued to write and lecture in behalf of Christianity and Constitutional Americanism, first publishing this book in 1964.
(more…)

[Editor’s Note: Elizabeth Dilling, all things considered, was a prophetess in her own time. Her various works, which include her exposure of the Zionist Jewish infiltration of the United States of America and her analysis of Bolshevism, Communism and Zionism as one Beast with numerous names, are a testament to her courage and her foresight in revealing the truth during a period of American history when to speak out was to risk the inevitable attacks by the Jewish establishment. Groups like the American Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith International and their attack-dog the Anti-Defamation League, were always ready and willing to vilify anyone who dared to speak out about their plans to implement their one world government and Elizabeth Dilling was forced to deal with their Talmudic tactics from the moment she picked up the sword of truth.

Each chapter of her book is preceded by the Forward and an Introduction. Readers who go beyond Chapter One will find it convenient to just scroll down the page until the start of the new chapter.]

—————

Foreword

Elizabeth Dilling Stokes was born, raised, and educated in Chicago. After attending the University of Chicago she married, and for many years devoted her life to her children, social activities on the North Shore of Chicago, and being a concert harpist. After hearing of the great “humanitarian experiment” in Soviet Russia, she traveled there in 1931, and was able to go behind the scenes. She was shocked at the forced labor, the squalid living quarters, and deplorable living conditions, and the atmosphere of fear created by the Soviet dictatorship.

She was most shocked by the virulent anti-Christianity of the atheist Communist regime.

Following her return to the United States she lectured and wrote about what she had seen, realizing from the opposition which immediately arose that a substantial Marxist movement was active in the United States.  In 1934 her first book The Red Network was published, an expose of the persons and organizations furthering Red causes in the United States.   In 1936, her second book, The Roosevelt Red Record and Its Background, was published.

Almost immediately after these books were published, she was attacked as “anti-semitic,” although she had actually offered her anti-Communist services to Jewish organizations, and knew nothing of organized Jewish involvement in the Marxist movement.  After researching and studying, however, in 1940 she published her third book The Octopus, which dealt with these subjects.

After World War II commenced, Mrs. Dilling became convinced that, despite President Roosevelt’s protestations that not one American boy would ever again fight on foreign soil, there was a movement afoot to involve the United States, with the result that a substantial part of the world would be communized later.

In 1941, she led a Mother’s March on Washington to oppose the “Lend Lease” bill, proclaimed to help keep us out of war by its sponsors, but proving the last step for our involvement.  The bill passed by only one vote.  A few months later, the United States went to war.

In 1944, Mrs. Dilling’s views involved her in the now infamous mass “sedition” trial.  The case was ultimately dismissed  by a Federal Court as “a travesty on justice.”

She was later remarried to Jeremiah Stokes, a Christian anti-Communist writer, and she continued to write and lecture in behalf of Christianity and Constitutional Americanism, first publishing this book in 1964.
(more…)

[Editor’s Note: Elizabeth Dilling, all things considered, was a prophetess in her own time. Her various works, which include her exposure of the Zionist Jewish infiltration of the United States of America and her analysis of Bolshevism, Communism and Zionism as one Beast with numerous names, are a testament to her courage and her foresight in revealing the truth during a period of American history when to speak out was to risk the inevitable attacks by the Jewish establishment. Groups like the American Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith International and their attack-dog the Anti-Defamation League, were always ready and willing to vilify anyone who dared to speak out about their plans to implement their one world government and Elizabeth Dilling was forced to deal with their Talmudic tactics from the moment she picked up the sword of truth.

Foreword

Elizabeth Dilling Stokes was born, raised, and educated in Chicago. After attending the University of Chicago she married, and for many years devoted her life to her children, social activities on the North Shore of Chicago, and being a concert harpist. After hearing of the great “humanitarian experiment” in Soviet Russia, she traveled there in 1931, and was able to go behind the scenes. She was shocked at the forced labor, the squalid living quarters, and deplorable living conditions, and the atmosphere of fear created by the Soviet dictatorship.

She was most shocked by the virulent anti-Christianity of the atheist Communist regime.

Following her return to the United States she lectured and wrote about what she had seen, realizing from the opposition which immediately arose that a substantial Marxist movement was active in the United States.  In 1934 her first book The Red Network was published, an expose of the persons and organizations furthering Red causes in the United States.   In 1936, her second book, The Roosevelt Red Record and Its Background, was published.

Almost immediately after these books were published, she was attacked as “anti-semitic,” although she had actually offered her anti-Communist services to Jewish organizations, and knew nothing of organized Jewish involvement in the Marxist movement.  After researching and studying, however, in 1940 she published her third book The Octopus, which dealt with these subjects.

After World War II commenced, Mrs. Dilling became convinced that, despite President Roosevelt’s protestations that not one American boy would ever again fight on foreign soil, there was a movement afoot to involve the United States, with the result that a substantial part of the world would be communized later.

In 1941, she led a Mother’s March on Washington to oppose the “Lend Lease” bill, proclaimed to help keep us out of war by its sponsors, but proving the last step for our involvement.  The bill passed by only one vote.  A few months later, the United States went to war.

In 1944, Mrs. Dilling’s views involved her in the now infamous mass “sedition” trial.  The case was ultimately dismissed  by a Federal Court as “a travesty on justice.”

She was later remarried to Jeremiah Stokes, a Christian anti-Communist writer, and she continued to write and lecture in behalf of Christianity and Constitutional Americanism, first publishing this book in 1964.
(more…)

Thought Makes You Free In the EU [and Canada]
by Bernhard Schaub

The world is in flux. The financial crisis has shattered our too-blind faith in the regnant economic and political system. The good in this crisis: it makes you think. Many realize that the remedies proposed by government are no remedies at all, but merely measures intended to keep the existing system alive. The idea is spreading that the whole thing in reality is a giant redistribution intended to concentrate money and power into even fewer hands than before. It is high time to end our unquestioning ways with some serious thought.

The present economic system-like all systems-rests on certain axioms, certain underpinnings, that cannot be disturbed without putting the entire edifice into danger of collapse. Such underpinnings are for that reason always sacrosanct.

He who wishes to be accepted, or even merely tolerated in our society does well to acknowledge, or at least not to openly dispute, certain core beliefs: To these belong devotion to the free market, including debt financing and the independence of the banking system, to so-called parliamentary democracy, including the attendant two-party system, devotion to philo-semitism, multiculturalism, homosexuality, and abortion together with the highest praises for the civil rights to which one considers oneself entitled.

It is even permitted to belong to whatever religion or philosophy one might wish to-but subject to the unstated condition that one doesn’t really take it seriously. Otherwise, one acquires very quickly the odor of fundamentalism.

In today’s political and cultural landscape, a fundamentalist is anyone who holds his Catholic, or Evangelical, or Islamic, or national-or whatever feelings of any kind-above those highest of values enumerated above. Therefore, fundamentalists cannot be tolerated under the global New World Order that is the central theme of American politics. It is only a very slight distance that separates the fundamentalist from the charge of  being a terrorist. And it is not necessary here to spell out what sort of treatment awaits terrorists. That has been ordained by 9/11.

The thoughtful European notes with puzzlement that the proscriptions set forth by Political Correctness and monitored by the culture and the law grow more numerous every day. The citizen is condemned to silence by all manner of gag laws and cowed by the looming threat of the EU criminal code because he no longer knows what is punishable, nor why, nor where. Lately, we’re told, nearly 14,000 “rights violations”-whatever those might be-were committed in Germany in 2008, of which fully 700 were violent. Therefore, there remain from these numbers about 13,000 nonviolent “rights violations.” This is notable, especially in light of the incessant reminders by self-righteous German politicians to China and other countries to “uphold civil rights.” Obviously, the sacred rights of freedom of expression, academic freedom, religious or philosophical belief, etc., are valid only so long as they don’t oppose any of the listed Canons of Western Values.

Catch-22

Here is a Catch-22. It is profoundly disingenuous, not to say outright mendacious: an easily seen-through maneuver for the benefit of the ruling elites of the West.

The greatest taboo of Western propriety, however, is of a historical nature. That is, where the matter has to do with Nazism or the so-called Third Reich, contemporary thought abdicates completely. The brain is relieved of its function, and quasi-religious reflexes take over. All powers of discernment cease, any inquiry into the Holy Writ is thought inappropriate, even malign. Here there is only one viewpoint allowed: the Nazis-read, the Germans-are perpetrators, and exclusively that, and the Jews are victims, and innately and eternally, no less. The uproar about Erika Steinbach, Eva Herrmann, Martin Hohmann, and General Günzel serves to illustrate. Whoever doubts these supreme tenets of belief is no longer a discussion partner, but instead a leper and a heretic rolled into one, subjected instantly to inquisitorial judgment, ostracism, and economic destruction. And everyone who has anything to do with such a person must immediately distance himself.

This goes double for questions concerning the Holocaust, the inner circle of this minefield. The never-ending rumble of the media concerning Bishop Richard Williamson has brought this taboo to the fore once again. Mrs. Merkel feels called upon to instruct the Pope; the Pope feels called upon to call Bishop Williamson to account; the attorney general of Regensburg proposes, and the Justice Department considers issuing, an international arrest warrant for the churchman-and why? Because he judges a historical matter differently from the way it is usually and permitted to do. This constitutes heresy. This means nothing else than that a historical event has been removed from the domain of scholarship and with that, of reasoned discussion, and elevated into the domain of religion, and indeed a kind of world religion that in Germany has unbeknownst acquired the standing of a half-official state religion.

Bishop Richard Williamson

As the media campaign against Bishop Williamson rose to a fever pitch, the revisionist and lawyer Horst Mahler was sentenced in Munich to six years imprisonment and at the same time in Potsdam to four more years, because he questioned details of the Holocaust. In 2007, Mahler’s partner, lawyer Sylvia Stolz, was sentenced to 3 1/2 years’ imprisonment and escorted directly to jail from the courtroom. The reason: she defended the German-Canadian publicist Ernst Zündel in court in Mannheim and took the position that the accused was right, or at least that he was exercising his right to a dissenting opinion. Zündel himself got five years. Two years’ investigatory detention under the most dubious circumstances in Canada didn’t count. So Zündel does seven years because he published arguments over his Internet site concerning the historical thesis of the “mass gassing” of Jews.

Lawyer Sylvia Stolz and Revisionist and lawyer Horst Mahler

Shortly after Zündel, the chemist and multi-book author Germar Rudolf, originally a scientist at the Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart, received a sentence of 2 1/2 years because it was possible to arrive at the same conclusions from his neutral, scientific investigations in forensic chemistry as had been arrived at by other routes by earlier researchers.

  Scientist Germar Rudolf

The Frenchman Robert Faurisson, university professor for documentary research and textual analysis at the Sorbonne in Paris has been subjected to multiple fines of astronomic amounts, and has sustained bodily injuries from a beating administered by unidentified assailants.

Robert Faurisson-French Revisionist

One of the best-known revisionist researchers and writers is the Swiss Romanist and Scandinavist Jürgen Graf, sentenced to 15 months’ imprisonment by a Swiss court for questioning the holocaust hypothesis. He was able to avoid this imprisonment only by flight into exile.

Also in exile is the Belgian father of seven Vincent Reynouard. In Austria, court-expert-witness-engineer Wolfgang Fröhlich is in jail for the second time because he does not accept the official version of the holocaust.

Where is Amnesty International?

Where is Amnesty International? Where the European Court of Human Rights? Where the hue and cry of the media? Where the student protests? Where the Church?

All these men and women and many others, such as Ursula Haverbeck, Dr. Udo Walendy, Gerd Honsik, Dr. Max Wahl, Siegfried Verbeke, Gaston Amaudruz, have committed no offense other than to have arrived at conclusions from their research and analysis that diverge from the official account-and that they then addressed pointed questions to those who have promulgated the putative falsehoods around the world.

It is the pride of western science, since the Renaissance, and in particular since the Enlightenment, to allow nothing to be sacrosanct, and to accept nothing short of absolute objectivity. Revisionism-that is, discernment, confirmation, questioning-is a basic principle of science. All else is dogmatism. Science cannot admit of religious, political, or other social exceptions. In the sense of the natural sciences, there is no Christian reality nor Unchristian reality, no moral nor immoral fact. The scientist has the right to err, since no one is in possession of the absolute truth. Natural science has banished the medieval age of superstition with the age of reason.

As applied to research into the Holocaust, this means: it may not be clouded by philo-Semitic nor by anti-Semitic inclinations, any more than it may be by Germanophilic or Germanophobic. Whether one likes the Jews or the Germans, or dislikes them is no factor in research, and may not affect it in any way.

Ms Merkel said in her message to Pope Benedict XVI, “There may be no denial of the Holocaust.” What does this mean, there may not be? Does it mean that “denial” presupposes that someone advances lies while knowing better? This certainly doesn’t apply to the revisionists, who are convinced of their interpretations. Or does it mean that here, after all-trumping all factual inquiry-global political forces are  in play to which both the German head of state as well as the leader of Christianity must bow?

There is commentary that implies something pretty close to these conjectures. As early as May 1979, Professor William Rubinstein of the University of Melbourne, Australia, wrote in the Nation Review, “Were the Holocaust shown to be a hoax, the Number One weapon in Israel’s propaganda armory disappears.”

And after the lecturer and revisonist Günther Deckert was sentenced to years in jail, the  Frankfurter Allgemeine wrote on August 15, 1994, “If Deckert’s account of the Holocaust were correct, the Federal Republic of Germany would be founded upon a lie.” Every presidential address, every “moment of silence,” every history book would have lied. In that he denies the murder of the Jews, he contests the very legitimacy of the German Federal Republic.

The Canadian B’nai B’rith

But it seems that there are even higher matters at stake: the memory of the Holocaust is central to the erection of the new world order. So wrote Ian J. Kagedan, the Director of the Canadian B’nai B’rith in the Toronto Star for November 26, 1991.

These unseemly newspaper announcements enable us to understand why finally the effort to exhume the claimed victims and properly to account for them has not been undertaken; why Ms Merkel has not called an international Holocaust conference in Berlin and subjected the assertions of the revisionists to a public discussion and critique. With that, the sorry matter would once and for all be placed on the table and the “pseudoscientific bumbling” of the Holocaust deniers would be laid bare for all to see-and indeed by scientists, not just journalists. But therein, of course, argument and counter-argument would have to be heard.

Why can’t this be? Is it feared that such a discussion might produce results other than those that are politically desired? Is this why the revisionists languish in jail? Is this why their books are banned? Is the public to be denied the means of evaluating the state of the revisionist arguments?

The reason for this remarkable scientific regression appears to be the same as the reason for the judicial regression in the courtroom. Here also the established practice-which ashamedly is never admitted in public-that there is never inquiry into whether the accused might be right. Evidence is not taken, and if the accused should try to explain his position, he subjects himself to still further charges, and his attorney as well! A judicial monstrosity. The factuality of genocide of millions in gas chambers is simply declared “given,” and the court has merely to decide whether the defendant has contradicted this given - and then to arrive at a sentence. A historical assumption is thereby peremptorily raised to the status of a universally known and proven law of nature - and at the same time, factual confirmation of it is forbidden!

Who’s Afraid of the Big Bad Truth?

Is somebody afraid of the truth here?

The voices are becoming more numerous that advocate breaking the silence over this: in 2007, Professor Karl Albert Schachtschneider, professor of public inquiry at the University of Erlangen, spoke on the Constitution of the European Union. He took a question from the audience, “Do we have freedom of speech here?” He answered: “A country in which free speech is constrained by severe punishments  is not a free country. The immortal Kant said about freedom of speech that one must be free to say anything, whether it is true or untrue. With the Holocaust, anything might be true or not true; I wasn’t there. But another reason I don’t discuss it,  is that it is forbidden. One is not allowed to dispute it, not even scientifically. The prohibition on “agitation” prevents it. This is not a free country.”

If the “new world order” that the Canadian gentleman from B’nai B’rith mentioned might be in some way identical with that financial system that currently has thrown the world into the grips of an unprecedented crisis, it might in any case be appropriate to examine the central historical and philosophical foundations of that new order somewhat more closely.

“Where everyone condemns, one must prove. Where everyone praises, as well.”  Thought makes you free!

=====
The publicist and lecturer Bernhard Schaub (Dornach bei Basel), publisher of this newsletter, is Swiss. He was a teacher of German and history at Waldorf Schools  until he was dismissed in 1993 for publishing a book in which he cited objective research into the Holocaust. He also lost a later position as academic dean of an adult-education school for similar reasons. In 2006 he participated in the Holocaust Conference called in Tehran by President Ahmedinejad.

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal rules that Sec. 13 “Hate Law” is Unconstitutional

September 2, 2009
RadicalNewsNetwork

Dear Radical Reader,

Prior to my comments I first want to take the time to say thank you to Mr. Marc Lemire, the man who has been at the forefront of the battle for Internet Freedom in Canada over the past six years. Persevering and remaining steadfast in his convictions through thick and thin and suffering endless slings and arrows of accusative epithets and accusations of every conceivable nature. Along with him was his steadfast and cool lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and his comrades in arms Mr. Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) and of course Canada’s and the world’s No. 1 Freedom of Speech fighting lawyer Mr. Douglas Christie all pictured together in their famous INTERNET FREEDOM DEFENCE TEAM photo below. Every freedom loving Canadian who values their basic right to express themselves on paper or on the Internet owes this magnificent and dedicated crew of conscientious, responsible citizens a debt of gratitude.

In terms of Canada’s struggle to retain its Constitutional rights as contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, September 2, 2009, may go down in Canadian history as the day that the citizens who believe in freedom of speech finally managed to throw a monkey-wrench into the gears of the Zionist Censorship Juggernaut that has been rolling relentlessly over our rights and freedoms for the past half a century.

At 9:30 EST the Decision in the long-awaited section 13 “hate crimes” complaint Warman v. Lemire finally appeared on the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal’s website http://chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/aspinc/search/vhtml-eng.asp?doid=981&lg=_e&isruling=0 . The gist of the ruling by Tribunal Member Athanasios D. Hadjis respecting the manner in which this controversial law was used in the six year long trial of Marc Lemire for allegedly posting “hate” materials is contained in my Motion to the Tribunal (see below) which I sent off today after receiving word of the Decision.

But lest readers jump to the conclusion that this means the end of this draconian law designed to silence any and all criticism of Israel or political Zionism please be advised that while it is truly a decisive victory in terms of the battle being waged to rid this country of sec. 13(1) it doesn’t automatically mean that the war itself has been won.

(more…)

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PalestinianChristians

August 31, 2009

Editor’s Note: Considering the fact that Harry Abrams and B’nai Brith Canada are currently using sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act as the basis to allege that myself and RadicalPress.com are committing an “anti-Semitic” “hate crime” by posting articles critical of the foreign state of Israel and the ideology known as Zionism in their Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com, File Number: T1360/9008 Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint now before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, it behooves all those involved in this matter to take a serious look at the following article submitted to the The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism http://www.cpcca.ca/home.htm by Edward C. Corrigan, a lawyer certified as a Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration Law and Immigration and Refugee Protection by the Law Society of Upper Canada in London, Ontario, Canada.

To my knowledge, thus far, I have not seen a more comprehensive and cogent compilation of Jewish sources that respond in such an overt fashion to this false premise being promoted by certain Israeli lobby groups in Canada such as B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress. While there are certain aspects of Mr. Corrigan’s opinions on specific matters related to the overall question of political Zionism and why it has risen to such a lofty and powerful and influential height in societies and governments around the world these are incidental to the question of “anti-Semitism” as it is here presented. I therefore strongly urge all of those receiving this post to take the time to carefully read through what Mr. Corrigan has offered to the CPCCA and to pass this article to friends and associates.]

—————————–

Here is my article published by the The Canadian Charger. 

Ed Corrigan

http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=111

The Canadian Charger, August 26, 2009

IS IT ANTI-SEMITIC TO DEFEND PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS?

Edward C. Corrigan, BA, MA, LL.B.

(This article was submitted to The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism http://www.cpcca.ca/home.htm )

“There is clearly a wide range of opinion on Zionism that exists within the Jewish community. This fact needs to be recognized. We also need to reject specious arguments and reject false allegations of racism and anti-Semitism. We need to fight for freedom of speech, academic freedom, critical inquiry and democratic debate, at all universities and colleges, in the media, in the halls of political power and all across North America. Individuals should be allowed to decide for themselves questions about Zionism and the Palestinians based on open debate, the facts and informed opinion not on suppression of debate, intimidation and censorship.” ~ Edward C. Corrigan

All across Canada and in the United States, there is an organized campaign to suppress criticism of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.

The campaign is especially strong on university campuses where many voices have been raised in support of human rights for the Palestinians.

One such example is the attempt to suppress the Public Interest Research Group, founded by Ralph Nader, at the University of Ottawa for their support for Palestinian human rights.

Similar anti-Palestinian campaigns have occurred at many universities in Canada including the University of Toronto, the University of Western Ontario and York University.

An attack against a student group that was sympathetic to the Palestinians occurred at the University of Western Ontario in 1982. The student group was refused official recognition because of its support for the Palestinians and for sponsoring Palestinian and Arab speakers. After this refusal a complaint was made to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

After a long battle, and with the support of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and its General Counsel Alan Borovoy, and a supportive editorial in The Globe & Mail, the Ontario Human Rights Commission compelled the University Students Council at the University of Western Ontario to issue a statement of regret and to ratify the student group. The refusal was deemed discriminatory against Palestinians and persons associated with Palestinians. (See “The Palestinian Question at the University: The Case of Western Ontario,” American-Arab Affairs, Summer 1987, pp. 87-98.)

Despite this successful legal precedent at Western Ontario there have been many attacks against individuals and groups across Canada and the United States because of their support for human rights for Palestinians. Over the last few years there is a concerted attempt to suppress discussion of the Palestinian issue in North America.

There also is a campaign to punish those individuals who have spoken out in support of the Palestinians by cutting funding and by denying them tenure and even getting them terminated from their positions of employment.

(more…)

[Editor’s Note: The following lengthy piece is my response to the Complainants’ second, amended Statement of Particulars which they submitted to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on July 12, 2009. In it they attempt once again to allege all sorts of nonsense about myself and my website in a further attempt to smear me as a hatemonger and an “anti-Semite” and racist and so on.

For those who have been following this Show Trial from the start I would recommend reading this reply to see the sorts of subterfuge that these folks resort to in order to meet the demands of the notorious Section 13 entrapment legislation under which they operate.]

Harry Abrams and The League For Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada

v.

Arthur Topham and RADICALPRESS.com

File Number: T1360/9008

REPLY BY RADICALPRESS.COM TO ABRAMS/B’NAI BRITH CANADA AMENDED STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS OF JULY 12, 2009

August 3, 2009

Nancy Lafontant
Registry Officer
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Nancy.Lafontant@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca

Dear Nancy Lafontant,

RE: Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com
File Number: T1360/9008

Please find enclosed my reply to further distortions, misrepresentations and erroneous suppositions contained in the Complainant’s Amended Statement of Particulars of July 12, 2009.

For purposes of explanation please note that I will be going through the Complainant’s Amended Statement of Particulars in the order that it was presented and making comments where deemed applicable.

(more…)

Is Your Government Breeding Bolsheviks?
B’nai Brith’s brazen attempt to hardwire Hatred and Censorship into the Canadian Psyche

By Arthur Topham

August 8, 2009

In his 2006 book, The Synagogue of Satan, the British writer Andrew C. Hitchcock has a lot to say about the house of Rothschild. In fact his book is a revelation of our times; the chronology of a crime syndicate that began in 1760 when Mayer Amschel Bauer took over his father’s money lending business in Frankfurt, Germany and changed his name from Bauer to Rothschild, a German word meaning “Red Shield” and hung the symbolic hexagram that now adorns the Israeli flag above his door.

The last 250 years is basically a record of the Rothschild’s devastating effects upon the people and the planet; one that has now brought our 20th Century civilization to the brink of either global disaster, or, should we awake in time to this imminent end and act accordingly, the final dismantling and dissolution of this infamous house of hell that’s been the root cause of humanity’s discontent for the past two and a half centuries.

Andrew Hitchcock’s book[1] in some respects parallel’s the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in that it too is a road map like the Protocols only one that can lead us out of the wasteland of the present times rather than further into a gloomy and foreboding Big Brother future such as the Protocols reveal.

While Hitchcock’s first and foremost purpose is to document the accomplished deeds of this Rothschild house of horror as they pertain to global finance, politics and media, his particular expose of the secret masonic society of B’nai Brith, one of the many Rothschild enterprises designed to assist in its agenda for world domination, should be of special interest to Canadians; especially those Canadians who have managed to break free to some degree from the mind-numbing influence of the Rothschild controlled mainstream media and are relatively able to view, somewhat objectively, the ongoing machinations of this organization; one initially set up and funded in order to present to the world a viewpoint fundamentally Talmudic, cabalistic and atheistic in scope, nature and purpose.

In the USA when Americans think of B’nai Brith they automatically think of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) the now powerful, aggressive arm of B’nai Brith International originally formed in 1913 by the Rothschild Jews in reaction to a Jewish business man who was convicted of raping and murdering one of his young employees and actually put in jail for his crime.* This was considered an outrage by the then nascent Zionists and so they conspired to come up with an organization that would eventually become the Goliath of gutter journalism, spewing forth volumes of vituperative slander and malignant lies upon any individual, group or organization that ever dared to challenge the tendentious tenets of the Rothschild empire.

I believe Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, put it rather succinctly when he once described the ADL as “…one of the ugliest, most powerful pressure groups in the U.S…. Its primary commitment is to use any technique, however dishonest and disgraceful, in order to defame and silence and destroy anybody who dares to criticize the Holy State (’Israel’).”

(more…)

It’s Time to Kill Sec. 13

By Arthur Topham
July 23, 2009

It might appear unusual for an old Hippie such as myself to be advocating “killing” things seeing as how I’ve spend the greater portion of my lifetime singing the theme-song of the 60’s: LOVE & PEACE. But, I suppose there comes a time in every person’s life when they are faced with certain decisions which, weighed in their fullness and measured against the alternatives that present themselves, require address. Such is the case with this dreadful and ominous threat to Canada’s collective freedoms of speech and expression now embodied in Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Over the past couple of years my mind has been immersed in the subject. Having spent decades writing and researching and criticizing the machinations of those who have been conspiring to limit the individual freedoms of people around the world suddenly I was confronted with a new level of reality. Upon receiving word from the Canadian Human Rights Commission that I had been charged with committing the very crime which I’d spent so many years fighting against was, to use yet another expression of the 60s, “mind-blowing” to say the least.

Since then it’s been a steady and steep learning curve for me; one which, thanks to the fact that I can still publish my thoughts and ideas on the net, I have been able to share with people around the world. In that sense it’s been a golden opportunity to share my perspective and the perspectives of others who feel the same way about freedom of speech and the reasons for why we’re now being slammed front and center by the censors; those who obviously believe that silence is golden when it comes to criticism of certain elements of our Establishment who don’t wish to become the focus of any media scrutiny or political analysis.

One thing that has proven true over the past few years, whether the censorship advocates wish to acknowledge it or not, is the fact that increased awareness concerning the root causes of humanity’s overall discontent is growing at an exponential rate thanks to the net. I felt this very strongly when I wrote the little article Killing the 100th Monkey back in January of 2008 outlining the phenomenon. It was happening big time then but in the past year and a half it has increased even further thanks to the actions of those who continually precipitate hatred and violence and terrorism and economic deception upon the defenseless peoples of the world using the guise of various government and international agencies to do so.

For those who, for whatever reasons, haven’t had the time or the inclination to investigate this burgeoning and blossoming of knowledge and information, it remains still a mystery as to why all the assorted confusing, contradictory factors which the mainstream media juggles and dangles before the glazed eyes and minds of the general public are not recognized for what they truly are: deception and subterfuge, not only with an agenda but also with an attitude (big time). This enigma of disparate, deliberate design, which the general populace – who rely upon the mainstream media for their information – is faced with (literally) every day, is being continually countered in the amazing world of the blogosphere or as I prefer to label it, Cyberspace, every minute of the day.

Of course those who don’t wish to see this growing awareness of first causes flourish try their best to denigrate it and label it as merely “anti-Semitic”, “hate-filled”, “racist” propaganda purposely designed to bring opprobrium and contempt upon those to whom all the criticism is being directed. As such they face a formidable challenge. It’s as if all hell had suddenly broke loose for them. It’s Pandora’s Box maxing out on a combination of meth and viagra! It’s the proverbial lesson encompassed in the metaphor of the little Dutch boy trying to hold back the rising flood tide by sticking his finger in the hole of the crumbling dike. In other words it’s revelation time, come hell or high water. The OK Corral in digital format. The Quickening. And for Christians and others of a religious bent it’s the beginning of the End Times. The start of mankind’s Trials and Tribulations as we swiftly ascend either the stairway to Heaven or descend into the valley of Armageddon.

What all of these assorted approaches to today’s political and spiritual events create is a hodge-podge of positions that the censors are faced with having to address whether they wish to or not. And it is creating havoc within their ranks as we see them desperately attempt to address this growing resistance to their censorship methods.

Using what now appear to most serious enquirers as worn-out cliche responses to the mountains of accusations and evidence currently confronting their actions the censors are forced to retreat into their one remaining safety zone – the monolithic government agencies that they surreptitiously created over the past decades to quell the growing, vociferous hordes of rabble who are now realizing they’ve been had big-time by these self-selected arbiters of public policy and basic human rights. High above the ramparts of their Commissions and Tribunals is raised the flag of their dominion and upon it, emblazoned in blood red letters upon a backdrop of the Red Shield, are the words: Section 13(1).

Holding up in their castles of sand and subterfuge and sophistry they’re in disarray and confusion, one hand not fully aware of what the other is doing. Their techniques and strategies are coming apart at the seams as the electronic world upon which they depend betrays their ignoble ends and their illegal, immoral acts. Every turn they make they’re caught doing something they shouldn’t be doing. Every statement they issue is immediately proven to be both transparent and filled with lies and half-truths. They’re beginning to react like caged animals who sense deep within themselves their imminent demise and they’re lashing out haphazardly at anyone who criticizes them. In other words their castle of corruption and deceit is under siege by the cyber-warriors of free speech and with each passing day they become more and more reactive and abusive in their methodology; more sinister and underhanded in their public outcries; more devious and denial-ridden in their overall demeanor. They’ve become, as the graphic image above this article portrays, like some alien, reptilian creature from another dimension of space that’s suddenly manifested before our eyes and its vile and evil intent is now so ever-present as to be beyond question.

The only remaining question is do we as a free and open and democratic society allow this creature to continue to thrash about and destroy more and more lives as it’s purpose becomes recognizable beyond question or do we do the merciful thing and put it out of its misery? The solution is obvious. It’s time to kill section 13 and regain our nation.

—————–

[Editor’s Note: I sincerely recommend going to the website of FreeDominion.com and reading through the following threads dealing with the issues of Section 13, the Human Rights Commissions and the Tribunals. There is also much in the way of discussion surrounding the case of Abrams v. RadicalPress.com that I think many Radical Readers would enjoy.]

Please see:

Censorship by Intimidation - Harry Abrams/Richard Warman
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=120930

Harry Abrams joins the FD debate…
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=121039&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

CHRC: The Be-bopping Railroad
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=121063

Topham fails to make hard enough case in Penis Post
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=120748

Freedom of Speech defended in Alberta Court
http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=121136

—————–

Arthur Topham is the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com. He is currently involved in a free speech battle with the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.

He is also in extremely dire need of financial support to sustain this battle with the forces of repression and censorship as he is not able to work during this period of intense litigation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the CHR Tribunal. Any donations therefore would be most welcome. Please see the following url on the Home Page (upper right hand corner) http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=657 regarding donations. Also there is a “DONATE” button there for Paypal or here at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4466120 . Feel free to use any of them if you can help out. Thanks.

Arthur welcomes all feedback to his articles and can be reached at radical@radicalpress.com .

For the Full Monty on the complaint case involving RadicalPress.com and B’nai Brith Canada please see: http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=995

The Silence of the Wolves
by Arthur Topham

July 16, 2009

“They’re selling you billows of smoke and calling them the fires of Freedom! They’re peddling shadows and labeling them light beams of Truth.”

~from Memos to Myself, Arthur Topham, January 1, 2009

A June 24, 2009 letter by Cal Mahan of Calgary to the Calgary Herald, appearing under the byline “Find someone new” and in response to the paper’s June 21st Editorial, “CHRC seeks more powers,” stated:

“This editorial is an updated rehash of the Feb. 13 editorial “Would-be censor seeks red pencil” and other single-minded opinion pieces. The poster boys remain the same – Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant – two unsympathetic propagandists and bullies.
Can’t you find a more attractive victim of the witch-hunting human rights commissions, who would elicit more general public affinity for your otherwise media-centric cause?”

In many respects Mahan’s comments epitomized, in two pithy sentences, the reality of Canada’s mainstream media and its current one-sided, circumscribed perspective on the issue of freedom of speech in Canada and who will be given a platform to express their perspective on this highly contentious subject. In allowing only the poster boys Levant and Steyn to monopolize this debate within the pages of the Zionist-owned media the obvious bias is showing through. The fact that the same two rogues from out of the gallery of the human rights commission’s victims are inevitably given this privilege on a regular basis doesn’t sit well with many who see the cozy set-up that appears to exist between certain ethnic/religious groups and their counterparts in the media.

It also got me thinking about my own situation with respect to this issue of who gets to be highlighted by the media and who doesn’t. In the case of myself and my website RadicalPress.com it’s now been just over two years since Harry Abrams, B.C. representative for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada along with his co-complainant Anita Bromberg, formally laid a complaint[1] with the Canadian Human Rights Commission under the notorious Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act seeking “relief” for contended “discriminatory” publication of articles which they felt contrived “to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.”

Since receiving word of the complaint it’s become a full time profession for me trying to stave off this blatant attempt to silence my thoughts and opinions on an issue of public interest (Zionist politics) that is growing in leaps and bounds with each passing day.

(more…)

Tzar Nicholas II and his family. The Tzar acted constitutionally and abdicated on March 5, 1917. He and his family were kept prisoner at Tobolsk and guarded by a Russian commandant and Russian guards. In April, 1918, after the Jewish regime gained controlled, he was transferred along with his family from Moscow to Ekaterinburg in the Urals. All the Russians were replaced by Bolshevik Jew Cheka members who, on July 16, 1918, woke the Tzar and his family and took them into the basement and shot and bayoneted them and then took the bodies to a disused iron pit and and cut them up and burned them and then dissolved the parts with 400 lbs of sulphuric acid. Afterwards the ashes and fragments were thrown down a mine shaft and covered up. Thanks to the fact that the White Armies captured Ekaterinburg the truth was found out.
______________________________________________________________________
The Seven Pillars of Zionist Subterfuge
by Arthur Topham
July 5, 2009

Preface

The struggle for freedom of speech in Canada continues. It’s has now been over 19 months since the Zionist organization nominally referred to as B’nai Brith Canada registered a formal complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the premise of which was the contention that I and my website RadicalPress.com were contriving to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.

Since that day back on November 20, 2007 it has been a continuous gong show of legal assaults in one form or another directed toward myself; first coming from the Commission and then, after they decided the case warranted proceeding to the next stage, from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, all seemingly in tandem with the Complainants’ own submissions.

Whenever I submit a document or letter or make a motion in my own defense the immediate reaction is to be met with counter arguments and legalese from either Mr. Daniel Poulin, counsel for the Commission or Marvin Kurz, of the law offices of Dale, Streiman & Kurz of Brampton, Ontario. Kurz of course is a longstanding member of this Rothschild created secret society known as the Independent Order of B’nai Brith and is also head counsel for the Canadian branch of B’nai Brith International better known to the public as simply B’nai Brith Canada. Kurz is representing the two B’nai Brith Canada executive members, Harry Abrams and Anita Bromberg, who laid the complaint against me and my website.

As is standard practice with the Zionists, whenever it comes to attempts to silence dissenting opinions, they do their damnedest to discredit whomever they are out to censor. In my case they attempt to do it via legal channels and throwing every bit of muddy legal “precedent” that they can dig up at both me and the (theoretically independent) Tribunal in order to get the Tribunal to rule on inapplicable case law that would prevent me from presenting the overwhelming evidence which now exists that refutes all of their worn-out allegations of “anti-Semitism” and “racism” and “hate-monger” and which also conclusively shows that Israel is, in fact, a racist, terrorist, apartheid state and likely the most undemocratic nation in the world of those who profess to be such.

As such their latest attempt to have the Tribunal lend its quasi-judicial ear to the seven points contained within their June 23, 2009 letter to the Tribunal represents in some ways an indication of their desperation in trying to stop the flow of information that counters all of their propaganda concerning both political Zionism and the actual politics of the state of Israel.

Employing the legal procedure known as “Judicial Notice” which Black’s Law Dictionary defines as, “The act by which a court, in conducting a trial, or framing its decision, will, of its own motion, and without the production of evidence, recognize the existence and truth of certain facts, having a bearing on the controversy at bar, which, from their nature, are not properly the subject of testimony, or which are universally regarded as established by common notoriety, e.g., the laws of the state, international law, historical events, the constitution and course of nature, main geographical features, etc.” the Complainants are attempting to convince the Tribunal that all of their standard Zionist propaganda which has been forced upon the general public over the past century by a compliant, controlled Zionist media, must now be recognized as being universally accepted as fact.

As far as chutzpah goes this latest move on their part has to be considered as one of the more blatant examples of arrogance and chauvinism to ever have been offered up for public consumption.

The substance of the article below is therefore my (relatively) short response to the seven points they have submitted to the Tribunal. Bear in mind as well that the whole issue of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is, in essence, tied directly to this latest ploy by the Zionists. In keeping with a semblance of literary flavour in all of these otherwise dry and dusty proceedings I’ve chosen to refer to the seven points as the seven pillars of Zionist subterfuge.
—————

(more…)

SCRAP SEC. 13!
B’nai Brith Canada: Lettin’ it all hang out (in a rather queer sorta way)

By Arthur Topham
June 27, 2009

“This petty attempt on the part of the Complainants, using the legal sophistry embodied in section 13 of the CHR Act, to stifle and smother a much-needed, nay, an essential dialectic concerning the usefulness, not only from an ethical or moral perspective but also from a practical, logical, reasonable and necessary sense of urgency, of permitting political Zionism to exist as it is now structured is the most fundamental problem facing the global community today and overshadows all of humanity’s efforts at achieving world peace and universal freedom.”

– Respondent Arthur Topham in a Motion to Dismiss the Abrams v RadicalPress.com complaint case, June 27, 2009

[Editor’s Note: As stated above section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is likely the greatest threat to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms that ever was devised and for the past year and a half I’ve been held hostage to its nefarious intentions fighting every step of the way to prevent it from censoring my free and alternative news media site, RadicalPress.com.

The principal villain in the drama is B’nai Brith Canada, a front organization working within the structure of Canadian society to promote the interests of a foreign, racist state called Israel.

Now possibly it’s karma or retribution or possibly it’s the old adage that what goes around comes around but in the case of B’nai Brith Canada’s B.C. representative Harry Abrams the wheels of fortune have suddenly hit the reality of the pavement and clouds of smoke and flame and the stench of burning rubber are everywhere.

After 19 months of endless litigation and mind games with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and an impending “hearing” or Show Trial over charges laid against myself and RadicalPress.com that I contrive “to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel”  the news emerges that the person who took it upon himself and his organization to cast their evil spell upon a free and independent alternative media, has now been found responsible for committing the very same type of “hate” crime that he and his organization, B’nai Brith Canada, have alleged that I am guilty of!

It’s a fascinating and convoluted story of blog postings, alias, insinuations and downright naked, unabashed and very queer events. Every day it seems new revelations regarding this dreaded legislation appear in the media and in the blogosphere warning of its dangers and exposing the culprits who are insisting that such dictatorial measures are just fine and in fact more are required in order to police and control Canadians.

Please read on.]
——————-

Dear Nancy Lafontant,

RE: Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com
File Number: T1360/9008

Please find enclosed my reply to the initial allegations, unfounded assertions and misconceptions contained in the June 23, 2009 letter to the Commission and the Tribunal from the Complainants regarding my June 16, 2009 Statement of Particulars.

I will, in a separate response, reply to the remainder of the comments by the Complainants but for purposes of this Notice of Motion I must, needs be, focus specifically on the opening statements of Mr. Abrams regarding his and his co-complainant’s attempts to dismiss, disparage and negate all of my detailed, justified criticisms of the actions and the motives of the foreign Zionist lobby group B’nai Brith Canada of which he is British Columbia’s representative.

(more…)

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
4633 Barkerville Hwy
Quesnel, B.C. V2J 6T8
radical@radicalpress.com
http://www.radicalpress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
——————————————————-

Dear Radical Reader,

It’s been awhile since I’ve sent out any of Pastor Eli James’s writings. This article though is one which deserves the utmost attention by anyone concerned about their loss of freedoms whether they’re christian, pagan, atheist, buddhist, muslim, taoist or none of the aforementioned. The message crosses all boundaries and borders and will ring true to anyone who’s been paying attention to global events and the erosion of our cherished rights and freedoms, especially the right to express one’s opinions without fear of the Orwellian thought police busting down your door and hauling you away to some Stalinist Bolshevik “Show Trial.”

Freedom of Speech is the penultimate and quintessential right for without it we become but slaves to the state and to anyone wielding power for control over others.

Pastor Eli James pulls no punches in his heart-felt effort to alert his fellow Americans to the dangers posed by the Zionist Beast that now stalks the planet in search of more and more victims to feed its frenzied appetite for MORE control of our bodies, minds and spirits. His efforts and words apply just as much to Canada and every other nation of the world that’s been infiltrated and had their Constitutions abducted and usurped by this megalomaniacal psychopathic entity that’s out to fulfill its self-chosen agenda of world domination and one world “international” government.

It’s methods are systematic and once realized as predictable as one’s yearly tax notice or the waxing and waning of the moon. It’s greatest tactic of course is to create FEAR in whatever manner that it can, be it 9/11 or Hiroshima or Dresden or the Gulag Archipelago. Tyranny always has feasted upon fear and used fear to enhance the breadth and scope of its menacing and grasping tentacles. It knows how starved the world is for peace and love and it uses the mentally and spiritually emaciated masses and manipulates them via its news agencies into feeling insecure and afraid, for its then that they are most vulnerable to giving up their rights and freedoms.

The forces of Darkness by any other name still reek to high heaven. They do their utmost to force the faithful of any religion to take up arms against those who worship the one God under a different name. They’ve expended millions if not billions of the people’s money and wealth to create wars where innocents are led to sacrifice their lives for principles that ultimately become meaningless when the wars cease and the only winners are the Zionist elite who’ve fomented and feasted upon them and in the end acquired even greater riches and wealth while the blood of innocents soaks the planet and democracy reels and falters from the death blows dealt to it by the greed of a small number of psychopaths.

Everyone has a right to worship God in their own way. There is only one divine Presence, one divine Cosmos, one divine Purpose and that is LOVE AND PEACE AND BROTHERHOOD AND SISTERHOOD and a reverence for this garden given to us by the ONE CREATOR for the use of ALL.

We need to think about these things and start putting the pieces of the puzzle together. Pastor Eli James has done just that with his expose of the Zionist cartel that’s now ruling the world via subterfuge and ill-gained power and wealth.

Without these three cherished Freedoms it’s highly unlikely that we will ever, as a race of human beings, achieve the fourth freedom which Norman Rockwell illustrated so beautifully and aptly in the illustrations that I’m using. The last freedom is freedom from want. Freedom from having to live on the streets, homeless and starving and existing hand to mouth because of a few power-crazed groups who want to rule the resources of the world. Freedom to feed our children and our families and enjoy the fruits of this holy garden we call the Earth Mother.

Like the four directions of the native American spiritual teachers these four freedoms are the pillars that hold up the temple of LIFE. They are now threatened by an alien force. It has to be first recognized and then resisted and stopped. God willing that will happen with the courage and conviction of all who value these four noble truths.

Please pass this article to everyone you can. The fate of freedom depends on each and every one of us doing something to ensure it carries on to our children and grandchildren.

Shine your Light for Love & Peace & Justice for All,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
——————————————————-

The Articles of Tyranny

by Pastor Eli James

Church of the Restoration of True Israel
http://www.anglo-saxonisrael.com/

See also:

http://www.christogenos.com
http://www.skipbaker.com
http://www.prothink.com

“In my distress I cried unto Yahweh, and He heard me. Deliver my soul, O Yahweh, from lying lips and a deceitful tongue. What shall be given unto thee, or what shall be done unto thee, thou false tongue? Sharp arrows of the mighty, with coals of juniper. Woe is me, that I sojourn in Mesech, that I dwell in the tents of Kedar! My soul hath long dwelt with him that hateth peace. I am for peace: but when I speak, they are for war.” (Psalm 120)

“Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hypocrisy.” (Luke 12:1)

Introduction

This essay is about lying tongues that hate peace. May our Father, Yahweh, grant to His Children, Israel (not to be confused with the Jews), the Great Awakening, which will open their eyes to truth that will set them free.

(more…)