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…)

“KAYJAY” THE TRIBUNAL KANGAROO PONDERING POULIN’S
PLEA  TO DISMISS TOPHAM’S MOTIONS AS BEING “GROUNDLESS”
AND “VEXATIOUS”
__________________________________________________________________

[Editor’s Note: The sound of kangaroos ruminating fills the air these days as the Show Trial of 2009 continues to unfold in parts of the blogosphere and on the alternative media sites around the world.

Not to be outdone by James von Brunn’s grand-standing attack at the Holy Hoax museum in Washington, DC, RadicalPress.com publisher and editor (moi) continues to challenge the forces of evil and repression and media censorship and mind-control.

The following letter to the parties involved in this censorship, Section 13(1) attack upon Free Speech serves to show the inequities of the present Human Rights Commissions and how they are as lop-sided as a kangaroo’s ear when it comes to distinguishing between threats of violence and intellectual exercises in the realm of politics.

As this “hearing” process continues to unfold I’ve tried my utmost to record and publish every bit of information connected to it so as to provide the reader public with an ongoing overview of just how these folks operate when they try to accuse and convict a critic of Israel and of political Zionism of being a rabid hatemonger and an anti-Jewite. God willing it may help others who may become ensnarled in the Section 13 gulag known as the Canadian Human Wrongs Act.

Please pass this on to others and please help out with a donation of coin if you can. See the top right hand corner of the home page for further instructions.]

——–

RE: MOTION TO RECONSIDER RE: JUNE 2, 2009 TRIBUNAL DECISION (2) TO ALLOW THE CHRC TO ALTER EVIDENCE IN THEIR STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS

BY EMAIL

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Box 4633 Barkerville Hwy
Quesnel, B.C. V2J 6T8
Email: radical@radicalpress.com

June 12,  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

I am in receipt of both Daniel Poulin’s reply of June 10, 2009 on behalf of the Commission, and that of Marvin Kurz, of June 11, 2009 on behalf of B’nai Brith regarding my June 10, 2009 MOTION TO RECONSIDER RE: JUNE 2, 2009 TRIBUNAL DECISION (2) TO ALLOW THE CHRC TO ALTER EVIDENCE IN THEIR STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS.

It is my position that counsel for both parties are rashly concluding that this motion, as well as previous ones, rather than being given due consideration by the Tribunal based upon the arguments and evidence contained therein, be merely viewed as “vexatious” and “frivolous” and that, further, because of this assumption on their part, we (meaning myself and RadicalPress.com as Respondent) and they (the Commission and the Complainants”), are in “alternative realities” respecting the issues at hand (the latter comment being Mr. Kurz’s).

The accusation that this motion is “vexatious” and “frivolous” and simply an annoying ploy to stymie the process, plus the further accusation of Mr. Kurz that the Respondent and the Commission/Complainants are in “alternative realities,” require further comment.

Based upon the positions taken by Mr. Poulin and Mr. Kurz, it is highly evident that they are concomitantly committed to abusing the legal process within which the Commission and the Tribunal operate in order to satisfy their mutual design of downplaying the importance of following proper procedure and keeping within the parameters of the real legal system which they are attempting, rather poorly, to mimic, in accordance with their own questionable objectives.

Mr. Kurz’s comments in this context do reflect the fact that on the question of correct adherence to jurisprudence, we are living in “alternative realities.” As such, what we are witnessing here, in these rather quick, ejaculatory comments on their part, is the fact that Mr. Kurz and the Complainants (and the Commission, by default) are not only out of touch with the reality in which I am present and function in but also the reality in which their own superiors live and operate.

In this regard I would further draw Mr. Poulin’s, Mr. Kurz’s, Ms Bromberg’s, Mr. Abrams’, the Commission’s and the Tribunal’s attention to the remarkable statement released yesterday by Frank Dimant, B’Nai Brith Canada’s executive vice president, as quoted by the Ottawa Citizen on June 11, 2009, and available for verification at
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Rights+commission+rejects+call+quit+policing+online+hate/1686720/story.html

           FRANK DIMANT - BBC VP
________________________________________

In that article entitled, “Rights commission rejects call to quit policing online hate” Frank Dimant unequivocally stated, regarding Section 13 of the CHRA, that:

“What the Commission is recommending is, in essence, cosmetic tinkering to deal with a human rights system that is in need of a major overhaul “

A clear reading of this article illustrates the very points which I am arguing in this complaint: that the abuse of justice and the divergence from any principle even closely resembling human or civil rights, as applied in s. 13 cases, are so blatantly obvious that even the executive level of the Complainant’s organization, B’nai Brith Canada has come out publicly calling for a major overhaul.

My motions for disclosure of documents and correct presentation of evidence, referenced and commented upon in the responses by Mr. Poulin and Mr. Kurtz, exemplify the judicial and moral imperatives at issue here and thus constitute an appeal to the Tribunal that it order the parties involved to cease and desist with the abuses of power and abuses of process being conducted against me. They not only demonstrate the necessity identified by Frank Dimant’s public call, but also identify the fact that the “alternative reality” occupied by the CHRC and the Complainants is a perverse judicial Twilight Zone and a renegade digression from the “reality” espoused by the executive level of the Complainants’ own organization and, not least, the formal and real judicial system which all Canadians are subject to.

If there is any further formality or motion that you require, please let me know as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham pro se
Publisher/Editor
The RadicalPress.com

Cc:
Anita Bromberg, Co-complainant
Marvin Kurz, Complainant Counsel
Harry Abrams, Complainant
Daniel Poulin, Commission counsel
Douglas Christie, Intervenor, Canadian Free Speech League

                     Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A.
Director
Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE)
_________________________________________________

As Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com I was most pleased and honoured to hear today from Paul Fromm, Director of CAFE, the Canadian Association for Free Expression, informing me that he has formally submitted a Notice of Motion to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal requesting standing as an Interested Party in the ongoing complaint case involving myself, RadicalPress.com and Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.

Paul brings with him a wealth of personal experience in dealing with the notorious Section 13(1) legislation contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act and should his organization be granted Intervenor status will undoubtedly be of immense value in highlighting the inequities and injustices which this particular piece of legislation poses to Internet users across Canada and all Canadians concerned about their basic human rights contained within Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarantee free expression to all citizens of this great nation.

I will be waiting with great anticipation to hear from the Tribunal on Paul’s application. God willing he won’t have to jump through all the hoops that Free Speech lawyer Doug Christie had to.

On behalf of myself and all those who are fighting this battle to regain our basic rights I want to thank Paul for his efforts and willingness to participate in this case.

Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
RadicalPress.com
————————–

Canadian Association for Free Expression
Box 332,
Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
Ph: 905-274-3868
FAX: 905-278-2413

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A.
Director

Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
160 Elgin Street
11th Floor,
Ottawa, ON.,
K1A 1J4

Attention:  Nancy Lafontant, Registry Officer

Fax: 613 995-3484

June 10, 2009

Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com

File Number: T1360/9008

Dear Ms Lafontant:

I write seeking leave to make a motion to obtain standing as an Interested Party making written and oral submissions in the matter of Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com

I rely on the provisions of Rule 8(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal Rules Of Procedure (03-05-04):

8(1) Anyone who is not a party, and who wishes to be recognized by the Panel as an interested party in respect of an inquiry, may bring a motion for an order granting interested party status.

CAFE’s  mandate is to work toward the maximum latitude of the freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of belief provisions of Sec. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Founded in 1981, we have published extensively material supportive of these goals, made representations to various levels of government and obtained intervenor or Interested Party status in a number of cases.

We are especially concerned about efforts to restrict the Internet, which we see as an inexpensive and accessible medium to persons of modest means who might otherwise be excluded from some of the older more established media. We obtained Interested Party status in the Zundel Internet case (1997-2002), were an active participant, calling witnesses and making submissions. We were equally active in the Micka Internet case (2001). We participated as an “interested party” in more than 30 days of hearings in Toronto, Mississauga, Ottawa and Oakville in Warman v Marc Lemire.

Our perspective and experience may be of assistance to the Tribunal in considering that CAFE, as an “interested party” has appeared as an intervenor in more Sec. 13 Internet cases than any other entity in Canada. Furthermore, Mr. Fromm has extensive experience — more than any other person — as an agent in Sec. 13 cases (Warman v. Glen Bahr and Western Canada for Us; Warman v. Terry Tremaine; Warman v. Jessica Beaumont; Warman v. Ciaan Donnelly; Warman v. Melissa Guille and Canadian Heritage Alliance; Warman v. Jason Ouwendyk and the Northern Alliance; Canadian Centre for Research-Action on Race Relations v. BCWhitepride.com)

(more…)

[Editor’s Note: Yuppers, another Motion in response to the issue of the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s sneaky little plan to change the nature of the actual complaint laid against RadicalPress.com by Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. Again, a move that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal is attempting to aid and abet by endorsing the position of the Commission; one that blatantly changes the actual wording of the complaint from promoting “hatred toward Jews and/or citizens of Israel” to . . . get this, to promoting “hatred toward Jews and non-whites”!!!

Now, all of a sudden, in the midst of a near two year ordeal, the Commission has decided to drop the charge of promoting hatred toward citizens of Israel and instead have these citizens of Israel shapeshift into “non-whites”, whatever the hell that is supposed to mean!

Tribunal member Karen Jensen who is overseeing this aspect of the hearing has signed her name to the ruling indicating her complicity in accepting this absurd and illegal act on the part of the Commission. I, in turn, am trying to point out to member Jensen that the actions of the Commission and those of the Tribunal are beginning to take on a distinctly biased and partial character and are also making it extremely difficult for me to play by the rules.]

——–

JUDICIAL CHICANERY: MOTION TO RECONSIDER THE JUNE 2, 2009 TRIBUNAL DECISION (2) TO ALLOW THE CHRC TO ALTER EVIDENCE IN THEIR STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS

BY EMAIL

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Box 4633 Barkerville Hwy
Quesnel, B.C. V2J 6T8
Email: radical@radicalpress.com

June 10,  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

The enclosed notice of motion results from the June 2, 2009 email letter from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal containing Tribunal member Karen Jensen’s decision with respect to my motion (2) of April 23, 2009, to further amend the CHRC’s statement of particulars.

In her decision Tribunal member Jensen states the following:

“Mr. Topham has requested that I order the Commission to amend its Statement of Particulars in which the Commission identifies the issue in the present case as being whether the communications allegedly made by the Respondent are likely to expose Jews and other non-whites to hatred or contempt, contrary to s. 13 of the CHRA. Mr. Topham maintains that the underlined portion of this statement should be changed to “and/or citizens of Israel”.

If Mr. Topham believes that Commission counsel has mischaracterized the issue, he is free to set out what he believes the issue to be in his Statement of Particulars and to argue that at the hearing. The Statement of Particulars provides the parties with an opportunity to present their views of the case. The pre-hearing process is not the time for a debate about those views; that debate takes place during the hearing on the merits of the complaint. Therefore, I will not require the Commission to amend its Statement of Particulars.”

The latitude of judicial chicanery contained in this ruling borders on the incredulous and demands of me a further degree of outspoken protest and rebuke toward the three associated parties involved in this complaint.

(more…)

[Editor’s Note: The image above was the logo for the Quesnel Multicultural Society which was formed back in 1983. The design was by a local graphic artist by the name of Jason Curtis who was a very close friend of mine. I was one of the founding members of this organization. Some people, like those who represent B’nai Brith Canada would rather that I was a founding member of a white supremacist organization or a neo-Nazi organization or some other org that they could then point to and say “Look, we told you so! He’s a racist and an anti-Semite and a hatemonger. See! See! See!”

The following Motion was sent to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in response to the Tribunal’s recent ruling on a previous motion of mine regarding the Canadian Human Rights Commission’s tampering with evidence crucial to the complaint case now before the Tribunal. For some as yet unknown reason the Commission is claiming that it doesn’t have in its files the one document which the Complainant Harry Abrams was the MOST vociferous about in his feigned outrage over articles posted on RadicalPress.com that he claims are promoting “hatred toward Jews and/or citizens of Israel.”

The article in question is The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion which can be found at: http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=601 This motion makes it clear to the Commission that they are not playing fair in allowing the Commission to attempt to pull the wool over my eyes and the eyes of the public in allowing this obvious miscarriage to continue.

Harry Abrams, in a letter to the Quesnel Cariboo Observer, back in January of 2008 clearly states that he complained of this document to the Commission yet the Commission is trying to say that they don’t have it in their files. Not only that but they’ve been carrying on in a most un-judical manner in parroting the rants of the Zionist B’nai Brith about the terribly and aweful nature of this roadmap of the 20th Century.

It’s difficult for many people to imagine that an organization like this would stoop to such low tactics but when one begins to pull away the veil that that these people hide behind such actions appear to be standard practise within the Canadian “Human Rights” Commissariat.]

——–

MOTION FOR FURTHER DISCLOSURE OF DOCUMENTS FROM COMPLAINANTS ABRAMS AND THE LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF B’NAI BRITH CANADA
BY EMAIL

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Box 4633 Barkerville Hwy
Quesnel, B.C. V2J 6T8
Email: radical@radicalpress.com  

June 9,  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

The enclosed motion is in regard to the June 2, 2009 email letter from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal containing Tribunal member Karen Jensen’s decision with respect to my motion (1) of April 22, 2009, to rescind Daniel Poulin’s denial of further disclosure of documents.

In her decision Tribunal member Jensen makes two relevant statements which bear upon this current motion:

The first, with respect to the Commission’s statement that “because of its very nature as one of the most notorious anti-Semitic pieces of literature ever created; there should be no need to have a party disclose it”, Jensen states, “The parties are reminded that they are subject to an ongoing duty to disclose all documents in their possession that are arguably relevant to the case whether anti-Semitic or not.”

Jensen’s second statement concerns the Commission’s avowed position that it does not possess the contentious document known as The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and therefore cannot be expected to disclose it in its Statement of Particulars as requested by the Respondent.

In her ruling, Jensen states, “”However, if a document is not in a party’s possession, it cannot be disclosed. I take Commission counsel’s word that the Commission is not in possession of the document entitled “Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”.

What this ruling establishes thus far, regarding my motion of April 22, 2009, is that the Tribunal is taking the “word” of Commission counsel that the Commission doesn’t possess said document but that if any “arguably relevant” document is in the possession of any of the parties it is their “duty” to disclose it.

(more…)

OUTSTANDING IN HIS FIELD, RADICALPRESS.COM PUBLISHER ARTHUR TOPHAM REFLECTS IN “COTTONWOOD GOTHIC” STYLE UPON THE GROWING STENCH FROM INCREASING GOVERNMENT AND MEDIA CONTROL THAT THREATEN CANADA’S BASIC RIGHTS & FREEDOMS.
____________________________________________________________________________

Living in the small village of Cottonwood in the foothills of the Cariboo Mountain range east of Quesnel, B.C. our elevation (2950 feet) gives us just a little more of winter than our neighbours down along the Fraser River to the west. As such we daren’t plant our above-ground crops until around the end of first week of June which is right around the time of this writing.

Generally, planting and preparing the ground is nothing out of the ordinary but this year it’s an added burden to an already overloaded schedule. Thanks to B’nai Brith Canada and their “hate crimes” charge that I’ve been accused of, my time is overwhelmingly consumed in countless hours indoors in my study preparing articles and legal documents and communicating with other freedom of speech lovers around the world. While my eastern neighbour Daniel Poulin, Counsel for the Canadian Human Rights Commission, is out on the weekend playing golf or tending to his flower garden knowing that his pay cheque is in the mail, I’m fretting about trying to dig up enough coin for a gallon of gasoline to power the rototiller and hopefully get the ground ready for all those yummie vegies that my lovely wife has waiting in the greenhouse.

But, still, we must be thankful for the little things that country living brings with it. One of my neighbours up the road has a couple of horses which he and his wife care for and ride. Thanks to their efforts (the horses, that is) a valuable amount of manure is produced over the winter months of feeding in the barn and thanks to the efforts of myself and my dear wife, we were able to haul home a copious amount of the valuable, natural fertilizer for our garden.

It’s a good example of holistic living. Robert Hunter, I know, would have appreciated the symbiotic symbolism of the whole process.

And so, while forking the horseshit into buckets to then be transferred to the flat-deck of my ol’ Dodge, I found myself singing a little ditty that for some months now just seems to pop into my head whenever I’m preoccupied with the whole issue of the “hate crime” that I’ve been charged with along with all of the characters or actors in this little melodrama. It’s a take off on an old Beatles tune, from the White album I believe, called Rocky Raccoon. It goes like this:

“Her name was Magill and she called herself Lil, but everyone [at the Registry] knew her as Nancy.”

Readers who have been following this “Show Trial” put on for the taxpaying public by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its partner-in-crime the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, will recognize that “Magill” is really Nancy Lafontant the Registry Officer for the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal located in Ottawa, Ontario. It is to her that all matters concerning this complaint case are sent by the parties involved. She’s sorta like the flak-catcher who passes on whatever to the head honchos working behind (presumably) locked, windowless doors with big, ugly rent-a-cop, security goons barring the entrance to terrorists and “hate mongers” such as myself who might for whatever reason suddenly take it upon ourselves to go and pay these faceless commissars a visit.

I haven’t a clue what Nancy is really like other than that her use of the English language appears challenging at times but, seeing as how her name is constantly before me on my computer screen, I fantasize about the sort of person that would hold such a position in such a crazy, quasi-judicial organization as the CHR Tribunal.

Then of course one line leads to another and the next one goes:

“Now she and her man who called himself Dan(iel) were in the next room at the hoe-down.”

Suddenly it all began to fall into place for me. Obviously “Dan” can be no other than Daniel Poulin, Counsel for the CHRC who likely resides in the same building that Nancy works in. Now I’m beginning to really sense the degree of conspiracy that’s unfolding here! Both of them are French-Canadians and both of them have trouble (it seems) understanding the English language; in particular Dan, who appears to be extra-challenged by short phrases such as, “and/or citizens of Israel” which, when he sees it written in legal, complaint forms, filled out meticulously by such experienced “hate crimes” fighters as Harry Abrams of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada (recall Abrams’ famous case against the octogenarian WW2 war hero Doug Collins), he translates into the phrase “and/or other non-whites.” Now, while I and many readers who are following this grotesque gong show, find this rather odd and downright dastardly and dirty-pool, it appears that the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal doesn’t seem to see anything unusual in such disastrous changes to the English language.

In her June 2, 2009 ruling on a motion that I filed with the Tribunal requesting that Dan correct his error Tribunal member Karen Jensen denied my motion that the Commission amend its false statement and replace it with the original true one contained in the original true complaint document originally sent to the Commission by Harry Abrams, the originally true Complainant.

For Tribunal member Karen Jensen, what was originally complained of to the CHRC and which now doesn’t appear in the Commission’s Statement of Particulars, is merely a “mischaracterized” misapprehension on my part and an issue that she feels can be worked out or resolved during the actual hearing. It was after reading that not-too-subtle subterfuge of a decision, that the scent of the horse manure I’d been shoveling began to waft upwards again in my mind’s nostrils.

Having been born and raised on a farm the smell of horse manure is as natural to me as the smell of fresh milk rising up from the bucket at milking time. In many ways it’s really not that bad a smell compared with the chemicals that now flood the market and over the years, when farmers and the public generally were less prone to take the word of government folks as gospel, the connotation between the two naturally evolved over time.

Anyhow, the tune lingered on and I could see in my mind’s eye Nancy and Dan, in the Tribunal office somewhere, sharing a soy latte and joking around and talking French to each other and possibly even carrying on flirtatiously when no one or no cameras were visible. All this going on in my head in my neighbour’s barn thousands upon thousands of miles away from Canada’s capital city and all because of a scheming, no-good-for-nothing little piece of chicken-shit legislation (sec. 13(1)) placed carefully into the Canadian Human Rights Act by alien forces inimical to freedom of speech and freedom of the internet.

Horse manure is good for the garden. So is chicken shit. But whether or not the manure which is being shoveled out to the Canadian public via our federal politicians and the MSM regarding Canada’s “hate” laws will prove beneficial to the growing sense of suspicion that surrounds these misplaced organizations waits to be seen. In the meantime I’ll just keep working along here at the ol’ Mac with my rubber boots on and my pitch fork close at hand.

THE ZUNDEL TRIAL & FREE SPEECH
By Douglas Christie, B.A., L.L.B.
February 25, 1985

                  DOUGLAS CHRISTIE, B.A., L.L.B.
__________________________________________________________

[EDITOR’S NOTE: In the Introduction to this small booklet published by C-FAR back in 1985, then President of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Daryl Reside, wrote:

“In this booket, C-FAR’s Canadian Issues Series is publishing excerpts from defence lawyer Doug Christie’s spirited summation to the jury at the Ernst Zundel trial. This summation was delivered February 25, 1985.

Zundel had been charged under Section 177 of the Criminal Code for having knowingly published false news that was likely to be injurious to the public good. In his ringing defence, Christie seeks to establish: 1) that credible reasons existed for much of what Zundel published; that is, he had justification and arguments for his point of view; 2) that he sincerely believed what he wrote and, therefore, did not knowingly publish falsehoods; and 3) that  a diversity of opinions, however controversial they may be, is vital to a democracy and in no way harms the public good. Threading its way throughout the entire summation is Christie’s passionate view that, right or wrong, a man must be permitted to search for the truth and express his point of view.

 It is this fierce commitment to principle and to liberty that makes this summation an important historical document…. It should also be noted that Zundel nowhere advocated illegal or violent acvtions in the two pamphlets in which he was accused of violating Section 177.”

It is now going on 25 years, a quarter of a century, since Doug Christie gave this summation to the jury in February of 1985. In the interim period the forces of censorship and repression have been successful in punishing Ernst Zundel to the max and he now sits in a dungeon in Zionist-occupied Germany and has been jailed for over six years already for having committed the gravest crime of the 20th Century: Speaking the truth.

Obviously the battle to end censorship is far from over. In my own case with these same Zionist Jew forces working through B’nai Brith Canada’s League for “Human Rights”, we see their relentless and calculated designs continuing to unfold before the public’s now awakening eyes. The war for freedom of speech continues.]

                 DOUG CHRISTIE’S SUMMATION TO THE JURY IN 1985

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it’s my role as counsel, to address you now and speak to you about the position of the defence. My first observation is that probably never before in the history of your country, have twelve people had to grapple with a more all-encompassing and serious issue than you will have to deal with. When you have finished your deliberations, in all probability your country will be made different, for as long as you and I will live, by the decision that you will make here about the most serious issues that confront any citizen in a free society.

You have spent seven weeks examining the evidence in one of the most wide-scoped cases in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. I said at the beginning, and I repeat to you now, that this is a case that should never have been before a court of law in a free society because it is an issue upon which courts will have no of difficulty in addressing and dealing with. If you have a clear understanding of the role of freedom in a free society, this may never have to happen again, because a clear indication that we permit and tolerate debate and points of view we may not agree with from a jury of twelve ordinary citizens will be the strongest indication to every politician in this country that we are not subject to the pressures of groups dictating ideas and determining how other people will think, act, and speak.

I suggest to you now that what you have heard in these seven weeks is a lot more information on the subject of the book, Did Six Million Really Die?, than you or I might ever have thought at first was likely to occur. I suggest that we have all learned something in this process. Tolerance, is indeed, one of the things that you have learned by hearing another side to a point that we always thought was so clear and so simple. But to everything we know in life, there are two sides, and many more quite often, and nobody, no matter how well informed or how expert, has all the truth, or ever will.

It should be for the law to determine the extent of debate in a free society. It shouldn’t be forced upon judges and courts to decide what is the truth about some historical belief. It’s nobody’s fault in this room that we are here. It is the duty of every one of us to do our duty as we are, lawyers, judges, jurors, but really it was a wrong political decision to bring before you and me the duty to examine history 40 years old to determine where the truth lies. It is a question that never should have been here. But having been placed in this position, we must deal with it, and we must deal with it to preserve important values in our society.

The first and most important value is the freedom to debate, the freedom to think, the freedom to speak and the freedom to disagree. This prosecution, has already had a very serious effect on those freedoms. If it were to result in a conviction, I suggest to you that a process of witch-hunting would begin in our society where everyone who had a grievance against anyone else would say “Uh-huh, you are false, and I’ll take you or pressure somebody else to take you to court and force you to defend yourself.” Even though our society says, as it always has, in this and every other charge, the burden’s on the Crown, the burden to prove every ingredient is on the Crown, the burden to prove that the thing is false is on the Crown, where does the accused stand? He’s here. He’s been here like you, at his own expense for seven weeks and whatever may become of this case, he’s already paid a very high price for the belief that he had the right to speak what he believed to be the truth.

(more…)

           ANIMAL FARM – ORWELL’S VISION
____________________________________________________

[Editor’s Note: The following article is part of the ongoing exchange of letters, motions, etc. between the parties involved in the Section 13(1) “hate crimes” complaint against RadicalPress.com. It takes the form of a letter to B’nai Brith Canada’s head counsel Marvin Kurz and is my response to his ongoing efforts, on the part of the Complainants in this case, Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, to disqualify lawyer Douglas Christie from gaining intervenor status with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Mr. Christie and the organization which he represents, the Canadian Free Speech League (CFSL), have been applying for intervenor status since February of 2009 in order to partake in the upcoming Tribunal hearing. Thus far the Tribunal has turned down one request and at this date we are awaiting their ruling on the CFSL’s second application.

The information contained in this article is important for all Canadians concerned about free speech. Please move it around as far as you can. Thanks. Arthur Topham, Editor, RadicalPress.com]

—————–

Defending the Canadian Free Speech League
By Arthur Topham
May 30, 2009

“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered“

- Thomas Paine, The Crisis Papers, 1776

TO:
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

I am writing to express once again my position with regard to the ongoing attempt by the Complainants, via their counsel, Mr. Marvin Kurz, to prevent Mr. Douglas Christie and the Canadian Free Speech League (hereafter referred to as the CFSL) from gaining intervenor status on behalf of myself and RadicalPress.com.

      Marvin Kurz -

  B’nai Brith Counsel
________________________

As the Respondent in this “hate crime” complaint case, forced by circumstance to act in a pro se capacity, and a Canadian citizen born and raised in a country that I have always believed to be one whose system of jurisprudence was based upon the democratic principles of rule of law and justice for all, I find this whole sordid, collusive effort on the part of the Complainants and the Commission to prevent Mr. Douglas Christie from partaking in this process most disturbing.

The effort with which Mr. Kurz has doggedly pursued this issue of doing his utmost to prevent the appearance of Mr. Christie at the destined Tribunal hearing by continuous denigration of Mr. Christie’s lifelong work in the field of free speech is a sad reminder of just how far this nation has removed itself from its founding principles.

While Mr. Kurz undoubtedly will deny that his position on this matter is anything but simple legal procedure and precedent I cannot help but question his motives in doing so.

Mr. Kurz would have the Tribunal believe that Douglas Christie, because he is the spokesperson, legal counsel and one of the founding members of the CFSL, is therefore the sole representative of the organization in question and then, to add insult to injury, he enlists as further assumed corroborative evidence, Freudian psychobabble i.e. “alter ego” from another of his B’nai Brith secret covenant members, Sigmund Freud, the notorious cocaine addict of late 19th  Century Europe.

One has to question this method of Mr. Kurz’s. Obviously he must feel that interjecting more Jewish-created “psychological jargon” into the equation somehow lends additional credence to his argument but I would beg to differ with that assumption.

While Mr. Kurz, in his own ignorance, might assume that by quoting Freud his words would automatically project an image of authenticity and scientific certitude upon an otherwise groundless position, that is not the case. So-called “Freudian Psychology” is about as exact a science as teacup reading or past-life regression or communication with “Ascended Masters” or a whole host of other pseudo-scientific/psychic adventures sold to the public as official science. No different than the repetitive lie of the 6 million Holocaust myth that the world has been endlessly subjected to for the past 65 years by the Zionist media, the last century of similar brainwashing of Freudian “psychology,” for all its inuring duration, still doesn’t make it anything close to an exact science.

Therefore, to say that the Canadian Free Speech League is but the “alter ego” of Mr. Doug Christie, is meaningless and futile as a legal argument and should not be given any consideration by the Tribunal in its decision as to whether or not to grant intervenor status to the CFSL.

In his May 8, 2009 letter to the Tribunal Mr. Kurz once again regurgitates former arguments contained in his April 1, 2009 letter wherein he tries to convince members that Mr. Christie cannot possibly have anything of value to offer to the hearing which would add “a unique perspective to issues before the Tribunal.” In that April 1, 2009 letter Mr. Kurz conveyed the concerns of the Complainants that Mr. Christie didn’t “clearly spell out just what he intended to do if granted intervenor status.”

As a result of these concerns by the Complainants, and the Tribunal’s decision to honour their arguments and thereby refuse the CFSL’s initial request for intervention, Mr. Christie submitted a renewed application to the Tribunal on April 23, 2009 wherein, I feel, he satisfied the aforementioned concerns voiced by Mr. Kurz. In his letter Mr. Christie stated:

“Dear Ms. LaFontant:

I wish this letter to constitute my renewed application for intervenor status in the above case. I wish to have exactly the same status as was accorded the Canadian Free Speech League in the case of Warman v. Lemire, whose member Hadjis allowed the CFSL the following:

The right to cross-examine witnesses.

The right to make final submissions on the constitutional issues.

I did not in that case have the right to call evidence. I would not seek that right in the Abrams case.

The Canadian Free Speech League was founded by letters patent issued by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on February 20, 1986. According to its founding document, its objects are, inter alia:

To inform the public in regard to matters of freedom of expression, thought, belief and opinion, and the dangers of state control of expression.

To educate the public on the dangers of tyranny and government control of the right to speak and think.

To work for the public awareness of the danger of laws which destroy or otherwise limit freedom of speech to those utterances which are socially unacceptable in the eyes of Judges.

To employ a spokesman for the purpose of carrying out the foregoing objects.

The Canadian Free Speech League has many supporters. It publishes the Friends of Freedom newsletter and distributes it worldwide. Since 1987, it has awarded the George Orwell Free Speech Award annually to a person persecuted for his opinion. As general counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League, I have represented James Keegstra, Ernst Zundel, John Ross Taylor and Malcolm Ross before the Supreme Court of Canada, David Ahenakew before the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Lady Jane Birdwood before the Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal in London, England, and numerous other persons in cases involving free speech.

Therefore, Mr. Kurz’s remarks about the League “simply being” my “alter ego” are insulting, unbecoming and untrue. The purpose of my representation would be to assist in representing the free speech argument, which is a perspective different from those of the parties. It is a purpose which is in the public interest. Mr. Topham and Mr. Kurz are clearly adversaries with particular axes to grind. The Canadian Free Speech League, on the other hand, would point to areas of common interest in the widest range of discourse on public matters and the areas of law which support this contention.

Respectfully submitted,

Douglas H. Christie
General Counsel
Canadian Free Speech League”

LAWYER DOUGLAS CHRISTIE - FREE SPEECH DEFENDER AND

SPOKESPERSON FOR THE CANADIAN FREE SPEECH LEAGUE
____________________________________________________________

In his letter to the Tribunal of May 8, 2009 Mr. Kurz, obviously still not satisfied with the information supplied to the Tribunal by Mr. Christie, proceeds to set forth further citations and rulings to show that the CFSL hasn’t passed the Sec. 50 test for qualification as an intervenor by going on and on in a vain effort to somehow prove that the CFSL is just Doug Christie and no one else, (the “alter ego” card) as if this fatuous argument on his clients’ behalf somehow is the crucial, determining factor and ought to be received by the Tribunal with open arms.

Such a wanton display of incredulous assertions and vacuous demands made on behalf of a recognized secret society (B’nai Brith International) whose primary, existential purpose is to support the foreign, racist, apartheid state of Israel and its nefarious, delusional political ideology known as Zionism, must be looked upon by the Tribunal as grave reason to doubt all that Mr. Kurz is attempting to accomplish for the Complainants and his foreign-dominated organization of which he is himself a member and its lead counsel.

What I see happening here, and it is as clear and as close to sedition as anything I’ve ever encountered in Canadian jurisprudence, is a foreign lobby group, one hiding behind a Zionist Jew, media-created mask of supposed respectability using its powerful, behind the scenes influence to gain not only the undeserved attention and servitude of Canada’s leading politicians but also, over time and via the salami technique of incremental insinuation, that of all other government organizations and quasi-judicial bodies, to subsequently exert undue, unwarranted influence and control over them for the vested, selfish interest of their own heinous agenda.

As a result organizations such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission (I’ll reserve judgment on the Tribunal at this time) and others of a provincial nature have been exploited and manipulated in order to create the very type of undemocratic legislation, i.e. Sec. 13(1) of the CHR Act under which I, and many others, have been unjustly herded into the barbed-wire enclosure, euphemistically labeled the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, to be publicly displayed, vilified and then auctioned off like cattle to the highest Jewish foreign-lobbyist bidder, which, in this case, just happens to be the League for “Human Rights” of B’nai Brith Canada. It could just as easily have been the Canadian Jewish Congress or, if needs be, even a case of entrapment by the Zionist front man Richard Warman but regardless of which foreign entity it was the modus operandi is identical, be it of Jewish or crypto-Jewish origins.

Richard Warman receiving his just reward
__________________________________________

That said, let me return again to the statements contained in Mr. Christie’s letter of April 23, 2009 wherein he lays out in a clear, unambiguous manner the reasons for why the CFSL ought to be granted intervenor status in this complaint case. Let us look at the four objects of this organization which relate to the issue at hand:

“To inform the public in regard to matters of freedom of expression, thought, belief and opinion, and the dangers of state control of expression.”

If ever there was a need for organizations in Canada willing to stand up to, expose and challenge the growing, imminent danger to freedom of expression, thought, belief and opinion now emanating from state-sponsored bodies such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission as well as its provincial counterparts, it is now.

The very fact that for decades we have had embedded within our country organizations like B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress and other foreign Jewish lobbyist groups whose agendas are NOT in the best interests of the vast majority of Canadian citizens ought to, at this pivotal stage of discussions surrounding freedom of speech, be a wake-up call for all Canadians concerned about their fundamental rights, especially in light of all the recent cases surrounding the draconian, fanatical “hate crimes” legislation based upon Section 13(1) of the CHR Act. Such anti-freedom legislation, I contend, was seeded into our former legislation by these very organizations and fostered by them from the start to ensure that eventually they would result in legal precedents useful to their own alien, self-interests and not to the nation as a whole.
Given the fact, which Mr. Kurz and his Zionist compatriots would rather not admit to acknowledging, that most, of not all of these cases transpiring over the past quarter century or longer, have involved the dedicated, patriotic and honourable involvement of the current spokesperson for the Canadian Free Speech League, Mr. Doug Christie, it therefore appears to me to be rather disingenuous and a pointless exercise on the part of Mr. Kurz to suggest, as he does in such vociferous, rhetorical, and repetitive terms, that Mr. Christie and the CFSL would have little to offer in the way of new information regarding our coveted right to freedom of speech.

“To educate the public on the dangers of tyranny and government control of the right to speak and think.”

Knowing, as I do, the Commission’s disdain for all things “American” I will dispense with quoting from the U.S. Constitution or its Bill of Rights and instead offer the Tribunal the famed words of an Englishman whose efforts in the cause of universal freedom and democracy are recognized throughout  Western civilization.

In a small pamphlet (The Crisis Papers), composed during the American Revolution of 1776, the great British thinker, inventor, author and political philosopher, Thomas Paine, wrote:

“These are times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; ‘tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

        Thomas Paine - English Man of Letters
_____________________________________________________

I would humbly suggest to the Tribunal that today, right here in Canada, we are facing a similar crisis of equal, if not greater, importance; that of losing our fundamental right to freedom of speech and self-expression and thus having to live on bent knees in abject, slavish fear of a tyrannical government that imposes the will, not of the majority, but of special interest groups like B’nai Brith Canada, upon all of its citizens.

To lose the right to free expression is akin to losing the right to think for oneself. And that fundamental, God-given right to personal, reflective cognition is something men and women have died for in order to retain since the beginning of independent thought and if it’s ever seriously threatened again, as I’m suggesting that it now is, they will undoubtedly die for it again, for without this freedom we might just as well be dead for spiritually, mentally and emotionally that is what such repression represents to a free and independent people.

Mr. Christie is not a “summer soldier” in this battle for free expression nor is he a “sunshine patriot” who only comes out to a skirmish with the forces of repression when the weather is fine. Every day, in every way possible, for years upon decades, Mr. Christie and the Canadian Free Speech League have battled with the enemies of freedom come hell or high water; be it in the courtrooms of the nation or in the published efforts both hard copy and on the internet of their newsletter Friends of Freedom or other pamphlets and publications.

That is why Marvin Kurz and Harry Abrams and Anita Bromberg fear his presence at their little contrived “hate crimes” Show Trial. They know that he is a formidable foe of censorship and injustice; they’ve met him before on the legal battlefields across this glorious nation; they know that his sword never sleeps and his valour and his faith in God never wanes in the face of oppression and so they are trying every trick in their shoddy little bag of chicanery to convince the Tribunal that this “David” ought not to be allowed in the field when Goliath goes after Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com.

Mr. Paine was right. What we obtain in the way of legal freedoms (such as freedom of speech and opinion) without pain or effort we tend to esteem too lightly and in doing so lay ourselves open to the treachery of subversive elements within our society who would, via stealth and the power of their purse, usurp those cherished freedoms from under us and impose their own egregious, self-serving will upon everyone else. This, I humbly suggest to you, is the current crisis that Canadians now face whether or not the Jewish-controlled media will admit to it or not and as it stands today by example they are doing their utmost to keep this growing crisis under their control by censoring and manipulating the news surrounding the vital issue of free speech in Canada.

For decades Canadians have been lulled into a false sense of freedom by the siren songs of the Zionist-controlled media thus succumbing to the notion that nothing would ever endanger the rights and privileges which our forefathers and mothers fought and died for. Therein lies the danger we now face.

Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of any democracy. Without it all else is for naught and for that reason alone it behooves the Tribunal to pause and consider exactly who its enemies are and who its friends are in this conflict over basic human rights.
Who are the real haters in this drama? Those of us who love their country, their families, their communities, their land, their freedoms, their God and who are willing to risk all they cherish in order to expose the foreign agents that are undermining the foundations upon which our way of life depends? Or those who threaten our freedoms; who trivialize and downplay our rights in the interest of their own specious, suspect agendas; agendas that only serve small, special-interest groups, foreign nations and foreign concepts of what a truly humanitarian and free society ought to look and be like?

“To work for the public awareness of the danger of laws which destroy or otherwise limit freedom of speech to those utterances which are socially unacceptable in the eyes of Judges.”

I have stated this before on a number of occasions and it is a fact which Mr. Kurz, the Complainants, the Commission and the Tribunal are fully aware of whether they wish to openly acknowledge it or not:– our judicial system, especially at the higher levels, is too heavily bodied and influenced by Jews who wield an inordinate amount of influence upon Canadian jurisprudence due to their elevated status to positions of political and judicial power. This is not a moot issue even though I’m sure Mr. Kurz will likely rise up in feigned outrage and indignation to argue and accuse me of being “anti-Semitic” and “racist” and so on for having stated the obvious.

The fact that some Canadians are able to clearly perceive the nakedness of the Emperor may be disturbing to his sycophantic consorts but Mr. Kurz’s feelings in this regard are not a direct concern of mine. What concerns me as a sincere, honest, patriotic Canadian is the undeniable fact that at least 50% or more of our federal Supreme Court Judges are Jews and, as such they are, by definition, dual citizens of both the racist, apartheid state of Israel and the democratic nation of Canada and that their divided allegiance to Canada, due to their Zionist and/or religious connections with Israel, makes any of their decisions respecting Canadian jurisprudence as it pertains to “hate crimes” law, highly suspect given the nature of political Zionism and belief system of Babylonian Talmudism which forms the underlying basis of Judaism.

Decisions, with respect to anything remotely connected to Jews in Canada, are heavily influenced by the attitudes, ambitions and beliefs of these members of our highest court in the nation and when it comes to issues related to the foreign state of Israel and/or issues related to discrimination and “hate crimes” (which in reality are only criticisms of Israel and political Zionism) and “Holocaust” denial and “gas chamber” doubts and anything else associated with Jews and their personal idiosyncrasies, it cannot be overlooked that this preponderance of Jewish Supreme Court Judges plays a vital role in the attitude and motivation of their decisions; ones which affect the vast majority of Canadians, not just their own small, circumscribed community here in Canada.

PEOPLE ARE WAKING UP TO THE TRUTH ABOUT CENSORSHIP
______________________________________________________________

It’s for important reasons as these that organizations such as the CFSL are vitally necessary to challenge these hidden aspects of our nation’s judicial underpinnings. Decisions such as Section 13(1) of the CHR Act are relatively of such a high degree of importance to our nation that they should never have been left to the whims of individual judges who, for whatever reasons, might be influenced one way or another into framing such anti-democratic legislation.

“To employ a spokesman for the purpose of carrying out the foregoing objects.”

Respecting the fact that Mr. Christie is the spokesperson for the Canadian Free Speech League should not, in my opinion, have a bearing on the Tribunal’s decision to grant intervenor status to the CFSL. All of Mr. Kurz’s vainglorious efforts to the contrary, every organization will have a spokesperson and considering the objects of the CFSL noted above plus the fact that Mr. Christie is one of the founding members of this laudable organization and a person extremely experienced in the issues at hand I cannot imagine anyone better suited to represent the CFSL in this complaint case.

Mr. Kurz’s attempts to discredit Mr. Christie notwithstanding plus his suggestions that the CFSL is not a legitimate organization and only representative of its spokesperson is but a feeble endeavour and in truth more a discredit to the Complainants and himself than anyone else.

Why would dedicated, patriotic Canadians concerned about issues of freedom (the building blocks of any democratic society) try to prevent someone like Mr. Christie from intervening in a case which involves allegations of wrongful use of freedom of speech? One would think that, for the Complainants and the Commission, any gains in the area of additional knowledge as it applies to the concept of freedom of speech would be welcome in nation that prides itself on its democratic ideals. By opposing such efforts it begs the question as to whether organizations such as B’nai Brith Canada actually believe in this worthy principle themselves or if, in fact, they believe that only they should be allowed to express their opinions on matters, political, religious, or otherwise, regardless of how repulsive or revolting their perspectives may happen to be to other Canadians.

One would like to think that minorities in Canada, such as the Jewish community is, would be at the forefront of the struggle for freedom of speech and open debate. Historically it’s a known fact that the Jews love to debate and argue. Their religion itself, Judaism, is based upon ancient oral traditions wherein their rabbis are known universally for their ability to argue and debate the most esoteric, abstruse ideas to the point of absolute absurdity. Anyone who has read the Babylonian Talmud can attest to the fact that the debating skills of the Jews are par excellent yet when it comes to debating issues such as the ideology of political Zionism or Israel’s domestic and foreign policies as they pertain to the Palestinian people of Gaza or the Middle East in general, suddenly their longstanding, touted abilities at sustained discourse abruptly cease and in place of debate we find them consistently resorting to Section 13(1) of the CHR Act and inevitable “complaints” of “hate crimes” against those whose views and opinions they cannot, for some strange reason, seem to find the requisite intellectual knowledge or information to either refute or even reach a stalemate over.

It’s therefore inconceivable that given all of Mr. Christie’s hard-earned knowledge and experience over the years in defending political prisoners such as Ernst Zundel and others, experience that only comes by research and study and the questioning of assumed “authorities” in whatever field of expertise, that Mr. Kurz would try to suggest to the Tribunal that Mr. Christie should be prevented from intervening in an upcoming, precedent-setting case that bodes of ill intent and greater curtailment of our freedoms should it ever reach the stage wherein the Complainants allegations are accepted as legally warranted and therefore justified in the eyes of our courts and our quasi-judicial bodies meant, supposedly, to preserve and protect our inherent rights.

There is much more that needs to be said concerning this matter but I will forgo further comment and summarize by stating that this particular issue of intervenor status for the CFSL is basically the third strike which potentially could be alleged against the Tribunal in terms of its credibility as an impartial, unbiased, and independent body.

Already in this process leading up to a hearing the Tribunal has been faced with two other issues which await a ruling. I’m referring here to my two previous motions to the Commission wherein the Commission is blatantly attempting to deny evidence in the complaint case and furthermore, and of even greater concern, trying to change the actual wording of the original charges made against my person and my business known as RadicalPress.com.

Given these three indicators by the Commission and the Complainants I once again must ask of the Tribunal that they look at these matters in as great a detail as possible and try to see this situation from as clear a perspective as they are able.

Justice, to be conceived of and accepted as having been meted out in a fair and impartial manner as possible, must, above all else, have not only the appearance of truth to fortify itself but also the substantial backing of unblemished fact to maintain its alleged legitimacy.

If there is any further formality or motion that you require, please let me know as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham pro se
Publisher/Editor
The RadicalPress.com

Cc:
Daniel Poulin, CHRC counsel
Marvin Kurz, Counsel, B’nai Brith Canada
Harry Abrams, Complainant
Anita Bromberg, Co-complainant
Douglas Christie, General Counsel, Canadian Free Speech League