Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 by Arthur Topham

screen-shot-2016-11-16-at-9-00-06-am

screen-shot-2016-11-16-at-9-01-29-am

screen-shot-2016-11-16-at-9-02-04-am

Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,

First, allow me to extend my sincere apologies to all of those who have been waiting so long for this legal update. It has been delayed for over a year now primarily due to the snail’s pace at which the R v Roy Arthur Topham Charter challenge has been crawling through the BC Supreme Court legal system. Delay after delay meant postponement of an overview that might provide a useful picture of all the salient events. As a result coverage of all that’s gone down demands a somewhat lengthy update.

To recap the issue for readers – Constitutional notice was first served to the Crown on March 23rd, 2015 and and the process, such as it was, did not conclude until November 8th and 9th, 2016 in Victoria, B.C. where the final two days of argument took place. That amounts to a little over 19 months this aspect of the case has been ongoing.

From the onset it was Crown’s position that they wanted the Constitutional Charter challenge put off until after the end of the trial. Following the pre-trial hearing on the matter that began in Vancouver, BC’s SC on June 22nd, 2015 – in his Reasons for Judgment handed down July 8, 2015 – SC Justice Butler, citing case law, ruled that it would be better to hold off on the Charter argument until after the trial so as to not “fragment” the criminal proceedings. He also decided that in the case of constitutional challenges it’s better to wait until after the trial to adjudicate such issues because by then a “factual foundation” would be in place.

Arthur and the Three Hookers
As well, prior to Justice Butler’s decision of July 8th, during a June 10th, 2015 appearance, he ruled that in order for the Constitutional Charter challenge to proceed it would first be necessary for the Defence to provide sound reasons which would satisfy the Justice the “Bedford Test” had been met in order for the proceedings to move to the stage where the actual challenge to the legislation would take place.

In a nutshell the Bedford “Test” or “Threshold”, as it’s often called, is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Canada (Attorney General) v Bedford handed down on December 20, 2013, wherein the Supreme Court ruled that some of Canada’s prostitution laws were unconstitutional. Bedford was the surname of one of the three prostitutes who challenged the legislation.

One of the principal issues that the S.C. of Canada deliberated in that case was whether a trial judge could consider Charter arguments not raised in a previous case about the same law. Legal tradition has always held that a lower court (in my case the BC S.C.) is ‘bound’ by decisions made by the SC of Canada. It’s this particular principle and precedent (in Latin called stare decisis) which Crown has been arguing over-rides my arguments as presented in my Memorandum of Argument Regarding the Threshold Issue where I state that the decision in Keegstra is no longer binding upon my case due to similarities with the Bedford case where the Supreme Court of Canada found that lower courts may revisit binding authorities from higher courts in cases where new legal issues are raised, or where a change in the evidence or circumstances fundamentally shifts the parameters of the debate.

As a result of Justice Butler’s ruling my challenge was therefore postponed until the trial was completed. The trial ran from October 26, 2015 to November 12, 2015 (a period of 14 days) and when it concluded I was found guilty on Count 1 of the charge of “willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code”. At the same time the jury also acquitted me on Count 2 which was the same identical charge.***

Fixing a date with the Queen of England no easy task
After the trial ended I appeared again in Quesnel SC on December 7th, 2015 to “fix a date” for the Charter hearing to take place. During this appearance Rodney G. Garson, a special Crown Prosecutor out of the Prosecution Support Unit within the Crown Law Division of the Ministry of Justice filed a requisition with the court to appear on behalf of the Crown to argue the Charter matter.

It was also then that a new date of January 25th, 2016 was set to fix another date to argue the question of who it was, Crown or Defence, that bears the onus of having to prove that Sec. 2(b) of the Charter is infringed upon by s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada and is therefore open to challenge, regardless of the former landmark Keegstra decision.

The January 25th, 2016 appearance came and went. During court my legal counsel Barclay Johnson informed the Justice and Crown that the Defence would be calling Expert Witnesses to testify during the Charter hearing. In that instance Dr. Michael Persinger’s name was given to the court. Once again we didn’t get to “fixing a date” and the issue was put over to March 29th, 2016.

On March 29th, 2016 we met again to “fix a date” but, alas, it didn’t happen. My counsel, Barclay Johnson did notify the court at that time that we would also be calling Dr. Timothy Jay as an Expert Witness. He also brought up the issue of the double verdicts, i.e. one Guilty count and one Not Guilty count for the same identical charge. A new date was set for April 4th, 2016 to “fix a date” for the Charter hearing.

Like all the others dates April 4th, 2016 came and went and still no date was fixed. A new date of May 2nd, 2016 was set.

On May 2nd, 2016 I again attended court. Murphy’s Law still being in effect this time there were computer problems in the court room and so Quesnel Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston appeared on behalf of Crown Prosecutor Rodney Garson and a new date of June 6th, 2016 was set to “fix a date” for the Charter hearing.

On June 6th, 2016 the “fix a date” phenomenon was getting so bad that my own counsel’s computer went on the blink and we had to set another date! This time it was for July 11th, 2016.

When July 11th, 2016 rolled around and a miracle occurred. We finally were able to “fix a date” for the commencement of the Charter hearing. The week of October 3rd, 2016 to October 7th, 2016 was SET! During this time Crown chose the date of October 31st, 2016 for “sentencing” in the event that I lost my Charter argument.

The Hearing (Part 1)
One day prior to the commencement of the hearing on October 3rd I was informed by my legal counsel that the scheduled week would not see the completion of the Charter argument. Crown Prosecutor Rodney Garson informed the court that he would require additional time in order to cross-examine the two Expert Witnesses that Defence was planning to call and he didn’t feel there would be enough time to also argue the issue of the Bedford Threshold.

Along with Dr. Persinger and Dr. Jay there was a third witness present in court on October 3rd. Jeremy Maddock, who was my former lawyer Doug Christie’s legal assistant and is currently assisting my counsel Barclay Johnson, appeared in order to testify to the various websites online where the materials that were posted on RadicalPress.com could also be found. This was one of our principal arguments – that all of the online books that I have posted on my website are also readily available on numerous other websites around the world as well as being openly sold on major book-selling sites like Amazon.com and Amazon.ca. Jeremy Maddock presented to the court 22 screenshots of other websites that he had researched which clearly showed that the impugned books and articles were freely available elsewhere on the net.

In cross-examination Crown Prosecutor Garson attempted to dismiss the screen shots of the various websites that Mr. Maddock presented suggesting that they weren’t reliable and also that the numbers shown in the Google searches were also irrelevant. Defence lawyer Barclay Johnson responded by referring to the hundreds of pages of screen shots that Crown had introduced into evidence during the trial and suggesting that if they weren’t relevant then Crown should not have presented them to the jury. Justice Butler, having sat through the trial, was well aware of this fact and didn’t buy into Crown’s argument and accepted Maddock’s testimony as both relevant and admissible.

The Defence’s first Expert Witness was Dr. Timothy Jay. (It should be noted here, prior to discussing Dr. Jay’s testimony, that throughout the trial Crown consistently made reference to my satire Israel Must Perish! , an article created by me in order to show the glaring hypocrisy of Jewish lobbyists like B’nai Brith Canada – one of the two complainants who had filed the Sec. 319(2) charge against me and my website – who were accusing me of spreading “hate” when one of their own kind, Theodore N. Kaufman, had unquestionably written one of the most vile, hate-filled books titled Germany Must Perish! back in 1941 that basically called for the absolute genocide of the German nation and all of its people.)

Dr. Jay, a full professor with the Massachusetts College of Liberal Arts, is considered to be an expert in the field of cognitive and linguistic psychology and has extensive experience interpreting allegedly obscene speech in the context of U.S. radio and television regulation. He’s also written numerous books and articles dealing with the issue of controversial language and for purposes of the Charter hearing had written a paper in my defence called “Opinion Regarding Arthur Topham’s Israel Must Perish” the gist of which was:

“It is my opinion as a cognitive psychologist that a satirical reading of Israel Must Perish! by an average adult reader would not result in the satire being considered hate speech. There are several mitigating factors which must be taken into account regarding how people read and comprehend literature, for example, what frame of mind the reader brings to the literature, what the reader thinks the literature is “about” or “means”, what impact a satirical reading might have on a reader, and what a reader would ultimately remember about the literature. I also consider the context in which the reader encounters the literature.”

My legal counsel Barclay Johnson presented Dr. Jay’s curriculum vitae [a fancy Latin term for a resume. A.T.] to the court and Dr. Jay appeared via telephone to answer any questions that the Defence or Crown or Justice Butler might have.

From the onset Crown Prosecutor Rodney Garson was quick to respond to Defence’s introduction of Dr. Jay and began citing a number of case law examples regarding “expert opinion” in order to challenge Dr. Jay’s qualifications. He went on about how an expert witness should be “impartial”, “independent”, “unbiased”, “fair”, “objective” and “non-partisan”, all the while overlooking the fact that during the trial itself the Crown’s own “Expert Witness”, former Canadian Jewish Congress CEO Len Rudner, had outright proven to the court that he was anything but impartial and independent and unbiased and objective and, to top it all off, had unabashedly committed perjury during his testimony, a fact which SC Justice Butler was made aware of but chose to ignore. Garson of course wasn’t present during the trial but given these facts all his feigned and overtly aggressive protestations against Dr. Jay’s credentials and his ability to offer expert opinion appeared rather disingenuous, especially when he exclaimed to the court that he had a “realistic concern” about Dr. Jay’s qualifications.

The thrust of the Crown’s argument was that Dr. Jay’s opinions on my satire Israel Must Perish! was biased and would “undermine” the decision of the jury and “the administration of justice” and put SC Justice Butler in an “invidious” position. Going further, Crown Prosecutor Garson told the court that the jurors’ decision cannot be questioned or “further evidence” be added by an expert witness. It was clearly evident that the Crown didn’t want any expert opinion on my satire to be considered or even an acknowledgment that it was a satire and not a “book” as the Crown consistently referred to it as during the trial.

On Tuesday, October 8th at 2 p.m. SC Justice Butler gave his oral decision regarding Dr. Timothy Jay’s qualifications and ruled that Dr. Jay’s evidence impinged upon the question of my guilt or innocence and was therefore a “collateral attack” on the jury’s “guilty” verdict and wasn’t permissible.

In a recent article published in the Friends of Freedom newsletter (A private newsletter for the supporters of the Canadian Free Speech League, dealing in cases of the censorship and persecution of political, religious, and historical opinion.) titled “Topham Embarks on Long-Awaited Challenge of Hate Speech Law” by Jeremy Maddock he has the following to say about Justice Butler’s decision to disallow Dr. Jay’s evidence:

“Justice Butler’s decision leaves the defence in a very difficult position. On one hand, the Supreme Court of Canada’s Whatcott decision provides that hate speech laws must be narrowly construed, and are only constitutional to the extent that they ‘prohibit expression that is likely to cause … discrimination and the other societal harms of hate speech.’

At trial, defence counsel was told in no uncertain terms that he was not permitted to call evidence on the constitutional question, which is an issue for the judge alone to decide, and cannot be put to the jury. By limiting the trial evidence in this way, then subsequently ruling that evidence about the effects of the impugned material is inadmissible on the constitutional application, the Court has made it exceedingly difficult for the defence to meet the test in Whatcott.”

A Bloody Disgrace
What ought to be of immediate concern to readers and especially supporters of this Charter hearing is the fact that I had worked hard to raise funds via my GoGetFunding site to hire Dr. Jay to write his report. It was an endeavour which cost the Defence $2,000.00 in US funds the money ultimately coming from numerous supporters around the world who donated their hard-earned cash to make it happen. Justice Butler’s decision to not allow Dr. Jay to testify meant all that money had been wasted yet in the case of Crown’s “Expert Witness” Len Rudner during trial, hardly a second thought was given to granting him the same official status. Then, on top of that, I recently received, via my legal counsel, another invoice from Dr. Jay requesting an additional $1,700.00 US funds for his time spent in court on the 3rd and 4th of October, an amount which still must be raised in order to fulfill Defence’s commitments. In total that amounts to $3,700.00 US which translates into $5,112.29 Canadian dollars all raised in vain. The matter is blithely brushed aside as being just a part of the process of doing the legal dance but from my perspective it’s nothing short of being a bloody disgrace and an insult to all who have given their financial support to this ongoing “hate speech” trial.

Dr. Persinger takes the stand Day 3 of the hearing began on Wednesday, October 5th with Defence counsel Barclay Johnson introducing our second Expert Witness Dr. Michael Persinger who also was able to appear via telephone.

Dr. Michael A. Persinger is a Full Professor in the Departments of Psychology and Biology Behavioural Neuroscience, Biomolecular Sciences and Human Studies Programs at Laurentian University in Sudbury, Ontario and his curriculum vitae is, like Dr. Jay’s, also long and distinguished.

Dr. Persinger had written a paper titled, The Anachronism of Policies and Laws for Hate Speech in Modern Canada: The Current Negative Cultural Impact of Legal Punishment upon Extreme Verbal Behaviour, the focus of which was a review of an earlier related document published back in 1966 titled Report to the Minister of Justice of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada [Also referred to as the Cohen Committee Report. A.T.]. It was this paper which the Defence introduced as part of the reasons for having Dr. Persinger testify.

The report had been commissioned by The Honourable Lucien Cardin, Minister of Justice and Attorney-General of Canada in 1965 during the time when the Cohen Committee was laying the groundwork for the implementation of Canada’s current Hate Propaganda legislation. (Background information on that period is contained in an article I published on RadicalPress.com in March of 2014 titled, Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” Laws).

As Dr. Persinger states in his paper, “Although the document (the Cohen Committee Report) was primarily a legal text, it contained a review of social psychological analysis of hate propaganda by Dr. Harry Kaufmann, an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto. The mass of this literature was not empirical but based upon theories that are now almost fifty or more years old. There were almost no experimental data, not surprisingly because social psychology was in its infancy and neurocognitive psychology with the powerful tools of brain imaging, did not exist.”

Further, Dr. Persinger also stated that, “The policies upon which contemporary laws for hate propaganda and hate speech have been based in Canada appear to be primarily derived from” Dr. Harry Kaufmann’s Report to the Minister of Justice of the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada. He then goes on to say that, “Today’s environment is dominated by the Internet, the multiple variants of cell phone media, and the requirement for the average person to be more evaluative with respect to what is read and what is said within chat rooms, bulletin boards, and other electronic forms of information exchange. The world of Google and of search engines has shaped a generation with premature sagacity for challenge and resistance to gullibility that did not exist in the population of the 1950s and 1960s. Those individuals would have constituted the focus of concern at the time the document was published.”

One additional statement in Dr. Persinger’s paper claimed that “The assertion by the Cohen Committee that ‘individuals subjected to racial or religious hatred may suffer substantial psychological stress, the damaging consequences including a loss of self-esteem, feelings of anger, and outrage’ is confounded by archaic concepts of psychological processes.” Basically put Persinger’s position was that the psychological methods used back in the mid-1960’s to determine whether or not “hate propaganda” was dangerous and in need of criminal protection are now completely out of date and irrelevant.

Having stated his position Crown then responded by going on the same attack used in cross-examining Dr. Jay. Prosecutor Rodney Garson did all he could to down play and dismiss Dr. Persinger’s expertise, focusing primarily on the fact that Dr. Persinger had not, in his estimation, read or written scholarly articles on “hate speech”. Garson then quoted a number of reviews written in legal journals that focused on the subject of “hate speech”. As he referenced them it became quite apparent to myself that all of the authors of the articles were Jewish and their arguments were specifically designed to buttress the whole concept of “hate speech” in order to lend a fabricated sense of authenticity to it.

Earlier in his presentation Dr. Persinger had already stated that he doesn’t use the term “hate speech” in his work for the simple reason that it’s too vague, unscientific and open to multiply shades of interpretation. He didn’t go so far as to state that the term itself is actually a cognitive construct coined by the Jews for their own propaganda purposes but it was evident that the whole notion of “Hate Propaganda” is one that was created by Jewish lobbyists in order to justify their implementation of “Hate Propaganda” laws into Canada’s Criminal Code. Dr. Persinger also made a point of stating at the start of his testimony that he doesn’t read legal documents as they are generally out of his sphere of expertise yet Crown kept on doggedly asking Dr. Persinger if he’d read this book or that book or any of the plethora of materials on “hate speech” (the vast majority written by Jews) and eventually the good Dr. responded to Garson’s incessant questioning by stating, “No, I’m not familiar with that book. I usually read detective books.”

By Thursday, October 6th the arguments still continued back and forth as to whether or not Dr. Persinger was qualified to give expert testimony related to the issues surrounding the Charter challenge. Prior to the morning recess S.C. Justice Butler told the court that after the break he would give his oral ruling on the matter. He returned at 11:59 a.m. and ruled that Dr. Persinger was qualified to testify.

Court did not resume until 2:35 that afternoon. Dr. Persinger’s health was such that he could only speak for certain lengths of time and then it was necessary for him to take a break. By 3:30 p.m. during Crown’s cross-examination Dr. Persinger’s energy was waining and Justice Butler decided that it would be better stop and set another date when Crown might be able to complete their portion of the cross-examination. A new date of October 19th, 2016 was set with the proceedings to take place in the Vancouver Supreme Court and following that the week of November 7th, 8th and 9th, 2016 was set for the completion of arguments on the Bedford Threshold.

The Hearing (Part 2)
The Vancouver SC portion of Crown’s final cross-examination of Dr. Persinger was over within a couple of hours in the afternoon. Due to the fact that I was already down on the coast on other personal matters I was able to attend in person.

The Hearing (Part 3)
In attendance for the final two days of arguments were SC Justice Bruce Butler, my lawyer Barclay Johnson, Crown Prosecutor Rodney G. Garson and Barclay’s legal assistant Jeremy Maddock. Due to a critical issue with Legal Aid over funding my counsel, Barclay Johnson, was unable to fly up to Quesnel and so the hearing was rescheduled to resume in Victoria, BC SC where Justice Butler was already scheduled to appear for those three days. The sudden change of venue meant I couldn’t attend in person but was able to listen in from my home in Cottonwood, BC via a telephone link.

Final arguments were exchanged and when the hearing concluded SC Justice Bruce Butler announced to both Defence and Crown and myself that he would not be handing down his decision on the Charter argument until March 11th, 2017. When that date arrives either a new sentencing date will be set if we lose the argument or Justice Butler will make a positive pronouncement on the defence’s argument that Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code constitutes an infringement of Section 2(b) of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Conclusion
The R v Roy Arthur Topham “hate speech” case essentially began February 14th, 2007 when I first was attacked by the foreign lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada and accused of posting anti-Semitic, hate articles on my website. This coming February 14th, 2017 will mark the 10 year anniversary of this assault upon my constitutional right to freedom of expression. Given that my next court appearance is not until March 11th, 2017 it’s basically a done deal that the trials and tribulations surrounding this decade long travesty of justice will have surpassed the 10 year mark.

When SC Justice Butler hands down his decision on March 11th, 2017 we will know what my options are for the future. Should Justice Butler see fit to find the circumstances surrounding this case do in fact warrant a constitutional challenge to Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code then the immediate result will be a stay of the charge against me but that, in all probability, will only continue until the BC Crown in all likelihood appeals the decision of Justice Butler and the whole proceeding then shifts from the BC Supreme Court level to the federal Supreme Court for further adjudication.

On the other hand, should Justice Butler find my argument doesn’t pass the Bedford Threshold test then I will be faced with Sentencing on the guilty verdict in Count 1 soon after his decision. At that time I will have to decide whether or not to appeal the verdict in Count 1 and begin all over again with a new trial or else accept the verdict and whatever legal repercussions it entails.

Barclay Johnson, my legal counsel throughout the trial and the Charter hearing, has informed me that should the case go to the Supreme Court of Canada on appeal that it would entail a very costly and lengthy process of litigation running into hundreds of thousands of dollars and possibly a number of year of more court appearances which would occur not here in my home town of Quesnel but require my traveling to Ottawa, Ontario. Given the fact that I don’t fly this would be an additionally onerous undertaking that I’m not excited about. Therefore, speaking frankly, at this point in time I don’t find the prospect of years of more litigation a very attractive option for either myself or my wife who is dealing with serious medical issues that require urgent attention. This coming February I will turn 70 years old. That is also another factor which will affect whether or not I decide to enter into a further protracted legal battle which I can hardly afford to undertake considering the reasons given above. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride and I might be able to hand the reins over to a younger free speech warrior who could take up the torch and carry on to Ottawa with it but, unfortunately, wishes are not our four-footed friends.

The only thing that appears relatively certain at this point in time is that I and my wife will have close to four months off and a chance to rest up and consider our options for the future.

In final closing I would like to quote once again from Jeremy Maddock’s article in the Friends of Freedom newsletter with respect to funding. He writes, “As this complex process unfolds, Mr. Topham depends on donations to fund various expenses, including expert witnesses, transcripts, and ongoing legal research support. This is the first time since Keegstra (in 1990) that the Courts have entertained a constitutional challenge of the Criminal Code hate speech provision, and it could be the best opportunity in a generation to support internet free speech.”

There are still bills to pay and costs involved so if there is any chance supporters can afford to contribute toward these expenses I would be sincerely appreciative of any assistance. Please go the following website to making a donation or else send a donation to the mailing address shown below:

Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8
THANK YOU!
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
–––––––– 88 ––––––––
*** (Note please that the full transcript of the trial can be found HERE for those interested in reading it and preserving it should my website eventually be taken down.)
 

OCLA Intervenes in R v. Topham Constitutional Challenge to Sec. 319(2) of Criminal Code of Canada

RPEdNew400-copy-3

Editor’s Note: It’s with a continuing sense of gratification and appreciation that I post the following letter by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) sent out today, January 13th, 2016 in support of my Constitutional challenge to Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code

The OCLA has been the only civil liberties association at the forefront in Canada in their determined efforts to bring a sense of clarity, fairness, honesty and responsibility to the nation’s legal jurisprudence insofar as it applies to Charter issues and in particular the fundamental issue of freedom of expression as guaranteed under Sec. 2b of said Charter.

All their efforts toward ridding this nation of these draconian, anti-democratic “hate crime” laws that only serve vested interests and serve to silence the vast majority of decent, thoughtful citizens are extremely important and should be supported. 
 
There are very strong arguments for defeating this legislation and I would hope to see similar actions by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and every other civil minded organization in Canada that has the nation’s best interests at heart. Now that we have a new and more liberal government in power the opportunity is there for our leaders to do what the previous governments never had the integrity to do – given the people their voice back!

Please try to share this post with as many others as you can.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 1.08.46 PM

Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 1.20.02 PM

January 13, 2016                                                                                                    By Mail and Fax

The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Your Honour:

Re: Unconstitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry)

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) wishes to make this intervention, in letter form, to assist the Court in its hearing of the defendant’s constitutional challenge of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (“Code”), to be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The defendant submits that s. 319(2) of the Code infringes on the s. 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, and is not saved by s. 1 of the Charter. [1]

The Supreme Court of Canada has determined and reaffirmed that the Charter must provide at least as much protection for basic freedoms as is found in the international human rights documents adopted by Canada: [2]

And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”. [Emphasis added].

Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”). Article 19, para. 2 of the Covenant protects freedom of expression: [3]

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

–––––––––––––––––––
[1]  Defendant’s “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Charter Issues”, R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry.
[2]  Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan [2015 SCC 4], at para. 64.
[3]  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19, at para. 2.

 

2/

Further, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment dated 12 September 2011, has specified that any restrictions[4] to the protection of freedom of expression “must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality”: [5]

35. When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat. [Emphasis added.] [6]

The impugned provision in the Code does not require the Crown to prove any actual harm, and no evidence of actual harm to any individual or group was presented in the trial of R. v. Topham. There is no “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Topham’s expression on his blog and any threat that would permit restriction of his expression.

The OCLA submits that the current jurisprudence of the Covenant, including the 2011 General Comment No. 34, represents both Canada’s obligation and the current status of reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, in relation to state-enforced limits on expression. The process and the jury-conviction to date in the instant case establish that s. 319(2) of the Code exceeds these limits, and is therefore not constitutional.

Furthermore, s. 319(2) of the Code allows a maximum punishment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. The Code punishment of imprisonment exceeds the “strict tests of necessity and proportionality” prescribed by the Covenant.

In addition, in paragraph 47 of General Comment No. 34, it is specified that: “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” [Emphasis added.] In the penal defamation envisaged in the Covenant, unlike in s. 319(2) in the Code, the state has an onus to prove actual harm.

And in relation to state concerns or prohibitions about so-called “Holocaust denial”, paragraph 49 of the said General Comment has:

Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.

Finally, the OCLA submits that the feature of s. 31 9(2) that gives the Attorney General direct say regarding proceeding to prosecution (the requirement for the Attorney General’s “consent”) [7] is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, wherein

––––––––––––––––––––
[4]  Ibid., Article 19, at para. 3, and Article 20.
[5]  General Comment No. 34, UN Human Rights Committee [CCPR/C/GC/34], at para. 22.
[6]  Ibid., at para. 35.
[7]  Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), s. 319(6).

3/

provisions in a statute cannot be subject to arbitrary application or be politically motivated or appear as such. The fundamental principle of the rule of law underlies the constitution. [8]

For these reasons, the OCLA is of the opinion that s. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society.

lf the Court requests it, the OCLA will be pleased to make itself available to provide any further assistance in relation to the instant submission.

 

Yours sincerely,

Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 3.54.11 PM
Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)
joseph.hickey@ocla.ca

To:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler
Judge’s Chambers
Supreme Court of British Columbia
800 Smithe Street
Vancouver, BC
V6Z 2E1
Fax: 604-660-2418

And copy to:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler
Judge’s Chambers
Supreme Court of British Columbia
305-350 Barlow Avenue
Quesnel, BC
V2J 2C1
Fax: 250-992-4171
––––––––––––––––––

8  For a recent example where unconstitutionality arising from the rule of law was the main issue before the court, see: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 (CanLll); and see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 SCR 139, 1991 CanLll 119 (SCC), p. 210 (i).

 

4/

And to:

Barclay W. Johnson
Barrister, Solicitor & Notary
Counsel for the Defendant
1027 Pandora Avenue,
Victoria, BC
Fax: 250-413-3110

Rodney G. Garson
Prosecution Support Unit
Crown Law Division
Ministry of Justice
3rd Floor – 940 Blanshard Street
Victoria, BC
Fax: 250-387-4262

The Honourable Suzanne Anton
Attorney General of BC
JAG.Minister@gov.bc.ca
suzanne.anton.MLA@leg.bc.ca

The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
mcu@justice.gc.ca
Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca

——–

VIEW SOURCE PDF HERE: 2016-01-13-Letter-OCLA-re-R-v-Topham

After Hours with Gilad Atzmon & Friends at the Occidental Hotel, Quesnel, B.C. (Video by MoonFire II)

GiladAfterHours copy 2

 

 

Letter to Editor, Quesnel Cariboo Observer: Witnessing the dismantling of our freedoms By Al Romanchuk

ATEditorPic185

Dear Reader,

The following letter, written by Al Romanchuk of Edmonton, Alberta and published in the Quesnel Cariboo Observer on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, is a superlative testament, not only to the courage, willingness and sagacity of the writer but also to the strength of heart and integrity of the editor of this community newspaper, Autumn MacDonald for having the strength of conviction to put into print the truth of what Canadians now face in terms of a clear and dire threat to their Constitutional right to freedom of expression on the Internet.

It is with a profound sense of gratitude that I thank both these individuals and the publisher, Black Press for taking the lead and providing the rest of the country’s mainstream media with a positive example of what a newspaper can do, no matter its size, to stand up for an individual’s right to express their opinions and beliefs as provided in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Please pass this letter on to your friends and associates.

Note also that you can access the editions of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer by going to the following url: http://issuu.com/search?q=Quesnel,+BC

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

AlRomanchuk'sLet2CaribooObserver

DOUBLE CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE. YOU MAY HAVE TO DO IT TWICE.

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM

ATEditorPic185

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

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

by
Arthur Topham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NetfirmsWilsonLet

Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner

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

Len Rudner copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

BCHCTFILE 2007-23814

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

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

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

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

Defence Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon

GILAD&BARCLAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crown’s Cross Examination of Gilad Atzmon

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

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

Gilad Atzmon: No.

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

Defence’s Summation to the Jury

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final observations on Crown’s handling of evidence

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.13.33 PM

Still to come

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

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

•••0•••
 
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
 
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

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

Arthur&TheJewsFINAL

Arthur & the Jews

The controversy over freedom of speech

By

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
RadicalPress.com

October 23, 2015

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

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

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

~ Jesus Christ, Ch. 8, Verse 17

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

EndHateCrimeLegislation 2 copy 2

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

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

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

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

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

FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP copy 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•••0•••

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

Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address.

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

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

 

RADICAL PRESS PUBLISHER GETS STOLEN COMPUTERS BACK ONE WEEK BEFORE TRIAL By Arthur Topham

ReturnofMacHdr

QUESNEL, B.C.:- After 1248 days of holding on to my computers the Crown finally released them to me today just days prior to my upcoming trial on October 26th, 2015.

It was May 16th, 2012 when the Surrey based BC Hate Crime Team suddenly descended upon my wife and I while we were on our way to Prince George to do some placer mining business and arrested me, charged me with a Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” offence and tossed me in the Quesnel jail house while they awaited a phoney “Search Warrant” that would allow them to enter into my home and steal all of my computer equipment and electronic files.

After my arrest my former lawyer Doug Christie (deceased) tried in vain to have my computers return but Crown insisted that they had to keep them until after the trial. They maintained this stance for three and half years until suddenly, only weeks before the trial and after my present counsel insisted that there was vital evidence contained in the computers that was needed for my defence, Crown relented, stating that if I was to sign a document admitting that I was the publisher and editor and domain owner of RadicalPress.com that I could have them back.

Of course this is all totally ludicrous and flies in the face of common sense and of justice when one realizes that back in January of 2014 during the Preliminary Inquiry into whether or not Crown had a case against me I had openly admitted to Judge Morgan and the Crown that I was in fact the owner, publisher and editor of RadicalPress.com.

No explanation was given to me as to why suddenly, the Crown no longer needed to hang on to my personal property any longer. While I am pleased to get my computers back even at this late stage of the proceedings I still maintain that they were taken from my home illegally as it states quite clearly in the Criminal Code of Canada that a Sec. 319(2) charge is not one that allows for the removal of a person’s computers.

It was handy for the arresting officer (former) Det. Cst. Terry Wilson to steal them in order to snoop through my emails but maybe now that he’s quit the force to begin a new career as a cyber “HATE EXPERT” consultant the Crown decided they didn’t need them any longer.

Such is life  in the hate crime freedom of speech battle that continues to rage on in Zionist Occupied Canada.

—-

Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial in October by making a donation.

Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:

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

Long Road to Justice: the Ongoing Saga of Lonnie Landrud and the RCMP Murder of Deena Lyn Braem by Arthur Topham

LonnieStoryHdr

A recent article in the August 27th, 2015 edition of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer by Reporter Annie Gallant titled “Time to Take Back the Night” focused once again upon the issue of Quesnel’s missing and murdered women.

In an unpublished letter to the editor I had written:

“Observer reporter Annie Gallant states in her article that ‘The message of Take Back the Night has never been more poignant in Quesnel than this year as the community prepares to add two more names to the list of 11 murdered and missing women.’

In this same article Women’s Resource Centre administrative coordinator Sheila Norquay is quoted as saying, ‘Men must take a leadership role in changing how other men view women and thus treat women.’

Both of these statements are inappropriate and misleading given the facts surrounding the missing women here in Quesnel as well as those murdered and missing along the infamous “Highway of Tears” stretching from Prince George west to Smithers along Hwy 16.

In Quesnel there was never a more “poignant” time for resolving this longstanding issue than back sixteen years ago when, in September of 1999, 17 year old Deena Lyn Braem was murdered right here in Sugar Loaf Ball Park in West Quesnel.

The primary reason why this case (along with all the others) was never resolved was because the RCMP themselves were complicit in both the murder and its subsequent cover up.”

Sixteen years have now passed since that tragic night when both Deena Lyn Braem’s and Lonnie Gabriel Landrud’s fate were sealed. Deena died needlessly and had Lonnie Landrud not been a cigarette smoker in need of a puff his life may have ended up taking a totally different path from what it did due to the ultimately traumatic scene that he witnessed.

On route to purchase some smokes Lonnie decided to take a short cut from the trailer park where he was staying and walk over to the local 7/11 store never thinking that on his way through the park he would stumbled upon a gruesome murder scene that’s haunted, tormented and endangered his life ever since.

What Lonnie Landrud witnessed, according to his subsequent allegations, were two RCMP officers, one a female (Cst. Bev Hosker – now diseased) and the other a male (Cst. Paul Collister) in the act of murdering a young teenager by the name of Deena Lyn Braem who had recently been reported by the Missing Children Society of Canada as having gone missing on September 25th, 1999.

After the shock of what he had experienced and purchasing his smokes Lonnie returned to the trailer where he was “house sitting” and proceeded to do what he felt was the only right thing – he called 911 and reported the incident.

The outcome of that momentous decision turned into a sixteen year uphill battle with every conceivable level of government and media to try and have the incident properly investigated and the two RCMP officers involved brought to justice. It also turned into a separate and immediate struggle for Lonnie Landrud to try and stay alive for while having performed his civic duty as a Canadian citizen he now has had fourteen separate attempts on his life since that mind-altering 911 phone call back in 1999.

RadicalPress.com has covered the ongoing saga of Lonnie Landrud for a number of years beginning back in February of 2012 when his story (in video format) first appeared on the site. Subsequent articles and videos have also appeared in November of 2012 in January of 2014 and again in April of 2015. In particular the January 27th, 2014 publication of a letter sent to the following public figures outlines in great detail the laborious efforts which Mr. Landrud has undergone in order to have his concerns formally addressed:

To the Honourable Members:

Stephen Harper, Prime Minister; Thomas Mulcair, Opposition Leader; Vic Toews, Federal Public Safety Minister; Rob Nicholson, Federal Solicitor General; Christy Clark, Premier of B.C.; Adrainne Dix, Leader, B.C. Opposition Party.

As he stated then in his opening remarks, “I again find myself having to write to you the leaders of Canada and British Columbia to try and put a stop to the attempts on my life by a group of RCMP members and their paid informants.”

The determination on the part of Mr. Landrud to seek justice and stay alive while doing so is the stuff that movies were once made of.

 

LonnieGabrielLandrud-1 copy

Coupled with his ongoing efforts to secure an independent investigation was the later startling admission by Landrud that he had actually shot the RCMP officer who he swears he saw murder the young victim. When the officer in question, Cst. Paul Collister of the Quesnel RCMP detachment, attempted to break into Lonnie’s home in 2003, four years after the crime, in the process of doing so he was wounded by Landrud who shot him in the left arm with a shotgun loaded with #4 birdshot causing serious physical damage to the officer. Since that time Landrud has been doing everything humanly possible to have the shooting incident investigated and the medical records for Cst. Collister revealed in order to substantiate his claim that he actually did shoot the officer.

Until the substantial evidence which Mr. Landrud possesses has been fully and neutrally investigated by a body totally independent of the RCMP and both the federal and provincial Attorney General’s offices and any other related government body ostensibly designed to investigate police wrong-doing, the missing women of Quesnel and everywhere throughout B.C. and across Canada will continue to remain subject to this legacy of ongoing tragedy and travesty of justice.

Having recently been the subject of yet another physical attack in the form of unknown assailants attempting to shoot Lonnie while he was out working on his ranch Landrud once again tried approaching the authorities, this time public figures in his local home city, in another attempt to have this ongoing travesty of justice addressed.

I received a phone call from Mr. Landrud around the end of September. He told me that he had made arrangements to have a meeting on Monday, October 5th with Quesnel Mayor Bob Simpson and the local head of the RCMP in Quesnel, Staff Sergeant Andrew Burton and City Manager Byron Johnson in the Mayor’s office at City Hall to discuss his concerns. Lonnie asked me if I would come along as a witness. I agreed to attend the meeting. As well as myself Lonnie also asked a mutual friend of ours, Mr. Frank Frost, to witness the proceedings too.

 

FrankFrostPhoto 300 copy

At 1:30 p.m. we were ushered into a conference room near Mayor Simpson’s office and introductions, business cards and hand shakes were exchanged between the parties. Mayor Simpson proceeded to chair the discussions and began by explaining the city’s relationship with the RCMP informing Lonnie and Frank and myself that as Mayor his position didn’t include any official mandate to instruct or authority to make any demands upon the RCMP to act upon any of Lonnie’s requests whether he might agree with them or not. Having clarified that point he then asked Lonnie Landrud to share with those present his concerns.

 

Screen Shot 2015-10-06 at 2.42.24 PM

QuesnelMayorBobSimpson

Landrud began by explaining to the Mayor and Staff Sergeant Burton that he has been trying for years now to have the medical records for Cst. Paul Collister made public so that an independent body might be able to examine them. This would, according to Landrud, settle the long standing question as to whether or not the police officer in question had in fact been shot as Lonnie has stated over and over for the past twelve years. He went on to explain the predicament that he’s been in since 1999 where no level of government has been willing to investigate his claims and being unable to obtain any legal representation throughout the whole period of his relentless pursuit to have his charges investigated he’s been forced to act on his own behalf. He also explained how the mainstream media refused to cover his story and how his efforts to cooperate with the authorities always ended up with him either being maligned, threatened, beaten, harassed, ignored, or, as in a number of cases, the RCMP have attempted to murder him themselves.

After citing numerous examples of his efforts to have his allegations looked into and receiving no assistance from any level of government Mayor Simpson then offered his opinion on police commissions relating instances where the RCMP were thoroughly investigated and brought to task for any crimes that they had committed. Staff Sergeant Andrew Burton concurred with Simpson’s position stating that over the past 22 years of service he had been involved in numerous investigations into police wrong-doing and suggested to Mr. Landrud that the RCMP were tougher on crimes committed by their own officers than anyone else.

Mayor Simpson then commented that given all of Lonnie’s past attempts to have some agency take on his case and not having any success that possibly this was occurring because all of those individuals and agencies who Lonnie was contacting may not have felt that his story was credible enough to warrant any serious investigation. Given the past sixteen years of endless attempts to convince those in authority that he did have sufficient evidence and credible witnesses who would testify on his behalf plus fourteen attempts on his life that have left him with severe medical problems which the medical system refuses to address Lonnie Landrud didn’t appear to be that impressed by Mayor Simpson’s proffered explanation for why a person can publicly admit to having witnessed two police officers murdering a person and then four years later shoot one of the officers and still nothing is being done about it after such an inordinate length of time.

Having related to the group present a number of times examples of attempts on his life Mayor Simpson asked Landrud why he didn’t just leave the Quesnel and relocate elsewhere. Lonnie replied that moving wasn’t an option for him, stating, “Who would know that I had gone missing if the RCMP were successful in killing me?”. He went on to state that he had been born in Quesnel and lived here all his life and his family lived here too and there was little point in trying to run away where he would have no safety net whatsoever to fall  back on.

Lonnie then brought up the issue of Deena Braem’s parents and the fact that, after the allegations were brought forth of the RCMP’s involvement in their daughter’s death they were issued with an order to not communicate with Lonnie. Staff Sergeant Andrew Burton responded by stating that he had never heard of such a thing occurring and to his way of thinking if the Braem family didn’t want to communicate with Mr. Landrud and expressed such a wish to the police then it would be Landrud who would be issued with an order prohibiting him from having any contact with Deena’s parents.

Having listened patiently to everything that Lonnie had to say concerning his efforts to seek redress for all that’s gone on since that night in the park and also the fact that Landrud told Staff Sergeant Burton that he had evidence concerning other missing women who had died along the infamous “Highway of Tears” the Sergeant then told Lonnie and everyone else present in the room that although he was new to Quesnel and didn’t know anything about Lonnie or his story that now he had been made aware of the situation he would do everything in his power to look into the matter as he too was also deeply concerned about the missing women. With regard to the suppressed medical records for Cst. Paul Collister, the alleged murder suspect, Burton told Landrud that he would look into trying to locate the records so that they could then be properly inspected.

The realization that both the Mayor of the City of Quesnel and detachment head RCMP Staff Sergeant Burton were open and receptive to listening to what Lonnie Landrud had to say and Staff Sergeant Burton was willing to actually commit, before witnesses, to try and resolve the issue was, in itself, a long overdue sign of recognition and a potential indication that Landrud’s years of being maligned, dismissed, harassed and threatened might be coming to an end. The proof of course is always in the pudding and only time will tell whether or not this latest attempt to achieve some form of closure on the matter will bear any fruit.

What is absolutely certain though is the fact that two public officials, one the Mayor of Quesnel and the other the head of the local RCMP detachment, were finally willing to take the time to sit down and listen to Lonnie Landrud’s plea for an independent inquiry into his allegations of having witnessed a brutal murder right here in Quesnel.

Given the background of the Highway of Tears, the sixty-five women who vanished from the Vancouver’s downtown eastside from 1978 to 2001 and the controversial Pickton case that followed as a result of it, the willingness on the part of Mayor Simpson and Staff Sergeant Burton to grant Lonne Landrud a hearing bodes well for the eventual resolution of delayed justice and may be the first positive step in resolving this long overdue cover-up. As such their efforts were commendable and deserving of appropriate recognition.

—–

Zionist Jew Lobby B’nai Brith Canada Attacks Buddhist Truth Revealer Brian Ruhe by Arthur Topham

BuddhaAttackHdr copy 2

 

BodhisattvaVow

Zionist Jew Lobby B’nai Brith Canada Attacks Buddhist Truth Revealer Brian Ruhe

by

Arthur Topham

They say that the Devil never rests and in the case of Canada’s rabid Zionist Jew lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada truer words were never spoken.

Not wishing to await the outcome of the upcoming trial of R v Roy Arthur Topham set to commence on October 26th, 2015 –  the result of which will play heavily into whether or not the pro-Israeli, Zionist lobbyist will have been successful in using their Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” legislation, which they successfully embedded into Canadian jurisprudence in order to censor and suppress any and all legitimate criticism of their nefarious political ideology and their detestable terrorist, racist supremacist actions in Palestine and around the world – the Zionists are continually combing the Internet here in Canada trolling with vehement and fanatical Simon Wiesenthal “Nazi-hunting” fervour for more truth seekers who are courageously revealing the plethora of lies that the Zionist controlled msm has been mind-controlling the masses with for the past century.

There are more victims of Zionist misfeasance in former democratic Canada than the recent case of Buddhist author and teacher Brian Ruhe of Vancouver, B.C., the foremost being that of Vancouver’s Chinese artist and writer Joe Canuck whose two websites www.joecanuck.net and www.joecanuck.wix.com/justiceforchinese were both surreptitiously and summarily silenced and removed from the net by the server www.wix.com without explanation to the owner, but for now I will focus on Ruhe as his woes are well documented.

What is rather unique about this latest provocation by the Zionist Jew control freaks from B’nai Brith Canada is that they usually spend their time and taxpayer’s money attacking Christians who they feel they can accuse of spreading “hate” toward their self-chosen tribe of spiritual delinquents in order to have their victim’s tossed in the slammer for a couple of years and their websites either taken down and/or, as in the recent case of Canada’s coffee and donut franchise Tim Hortons, if nothing else, at least have their sites blocked from access by the general public.

These Talmudic Marxist Bolshevik Communist inspired censors from B’nai Brith Canada are relentless and deeply disturbed individuals – their insecurity and paranoia being paramount and the transparency of their actions blatantly obvious in every act they perform. Rather than openly debating those who criticize aspects of their own ideological foundations and proving them wrong they prefer to use their “power of the purse” and their undue political, legal and media influence to simply vilify and slander their intellectual opponents and in the process do anything they can to discriminate against and harass them and destroy their financial means of survival.

In the case of Vancouver based Buddhist teacher Brian Ruhe, rather than attempt to have him charged with a Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” Criminal Code of Canada offence, they’ve decided to do everything in their power to both discredit his good name amongst his employers and destroy his livelihood at all costs. This is the first instance that I’ve heard of where they are working their vile black sorcery behind the scenes in order to destroy the reputation and good will of a recognized and practising Buddhist. Once again living proof that their Talmudic mindset has absolutely no regard for any other religions or beliefs besides its own supremacist, racist ideology.

Readers who have been following my own case in the courts over the past 9 years of litigation brought on by this same notorious group of self-deluded sycophants for the state of Israel will know that recently I was interviewed on video by Brian Ruhe while in Vancouver early this year while looking after my dying brother. The purpose of the interview was to assist me in raising awareness about Canada’s disgusting, unjust “Hate Crime” legislation (Sec. 318 to 320 CCC) which the Zionist Jew lobby was directly responsible for creating for their own self-serving purposes as well as helping me to raise funds for my upcoming trial this October.

Meeting Brian for the first time in the flesh it was easily discernible to me that here was another individual who had finally, through his own researching and seeking, come to the full realization that all we had been told and taught about world history over the past century was twisted and warped beyond comprehension by the Zionist Jew media acting in and through all of its shape-shifting aspects, be they academia, Hollywood movies, books, magazines, radio stations, tv news and the Zionist newspaper monopoly.

Brian Ruhe is the author of two well-known and loved books on Buddhism. His first work, Freeing the Buddha, pictured below was published in March of 1998.

FreeingtheBuddha copy

FreeingtheBuddha 1 copy

Brian’s second work, A Short Walk On An Ancient Path, came out in 2010 accompanied, as in his first work, with many positive reviews.

ShortWalkonÅncientPath copy

ShortWalkonÅncientPath 1 copy 6ShortWalkonÅncientPath 1 copy 4

ShortWalkonÅncientPath 1 copy 5

Upon reading the book reviews and accolades it was quite apparent that Brian Ruhe was/is a well loved and respected Buddhist meditation instructor. He had moved to Vancouver back in 1980 from Ontario where he’d studied business and philosophy at Brock University. Following a few years stint as a financial planner Brian’s inner quest for greater spiritual understanding finally moved him to begin his search for a deeper understanding of life. Like many of his generation he was drawn to Buddhism because of its focus upon the mind and the age-old practise of seeking within one’s own being for the truths that the soul eternally strives to attain.

Brian’s path led him to a Tibetan Buddhist centre in Vermont, USA that had been founded by the world reknowned Buddhist teacher Chögyam Trungpa. From there he traveled to Thailand where he continued his spiritual efforts for the next four years and was trained to be a meditation instructor. Brian eventually returned to Canada in order to begin sharing his teachings with others.

It wasn’t coincidental nor did it require any amount of foresight to realize that while in conversation with Brian at his Kitsilano apartment in Vancouver during the course of our interview we openly discussed the prospect that it was merely a matter of time before he would, in all likelihood, like myself, soon show up on B’nai Brith Canada’s radar screen and the attack upon his name and work would commence. In fact, it wasn’t long after doing the video with Brian I learned from him that he was being attacked front, left and center by the Zionist forces embedded throughout our pro-Israel, Jewish-influenced cultural institutions.

Of course, as per usual, it began with a Zionist Jew “Lama” (try wrapping your mind around that one!) by the name of “Tsewang” who phoned Brian at his home and threatened to call B’nai Brith Canada (BBC) and report him. Once he did that B’nai Brith’s Victoria based sayan operative* wrote to the Vancouver Parks Board and had Brian fired from teaching at (four) community centres.

On Sept. 14th Mr. Ruhe did get fired from the Roundhouse Community and Arts Centre. When this despicable act occurred Brian Ruhe phoned the sayan agent in Victoria, B.C. and spoke to him.  The BBC operative told Brian “I don’t think you’re qualified to teach.” He then threatened to contact the Vancouver Police force and register a complaint of harassment against Mr. Ruhe for actually having the chutzpah to call him on the telephone to discuss his rash and hateful behaviour!

Following word of his dismissal Brian also wrote a letter to Craig Giles – President of the Roundhouse Community and Arts Centre stating in part,

“As the president of the association you are in a leadership position in our community and it doesn’t make sense that someone in Victoria should tell you how to do your job. Were you under pressure from any quarters to fire me? Did City Manager Penny Ballem have anything to do with this?

I have taught meditation for 16 years at the Roundhouse since 1999 with over 1000 people taking my classes there in groups from 5 to 25. This has helped a lot of people and I have a good reputation with these students. I’ve always enjoyed working with the staff and have had a very good relationship with them all these years. I have booked Tuesday nights here and now it’s too late to work somewhere else for the fall term.

This is a larger issue of freedom of speech in Canada. I was fired for using my freedom of speech in my YouTube videos where I discuss truth search themes about geopolitical power in the world and 20th century history. I didn’t discuss these views in my meditation classes, I was not accused of doing so and there were no complaints from the students in my classes. I feel that I am showing a high moral standard by speaking out for the benefit of humanity. Our country was founded on the fundamental principle of freedom of speech and our forefathers fought for the freedoms that you and I have today. You are in a leadership position so I ask you to consider this and write back to me with your thoughts on this please.

Thank you kindly,

Brian Ruhe

brianruhe.ca

So that in a nutshell is what is now happening here in Canada when anyone decides to question the Zionist Jewish narrative whether it be their “Holocaust Hoax” of the 20th Century, their actions in Gaza against the indigenous true Semitic people of Palestine, their media control over Canada and the West,  or any number of other facets of the Zionist paradigm that the Jews subject their host societies to in order to maintain their power base throughout the Western world.

Brian Ruhe’s experience is not new. Je Suis Brian Ruhe! There have been dozens of other Canadians before him (including yours truly) who have suffered the slings and arrows of outrageous falsehood by the political machinations of this tribe of psychopathic deviants willing to go to any length to prevent the world from knowing the truth about their dark and sinister agenda for total global control of the world’s resources, both natural and human.

In a very real sense this is the essence of all that I have fought against over the past nine years of ongoing litigation brought on by this power-crazed Rothschild Freemasonic organization known as B’nai Brith Canada. It began on Valentine’s Day February 14th, 2007 when this same deluded maniacal sayan first sent me an unsolicited email using a phoney alias “Brian Esker” accusing me of being an “anti-Semite” and demanding that I stop publishing articles on the Zionist Jews and remove the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion from my website.

Come October 26th, 2015 here in Quesnel’s Supreme Court we will see whether or not these past nine years of harassment, intimidation, arrest, incarceration and theft of my personal computers, files and firearms will end with a victory for freedom of speech in Canada and a loss for the likes of this traitorous foreign lobby group B’nai Brith Canada and their sleazy serpentine zombie trolls. If it doesn’t then we will all be held hostage to these alien enemy interlopers who’ve been destroying our nation and culture for the past century and the country will be torn further and further apart as they once again destroy another gentile nation in their heinous game of power and control over humanity.

Justice must and Will prevail.

——-

* [Editors Note: I am restricted by a court order from publishing the name of this B’nai Brith agent.]

••••  ••••

Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial in October by making a donation.

Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:

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

TIM HORTONS SUCCUMBS TO ZIONIST LOBBY PRESSURE AND BLOCKS RADICALPRESS.COM AGAIN! By Arthur Topham

TimCup???

RPpublisherinTimHortons

THAccess denied

ATEditorPic185

EDITOR’S UPDATE – Well it looks as though I was wrong in my estimation of Tim Hortons. Timmy DID NOT UNBLOCK RADICALPRESS.COM after all.  When I first published a Thank You post on August 25th they had unblocked my site but then within a day or so the censorship freaks from the Zionist-controlled B’nai Brith Canada were once again on their case and the block was back in effect and is still preventing readers from accessing RadicalPress.com in all the Tim Hortons outlets across Canada.

TimsQuesnel

At this point in time I’m undecided as to whether or not to openly promote a BOYCOTT TIM HORTONS CAMPAIGN. There were some amazingly well written letters to Tim Hortons requesting that they not censor my website but all of them appear to have had little effect on changing Timmy’s mind.

My time at the moment must be focussed on the upcoming trial but please do not hesitate to write to Tim Hortons and express your disgust with their Orwellian Zionist policy of censoring online websites. Try to bcc me at radical@radicalpress.com and I will compile an article later with all the requests (minus names and addresses). Thanks.

Time Hortons can be contacted here: TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com

—— 

Tim Hortons Censors RadicalPress.com in their Coffee Outlets across Canada by Arthur Topham

TimHortonCensorship

Tim Hortons Censors RadicalPress.com in their Coffee Outlets across Canada

By
Arthur Topham

RPEdNew300 copy

Will it ever end? Everywhere we turn these day on the Internet someone is trying to censor you. Now it appears that one of Canada’s oldest coffee outlets, Tim Hortons, has also joined the Zionist Jews in deciding who they will allow their customers to visit online while they’re having coffee and a donut.

Over the past while I’ve had a number of readers email me telling me that when they’re in Tim Hortons they can’t access my website and when they try to they get the following message pop up on their screen:

THAccess denied

“inappropriate content”???!!! Says who? Is there someone working in this coffee venue who sits and views every website on the net and makes some subjective, arbitrary decision that they don’t like RadicalPress.com and so they simply block it to spare their thousands of customers from seeing the site?

Well I certainly don’t think there’s anything “inappropriate” on my site and so on August 11, 2015 I sent an email to Tim Hortons at the address they provide in their pop-up window TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com saying:

Dear Tim Hortons WiFi,

It has been brought to my attention by a number of my readership both here in British Columbia and also in Alberta that when frequenting your coffee outlets they are unable to access my website RadicalPress.com.

Being a regular visitor to one of your outlets in Quesnel, British Columbia where I live and run my publishing business I have also experienced this. Here is a screen shot of what readers and I see when we go to visit my site and read articles and news stories which I have been publishing online for the past 16 years. (see above)

I am not sure where you have received your information that there is “inappropriate content” on my site but my educated guess is that whatever software you are using for your WiFi system has erroneously and/or possibly intentionally included my website for purely political reasons.

I have ran a publishing business here in British Columbia  since June of 1998 and have been online since 1999. While Radical Press is known to be a part of the Alternative News media rather than the Mainstream media this does not imply that the content on my website is somehow “inappropriate”. It may be contrary to the Mainstream media but then that is perfectly legitimate in a free and democratic society such as Canada is.

I would therefore request that you please unblock my website so that your customers can not only enjoy your fine coffee but also whatever news sites that they, of their own free will, choose to visit while they are in your restaurant.

Since realizing that you are censoring my business I have stopped visiting my local Timmy’s and now spend my money at Starbucks instead. I would like to be able to buy your coffee and donuts as I have been doing for many many years but of course I expect you to respect my right to remain in business as well.

I look forward to hearing from you regarding this matter at your earliest convenience.
Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed

radical@radicalpress.com
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

The next day, August 12, 2015 I received the following email from TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com:

Good day,

Thank you for your email.
We have received your request and it is in the process of being reviewed.

TimHortonsWiFi@timhortons.com

I immediately replied saying, “Thank you for your prompt reply. I will await your review.”

By August 16 I still had no response and so I wrote again saying:

Dear TimHortonsWiFi,

It is my understanding that you are in the coffee and food industry and not in the business of censoring websites that are legitimate business enterprises.

I feel that you’ve had more than sufficient time to come to what ought to be a very simple solution which is to unblock my site.

We in the Alternative News Media don’t take too kindly to harassment and censorship as that is the main reason why we exist because the mainstream media isn’t doing its job.

I will ask you civilly once again to unblock my site and should I not get a clear answer from you within 48 hours then you will have to bear the consequences of your irresponsible actions.

You have absolutely NO reason to be doing this and ought to be ashamed of your undemocratic, communist tactics.

The next day, August 17, I received an identical reply as I did the first time I contacted them telling me that my “request is in the process of being reviewed”.

Again I replied by stating:

It’s apparent that you either have a robot responding to my emails or else you are not serious in attending to my concerns regarding your censorship actions against my website.

As I stated I would like my site unblocked within 48 hours.

By August 19, 2015 there was still no reply forthcoming from TimHortons so I sent them one final email stating:

Dear TimHortons,

This is my final gesture of good will. You need to ask yourselves whether or not it’s worthwhile for you to be censoring other business’s websites.

I have yet to go online with my planned campaign of telling Canadians and the world at large about your illegal and unethical practises and the boycott of your business.

The following graphic is but a sample of what you will have to deal with.

TimHortonCensorship

Please reconsider your position and respond to me immediately or else I will take it that you are determined to block my site.

As of August 22, 2015 and numerous requests I’ve yet to hear back and so I’m taking my concerns online as I advised TimHortons.

Obviously whoever is in charge of dealing with blocked sites on Tim Hortons wifi is asleep at the wheel and in dire need of a Extra Large Triple Triple dark roast in order to wake them up!

This is where you, dear friends on Facebook and readers elsewhere can lend me a hand. It won’t cost you a cent. All you need to do is take a moment of your time and send Timmy a brief email asking them to unblock RadicalPress.com. When you do that please bcc me a copy of your email at radical@radicalpress.com so I can get an idea of how many requests are being sent to them.

I’m hoping that if they start to receive more requests than just from me that they will unblock the site.

Also, Tim Hortons is on Facebook as well so maybe those of you on FB might pop over to their page and post a comment regarding this matter. I certainly plan to do so.

Let’s see if we can help them to change their minds.

——

Zion’s Zombie Army: Neo-Zionist zealots attack RadicalPress.com by Arthur Topham

ZION'SZOMBIES 700

Zion’s Zombie Army: Neo-Zionist zealots attack RadicalPress.com

By
Arthur Topham

“The problem is, The Radical, like D&D, has connections and it has influence.”
– Will Offley, DRY ROT: The Far Right Targets the Left,
Canadian Dimension magazine, Jan/Feb/2001

“It’s the same old story
Everywhere I go,
I get slandered, libelled
I hear words I never heard in the Bible”
Paul Simon, “Keep The Customer Satisfied

Intro

Being a longstanding member of the alternative new media one expects to be subjected to an endless array of vituperation, slander, hate, maligning, slurs, false accusations, etc. It comes with the territory; that being the vast, uncharted landscape known as Truth-revealing.

In the case of RadicalPress.com the assaults upon my then hard copy, bimonthly tabloid known as The Radical (June 1998 to June 2002) began in earnest around the turn of the century approximately two years after I began publishing. By that point in time I had established myself as a rather unique specimen in the then fledgling alternative press.

Here in Canada, as elsewhere within the world’s democracies, the yin/yang nature of the present system of governance inevitably affords the Canadian citizen, taxpayer and voter a “choice” between either a left wing or a right wing style government with either of these variations taking on additional names and identities. The “left”, historically, has been the Liberal Party of Canada and the “right” has operated under the guise of the Conservative Party of Canada throughout its history.

Following the general pattern set around the Western world, by the beginning of the 20th century a new kid suddenly appeared on the political block whose outward appearance and purpose was aimed at garnering the support of the great unwashed masses, the “Proletariat”, many of whom had only recently achieved suffrage. As they became known within the literature of the day this new kid’s schtick was basically the political ideology we understand today as “socialism” although throughout much of its genesis it quickly became co-oped by the Marxist strain that preferred to be known as “communism”.

Those socialist/communist ideals and precepts then became firmly embodied in Canadian politics during the 1930’s when the Western world was being held in thrall to a devastating economic “depression” euphemistically known as the “Dirty Thirties”; a deliberate event brought on by the machinations of the private money lenders (all Jews) who, in 1913, had successfully pulled off the greatest financial coup in world history when they were given a license by the United States government to manufacture fiat currency out of thin air and then lend it out at usurious cost to borrowers.

Concomitant with the surreptitiously gained, carte blanche freedom to create untold wealth (embodied under the false flag tag of the “U.S. Federal Reserve” and later aptly referred to as the Creature from Jekyll Island by the American writer G. Edward Griffin), the “fed” was able to use its ill-gained power to manipulate the stock markets and influence the overall wealth of the nation for good or bad, all dependent upon agenda which this Rothschild cartel clandestinely conspired to author for their own benefit and that of their tribe.

And so out of all this financial intrigue-wreaking economic havoc around the Western world emerged a new “Made in Canada” “left” political party known as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), led by a man who justifiably may be called the nation’s most truthful, honest and honourable Statesman, Thomas “Tommy” Clement Douglas.

First elected to office in Saskatchewan in 1935 as a CCF member of the House of Commons Tommy then resigned to run for the leadership of the provincial CCF and in 1944 they won an overwhelming majority and his party became the first-ever socialist government in North America. In 1961, the CCF formed the New Democratic Party (NDP) of Canada under Tommy’s leadership and, as they say, the rest is history.

It must be borne in mind though that the Tommy Douglas version of socialism was fundamentally different from that of Canada’s Communist Party which never was able to align its own Marxist-Leninist (Zionist) policies with those of the democratic socialism of either the CCF or, later, the NDP. Douglas had little use for any form of socialism involving people who did little else but sit around talking about Marx or Lenin or Trotsky waited patiently for the next “revolution” to start that would usher in the type of totalitarian Bolshevik government that formed the former Soviet system. Tommy’s socialism was based on Christian principles of brotherhood and helping others less fortunate than oneself rather than following a rigid, dogmatic Marxist/Leninist doctrine.

TommyDouglasPoster1Red

As a result Canada has never had to endure any serious growth of Marxist-style politics (although shades of things to come can be seen in the behaviour of the current Zionist-controlled Harper Conservatives) and what little did develop tended to be isolated pockets of communist ideologues located within fringe areas of cities across the country.

As the interest in The Radical grew, so did the concern of the minority section of the “left” who, up until that point had basically held a monopoly over the type of information being disseminated to the alternative community around the province and the nation. The group fretting over the information being disseminated via The Radical (and believe me it was as broad in scope as humanly possible, covering as many topics as I could squeeze into 24 pages) turned out to be the Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist-Zionist section of Vancouver’s East Side, an anomalous collective of atheistic, diehard doctrinaire, commissar throwbacks heavily influenced by all the Jewish writers and activists of the past century.

It was this shadowy, serpentine sub-group of Canada’s socialist “left” who were not impressed at all with the new upstart from Quesnel, B.C. who was suddenly cutting a swath, like anarchist Nestor Mahkno’s raiders did through Lenin’s Bolshevik forces after 1917, through their formerly held media territory. The Radical was covering so many different topics that their Leninized heads began spinning with each new edition that hit the streets giving the term “revolution” a whole new meaning; one that was plainly undermining their traditionally calcified, narcissistic and nihilistic world of Marxist mediocrity.

By the end of the year 2000 things came to a head with the zio-Marxists launching their first full-scale attack upon my newspaper and that of a sister publication from out in Nova Scotia known as Discourse and Disclosure run by Sue Potvin and hosting an array of writers and activists who were then aligning themselves with either of our newspapers.

The vehicle for launching their hostile assault was Canadian Dimension (CD) magazine, also a bimonthly “Left” publication that had been in business for around 6 years and displayed strong ties to the old Marxist-Leninist/Zionist left as well as trade unions. From what I could tell it was heavily influenced by Jewish/Zionist writers and staff.

Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 6.57.36 PM

Their trigger man for the first volley was a Vancouver-based “researcher and writer” by the name of Will Offley who penned an all-encompassing screed called “DRY ROT: The Far Right Targets the Left”. Its appearance in the January/February 2001 edition of CD set the tone for the future in terms of this Marxist group’s attitude toward Radical Press and their ongoing efforts to marginalize my publication by the use of standard Zionist Jew smear tactics. The article itself is no longer available on the Canadian Dimension website but it is available on RadicalPress.com here.

DryRotOffleyHdr-546x600

As one will note Radical Press is still operating fourteen years later regardless of the relentless attacks by the Zionist forces who continue doing their utmost to control all the political discourse, be on the net or in hard copy alternative publications. Their mask is Zion and their game is always censorship of any anti-Zionist opposing perspectives by any foul means deemed expedient..

HATE IN THE NORTH: Gaily bedight, a not so Gallant knight

Okay, now let’s fast forward to the year 2012. The zionist brainwashed lefties who I’ve coined “neo-Zionists” basically went off my radar screen (with the occasional exception of the Anti-RacistCanada blogsite) after their taskmaster and benefactor, the Jewish masonic B’nai Brith Canada, figured it would be a lot easier to use legislation (contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act which they played a major role in creating after the end of WW2 using the holocaust lie as pretext) to charge me with a sec. 13 “Hate crime”. This allow them to download the responsibility and cost on to the state (and the Canadian taxpayer) who would subsequently take over the harassment and persecution just as they did in all other cases where they didn’t have the courage or integrity to enter into any formal debate on the issues but would rather just label all opposing viewpoints as “hate speech” and have the courts do the dirty work for them. The classic example of this was the Canada’s Jewish lobby’s vile, despicable, traitorous and vicious attacks upon truth revealer Ernst Zundel. One can view his case here to find out the real story about how these hordes of Zion’s Zombies behave when programmed to act as attack dogs for the truth-hating Jews.

GallantFaceofHope 801

Bringing it all down to a local focus, on December 1, 2012 a young man by the name of Daniel Gallant, then completing his Master’s degree in Social Work at the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) in Prince George, B.C. (a city about 100 km north of the Quesnel area where I reside), published a short 5-Part series of articles on his website entitled “Hate in the North”. In Part I Gallant introduced himself with the following short statement:

“I am an example of hope, diversity and compassion that can be seen through my work as an anti-racist activist, and a re-formed violent right wing extremist. As a right-wing-skinhead who has committed hundreds of assaults during my time in the white supremacist movement, I believe that my experiences can benefit society by offering insight into hate crimes, and the patterns that surround these violent acts. Over ten years ago I was awakened to a path of redemption and social change through epiphanies at the height of my extremist action.”

Gallant, as he goes to great (one might even say “extreme”) lengths to outline in his autobiographical writings on his websites, tells his readers that he was born into a very dysfunctional family setting and grew up under excruciatingly painful circumstances that resulted in his having to endure all sorts of horrific physical, mental, emotional and spiritual abuse and trauma. The end result of it all landed him in Vancouver, B.C. at the young age of 14 in the very same neighbourhood populated by the fringe lefties who now play a role in this article.

After joining his “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist” “violent right wing extremist” groups and beating and torturing hundreds of victims this flawed piece of human machinery, either through the grace of God or possibly some other force, finally was able to break free from his bondage to human despair and violence around the time that Israel was destroying the Twin Towers in New York City on September 11th, 2001.

Upon escaping his former fate his road to recovery brought him into contact with a number of remedial groups and agencies and individuals who all had varying degrees of influence on his healing. Foremost was his family connection with First Nations culture stemming from his early childhood out in Alberta. But, as is the case in so many instances of individuals who have suffered extreme trauma in their lives, Daniel Gallant’s road to recovery was fraught with new obstacles and challenges which, as one can see from reviewing his path to the present day, have led him into a new world paradigm that poses as great a challenge as his former incarnation as a “violent right wing extremist neo-Nazi skinhead white supremacist”.

Today Daniel Gallant is on a crusade to make amends for all of his past sins and in doing so he is now being encouraged and supported by yet another group of even more dangerous, fanatical zealots than his former associates, these being the Zionist criminal cartel itself, the world’s foremost problem and threat to global peace and security and the front organization for the Devil himself.

Following his heartfelt confessions (somewhat reminiscent, for those familiar with the Bible, of St. Paul himself), the remainder of Part I focusses on his connections to and interpretations of supposed “violent right wing extremists” and the “white supremacist movement”, both of which are the focus of “a unique and powerful new global force” called the “Against Violent Extremism (AVE) Network” which, as Gallant states, “is managed by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and is a unique private sector partnership between ISD, Google Ideas, the Gen Next Foundation and Rehab Studio.”and which he is now associated with as well. [all emphasis throughout this article is mine. A.T.]

There is an old saying that one can usually find out a lot about a person by the company they keep so, with that in mind, let’s have a look at some of Daniel Gallant’s new-found “friends” who have been so helpful in supporting and promoting his current mission in life as the new Simon Wiesenthal “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist”, “violent right wing extremist”, “hate” hunter.

For starters the “Against Violent Extremism Network” offers readers some revealing glimpses into those who are organizing and financing the initiatives that the young Daniel Gallant is involved with.

WeisenfeldPhoto

In the above photo (from Bloomberg) we sees the “rebel” oligarch Lord Arthur George Weidenfeld, President of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and head of the brain trust that’s designing and financing “philanthropic” organizations like the “Against Violent Extremism Network”. As Bloomberg states, “Lord Arthur George Weidenfeld, also known as Lord Weidenfeld of Chelsea, is the Founder and serves as Chairman of Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., a book publisher, since 1948 [subsidiary of The Orion Publishing Group, Ltd. A.T.]. Lord Weidenfeld is the President of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. Lord Weidenfeld serves as Director of Hollinger International Publishing Inc. He serves as director of Jerusalem Post. Lord Weidenfeld is also the Member of Advisory Board of the Telegraph Group Limited and Member of European Advisory Board at Investcorp Bank BSC, Private Equity. He served as a director of Hollinger Inc. from September 1993 to 1995.”

Plainly folks there’s obviously no hidden agenda here. No conspiracy. Just a man of the people dedicating his resources to the endless struggle for truth and social justice; a veritable Gandhi of the Rothschild International banking consortium.

Weidenfeld&Merkel&Kissinger copy

This photo also reveals many more of Daniel Gallant’s benefactors. Unfortunately the picture wasn’t accompanied by a caption so I was unable to identify most of them but as one can see we do have German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former Stasi agent from communist east Berlin, standing with a number of apparently highly influential personages including Lord Weidenfeld (behind her) and the infamous war criminal Henry Kissinger to the right of Weidenfeld. Again, just another group of everyday Joes and a Jane deeply concerned about the state of the world and giving of themselves to improve the plight of humanity.

[Editor’s Note: Since publication of this article I have been furnished with the names of the rest of the people in the photo above. This is a picture taken when Kissinger celebrated his 90th birthday. They are, from left to right, the following German politicians and media bosses: former Minister for Economics and Technology and former Vice-chancellor Philipp Roesler, former Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, former Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher, Merkel, Weinfeld, in wheelchair former chancellor Helmut Schmidt, former President von Weizsaecker, Kissinger, former Minister of Finance Peer Steinbrueck, wheelchair Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schaeuble, Chief Executive Officer of German media group Axel Springer SE Mathias Döpfner and Chairman of the supervisory board German media group Axel Springer SE Giuseppe Vita]

Next on Daniel Gallant’s friends list we find Google Ideas. Now everyone knows of course that Google is the most powerful Jewish-owned outfit on the cyber block when it comes to the control and dispensation of information and spyware and, being the overlord of the world’s ability to access truthful information, is also vital to the availability of much of the content now processable on the Internet.

Again, nothing unusual here to be concerned with when it comes to open access and freedom of speech and so on. This fact is easily discerned just from viewing the graphic headers on the Google Ideas website and knowing that Google Ideas “explores how technology can enable people to confront threats in the face of conflict, instability and repression. We connect users, experts and engineers to conduct research and seed new technology-driven initiatives.” Most reassuring indeed for individuals and organizations who may wish to avail themselves of such powerful tools in order to search out all those nasty “neo-Nazis” and “white supremacists” and “violent right wing extremists” who are causing so much “conflict, instability and repression” within Google’s domain.

GoogleIdeas2

GoogleIdeas3

Another “unique and powerful new global” friend of Daniel Gallant’s is Gen Next Foundation. Now here’s a group of rebel anarchists if you ever saw one! All smiles and clean-cut, one can rest assured that they would have only the best of philanthropic intentions for the great unwashed masses.

As their Mission states, “The Gen Next Foundation works to create opportunities and confront challenges that face future generations in the areas of education, economic opportunity, and global security.  We aspire to solve the greatest generational challenges of our time using a unique hybrid of private sector and non-profit business models – called a venture philanthropy model.”

GenNextFoundation1 copy

GenNext2

Here, pictured in the photo above, is yet another radical group of bad-assed, Gen Next Generation “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist” bounty hunters ready to rock ‘n roll and provide all the necessary backup for young, born-again neo-Zionist “hate” detectives like Daniel Gallant and company. I mean a little Saudi (Jew) money doesn’t hurt the cause now does it? As they state on their site, “When private sector and thought leaders turn their attention, time, and revenue towards supporting game-changing, socially impactful projects, the results can shape the future for millions around the world.

In terms of Gen Next Foundation’s issues they focus on the three that “drive prosperity for future generations: Education, Economic Opportunity, and Global Security.” Get it? “Global Security”. . . “Global Security”. . . “Global Security”. . . “Global Security”. And, speaking of Global Security, the Gen Next Foundation has this to say: “Without a stable, safe environment to grow up in, future generations have far less of a chance to achieve their dreams. Overcoming 21st century challenges demand that our nation’s defense apparatus is the most funded, versatile, well trained, respected, and effective in the world.

We must prioritize diplomacy, and present a positive image of the US in the world. By observing trends in instability, violence, and extremism, both in our own neighborhoods and around the globe, we can better understand the roots of these problems, and develop solutions to solve them through community, technology, and other innovative methods.”

And where do we find the sources for their grand ideas? Let’s see. The World Economic Forum, 2014, the Council on Foreign Relations, 2012, and the Pew Research Center, three outstanding, revolutionary organizations all designed to enhance the quality of life for freedom-living working folks everywhere.

GenNext3

 GenNext4

GenNext5

In terms of their Ventures “Gen Next Foundation incubates and grows ventures that are often high risk, forward looking, and high impact ideas. Our network guides and effectuates each venture with action groups capable of creative ideation, McKinsey style consulting, and world class execution [no doubt along the lines of Israel’s Mossad. A.T.]. We align private sector leaders, government officials, and NGOs in a Venture Philanthropy model to ensure our ventures have the greatest impact.”

Wikipedia tells us, “McKinsey & Company is a multinational management consulting firm with 108 global offices headquartered in New York City in the United States. It conducts qualitative and quantitative analysis in order to evaluate management decisions. Eighty percent of the world’s largest corporations are consulted by the firm and it is considered the most prestigious management consultancy. McKinsey publishes the McKinsey Quarterly, funds the McKinsey Global Institute research organization, publishes reports on management topics and has authored many influential books on management. Its practices of confidentiality, influence on business practices and corporate culture have experienced a polarizing reception.”

Pretty high-falutin language and projects we’re seeing here coming from all of these international orgs and “management consulting firms”who intend to “engineer” our lives for our own good regardless of what we might think. Why it just send shivers of excitement up one’s spine contemplating all the possibilities in store for the lumpen Proles in the days ahead.

GenNext6 PM

And finally, to conclude this brief look at Daniel Gallant’s allies in the hate-hunting, neo-Nazi, white supremacist business, we best take a quick peek at Rehab Studeo.

RehabStudeo

This is yet another “creative technology company” that provides “digital brand experiences that live online, mobile and in the real world, employing a unique creative process based on the principles of hacking to help clients solve business and communication problems using creativity and technology.” Oi veh! Such a deal for all the Daniel’s of the world who just might want to “hack” into all those “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist” websites or anyone else who they decide is a threat to their global security interests.

Anyway, so much for some of Daniel Gallant’s benefactors. Now let’s take a look at what he’s saying about yours truly and other truth revealers who have dedicated their lives to outing the ongoing machinations of the globalist elites and see what we might find. Then, I’ll try and summarize my thoughts on why this “example of hope, diversity and compassion” behaves as he does and also analyze why his efforts are both misplaced and detrimental to a truthful understanding of how the world operates and ultimately just a cover up and another false flag designed solely to protect the people that are now manufacturing the “reality” which is leading us all further and further into the realm of a one world global dictatorship so lucidly outlined in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion over a century ago.

Following Part I of Gallant’s general comments on “Hate in the North” he zeroes in on me in Parts II to V by writing the following piece of pro-Zionist propaganda and titling it “Wells, BC, A Home for Hate: Arthur Topham’s Hate and Fear“. Why he chose to include the words “Wells, BC” is open to speculation as I haven’t lived in the town of Wells for forty years and anyone living in the Cariboo who knows me knows that I live in the community of Cottonwood where I’ve resided full time since 1978. The fact that he did use that title came back eventually to bite him in the ass on Facebook and when it did he changed it to Hate in the North (Part II): Arthur Topham.

As well as screwing up on the title he also did the same thing with the url to my website. That, I believe, was intentional on Gallant’s part as he likely didn’t want to give my website any attention other than to provide a pretext for his slander and vilification that it provides to his readership (assuming of course that he has readers. Judging from the number of comments at the end of each of these 5-Part diatribes it doesn’t appear to be many). The addition of “/blog/” to the url to radicalpress.com was an easy way to throw readers off.

Also, it ought to be noted that I had to remove the urls to the three news articles that Gallant posts on his site. Why? Because there is a court order prohibiting me from publishing anything that contains the names of the two traitorous Zionist sycophant sayanim who filed the complaints against me and this included even links to other publications that reveal their names. It’s all justified of course by saying that they are being somehow put “in danger” if I should mention them. It could be misconstrued as a “threat” even. Heaven forbid! Doesn’t matter that all the court documents display their names and either of these entities are known across the country for all their other devious deeds over the past decade and longer and if anyone was to google my name and the charges brought against me that they could easily find out who they are. It’s called Zionese and is a perverse form of legalese.

Here, then, is Gallant’s assessment of myself:

Hate in the North (Part II): Arthur Topham

ATPub+

Quesnel BC’s own white supremacist Arthur Topham:
http://www.radicalpress.com/blog/ real link is: http://www.radicalpress.com/

News articles relating to Arthur Topham:

http://news.nationalpost.com/.… [court order prohibiting publication]
http://www.torontosun.com/.… [court order prohibiting publication]
http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca/.… [court order prohibiting publication]

This local arrest is a very important event. It provides the north with the opportunity to say that we will not tolerate violent extremism in northern BC. No assaults, whether verbal or physical should be encouraged or even permitted. Since I have moved to Prince George four years ago, I have linked the promotion of hate, youth recruitment into hate groups, racist vandalism, and violent extremism that includes explosives/bombs. This is an opportunity for Prince George and the northern region to state the claim that violent extremism is not welcome in our communities.

The online white supremacist chatter is currently running wild. Quesnel, BC, is now on the map as a white supremacist location. Arthur Topham is reported to have been arrested and his house searched by RCMP while hate crimes charges have reportedly been laid. White supremacist websites and discussion forums are expressing support and outrage about Topham’s arrest. Already the defense of free speech is being advocated by Paul Fromm and of course lawyer Doug Christie. This is not the first time Arthur Topham has been the center of online white supremacist discourse. In 2009, Human Rights complaints were lodged against him. The complaints were dismissed due to complex legal issues. However, Topham has now been caught with his ‘cyber-pants down’. It is claimed by Paul Fromm that Doug Christie will be representing Arthur Topham.

If asked, most people would not think that violent extremism is present in the northern part of British Columbia. However, with the actions of several racist-right-wing skinheads and white supremacists the north is seemingly becoming plagued by extremists, just like anywhere else in Canada.

————

So, apart from his first two faux pas, our “example of hope, diversity and compassion” Mr. Daniel Gallant then violates the very foundation of justice as it exists in both natural law and the laws of Canada by automatically assuming I am somehow guilty of the alleged crime of “promoting hate” and goes off on his own ramblings about all the hateful things he’s discovered in the north after living here for the past four years. In Daniel’s guilt-ridden fantasy world where demons run rampant, suddenly the “online white supremacist chatter is currently running wild. Quesnel (formerly Wells), BC, is now on the map as a white supremacist location . . . White supremacist websites and discussion forums are expressing support and outrage about Topham’s arrest” (although none of them are referenced in the article). Paul Fromm and Doug Christie are immediately highlighted and, by association, linked to the alleged “White supremacist websites and discussion forums.”

Next, Gallant, missing his target by only three years, tells readers that I had already been “caught with [my] ‘cyber-pants down’” back in 2009 when a Human Rights complaint was filed against me but that it had been “dismissed due to complex legal issues.” The truth of course is that the Section 13 complaint was filed back in 2007 and wasn’t stayed until June 26th, 2014 when Section 13 was officially repealed by the federal government a year and a half after Gallant wrote his little hate propaganda piece. So much for referencing his work with factual information.

Part III of Gallant’s pentagon of pathetic Zionist propaganda, titled “Ideological Glance” is another feeble and fruitless attempt to vilify the likes of former columnist for the North Shore News in Vancouver, B.C. Doug Collins; to refute the truth found in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion; to malign James Keegstra and and Ernst Zundel; and to defend the greatest hoax of the 20th century, i.e., the lie that 6 million Jews were gassed and fried in ovens in German work camps during WWII.

DOUG COLLINS PATRIOT

Part IV of Gallant’s mini-series on Machiavellian methods for maligning the enemies of Zion titled “Perversion of Rights” consists of another five paragraphs of slurs, half-truths, outright lies and defamation of both Paul Fromm and Douglas Christie that culminate in accusations of pre-meditated intent on the part of these two Canadian patriots to promote “genocide, atrocity and harm to those who are implicated in the ‘Zionist conspiracy’; which includes ‘race-mixers’, ‘race-traitors’ and most citizens.”

Part V titled “White Lies” is, like all of the other parts, a scrambled, incoherent, convoluted and pathetic attempt to present a hodge podge of lies, assumptions and worn-out Zionist cliches as an intelligent appraisal of Gallant’s misguided belief that anyone who disagrees with the Jewish interpretation of history must, automatically, be labeled either a “neo-Nazi” or a “white supremacist” and a “hater”. I will quote in full the two paragraphs that comprise this final segment of Gallant’s smear campaign against myself and my associates so that readers can see for themselves how transparent, ridiculous, puerile and psychotic this individual’s reasoning truly is. Pay particular attention to the sentence in bold where the writer attempts to wax eloquent on the subject of eugenics.

“In addition to the conspiracy oriented backbone of the white supremacist worldview there is another likewise problematic misconception. This is the notion of racial purity and the links biology has to culture. Eugenics based science/theory, which is archaic in its development, and the belief that biological determinism is one of the crux of white supremacist idealism speaks to the lens of these pseudo-intellectual lenses. We as a collective society now understand that race and biology do not determine socialization. Socio-cultural dynamics which include intelligence, deviance and criminality are referenced throughout much of the right-wing doctrine as being linked directly to physiology and biology. This biologically determined belief structure is not only archaic, but de-bunked as a science. As indicated by UNBC professor and scholar Michelle Bouchard race is a social construct and what people typically refer to as ‘race’ does not actually exist genetically in a solidified and quantitative manner.

Loose connections are the root of white supremacist doctrine and propaganda. Extremists from the right wing agenda, like Arthur Topham, regurgitate distasteful, hurtful and violent messages, which are rooted in half-baked pseudo-intellectualism. These individuals are not tucked away into the corners of society and hidden away. They work in your schools, courtrooms, universities and construction sites. It is my goal to include, in this blog, insight into who some of these people are; and what they are up to. It is my hope to inform those from the extreme-far-right, that there is a way out of the misconceptions of their indoctrination; all while promoting compassion and solidarity amongst our collective human experience in order to decrease the amount of abuse and oppression that occurs in our country, our cities, our streets, our institutions, our homes and most importantly in our minds.”

Okay. That more or less summarizes my comments on Gallant’s little 5-pack attack piece on myself, RadicalPress.com and friends and associates of freedom. It’s so redundant and oh so reminiscent for truth revealers everywhere of the stereotypical, nauseating ADL hit pieces that gush forth incessantly from the dark and dank underground recesses of B’nai Brith’s cesspool of slander and calumny, the Anti-Defamation League.

What my research of Gallant’s sites tells me (coupled with a few written exchanges on Facebook back in 2013) is that his behaviour, in light of his past trauma, explains to a great degree how the outcome of such a life provides the perfect breeding ground for New World Order psychopaths like the Zionist Jews who are always vigilant when it comes to seeking out traumatized individuals who can then be mind-controlled into performing the type of tasks that Daniel Gallant is now undertaking and who can then provide the necessary feigned sympathy and empathy followed by encouragement and training and public exposure and positive attention in order to gain a recruit who will then serve their interests and be a willing, goyim spokesperson for their NWO agenda.

Enter Joey Only – rebel anarchist and purveyor of Zionist Jew myths

Ignorance copy 2

Now like many minds shaped by trauma and pain Daniel Gallant is persistent in his efforts to expose those who his “demons” tell him are “neo-Nazis” and “white supremacists” and through such persistence he eventually was able to capture the attention of another young and foolish lad and a newcomer to the small town of Wells which has been an integral part of the local Cariboo social and cultural network for decades.

Wells,BC

Joey Only might properly be called a reluctant musician and singer/songwriter if one was to take to heart his autobiographical writings found at https://joeyonly.wordpress.com/. An easterner who eventually migrated out west in the fall of 2002 Joey, like his newly acquired friend and protege Daniel Gallant, also spend time in East Vancouver, Daniel beating up drunks and people of colour and Joey playing gigs in and around Vancouver’s “Left” music scene trying to build up a reputation as a ‘the radical folk singer’.

Eventually, after a number of years working with the Marxist-Leninist crowd in Vancouver, Joey became disenchanted and decided to head north to the Yukon where he set up shop in the local bars of Whitehorse there forming his “Outlaw Band” in the spring of 2006. Joey and his band worked hard to establish a reputation and earn a living and in the process he eventually morphed into a more western-style, frontier-type, back to the country (punk?) image. After a few years on the road Joey quit the music scene and in 2009, as he says, “due to personal disillusionment, moved to Wells took it easy, started a family and soon got a brand new ass kicking band together.”

Screen Shot 2015-03-20 at 6.12.19 PM

Like his newly acquired side-kick Daniel Gallant, Joey appears to be a rather introspective type; a poet and songwriter; one of the common folk and, professedly, a fierce opponent of any and all forms of injustice. Politically he espouses what he believes to be an anarchist perspective. In his younger years it appears he was also active in the Christian church. All fine and good.

Now around the end of February, Joey began suffering from a northern malady that we in the area refer to as “cabin fever blues”which is common throughout the Cariboo and other wintery type regions of the world where the short days and minimal sunlight tend to bring a person down. It was around this same period of darkness and depression that Daniel Gallant’s serpentine efforts on behalf of his Zionist taskmasters to work his venom into Joey’s mind finally had the desired effect. The result was Joey Only decided that he too had to do something about that “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist” Arthur Topham, the “racist, hate-mongering anti-Semitic Jew-hater” who was giving Joey’s new town of Wells, a bad reputation as “A Home for Hate” and so on February 24th, 2015 he posted the following hit piece on his Facebook page:

Joey Onley
February 24 at 3:03pm

“So I gotta open up this can of worms…a friend of mine told me today they were scared to come to Wells because they read this article posted below some time ago and then shared it with me. I have to say I love this town so much that I can’t stand to see something like this. So I appreciate what Daniel Gallant, the author, is trying to do in exposing a neo-Nazi peice[sic] of alcoholic trash like Arthur Topham but I can’t approve of it as it’s unfactual and unfair. I want the article removed!
Arthur Topham doesn’t live in Wells and I don’t think anyone in this town would have any use for the pro-Hitler crap that spews from his rotten head. He lives the better part of an hour west of us and most people here have never heard of his name. I love this town and I believe we are a very progressive artistic, sensible and inclusive community, probably the shining light in the north. It hurts me to think that someone I care about would be afraid to visit me because they got the impression we are some kind of neo-nazi flag waving town.
If you feel so moved to help defend our towns reputation against such spurious accusations please do two things. Read this article and post a comment to Daniel explaining why you don’t believe it’s fair to muddy our little mountain towns name…and secondly when you see Arthur Topham in the liqour store remind him he’s a peice[sic] of shit nazi scumbag who our grandfathers would have shot…so not to bother visiting Wells. When insane neo-nazi rantings from someone we don’t even know come back to shame our town I get a different kind of angry as we are nothing like this. I never met this Arthur guy but if I recognize him in town I promise I won’t mence[sic] words in expressing my dissaproval[sic]!
Now let me post in the comments some of Arthur Tophams horrific works. This stuff makes me want to puke.”

Apart from the sudden realization that I was an “alcoholic” the rest of Joey’s gush of slanderous disparagement was typical of the anti-racist, brain-dead zombies who the Zionists manage to sway in one way or another to perform their malicious smear campaigns for them.

OnlyAccuser

Three days later, he posted the following:

Joey Onley
February 27 at 5:22pm

“Receiving threats and harrassment from Arthur Tophams camp this afternoon. It is to be expected. I’m aware my physical safety is at risk for speaking out against local white supremacists.”

More lies. Having thus made his initial false accusations Only then proceeded to cried wolf about me making threats to him in order to give the impression to his friends (many of whom were my “friends” and my wife’s “friends” as well) that on top of being all those terrible things that Daniel Gallant had stated about me I was also a dangerous man who was now threatening him (he didn’t elaborate on what type of threat it was) with some form of violence in retaliation for Only having “outed” me.

The immediate effect of course was that my family was deeply incensed by his slanderous actions and crude, foul-mouthed insults and that he would have the chutzpah to pull off such a cheap stunt before people in our own local community who we had known and respected for decades.

As for all of our Facebook “friends” who were privy to Only’s remarks none of them (to my knowledge) displayed the courage or strength of character to speak up on my behalf or my wife’s behalf in the comment section below his post and chastise him for his callous and uncalled for behaviour. In that sense, I suppose, Joey’s outburst of lies about me was a good thing in that it exposed to the Facebook world of make-believe “friends” the depth of sincerity of those who had previously feigned a cordial countenance toward us in the past and once again reconfirmed the old adage “with friends like that who needs enemies”.

Summary

Thus one sees how the effect of the Daniel Gallants of the world serve the power elite who depend upon their Zionized zombies to do their dirty work for them by spreading lies and gossip that in turn facilitate greater and greater dissension among those who are already mentally taxed by the volume and magnitude of deception that has permeated the mindset of the younger generations.

The Daniel Gallants and the Joey Onlys of the world are, in many ways, caught between two worlds. Having been subjected all their lives to endless Zionist propaganda promulgated by the Jew-controlled media since 1933 their mental hard drive or database has been so thoroughly infected by the duplicitous virus of Zionist “Left” chicanery that it becomes virtually impossible (or inconceivable) for them to understand how their cultural and intellectual mindset has been so saturated with meme after meme of Germanophobic hate-mongering that by the time they’ve reached adulthood their minds are already captive making them ripe for further mind-control and manipulation as soon as they dare venture into that great arena for social change – politics and political activism.

The case of Daniel Gallant is rather unique in some respects. His early life of trauma is a classic example of the type of MK-Ultra tactics that former victim of the CIA’s “Project Monarch” mind-control operation, Kathy O’Brien describes in her 1995 book TRANCE FORMATION of AMERICA. Gallant, now that he’s fallen into the hands of the same manipulators his work becomes all the more relevant in terms of its planned objectives which are to dispense deception for the greater good of Israel and the Zionist agenda.

TranceformO'brienFinal 2

As I was finishing off this article I revisited Joey Only’s Facebook page to see if anything had changed and while scrolling down his page realized that he had deleted his February 24 post. Fortunately I had copied and saved all the relevant information. Was it remorse that moved him to take it down? Was it the fact that others had approached him off Facebook and told him that he was way off track in making such outlandish statements about someone they had know for years? Was it because Only actually took the time to investigate further who I really was? Or was it for some other unknown reason? Possibly he realized what a fool he’d made of himself and didn’t want the post to stand as reminder. Only Only knows why and thus far he hasn’t had the honesty or integrity to speak about it. It needs to be noted though that he still has the post up where he accuses me of harassing and threatening him so whatever his motives were in removing the post they remain suspect.

In a second article related to Daniel Gallant I will focus more directly on his accusations that I’m a “neo-Nazi” and a “white supremacist”. There I hope to be able to provide sufficient evidence to show that his deliberate smear campaign has no substance whatsoever and all he is doing is the acting as a sayan for the state of Israel and the Rothschild Zionist criminal cartel.

——

The Yoke of Law: Stopping the Homosexual Lobby Assault on our School Children Frank Frost Videos

FrankFrostYokeofLawHdr copy 2

VideoWarning

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 22

Screen Shot 2014-05-02 at 9.28.03 PM

notice4RP

 

RPEdNew400 copy

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update #22

September 30th, 2014

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

It has been close to five months (May 7th, 2014) since I last posted a Legal Update on my Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” CCC charge that commenced back on May 16th, 2012. This is the greatest span of time since I began writing these records where I haven’t had to report on my case but it was a long overdue and necessary break from the onerous, ongoing reality that we know as the legal process here in Canada. The wheels of justice do indeed move at a snail’s pace.

Back in April of this year I was fortunate to have had B.C. Provincial Court Judge, the Honourable Judge Morgan, decide against agreeing to the Crown’s application to impose stringent bail conditions on me which would, in effect, have prohibited any further publishing on RadicalPress.com or any other internet site until after the completion of the upcoming trial in B.C. Supreme Court.

My case having then shifted from the provincial court to the B.C. Supreme Court I returned to Supreme Court on Monday, April 28th, 2014 in order to fix a date for trial. It was then that Crown asked me whether or not I was once again going to apply for a Rowbotham application which is a process that would have, if successful, enabled me to have the case stayed until the Attorney General’s office provided me with legal counsel.

I advised the court that I was planning on reapplying for said application (having done so prior to the preliminary inquiry when it was first refused by the court) and it was at that point that Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston suggested that I be given until September 29th, 2014 to refile all the necessary paperwork and return on the 29th to set a further date for a hearing on the matter.

Given that I had more than sufficient time to reapply I decided to take some time off from all the legal work and focus on regenerating the family garden which  had fallen into neglect over the years due to all the past eight years of legal wranglings with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and now the criminal court of Canada. Apart from our gardens there were numerous other maintenance projects awaiting redress on our 5 acre plot that also require urgent attention.

Nearing the end of June I was beginning to get ahead of the game and began preparing to start the process of applying a second time for a new Rowbotham application. Then, in the beginning of July all hell broke loose in Gaza as the Israeli government once again began beating their war drums and commenced with yet another murderous bombing campaign against the helpless, entrapped Palestinian people slaughtering thousands of innocents and crippling and maiming thousands more as well as destroying much of Gaza’s infrastructure. It was the worse case of unjustified lethal aggression against the Palestinian people to have ever occurred and as a result all of my thoughts about working on another Rowbotham application came to a screeching halt as I decided that covering this gross act of genocide by the Zionist forces against the people of Gaza was much more important than spending endless hours on preparing documents that I intuitively knew would be rejected a second time.

The mainstream media (msm) being dominated by the Zionists there was nothing else left to counter all of their lies and disinformation but to focus on constant efforts to disseminate the truth about what was really going on with respect to Israel’s illegal, immoral, unjust and depraved slaughter of defenceless children and adults in Gaza. Being a part of the alternative news media it became my first and foremost duty to try and provide internet readers with a more balanced perspective on the war. In the process of doing so the months of July and August were consumed and when a lasting truce was finally signed with Hamas there was little time left to begin again on the Rowbotham application.

I contacted Keith Evans, counsel for the BC Attorney General’s office on August 22nd, 2014 alerting him to the fact that I wished to resume the process but instead I received a reply from a Freya Zaltz, Barrister and Solicitor, Constitutional and Administrative Law Group, Minister of Justice / Legal Services Branch who informed me that, “Given that it is already August 22, it’s highly unlikely that a new Rowbotham application could be resolved by September 29, 2014.”

Given this information I then decided to forego applying for the Rowbotham application and replied to Ms. Zaltz on September 2nd, 2014 informing her:

With respect to your comment that “it’s highly unlikely that a new Robotham application could be resolved by September 29, 2014″ I would add, by way of explanation, that the delay in applying was due to the unfortunate actions of the state of Israel and their war on Gaza that began in early July and consumed most of that month plus August.
As my professional responsibilities to my readership at RadicalPress.com required ongoing coverage of this event in order to counter the Zionist media propaganda here in Canada I had to make a decision as to where my priorities would be focussed. My decision was to place Gaza at the forefront, over and above all other considerations. Given the nature of my case and the spurious charges which were brought on by the Zionist Jew lobby B’nai Brith Canada and then approved by your office in November of 2012 I’m sure you can understand why I deemed my actions to be of greater importance than to focus on my own personal circumstances. Had Israel not attacked Gaza when it did I would, in all likelihood, have met the obligations set.
As such, seeing that the application deadline cannot be completed by my next appearance on September 29, 2014, I will forego proceeding with it and let Crown Counsel in Quesnel know of my decision.
That aspect of the case having been terminated I then awaited the court appearance on September 29th, 2014 designed to “fix a date” for the upcoming trial in BC Supreme Court and also to possibly set a hearing date for the former Rowbotham application.
ATCourt Sept29:14
My dear wife Shastah accompanying me as we appeared at the Quesnel courthouse at 10:00 am on Monday, September 29th, 2014. The Supreme Court Justice appeared on video from somewhere and the proceedings were recorded as per normal. Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston began by notifying the judge that we were there to set a date for trial and then proceeded to name a couple of time slots when she would be available. Both dates fell in the year 2015. The first suggested date was too early for me given that I am planning  a number of pre-trial Charter applications which will most likely require at least four days of court time to address. That proposed date was in the late spring of 2015. The second date (covering a two week time period) was to commence on October 26th, 2015 and run until November 6th, 2015.

After Crown made her dates known to the judge and I had the opportunity to speak I informed the judge that I would prefer the latter period and then explained to him why I felt I couldn’t be prepared in time to meet the early date. I began by stating that the issues surrounding the case were very complex from the standpoint of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and at the same time also informed the court that I was in consultation with a lawyer from the lower mainland of the province who would be preparing extensive written legal arguments that they would be unable to complete prior to at least March of 2015. As well, I informed the court that my legal counsel would also not be free to appear in Quesnel until at least May of the same year.

Crown Counsel Johnston appeared pleased with the knowledge that I was in consultation with legal counsel and told the court that she had no problem with setting the trial date for October 26th of 2015. She also told the judge that the 10-day schedule trial could possibly be shortened by the fact were I to have legal representation.

The trial date thus being set Crown then asked the judge to set another date for a pre-trial conference with my counsel. That date was set for March 23rd, 2015.

I was very pleased with the outcome as now I will have the time to prepare all the important documents relevant to the case and also have the time to organize an ongoing legal defense fund in order to cover the costs of procuring legal counsel to represent me during both the pre-trial applications and, if needs be, the trial itself. That was all that took place and within a matter of about fifteen minutes my wife and I left the courtroom.

•••• 88 ••••

 The other important notice regarding my case concerns the recent  and rather startling news that the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has taken it upon themselves to come out publicly in favour of me as well as challenging Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws Sections 319 to 320, calling for their complete and final repeal.

When I first heard of this I was absolutely overwhelmed with a sense of instant relief and thankfulness. After eight long years of battling with the Jewish lobby (B’nai Brith Canada) who were instrumental in laying both the sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaint against myself and RadicalPress.com back in 2007 plus the current sec. 319(2) CCC “Hate Propaganda” complaint in 2011 that resulted in my arrest and incarceration on May 16th, 2012, the fact that a well-recognized and prestigious mainstream public civil liberties organization such as the OCLA was backing up my right to freedom of expression, petitioning BC’s Attorney General, the Hon. Suzanne Alton to retract her consent to the spurious charges, and tackling the final stronghold of the forces of Orwellian internet “freedom of speech” repression, i.e. Sections 318 to 320 of the Canada’s Criminal Code, was almost beyond belief.

This sudden turn of events has been a game changer and is comparable to having a D-9 Caterpillar appear on the legal/media playing field in my favour to level off what’s been a definite bumpy, one-sided, stacked deck of silence and collusion in favour of the Zionist lobby, their mainstream media cartel and the courts. As such, on behalf of my wife and myself, I wish to publicly express my deepest sense of gratitude to the OCLA for having come to this important and prescient decision; one that is bound to affect all Canadians and, should their campaign prove successful, ensure that the future of Canada’s media, both msm and alternative, will remain free and open and democratic and not subject to political interference from any special interest groups.

I would like at this point to add the latest statement on this matter from OCLA which was sent out by Joseph Hickey, Executive Director, Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA):

OCLA_logo_only_250

Dear OCLA Supporter,

Please take a moment to read and consider signing OCLA’s petition in defence of the civil rights of Arthur Topham, a BC man who is currently being prosecuted under a “Hate Propaganda” section of Canada’s Criminal Code. The petition is online at the following link: http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created

OCLA has the position that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code should be repealed. These sections allow egregious violations of the civil rights of liberty, just process, and freedom of expression. Under these provisions, a person can be jailed without the Crown being required to prove any actual harm to a single identified individual.

Mr. Topham was arrested in front of his spouse, detained, subjected to a home-invasive seizure, and faces jail time if convicted, for expressing his highly unpopular views.

OCLA’s public statement on this matter is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OCLA-statement-re-Arthur-Topham.pdf

Please read OCLA’s letter to the BC Attorney General asking her to withdraw her consent for this prosecution, which is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-of-BC.pdf

 

Yours truly,

 

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

In closing I would ask all readers to assist both the OCLA and myself in achieving the highest number of signatures and comments on the OCLA petition to Hon. Suzanne Alton as humanly possible and to pass this information on to as many other people and blogsites and news sites as possible. The OCLA has taken a courageous and valiant step forward in our battle to retain our Charter rights to Freedom of Expression. It may be our last chance to change this draconian legislation using peaceful, lawful means. Please take advantage of this opportunity for the sake of all Canadians both present and of future generations.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
RadicalPress.com
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

 *******

My court battle has now moved to an actual trial by judge and jury in the British Columbia Supreme Court. In doing so it places a far greater emphasis on my having to obtain legal counsel and/or advice from legal counsellors, which ultimately requires funding. 

The trial will be a major battle in the upcoming legal war to rid Canada of all the Section 318 to 320 “Hate Propaganda” legislation now in the Canadian Criminal Code. The outcome of this trial will, in all likelihood, determine whether or not Canadians will retain their right to publish the truth on the Internet about any and all injustices that may befall our country. 

I DO NEED YOUR HELP NOW MORE THAN EVER!!!  

Please consider a donation to the Radical Press Free Speech Defence Fund.

My PayPal button is on my website at http://www.RadicalPress.com

If you can’t send a donation via PayPal please consider sending one through Canada Post to:

Arthur Topham

4633 Barkerville Highway

Quesnel, B.C. Canada

V2J 6T8

Remember that every bit helps (all of us).

Thank you.

Arthur Topham

Pub/Ed

The Radical Press

 

An Open Letter to all Truth Deniers & Holocaust Believers By Arthur Topham

OpenLet2TruthDeniers&HolocaustBelievers

An Open Letter to all Truth Deniers and Holocaust Believers

By

Arthur Topham

August 22nd, 2014

 

RPEditor400

[Editor’s Preface:

What sparked this open letter to those who still believe in what historical revisionist and author Arthur R. Butz called “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry” (the title of his 1976 book that demolished forever the mythological basis for what, in my estimation, was, and remains, the most colossal and earth-threatening lie ever to have been told to mankind) was a comment from a person (Nick Inglis) on a post that I had submitted to a local Quesnel, B.C. Facebook group of which I was a member at the time. It was the standard “guilty by association” ploy that both Jews and their deluded gentile lackeys in the west perpetually use whenever they don’t have anything intelligent to offer to a debate. In this case the fellow who posted it appeared to be a member of the science faculty at a B.C. university in the southern region of the province. Given that the author of comment represented what might be called a member of Canada’s intelligentsia I felt it was time to inform those of his mindset of a few things that they were unwittingly overlooking in their efforts to sustain this massive falsification that has plagued the world since 1945.]

_______

Dear Nick Inglis, Truth Deniers & Holocaust Believers:

While out getting firewood yesterday I got to thinking about your August 16th comment on the WTF Quesnel FB group where you had remarked on a post of mine, “I wonder what Councillor Thapar would think about being used as a reference to support a Holocaust denier.”

Apart from the fact that your words were obviously meant to imply “guilt by association” between myself and Quesnel City Councillor Sushil Thapar, thus reflecting badly on the councillor, that aspect of your comment wasn’t what I was meditating on while falling the beetle-killed pines along the Cariboo roadside.

It appears (from clicking on your FB profile) that you have begun a new job with the Biology Faculty at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Surrey, B.C.  It was this point that caught my attention and got me thinking further about your remark concerning the fact that I don’t believe in the 6 Million myth and therefore am a prime candidate for labelling as a “Holocaust denier” by the Zionist Jews and those like yourself who support their psychopathy.

As someone who appears to be involved in science it begs the question as to why you would be so quick to make such an accusation against me and also why you would be buying into the “Holocaust” fiction in the first place given that your profession rests, for the most part, upon reason, logic and provable facts rather than assertions, accusations, emotions and beliefs (as odd, inconceivable and incomprehensible as they may be).

As a scientist I’m certain you must be aware of the situation that the 16th Century Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher Galileo found himself in when he discovered (thanks to his newly designed telescope) that his predecessor Nicolaus Copernicus’ theory that the Earth and all of the planets actually revolved around the Sun rather than the opposite world view  – one that postulated the Earth was the center of our Universe – was, in fact, true.

You must also be aware of the persecution, ignominy and lifetime incarceration that Galileo underwent thanks to the machinations of the Roman Catholic Church when he refused to recant his position, all of which relates to this 20th century phenomenon that the Jews have, with wilful and intentional malice, forced upon the world via their monopolistic control of all major media sources coupled with their inordinate financial and political influence over western nations and politicians (as has now become so patently obvious during the latest round of genocide in Gaza wherein no western “leader” has shown the courage or fortitude to question and demand a stop to the needless slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women and especially children).

It was the Renaissance Nick that first gave birth to what we now call the Scientific Method – a time, after centuries of darkness and ignorance, when man’s inquisitive and skeptical mind and spirit of inquiry finally burst forth in open opposition to the then accepted Authority of the day. Without this method of approaching any hypothetical question and proving it with verifiable facts the world would still be held in throng to superstition and religious speculation rather than actual truth. Given this new reality that the world adopted over four hundred years ago I fail to understand how you, as a scientist, can equate (and justify) making ILLEGAL the questioning of anything; be it a scientific theory, an accepted fact of nature or, even the fiction of “6 Million Jews” having been gassed to death and then cremated in ovens in German occupied territory during WW2?

Cannot you see that, in this particular case, i.e., the 6 Million myth, you are being confronted with the ONLY exception to the scientific methodology upon which your profession and all scientific professions rest? Why is it that, in this one instance, you are somehow able to suspend your understanding of the scientific method of discovery and suddenly accept, on hearsay and proven contrived “evidence”, that governments, under the influence of one small religious cult, can actually legislate laws that make it an indictable offence to question this fiction or anything else for that matter? Where does freedom of thought and inquiry play into this diabolical farce? Where does common sense and the basics of scientific research come in? Where, in truth, does anything logical or reasonable come into play when anyone, be they a government or a religious group (as in the case of the Jews) or an individual, is able to make it illegal to question any matter of history or any event or anything that may be theorized, ranging from the scientific up through the branches of philosophy and art to even the spiritual pinnacle of theological speculation?

One would think (reasonably and logically) that if any statement, of all the myriad questions that mankind has considered throughout history, ought to meet such a criterion and be prohibited by law it would be the denial of God rather than a purported historic event that has countless loopholes in it which would prevent it from becoming accepted by the whole world (scientific or otherwise) as an unquestionable fact. In other words are we to remain free to question the existence of the Creator Himself yet unable to question, based upon scientific evidence or otherwise, the fraudulent claims of the Zionist Jews who, through cunning and conspiracy, plus the heavily weighted influence of their purse and their control of all aspects of our major sources of communication, have not only successfully foisted this lie upon mankind and then exacerbated it by programming successive generations of people to accept it as the gospel truth but have now managed to actually elevate it to the apex of juridical absurdity through the manufacture of actual legislation in certain countries that make it ILLEGAL to question what is undoubtedly, as researcher Arthur R. Butz clearly proved back in 1976, the greatest hoax of the 20th century?

Of course I know why you made that comment just as I know why the Zionist Jews and the state of Israel have been slaughtering Palestinians and stealing their land for over a century. It is, as the Jews so often have stated in the past with respect to their 6 Million myth, “manifestly obvious” that your intent is to discourage others from any association with those who, like myself, refuse to accept the unacceptable and fraudulent premise of the 6 Million and thus segregate and isolate our thoughts and ideas and opinions and years of intensive research so that no one will be tempted to investigate further what I or numerous others have to say about any of the related problems that political Zionism has created throughout the 20th century and which now, are coming to a head, in the early beginnings of the 21st.

Here is your modus operandi and the scenario that you would have others believe:

The primary purpose of labelling a person an “anti-Semite” or a “Holocaust denier” or a “hate monger” or any number of other similar epithets is, pure and simple, outright vilification. In other words if you can first create labels like those just identified and then instil their circumscribed and false meanings in the minds of the general public through mass programming (via the mainstream media which the Jews control), then once this is established it precludes having to establish any further solid proof to support whatever allegations you may wish to make about a person, group, organization or even government for that matter, which you intend to destroy by first defaming them in order to discredit either their character and integrity or their work (i.e. opposing views).

To return to your original remark let us see how this program of vilification would work should it actually be followed through.

I have lived in Cariboo region of British Columbia, Canada since 1970 which amounts to forty-four years (with some brief absences). From 1975 on I have lived here steadily working and raising a family and contributing to the local community in a number of ways. 

The Quesnel area has a overall population of about 30,000 people which is not a large number to get to know  or become known to over the span of nearly half a century. Because of my propensity for writing and my interest in politics and history I have been a regular contributor to Quesnel’s community newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo Observer where, according to statistics, I earned a reputation for having contributed more “Letters to the Editor” to that publication than anyone else in its 106 year history of publishing.  As well I have been a paid columnist for the same publication.

My civil commitments to the local region have also been  substantial and fulfilling with years of community service in my own local community of Cottonwood which lies approximately 20 miles east of the city of Quesnel. I’ve worked in a number of different professions ranging from school teaching to that of a Park Ranger and Supervisor to being a log builder, the owner of a registered carpentry business  as well as owning and running a registered publishing business known as The Radical Press along with placer mining and being the Secretary of the Cariboo Mining Association.

On top of these activities I’ve been actively participating in local politics at the regional, municipal and provincial levels of government having at different times ran for the position of Councillor for the city of Quesnel as well as for the provincial MLA’s position for the Cariboo North electoral district.

In other words I haven’t been sitting idle over the past forty years plus. It is this legacy of community contributions and effort that you are attempting to destroy by your calculated and malicious attempt to discredit my life’s work using worn-out tactics of slander and libel and defamation, all of which are meant to malign my character and denigrate all of my efforts over the past four decades. 

But that’s not the worst of it. You would have your mean-spirited accusations and spiteful assertions carry over to all those with whom I’ve established relations with throughout my lifetime here in the Cariboo. In other words all of my friends and associates and those within my community who I’ve had social or business dealings with for decades are all to suddenly void their association with me because now I am a “Holocaust denier” and no longer the person I’ve been all my life. Are you not capable of intellectually grasping the enormity of what you are attempting to do via your spurious, and, yes, hateful slander?

You mentioned Councillor Sushil Thapar in your comment but you have failed to mention the rest of the many councillors and mayors of the city of Quesnel who I have known and associated with and befriended over the past forty-four years. Are they also expected to treat me as if I were suddenly a pariah and a leper because someone of your mental measure has  inferred that I am a “Holocaust denier”?

Why it wasn’t that long ago that I was speaking with one of the former mayors of Quesnel and he remarked to me, upon hearing that I had been charged with a “hate crime”, “Why Arthur how can this be? I’ve always known you to be a “peace and love” sorta guy, one of the old Hippies who’s always strived to bring  social justice and brotherhood and sisterhood and environmental sanity back to the world.” Were he and all the other public figures who I know to take your ill-intentioned and evil advice they would all, needs be, have to see me in a totally different light and accept that they had been wrong about me all their lives and that in reality I’m just a no-good, worthless, hate-mongering, Jew-hating anti-Semite and, horror of horrors, a “Holocaust denier”!

And that, Nick Inglis, is the long and the short of your intentions and your sleazy tactics. Rather than have to defend your libellous accusations made against my person by offering up substantial evidence to prove what you are alleging is verifiable truth it’s much easier to merely resort to the Zionist Jew’s deceptive deck of shitty smear cards in the vain hope that whatever ones you pull out will somehow stick to me and save you having to actually offer credible sources to support your surreptitiously motivated intentions.

Like I mentioned earlier in this article the definitive proof that the so-called 6 Million Jewish Holocaust is nothing more than a fabricated fraud is all contained in Arthur R. Butz’s book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Once again I humbly suggest to you and all the rest of the truth-deniers and holocaust believers in the world that you obtain a copy of this book and read it carefully. Having done that and you are still convinced that you can disprove what Mr. Butz has shown to be the truth regarding this deception then please share your findings with the rest of the truth seekers of the world who have already determined the veracity of this indisputable document.

In Peace and Justice for All,

I remain,

Arthur Topham

___________

 

 

 

Red Haven Live at the Occidental Hotel in Quesnel, B.C. June 25th, 2014

Occidental Red Haven

Justice: Should Arthur Topham Have Sexually Assaulted 23 Women Instead? by Christoper di Armani

allegory-of-justice-and-peace800

Screen Shot 2014-02-23 at 11.24.07 PM

 Justice:

Should Arthur Topham Have Sexually Assaulted 23 Women Instead?

By

Christopher di Armani

 

That may seem a strange title for an article about our legal system, but after reading about Campbell Ernest Crichton, the former Duncan, BC, physiotherapist who faces charges he sexually assaulted at least 23 of his former patients, it seems to be the correct title.

A February 21, 2014, article in The Province started thus:

A hearing has been ordered in the case of a former physiotherapist who successfully argued he was too poor to pay for a lawyer to defend himself against charges he sexually assaulted 23 female patients.

Last year Campbell Ernest Crichton of Duncan, B.C., had his charges temporarily set aside after a judge found he was indigent and needed a government-funded lawyer for the complex criminal trial.

Anyone following my writings on Freedom of Speech will be well familiar with the case of Arthur Topham, the Quesnel, BC, publisher of RadicalPress.com, an alternative news website.

Mr. Topham currently faces criminal charges under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada for “inciting hatred” against an identifiable group.

What, you ask, is the connection between Arthur Topham’s Freedom of Speech case and an [alleged] degenerate serial sex offender?

Quite simply, neither man can afford legal counsel for their criminal trials.

In the case of the [alleged] sex offender B.C. Supreme Court Justice Keith Bracken said there was a “real and substantial” risk to Crichton’s right to a fair trial if if did not have legal counsel. As a result of that “real and substantial” risk Justice Bracken ordered Crichton be provided a government-funded lawyer.

Arthur Topham is facing criminal charges for exercising his Right to Freedom of Speech. There is no “victim” here other than a few people whose actions lead me to believe they self-identify as victims. Topham sexually assaulted nobody. He physically harmed nobody. He never forced a single person on Planet Earth to read what he wrote.

Despite those facts Arthur Topham’s right to a fair trial with adequate legal counsel seems unimportant to the very same judiciary that ruled an [alleged] serial sex offender ought to have a government-funded lawyer.

Arthur Topham is not a wealthy man. He’s a modest man living on modest means in his rural home outside of Quesnel, BC. His application for legal aid was denied. His application for government funding under what is known as a Rowbotham Application was similarly denied.

By these standards it is far more important that a sexual deviant’s rights be safeguarded than a man who dared write a few words someone found objectionable.

That is a very dangerous precedent to set.

Sending a man to prison for the words he writes ought to scare the crap out of every single writer in Canada. Sure, today it’s Topham’s views that are “politically incorrect” and therefore fair game for our legal system, but what about tomorrow? Whose views will be deemed “incorrect” then? Who will stand up for you then?

Campbell Ernest Crichton is charged with sexually abusing 23 human beings. That is real, substantial physical and emotional trauma all for one sick man’s own sexual gratification.

There are real human victims.

Arthur Topham wrote an article someone didn’t like. For that the BC Hate Crimes Unit of the RCMP and the BC Attorney General want to send Mr. Topham to prison, while refusing him any chance of a true legal defense.

Shouldn’t we be far more concerned about sexual predators? Nope. We’ll happily pay their legal fees and send that darned writer to prison. After all, ideas are far more dangerous than sexual predators, right?
—–

Christopher di Armani is the editor and publisher of Canada’s Rights and Freedom Bulletin. This article appeared in Issue No. 167, Feb. 22, 2014. Visit Mr. Armani’s site at: http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org

Regina v RadicalPress.com LEGAL UPDATE #17

NewLegalUpdateLogo-700

notice4RP

Regina v RadicalPress.com LEGAL UPDATE #17

January 27th, 2014

 

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

Due to the nature of this particular Legal Update, i.e., it being recent events connected to my Preliminary Inquiry, the necessity arose for editorial commentary throughout the report wherever I felt it was warranted. It also meant that it would be a rather long article as well. The need to present a general overview of my case now that it’s finally reached this stage is the reason for its inordinate length.

January 22nd, 2014 marked the 616th day since my arrest on May 16th, 2012 for the alleged crime of “communicating statements, other than in private conversation, [that] willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.” The actual section of the Criminal Code of Canada reads:

Wilful promotion of hatred


(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In the Legal Rights section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under “Proceedings in criminal and penal matters”, 11(b) it states:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

According to the stated legal rights of all Canadian citizens (as denoted in the above Section 11(b) of the Charter), one must assume that a wait of 616 days or 20 months plus should be construed as being a “reasonable time” in which to expect one’s case to be heard in a Canadian court of law. But of course 616 days is only the beginning of the arduous process of seeking justice within the Canadian court system. January 22nd, 2014 was not the day when my trial on these specious charges was set to commence; it was but the date set for the Preliminary Inquiry which is basically an opportunity afforded the accused wherein they are given an opportunity to dispute the actual evidence which precipitated the laying of charges based on the Crown’s allegations.

I will get to the actual proceedings but first I’d like to say a few words about this section of the Canadian Criminal Code (CCC) which is placed under the heading “Hate Propaganda” and exists as Sections 318(1) through to Section 320.1(1) of the Code itself. This vile, undemocratic section of the Criminal Code was inserted into law by Zionist forces operating within the Cohen Commission back in 1970 and remains the one critical section of Canada’s criminal code where the pro-Zionist elements within Canada – specifically the Jewish lobby organizations such as B’nai Brith Canada (BBC), the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), the Simon Wiesenthal Centre (SWC) and the most recently formed Jewish umbrella organization, the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs (CIJA) – are now focusing their combined effort in a last ditch, desperate legal campaign designed to censor and silence Canada’s Internet and prevent Freedom of Speech from occurring without fear of legal reprisals.

When the Zionist’s previous weapon of mass deception/censorship, i.e., Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, was repealed by the Parliament of Canada back on June 25th, 2012 there was already a frantic movement afoot to find some new legal avenue with which to threaten and intimidate Canadian citizens into fearing to publish and express on the Internet their opinions or ideas or the opinions and ideas of others on any matter pertaining to this particular element within Canadian society (the Jews comprising less that 2% of Canada’s total population). Having their tentacles firmly entwined throughout the federal judiciary the Jewish lobbyists, led by the likes of former Liberal Attorney General of Canada and staunch Zionist Irwin Cotler, were working overtime behind the scenes in order to formulate new policies within the Harper Conservative government; measures that would ensure that their Number One weapon – HATE – would continue to find a place of honour and litigation within Canada’s legal system and be available to this minority group to use in their ongoing promotion and defence of the Apartheid, Racist, Supremacist State of Israel and the promulgation of its contemptible political ideology known as Zionism.

Until Canada is free of all this Zionist Jew created “HATE” legislation we will never be able to say that we’re a democratic nation that values the one fundamental God-given right that must remain sacrosanct in order to retain all of our other inherent rights, that being the right to free and unfettered expression. All of it must be eliminated so that a level playing field will exist for every Canadian.

EndHateCrimeLegislation 2

The Preliminary Inquiry – Day One

Back in November of 2013 the date, January 22nd, 2014, was set for a full day to hold a preliminary inquiry into my Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” case involving the two complainants – B’nai Brith Canada (represented by Agent Z) and Ricardo Warmouse, a lawyer involved in numerous former Sec. 13 cases prior to the law’s repeal in June of 2012. My former lawyer, Doug Christie, had requested that at least one week of time be set aside for the preliminary inquiry in order to challenge all the specious evidence that Crown had used in order to gain its illegal search warrant then used to invade my residence and steal all my computers and electronic files plus other hard copy materials which weren’t covered in the warrant. Crown at that time agreed to four days.

After the passing of Mr. Christie in March of 2013 Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston changed that time period to one day, telling the judge that in her estimation a single day was all the time necessary for Crown to – as Crown and Judge Morgan have been wont to say repeatedly, – “pass the Shepherd test” and move the case on to the trial stage. The “Shephard Test“, for those not versed in court legalese involved an extradition case back in the 1970’s out of which emerged a number of test arguments as to the degree of evidence required in order for a judge to determine whether or not to move the case forward.

Being self-represented and unaware of the machinations of Crown I ended up with one day in order to address all the issues including the sworn information of Cst. Normandie Levas provided to a Justice of the Peace in order to have the search warrant approved; information that contained numerous allegations which appeared to have been written by a Zionist script writer rather than by someone who was at the time relatively new to the controversial BC HATE CRIME TEAM and not versed in the whole array of research necessary to make expert commentary on issues dealing with what may or may not be alleged to be “hate” literature. All these allegations initially sworn in the Information regarding postings on the RadicalPress.com website were basically the same evidence that Crown was now introducing at the preliminary inquiry in order to convince Judge Morgan that there was sufficient evidence to commit my case to trial.

Initially Crown was planning to call a number of witnesses for the preliminary inquiry, the bulk of them being RCMP officers involved in the surveillance and later plunder of my home and theft of my computers and electronic files and firearms. The others were Barry Salt an expert in the field of forensic examination of computers and data and, of course, Det.Cst. Terry Wilson, the Lead Investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM located in Surrey, B.C. I had made application to the court to have the judge order Crown to subpoena the other crucial witnesses – the two complainants who had filed the vexatious complaints in the first place and Cst. Normandie Levas, the second member of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM who, as the Affiant swearing the Information, was responsible for the act that led to the granting of the illegal search warrant used to enter my home and steal all of my computer equipment and firearms. Judge Morgan did eventually direct Crown to have Cst. Levas appear but as she was on “holidays” at the time of the scheduled inquiry a later date of March 13th, 2014 was set for cross-examination.

NewWilsonPhoto

During an earlier focus hearing on January 3rd, 2014 Judge Morgan mediated some concessions between Crown and myself, which I agreed to, regarding some of the witnesses being called in order to prove where I lived and what firearms I had in my possessions and so on; items that would cut down the time which would otherwise have been wasted giving evidence for incidental aspects of the case that I wasn’t intending to challenge. As a concession to this Crown agreed to reconsider the second firearms count involving unsafe storage.At the time, I informed Judge Morgan that I recently had taken the PAL firearms safety course and received 100% of the written test and 90% on the practical test and was now in the process of sending my application off. I also informed Judge Morgan that I was planning to purchase a certified gun storage locker in which to store my firearms properly. Crown then stated that if these preconditions were achieved that they would consider staying the firearms charge.

What was scheduled to be a one day inquiry, like all great plans of mice and men, turned out to be a horse of another colour. I had made arrangements with my two witnesses, Mr. Frank Frost and Mr. Lonnie Landrud, to be at the courthouse at 9:30 a.m. on the morning of Wednesday, January 22nd. When my wife and I arrived around 9:15 a.m. it was evident that my case was not going to be the only one scheduled for the morning. Now this is not an uncommon occurrence in the Quesnel Courthouse (or in many other smaller communities throughout B.C.) and it all stems from government ineptitude (or design?) that there are never enough judges and prosecutors and courtrooms available to handle the volume of cases awaiting address. Nonetheless, I did expect that for a formal preliminary inquiry time would have been arranged so that it could occur without needless interruption.

After approximately twenty minutes of lawyers and Crown attempting to reschedule times, etc. my case began and Crown called their first witness, Det. Cst. Terry Wilson, lead investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM. Det. Wilson informed the court as to his name and position within the RCMP and when Crown asked him about his involvement with RadicalPress.com he told the court that he been monitoring the RadicalPress.com website since April 28th, 2011. It was on that date he first received an email from Ricardo Warmouse who registered a Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” complaint against the site. I thought it was rather amusing given that it was right around the time of the last federal election (May 2nd, 2011) and I had just posted a long article on Harper only the day before on April 27th which I had titled “Hating Harper“. It’s possible that Warmouse didn’t appreciate the graphic header for the piece in question that caused him to lay the charge or it may have been my advice at the time to the Canadian electorate warning them of dire days ahead should Canadians hand Stephen Harper a mandate to govern the nation. Whatever it was, given the current controversy over Harper and his entourage of Zionist sycophant ministers and pro-Israeli band of Chabad Lubavicher controllers traveling at great taxpayer expense to the apartheid state of Israel and soiling Canada’s image as a sovereign nation with their unabashed grovelling and overt support for this criminal state, it was rather apropos that Warmouse would suddenly file a complaint against RadicalPress.com at that particular point in time.

Det. Wilson then went on to describe to the court how his unit has been investigating the website since that time (a period of approximately 32 months thus far) and in the process confirming to the judge that the articles and online books and links, etc. were available to the general public and that anybody could just go there and click on a link and read whatever they wanted without having to enter any passwords or penetrate any firewalls. I thought to myself as he was going on, “My goodness, an acknowledged alternative news site and all you have to do is click on the url to it and the home page or whatever document hyperlink you may have clicked on in the sidebar or the menu bar above just suddenly appears and you can actually view it and read it! What a genius that Arthur Topham must be!”

Det. Wilson also told the court that the website has been running and posting new materials on a regular basis ever since the original conditions of my bail were changed with the exception of a few days in November of 2012 when the site was transferred to a new host server.

It was at this point that Det. Wilson then set up his laptop and introduced the courtroom to a special computer software program that allowed him to show the judge, myself and Crown what appeared to be interactive video footage of my website that they had copied to the program. We all had our own individual monitor screens and sat there while Det. Wilson took us on a virtual journey around the RadicalPress.com home page explaining to the judge and Crown how the site operates. Given the fact that it operates as any normal WordPress program would it was like sitting through an introductory lesson on basic computer skills that one might offer a Grade 2 or 3 class of children. This went on for some time and we all observed with great interest as Det. Wilson clicked on a hyperlink in the Pages section on the side bar and lo and behold the article or book would suddenly appear right there on the screen! All of this was, ostensibly, being done to show that any person in Canada could easily access all the “hate” and “anti-Semitism” and “racism” toward the Jewish population that the Crown alleges is present on the RadicalPress.com website.

Having endured this little media sideshow the judge then called for a break at 10:15 a.m. after which court resumed and other cases once again intruded into the schedule. My inquiry ceased at that point. The lunch hour eventually came and when court reconvened at 1:30 p.m.for the afternoon session more cases consumed the time. It wasn’t until around 3:45 p.m. that the preliminary inquiry resumed. It was at this stage that Crown finally got down to the meat and potatoes of its argument. Det. Wilson was presented with a massive black binder that eventually was entered as Exhibit A in the proceedings. I had been given the same binder a couple of days prior to the inquiry as well and had time to peruse its contents beforehand so it wasn’t a surprise to me. What it contained was hard copy pages of four online books that are present on RadicalPress.com plus two articles of my own that were also on the site. Each was given a tab number and they appeared in the following order:

Tab 1: Germany Must Perish
Tab 2: Israel Must Perish
Tab 3: Protocols of Zion
Tab 4: The Biological [sic]
Tab 5: The Jewish Religion
Tab 6: Karen Selick: Just Another Hate-mongering Germanophobe Jew by Arthur Topham

Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston then proceeded to ask Det. Wilson questions regarding the 6 items posted on RadicalPress.com.

With respect to Tab 1 which was the online version of Theodore N. Kaufman’s book Germany Must Perish!  Wilson went on to describe the book and what it was about. He gave a reasonable outline of its aim and purpose which was to spread anti-German propaganda against the National Socialist government of Germany and the German nation.

When it came to Tab 2 Wilson presented his views in a somewhat modified form than his original statements wherein he was very emphatic about the fact that I had actually written a “real” book bearing the title, Israel Must Perish! Now he was admitting that it was a reproduction of segments of Kaufmann’s book and that I had only changed certain words like “Germany” and “German” and “Hitler” to “Israel” and “Jew” and “Netanyahu” and the rest of the text was actually Kaufman’s. Crown then asked Wilson if he had read the Preface to this “book” which was written my myself. Wilson responded in the affirmative and said that he had read it. At no time though did he broach the issue of my assertion (contained in the Preface) that it was actually a satirical article based on Kaufman’s original hard copy book.

Tab 3 was, of course, the infamous book that the Jews have been attempting to erase from the screen of world history ever since it first appeared back at the turn of the 20th century. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion has been attacked as an “anti-Semitic” book from day one and as the writer/journalist Douglas Reed, author of the classic study of Zionism, The Controversy of Zion, wrote, more money has been spent on trying to prove this particular book to be a fraud than any other book in history. And for good reason.

Again, Det. Wilson’s assessment of the book was that it was a fraudulent attempt to promote anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jewish population and added that those who promote it see the book as a “roadmap” of the Zionist Jews’ attempt to “take over the world” and create a Jewish one world government. Crown asked Det. Wilson whether the book existed on other websites as well and he confirmed that it could be found on many websites besides RadicalPress.com.

Tab 4 was the online version of a book written by Eustice Mullins called The Biological Jew. Wilson then went on to describe the book as an anti-Semitic book that describes the Jews as “societal parasites”. It was also admitted that this book could also be found on other websites as well as on RadicalPress.com.

Tab 5 referred to the book titled, The Jewish Religion: It’s Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling. Crown asked Det. Wilson to describe the book and he testified that it was in his estimation “anti-Semitic” and then went on to describe how bad it was and how the author accuses the Jewish rabbis of terrible things like having sex with very young children and so on. Crown then asked Wilson whether or not the author of the book, Elizabeth Dilling, was a “real person”. Wilson’s response was, “I have no idea if the author is a real person”.

Tab 6 was a reference to an article that I had published on RadicalPress.com back on August 13, 2013 entitled, Karen Selick: Just Another Hate-mongering Germanophobe Jew . Finally, I thought to myself, we’re getting to something that I, personally, had penned and I was waiting for Det. Wilson’s assessment of how he felt my writing was such an example of “hate” that it warranted inclusion in the Crown’s arsenal of classic cases of such literature. Det. Wilson then went on to explain to the court that it was a graphic image which I had included in my article that he perceived to be proof that it was yet another anti-Semitic, “hate” piece. I enclose that example directly below for the reader’s consideration.

Screen Shot 2014-01-25 at 9.43.15 AM 2

Following Wilson’s comments regarding Tab 6 Crown then asked him if all of these online books were still up on the website and Wilson replied that all of the books that he found on the website were still there and to his knowledge none had been removed since I was arrested back on May 16th, 2012. It was at this point that Det. Wilson stated, “This is a massive website.”

Crown asked a few other related questions about Det. Wilson’s role in the arrest and he explained that he wasn’t present at my home during the search and seizure of my computers and firearms but that Cst. Gill, the “Exhibit officer” has provided him with my property afterwards. It was then that Det. Wilson sent the computers and firearms for “forensic” analysis so that the RCMP could show the court that I was the actual owner of these stolen devices.

It was at this point that the day’s testimony concluded and we left the courthouse.

The Preliminary Inquiry – Day Two

Day two proved to be much more productive in terms of time and purpose although it got off to a bit of a rough start. One of my witnesses that I had subpoenaed to appear on my behalf, Mr. Frank Frost, had traveled down to Quesnel at his own expense to attend the Preliminary Inquiry. Given that I had been told I would get my full day in court I was not that impressed when I only had approximately an hour and a half thus far allotted for the process.

When we arrived at the courthouse on Thursday, January 23rd, at 9:30 a.m. the court list showed a number of other case listed for the morning. At that point I decided to challenge the court on the matter and when the judge entered the court room and began discussing the scheduling with Crown and other lawyers present I stood up indicating that I had something to say and the judge told me to take a seat momentarily and he would get right to me. I sat down and within a few minutes he called my name and I stood up and said to him, “Your honour, I notice again today the list is getting longer than even yesterday and I’m not getting my day in court. I see this as an attempt by the Crown to prevent my witnesses from testifying. My wife, who is Jewish, is greatly offended by these charges brought against me therefore, in the interest of fundamental justice I ask that the charges be dismissed with prejudice.”

Judge Morgan responded by saying that he was not about to dismiss the case and also stated that there was no design on the part of Crown to prevent my witnesses from testifying. He followed those comments with a short dissertation on the problems and challenges that small communities face where they don’t have enough time and resources to deal with the ongoing case loads and therefore have to juggle and schedule them in order to do the best they can. He assured me that my situation was no different than any of the others. I had made my point and didn’t pursue the issue any further. From then on matters began to unfold as they should and within a very short period of time I was able to begin my cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson.

Being self-represented since the passing of my former counsel Mr. Doug Christie I was now faced with the task of cross-examining the testimony the arresting officer, Det. Wilson, had given to the court yesterday. I had prepared a series of questions that I planned to ask Wilson plus also a number of other court cases which related to the inquiry process which I intended to use if Crown began to object to any of the questions I had for Det. Wilson. Due to the length of all the questions, many of them not relevant at this point to the update itself, I will focus on only those that I feel are important to a general understanding of the case as a whole. As well, readers should bear in mind that Det. Wilson (and most likely B’nai Brith Canada’s agent Agent Z) monitor the RadicalPress.com website on a daily basis and I don’t wish to divulge certain matters which I intend to use later should the case go to trial.

Cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson

[Editor’s Note: Please bear in mind that all of the exchanges between myself and Det. Wilson during my cross-examination are taken from my notes which I made at the time I was questioning him and they may not be 100% accurate. Once I obtain a written transcript of the inquiry I’ll know if I erred on any of the minor details but for the most part I’m only quoting the things that I wrote down immediately upon Wilson’s stating them. Readers should also bear in mind that during the questioning I asked Det. Terry Wilson to inform the court as to his level of education and he answered by stating that he had received an Honours Degree in History from the University of Guelph, Ontario.]

I began cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson by first reading out the following:

“Det. Wilson, I’m going to begin by taking you to the Criminal Code section under which I am charged. Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

‘(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of … an indictable offence … or an offence punishable by summary conviction.'”

I then asked Wilson the following question: “I believe you stated yesterday in your testimony that the BC HATE CRIME TEAM was formed in 2009 and that it consists of two people, yourself and your partner/assistant Cst. Normandie Levas. Is this correct? Could you please tell the court how many actual convictions your unit has successfully prosecuted under Sec. 319(2) of the CCC since the formation of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM.” Wilson’s reply was that to date his “Hate Crime Team” had not convicted a single solitary soul! He did say though that there were two cases pending, my own plus another investigation that’s still underway.

Given all the media hype about there being so much “hate” on the Internet it begs the question as to just how much this propaganda about hatred that’s being emphasize by Jewish lobby groups like B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs is merely Zionist PR designed to justify the spending of vast amounts of taxpayer money in order to create these provincial “HATE CRIME UNITS” across Canada that ultimately only serve the interests of the foreign lobbyists who exploit them in order to monitor, harass, intimidate and punish critics of the Zionist ideology, their global mechanisms and the criminal state of Israel.

Considering Det. Wilson’s concerted effort to show the court that RadicalPress.com was wide open to the general public and that anyone in Canada could easily access the website plus all its accompanying links to a vast assortment of online books and articles, I asked Det. Wilson if he had any evidence that the material on the website was actually viewed and read by anyone. His reply was “Yes”. Then he stated that both of the two complainants, Agent Z and Ricardo Warmouse plus himself had accessed the site. That was the sum total of his evidence. No shit! That was it!

So it was manifestly obvious that no one else in all of Canada had gone on to the RadicalPress.com website, found it to be “anti-“Semitic” and then registered a complaint against it with the BC HATE CRIME TEAM claiming the site was promoting “hatred” contrary to  Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. Yet, because two pro-Zionist agents of the Zionist Jew lobby group B’nai Brith Canada (one of them an ethnic, duel-citizen Zionist Jew and the other a gentile lawyer who made it his business to lay “hate crime” complaints and in many cases profit monetarily from Sec. 13(1) convictions) had filed complaints, that, in the Crown’s view, were reason enough to monitor my website; the RCMP did helicopter and ground surveillance of my home and property; stalked both my wife and myself in the days prior to my arrest; flew the “BC HATE CRIME TEAM” up from Surrey, B.C. (a distance of approximately 600 km) at great expense to the taxpayers of the province; conscripted a number of local police officers as well; stopped me on my way to Prince George on business; arrested me; handcuffed me; terrorized my wife; hauled me off to jail, leaving my wife on the highway in the middle of nowhere; then waited for some justice of the peace on the lower mainland to sign a phoney, illegal search warrant so the police could eventually enter my home, scavenge and steal what they could of my computers and electronic files, and make off with all of my firearms.

Does this sound like the “free and democratic society” called Canada that we see enshrined in the Charter of Rights or Freedoms or is it more in keeping with the Marxist Communist Bolshevik dictatorship under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin where all it took was a single accusation from an enemy and you suddenly found yourself dragged before a tribunal of crooked, conspiring commissars where all your legal rights suddenly vanished, truth was no defence and you’re then subjected to humiliation and the abject opprobrium of the state and either sent off to spend your remaining years in some northern gulag wasteland or else escorted down into a dark dungeon to receive a bullet in the back of the head?

Two Gulags
For those readers who’ve yet to experience such tactics by the state this may all sound a bit fantastic but let me assure you that if it’s happening to me and my family and has happened to other Canadians in the recent past it doesn’t bode well for any of you either as this form of systemic covert repression on the part of the state continues to grow more bold and audacious by the day, aided and abetted by the Jewish lobbyists who now so blatantly advertise their power and influence over Canada’s elected Harper government.

As I thought about the two individuals who’s actions had precipitated all the endless angst of the police and the court against myself and my family I pondered what percentage of the Canadian population this would be when we consider that 2 out of 34.88 million people accessed RadicalPress.com and alleged that the site contained “anti-Semitic” articles and books that wilfully promoted hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin. A quick calculation indicated that it amounted to 0.00000573394495 % of the total population of Canada.

103,000 Missing Emails

Another area of contention was the matter of all of my private email communications contained in the two computers that the police had taken from my residence. I had only recently received a thumb drive from the BC HATE CRIME TEAM containing what is purported to be all of my stolen emails just days before the Preliminary Hearing and to date I’ve not had the time to check to determine how many are stored on the 32 Gigabit memory stick. Crown was supposed to have returned these emails back in 2012 and it was only recently that Judge Morgan finally requested that CC Johnston contact Det. Wilson and ask him to return them. I had indicated to the judge that there was a large volume of relevant data contained in the emails which I needed for my defence and given that email communications are considered to be “private communications” and not admissible as evidence in Section 319(2) offences they should be returned to me.

It has always been my contention that Det. Wilson took my computers in order to access the information contained in the private communications between myself and my many associates and friends. When questioned on this matter Wilson stated that the police have the right to take an accused’s computer in order to search for evidence that would prove in a court of law that the accused was in fact the person posting to the website. When asked whether or not he or anyone else accessed and read the emails or shared them with anyone else Wilson did his best to deny having done so although he did concede that he saw some of them in the course of investigating the various articles and online books that were now being used to convince Judge Morgan there was sufficient evidence to warrant trying the case but that his main object was to verify the material now being presented to the court as Exhibit “A”. I should add that when I later cross-examined Cpl. Barry Salt he confirmed that when he did his initial analysis of my computers that he found 103,000 emails and 5,500 documents. As well, he stated that the number was closer to 107,500 by now. Unfortunately it didn’t cross my mind at the moment to ask him how he would be aware of any increase in numbers but that’s an issue to be investigated later.

There are very good reasons for me to suspect that Det. Wilson did in fact go through the private emails contained on my iMac computer. This came out when I questioned Wilson on the following:

Det. Wilson, I’d like to ask you a few questions about your own history with regard to these kinds of investigations.

Q:    I understand that you once worked with the London Police Service. Am I correct in that regard?

[Wilson replied by stating that he had joined the police force in Ontario back in 1989 and the hate crime unit in 1995 and that he had moved out to B.C. in 2003 and eventually joined the BC Hate Crime Team in 2009. A.T.]

I also understand from the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Warmouse v. Kulbashian, 2006 CHRT 11, that while employed by the London Police Service, you executed a search warrant at the residence of James Scott Richardson, an individual suspected of uttering threats.

“[78] Mr. Wilson obtained a search warrant for the apartment in question, and executed it on September 28, 2001. Mr. Richardson was found in the apartment when the police entered and was arrested. He was charged with uttering threats against property and persons, and counselling the indictable offences of murder and of property damage…

[80] A police crime analyst specializing in electronic evidence was involved in the search operation. He seized a computer found in the apartment, and once back at the police station, made a mirror image of its hard drive and examined its content. Amongst the directories on the drive was one that contained the logs of Internet relay chats in which the user of the computer had participated…”

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

According to that same Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, you also executed an arrest warrant for Mr. Alexan Kulbashian, and a search warrant at the residence of Mr. Kulbashian’s parents:

[97] Mr. Wilson’s investigation eventually led him to conclude that “Totenkopf” and “Alex Krause” were pseudonyms for Mr. Kulbashian, and that he had also been involved in the publication of the September 14, 2001, Vinland Voice articles. Mr. Wilson therefore sought and obtained warrants for the arrest of Mr. Kulbashian (on charges similar to those filed against Mr. Richardson) and for the search of his residence at his parents’ home in North York. The warrants were executed on January 30, 2002…”

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Again Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

And according to that same Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, the criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian were later withdrawn:

“[105] In the end, the Crown prosecutor apparently decided to withdraw the criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian before going to trial. According to Mr. Wilson, the Crown concluded that there was no reasonable expectation of conviction on the charges laid against them.”

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Again Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

But despite the withdrawal of criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian, the evidence that you collected in the course of Criminal Code search warrants was later disclosed to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Wilson’s reply was that the evidence was disclosed to the CHRC but that it was divulged to them only after the commission had subpoena’d Wilson in order to get it. A.T.]

And that same evidence, collected by you in the course of executing Criminal Code search warrants was also disclosed to Ricardo Warmouse, an individual who pursued a complaint against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian.

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Wilson replied that the evidence had been disclosed to the commission itself and not specifically to Warmouse. A.T.]

Q:    When you disclosed this evidence to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, did you know Mr. Warmouse?

[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

The Wilson/Warmouse Connection

Having established that Det. Wilson was involved with alleging and arresting and removing other individual’s computers from their homes over a decade ago I continued questioning Wilson as to his relationship with Ricardo Warmouse, the person who had first laid the Sec. 319(2) complaint against me back in 2011.

I asked Det. Wilson the following questions:

Q:    When did you first establish contact with Mr. Warmouse?

[Wilson replied that he first connected with Ricardo Warmouse a year or two after he had joined the Ontario hate crime unit back in 1995 and that it was likely due to Warmouse having contacted the unit with a complaint. A.T.]

Q:    Did you and Mr. Warmouse ever discuss the Section 13(1) complaint against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian?

[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    When did you first establish contact with Agent Z?

[Wilson replied that he first heard from Agent Z back in April of 2011. A.T.]

Q:    Did you initially make contact with Agent Z or did he make contact with you?

[Wilson testified that it was Agent Z who first contacted him. A.T.]

Q:    Were you aware, at the time you executed the search of my residence, that I was subject to a proceeding under Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act?

[Again Wilson affirmed that he was aware of my previous Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaint that Agent Z had filed against me back in 2007 but he attempted to downplay it by suggesting that his investigation focused on doing a whole new investigation separate from what was done (and still remains current) by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. A.T.]

Q:    Were you aware that Agent Z was the complainant in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Were you aware of any involvement on the part of Ricardo Warmouse in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding?

[Here Det. Wilson states, “Yes, Warmouse was also a complainant in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding.” Of course, officially, Ricardo Warmouse was not a complainant in the CHRC complaint brought against myself and RadicalPress.com in 2007 although Wilson’s reply now ties in with evidence which I have suggested all along confirms the fact that he was involved but only in a clandestine manner. A.T.]

Q:    Did you ever discuss the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me with Mr. Warmouse?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Did you ever discuss the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me with Agent Z?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Did Agent Z ever express to you that he was concerned that the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me might not be successful?

[Wilson’s reply was that during his investigation he had interviewed Agent Z and Agent Z had in fact mentioned his Sec. 13(1) complaint against me but that it was only in reference to Agent Z’s “fear” that this section of the Canadian Human Rights Act was likely going to be repealed. A.T.]

Q:    Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with Ricardo Warmouse?

[Wilson says “No”. A.T.]

Q:    Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with Agent Z?

[Again, Wilson says “No” but he then qualified that by adding it has been “just updated”, whatever that means. A.T.]

Q:    Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with the Canadian Human Rights Commission?

[Wilson says “No”. A.T.]

Q:    Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with anybody? If so, who?

[Here Wilson stated that only those directly authorized to be involved in the investigation have been privy to the evidence collected. A.T.]

Tabs 1 & 2 – Germany Must Perish! and Israel Must Perish!

At this point in my cross-examination I focussed on the first two tabs mentioned in Crown’s Exhibit “A”, those being the online book, Germany Must Perish! written by Theodore N. Kaufmann and my satirical article Israel Must Perish!.

I began my questioning by asking Det. Wilson if he was familiar with the term “satire” and, if so, could he define for the court its meaning. His response was that it more or less meant “poking fun at something”. I then went on:

Q:    Did Agent Z ever suggest to you that the article Israel Must Perish! was a form of satire?

[Wilson’s response was that Agent Z hadn’t told him anything that would lead him (Agent Z) to believe it (Israel Must Perish! ) was satire. A.T.]

Q:    Have you read the article Israel Must Perish!?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Are you familiar with the book Germany Must Perish!?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Were you, at the time you began investigating my website, familiar with the book Germany Must Perish!?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q: Throughout the course of these proceedings you and the Crown have consistently referred to the article Israel Must Perish! as a “book”.  Could you please explain to the court why you have done so?

[Wilson basically dodged the direct question by saying that it was “sections of a book” meaning sections of Germany Must Perish! A.T.]

Q: Are you familiar with the acronym ISBN regarding book publishing? It stands for International Standard Book Number. Every book published has an ISBN that is unique to that particular publication. Do any of your records show an ISBN number for the purported book Israel Must Perish! ?

[Wilson’s response to the first question was “No” he wasn’t familiar with the acronym “ISBN”. As for the second part of the question Wilson looked again at the images of the article that were in the Exhibit “A” binder and then stated, “I don’t recall one.” A.T.]

Q:    Did it ever occur to you that the article Israel Must Perish! might be a satirical reference to the book Germany Must Perish!?

[Wilson’s response to this question was very telling indeed. He simply stated, “No sir.” A.T.]

Q: When you were reading the article Israel Must Perish! on the RadicalPress.com website HYPERLINK http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1313 did you also read the Preface to it which was posted along with the article?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Are you familiar with the defence contained in Section 319(3)(d) of the Criminal Code, namely that “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.”?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Do you accept that certain satirical material might fall within the protection of Section 319(3)(d) of the Criminal Code?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

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

Screen Shot 2014-01-26 at 6.49.19 PM
Q: In your testimony yesterday, regarding Tab 5: of the Exhibit Index File 25166 which dealt with the book The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today, Crown Counsel Johnston asked you whether or not the author, Elizabeth Dilling, was a “real person.” You responded by saying, “I have no idea if the author is a real person.” Given the fact that you claim to be the lead “hate crime” investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM Mr. Wilson did it not occur to you that you might take the time to investigate and find out whether Elizabeth Dilling was or was not a “real person?” I did a simple Google search of Elizabeth Dilling’s name last night after returning home from court and found a total of 211,000 results in less than 30 seconds listing the various works of the author plus biographical documentation from the Jewish-owned Wikipedia site, the free online encyclopedia, which verifies that Elizabeth Dilling was in fact a real person. Given the fact that in your professional opinion you have determined this book to be “anti-Semitic” and worthy of proof, in your estimation, that it constitutes “hate propaganda” or “anti-Semitic hate literature” could you please tell the court why you would not have taken 30 seconds of your time to check into this matter?

Before I was able to read out the whole question to Det. Wilson he interjected by grinning and saying that after yesterday’s court session he had checked and now was cognizant of the fact that Elizabeth Dilling was an actual author of the aforesaid book. He obviously had been caught off guard by CC Johnston’s question regarding the author. His reply to my question about why he didn’t take the time to check the authenticity of the author was that he was “more concerned with the content of the book than with authenticating whether the author was real or not.

Q:    Are you familiar with the defence contained in Section 319(3)(c) of the Criminal Code, namely that “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true.”?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Question Regarding the Search Warrant

Q: On Page 8 of the BC Hate Crime Team pdf  it gives an explanation for Sections 320 and 320.1 Warrants of Seizure. These warrant of seizure sections pertain to the removal of hate propaganda written material. This includes hate propaganda that is stored on computer systems and made available to the public, including through the Internet. A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication or electronic material—copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises or on a computer system within the jurisdiction of the court—is hate propaganda, may issue a warrant authorizing seizure of the copies or order the custodian of the computer system to provide an electronic copy of the material to the court.

Now I was charged under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. That section of the criminal code does not allow for warrants of seizure. Could you please tell the court how you were able to gain a search warrant for the removal of all of my computers and electronic files when I wasn’t charged under an offence that permitted such actions?

[Wilson responded by stating “Our search warrant was executed under Section 487 of the Criminal Code of Canada not under Section 319(2).”A.T.]

Q:    Do you accept that certain political commentary, even commentary which is extremely critical of an identifiable group of people, may fall within the protection of Section 319(3)(c) of the Criminal Code?

[Wilson replied “Yes”, he did accept that certain political commentary may fall within the protection of Sec. 319(3) of the Criminal Code “but not in the case of RadicalPress.com”.A.T.]

Q:    Could you briefly explain your expertise in identifying speech which is prohibited by Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code and not saved by one or more of the defences listed in Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code?

[Wilson replied by stating that he had graduated from Guelph University in Ontario with an Honours Degree in History and that he had been working with “hate crime” units both in Ontario and in B.C. for the past 18 years. A.T.]

Q: Could you define for the court the term “hate”?

[Wilson responded by stating that his “HATE CRIME TEAM” uses the definition of hate that was originally used in the R v Keegstra case. A.T.]

Q:    Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code includes an intent requirement. The promoted hatred must be wilful, meaning that the words must be intended to cause hatred. What causes you to believe that this is the case here?

[Without the actual transcripts I can’t state exactly what his reply was other than he started talking about Elizabeth Dillings book, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today and her descriptions of what the Talmud states regarding children, Christians and non-Jews, aka “goyim” or cattle, and how this is intended to cause “hatred” toward those of Jewish ethnicity. A.T.]

Q:    Do you have any expertise in psychology which would qualify you to accurately assess my intent? [Wilson: “No.” A.T.]

Q:    I put it to you that the evidence you have given with regard to the material on my website is not expert evidence. Would you agree?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    I put it to you that all of the evidence you have given is, in fact, unqualified opinion evidence. Would you agree?

[Here Wilson launched into the issue and began telling the court of his many years of investigative experience in the field of “hate propaganda” and “hate crimes” but rather than stating that he was an “expert” he preferred to refer to his work as “investigative knowledge”. A.T.]

Q:    What makes your opinion on the material on my website more valid than that of myself, the author and publisher of the material in
question?

[Wilson’s reply to this question was that his opinion was “no more valid than anyone else’s.” A.T.]

Hatred on SunNewsNetwork by Ezra Levant

Screen Shot 2014-01-26 at 6.19.54 PM
This is just a screen shot. Please click on the url below to view.
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/11/doug-christie-on-suntv-authur-topham.html

Q:  On November 11, 2012 I sent a private email to you and Cst. Normandie Levas and Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston titled, A Personal Appeal. In my letter I spoke about the then recent television interview between my former counsel Douglas Christie and SunTV News Network employee Ezra Levant, host of the show The Source. I explained to you that in the course of the interview, which was approximately six minutes in length, Ezra Levant, who is Jewish and a strong supporter of the state of Israel and the political ideology of that state known as Zionism, stated publicly the following about me:

“I call him an anti-Semite”
“I call Arthur Topham offensive”
“I don’t care much for Arthur Topham. He’s anti-Zionist. I think that’s code for anti-Semitic.”
“We’re showing you some screen shots from his website. I disagree with them. I find them gross. I find some of his comments repulsive.”
“I’m sure that Arthur Topham is motivated by a form of malice.”
“I see hate everywhere in Canada, especially in B.C.” [where I, Arthur Topham just happen to reside. A.T.]
“He’s a nobody”
“I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM”
“I think he’s an idiot. An anti-Semitic idiot”
“…right wing wackos like Topham”

Is this not inciting and spreading hatred toward myself in a manner far beyond that which the Crown is alleging RadicalPress.com is doing?

[Wilson’s response to this was that Ezra Levant didn’t break any law in stating what he did on national tv because he wasn’t communicating statements that wilfully promoted hatred against an “identifiable group”. In other words he was free to malign and smear and tell the whole world that he “hated Arthur Topham” but that didn’t count because I wasn’t a member of an “identifiable group”. I then said to Det. Wilson, “But I am a Christian and so I am a member of an identifiable religious group.” He had no further comment on that. A.T.]

Following this question to Wilson I then read out my letter to the court. Judge Morgan cautioned me that the letter did state that it was written “without prejudice” and that if I entered it into the record it could be used against me. When I told him that I never received a reply from any of the recipients that it was sent to he said okay, go ahead.

A Personal Appeal

Sunday, November 11th, 2012
Cottonwood, B.C.

Dear Jennifer, Normandie and Terry,

Without Prejudice

Yes, this is most likely very unusual for all three of you that someone whom you are determined to convict of a “hate crime” and strip of their constitutional rights would have the audacity to write to you directly but given the circumstances under which I am now placed, I would ask that you open your hearts and your minds, if just for a few brief moments, and take approximate 6 minutes of your time (if you haven’t already done so) to view this video of the television interview that my lawyer Doug Christie did with Ezra Levant on the SunTV News Network’s show, The Source, out of Toronto only a few short hours after our (yours Jennifer and mine) appearance in court on Thursday the 8th of November.

Whether or not you are aware of it that television show is broadcast across the nation and the world and the number of viewers who watched it exceed, by far, the number of readers who frequent my (as one of the mainstream media’s writers recently stated), “nasty little blog called Radical Press.”

Within the span of those six short minutes, Ezra Levant, who is Jewish and who also supports Zionism, publicly made the following disparaging statements about me and my website:

“I call him an anti-Semite”
“I call Arthur Topham offensive”
“I don’t care much for Arthur Topham. He’s anti-Zionist. I think that’s code for anti-Semitic”
“We’re showing you some screen shots from his website. I disagree with them. I find them gross. I find some of his comments repulsive.”
“I’m sure that Arthur Topham is motivated by a form of malice.”
“I see hate everywhere in Canada, especially in B.C.” [where Arthur Topham just happens to reside. A.T.]
“He’s a nobody”
“I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM”
“I think he’s an idiot. An anti-Semitic idiot”
“…right wing wackos like Topham”

If this is the sort of ‘impartial, objective and unbiased’ coverage that I can expect from Canada’s mainstream media throughout the upcoming trial do you find it that strange or unusual or unreasonable that I would want to hold on to my fundamental Charter right to be able to continue operating my website and posting my side of the story in my own defence for those who wish to have an alternative perspective to the one that the msm is now so blatantly broadcasting the minute that an Indictment has come down?

Do you not see the obvious slander, libel and defamation of my person and my motives and my work in these public statements? Do you not see how it already is prejudicing my chances for a fair and just trial? Does it mean nothing to you?

Is this what you, as professionals in the field of law and order and justice, condone and are striving to support in your apparent effort to take away my one means of defending myself from such open and mean spirited vituperation?

All I can say is that, in the stillness and quiet of your own inner mind and soul, you try to see and understand the injustice of what you are doing.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
RadicalPress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
———–

Q:    Det. Wilson, are you familiar with Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Q:    Section 11(d) of the Charter protects the presumption of innocence. I put it to you that this includes the idea that an accused person should not be punished for a crime unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you agree?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    Are you familiar with Section 11(e) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Q:    Section 11(e) of the Charter provides that no accused person should be denied reasonable bail without just cause. I suggest to you that this means the state should not unreasonably interfere with the liberty of an accused person unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you agree?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    As of October 9, 2012, and to this day, there is no bail order preventing me from publishing content to RadicalPress.com pending trial. Is that correct?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    And in January 2013, this court specifically determined that it would not be appropriate to impose a bail condition prohibiting me from publishing on RadicalPress.com pending trial. Do you recognize this as a decision of this court?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q: On November 21, 2012 I received an email from my then web hosting company  Netfirms.com which contained an email letter which you had sent to Zach P of the legal department sometime between November 5th when the Indictment was handed down and November 21, 2012. In your letter you informed Zach P that I had been charged with a Section 319(2) Canadian Criminal Code offence, alleging that I had been distributing hateful speech and that you felt that the contents of my website (quote) “may in fact contravene” and be in breach of their policy. Is that correct?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    What was your objective in writing to NetFirms.com?

[Wilson then explained that he had written to my web host server “To notify them of a potential breach of their policy.” A.T.]

Q:    By alleging that I had been distributing hateful speech and suggesting to Netfirms.com that you felt that the contents of my website “may in fact contravene” and be in breach of their policy were you not in effect asking NetFirms.com to do what this Honourable Court has been unwilling to do, namely shut down RadicalPress.com in advance of my trial?

[Wilson basically repeated what he’d just said about simply notifying them of a “potential breach of their policy.” A.T.]

Q:    Do you think you allegations contained in your letter to Netfirms.com were appropriate in view of the presumption of innocence?

Q:    Do you think your allegations were appropriate in view of the right to reasonable bail on just terms?

[Again Wilson basically repeated what he’d previously stated. A.T.]

Q: Your allegations, as stated in your email to Netfirms.com, resulted in my web hosting company giving me a 48 hour notice to remove all of the alleged “hateful speech” or else face having my website removed and losing seven years of publishing content. This sudden 48-hour ultimatum was impossible for me to rectify as Netfirms.com had no idea what the alleged offending articles were and as a further result of your allegations they were unwilling to even negotiate with me. I was faced with having to move the site to another host server in an extremely short period of time and in the process of doing so all the content on the website was damaged and hundreds upon hundreds of articles are now in need of editing to restore them to their original condition. Were you at all concerned that your allegations to NetFirms.com might result in the destruction of important evidence?

[Ditto. A.T.]

Testimony of Frank Frost and Lonnie Landrud

Lonnie&Frank700Final

The final lap in the Preliminary Inquiry was the calling of two witnesses in my defence. Both Frank Frost and Lonnie Landrud are two of many individuals who have come to realize that the mainstream media no longer serves the general public when it comes to issues of social justice. Both these people have been through the wringer and the stories of the injustices that they’ve witnesses and been subjected to are nothing short of incredible.

The Lonnie Landrud story, should it ever receive the attention that it deserves, will undoubtedly go down in B.C. history as one of the most extraordinary and horrific examples of police corruption and government cover up ever to have occurred in this province. Mr. Landrud had the unfortunate fate in 1999 of witnessing the murder of a young woman by the name of Deena Lynn Braem in Quesnel by two RCMP officers, Cst. Paul Collister and Cst. Bev Hosker. When he called 911 and reported the incident it was the beginning of what is now 15 years of hell on earth for Mr. Landrud. He has had eleven attempts on his life since he first sought justice and at present the police have placed a $100,000 bounty on his head. Mr. Landrud has done everything conceivable to have his case investigated by an independent body and to date has had all of his honest and earnest efforts rebuffed by every level of government from the Prime Ministers office through to the RCMP Complaints Commission and the office of the Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark. During one attempt on his life by the RCMP Lonnie Landrud, in self-defence, shot his attacker Cst. Paul Collister with a 12-gauge shotgun, severely damaging the police officers left arm to the point where ample DNA evidence was left at the scene of the shooting to verify the fact that the officer had been wounded. The whole incident was covered up and denied by the investigating agencies and to date no one is willing to investigate and verify the evidence that still exists which will prove all of the allegations which Mr. Landrud has been desperately attempting to have examined.

When I finally heard about Mr. Landrud’s story and watched the videos where he had been interviewed back in 2007 I ran his story on RadicalPress.com in order to assist him in getting the truth out about what he had witnessed and suffered since the night he stumbled on the murder scene. Lonnie Landrud’s story is best told in his own words and writings and for this reason I’ve placed the url to his videos below and also the url to (yet another) letter which Mr. Landrud wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, NDP Opposition Leader, Thomas Mulcair, Federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, Federal Solicitor General, Rob Nicholson, Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia and Adrian Dix, NDP Leader of the Opposition Party on April 24th, 2013.

Mr. Landrud testified at the Preliminary Inquiry and told the court about his case and the urgent need for alternative media sites like RadicalPress.com that are willing to carry his story where no none of the mainstream media would do the job.

LonnieVidHrClick on the url below to view
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1362

 

Mr. Frank Frost also testified before the court regarding the importance of the social media and alternative news networks like RadicalPress.com. Mr. Frost is another individual who has been the victim of RCMP corruption and judicial misfeasance. Again, like Lonnie Landrud, Mr. Frost followed all the customary channels in an effort to expose the murder of a young child in Victoria, B.C. and was met with police and judicial cover-up every which way he turned. Framed and incarcerated for four months in the Prince George Regional Correction Centre where he was refused even a single phone call for FOUR MONTHS, Frank Frost has continued to take a pro-active position with respect to demands that the corruption that he’s exposing within the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the RCMP and the Courts be investigated and rectified. For further information on Mr. Frost’s case please watch his videos located here.

We have not heard the last from either of these two valiant, courageous individuals nor have we heard the last from RadicalPress.com with respect to the pervasive corruption within every level of Canadian government, the mainstream media and all levels of Canada’s judiciary.

This wraps up Legal Update #17 for January 27th, 2014.

—–

Radical Press Legal Update #13

NewLegalUpdateLogo-700

notice4RP

Regina v The Radical Press: LEGAL UPDATE #13

 

Dear Supporters of Free Speech and a free Internet,

Tuesday, May 28th, 2013, saw the return to the Quesnel provincial court house of myself and my dear and lovely wife for yet another appearance on the charge of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ as written in Canada’s criminal code sec. 319(2).

At this stage of the proceedings it has become virtually impossible to know what to expect beforehand when attending them. The last time I went on May 16th I was greeted with a completely new strategy by the Crown when they informed the court they had decided to go for a “direct indictment” rather than have the case unfold in a normal manner by allowing me to present evidence at a “preliminary inquiry” in order to determine whether or not the Crown actually had sufficient and viable evidence to warrant proceeding to a trial.

Crown told the court that they were awaiting a decision by the B.C. Attorney General’s office that would confirm this and that they expected it would happen prior to May 28th.

Well, as we all know about the best laid plans of mice and men, that decision by the AG’s office didn’t manifest and so the Crown told Judge Morgan that they would have to postpone that part of the proceedings until a later date at which time they fully expected that the Attorney General’s office would make up its mind one way or another.

Judge Morgan, the Honourable Judge who has been attending to my case from the beginning and who was absent on the previous court appearance, looked over the documents that were awaiting him when he entered the court room in order to get the drift of what had taken place on May 16th. He noted that I had filed an application for particularization of the Crown’s disclosure material and in perusing the document he read out excerpts to the court wherein it was stated that because of the volume of materials (over 1000 pages) presented that it was virtually impossible for me to address what specific posts on my website the Crown deemed to be “hatred”.  After doing so he addressed the Crown prosecutor, Jennifer Johnston, and asked her what she had to say about it.

The Crown’s response was rather vociferous and protracted, the main thrust of the argument being that the Crown was not legally bound in any way, shape or form, to divulge to the defendant the specifics of what posts they intended to argue were the ones they felt might prove to a court of law that I was guilty of the said offence. In the words of Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnston, ” There is no case law anywhere” that says they are bound to do so.

Crown then further worded its argument to the effect that by doing so they would be giving away to the defendant their strategies and in saying that CC Johnston then proceeded to hand to the Judge a number of photocopied pages taken off my website that referred to an online book written by Elizabeth Dilling titled, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. The document that Judge Morgan was presented with first was the Forward to Dilling’s book giving an overview of her various works and her experience in dealing with the negative influences that had come to bear upon America during the course of World War II and afterwards by Zionism.

Judge Morgan quickly scanned the page and then, giving Crown counsel Johnston a rather quizzical look, asked her if this was the sort of thing that Crown was planning to present to the court as evidence?

CC Johnston then launched into a somewhat convoluted and forceful explanation bordering upon become a diatribe. She told the Judge that the article in question was an example of how the defendant’s website was presenting the writer as a credentialed and erudite researcher and writer when it fact (and this was not stated but inferred in her comments) she was really just another anti-Semitic hate monger using the excuse of communism to spread lies about the Jewish Talmud and that the Forward to her book might be compared to a sexual predator who, by sending out an email to someone online telling them about a wholesome family camping trip and inviting them to attend, by stealth and deception lures the innocent (and presumed) youth into meeting with them so they can then violate them sexually!!!

It’s at times such as these that keeping a calm, straight face in the court room becomes extremely challenging.

After her presentation Judge Morgan then stated that he could sympathize with the fact that there was such an abundance of disclosure and that I might well be overwhelmed by it. He said that he was unable to give me any legal advice but that he felt that I should consider bringing this matter up in my Rowbotham application as an illustration of why I felt it was vitally necessary to have counsel to represent me in the event of a trial.

With respect to the Rowbotham application the Judge asked me whether I had filed it and I told him that I had sent off the proper papers to the government but that I was awaiting further word as to whether or not Crown would get their “direct indictment” decision which was to have happened today. Earlier the Crown had informed the Judge of the letter which I had been sent from the legal department for the AG’s office instructing me to either file a Rowbotham application for a counsel to represent me at a preliminary inquiry or to wait and file an application in the event of a trial. I told Judge Morgan that I had gone no further with the application pending today’s appearance because I didn’t know which way the Crown was going with the case. He appeared to have no problem understanding what I was saying.

Judge Morgan then decided that it was not the time make any decisions regarding any of the matters that came up and that he would, once again, have to postpone the case to a later date when Crown felt that they would know for certain whether a direct indictment was happening or not. Crown concurred with him and suggested that they might know better by the end of June or the early part of July, 2013. At that point the Judge instructed me to go to the office next to the court room after adjournment and I would be given the exact date when I was to return.

Following his instructions to me I asked the Judge if I might speak. He gave his permission and I then told him that I wished to register a strong objection to the manner in which Crown was continually making reference to Radical Press and comparing the website to either cases of child pornography or else, as in today’s arguments, cases of sexual abuse. I told the Judge that I felt this was highly unfair and prejudicial and that there was no comparison to what I publish and what the Crown was attempting always equate with those two references. The Judge then said that my objection was registered and following that the case was adjourned to Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 1:30 pm.
—–

Radical Press Legal Update #11

 

 

NewLegalUpdateLogo-700

notice4RP

RPEditor400

April 19, 2013

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

It’s been quite awhile since my last update which went out in late February. My apologies to all of you who have been left wondering what’s been going on with my legal battle with the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada.

A rather long string of unforeseen events, most notably the death of my lawyer Douglas Christie back on March 11th, 2013, threw a monkey-wrench into the whole process. Then, just prior to the Easter long weekend in March, I came down with a rather wicked, unrelenting “bug” that knocked the wind out of my sails for a few weeks. Only recently have I been able to regain my course.

Of course, there being no rest for the wicked, all of my personal issues, including the passing of Doug Christie, didn’t slow down the onerous movement of the wheels of justice here in Zionist Occupied Canada.

As such I’ll do my best to be concise as possible and try to outline where my case stands at present.

Last Tuesday, April 16th, 2013 I appeared once again in provincial court in Quesnel. Prior to this date I had been in the same courtroom back on Tuesday, April 2nd, 2013 to attend what was originally supposed to be a hearing to deal with matters pertaining to the upcoming Preliminary Hearing on my Sec. 319(2) Criminal charge that had been scheduled to begin June 3 – 6, 2013.

Upon the death of Mr. Christie I wrote to Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston on March 12th, 2013 and informed her that because of this unfortunate event I would not be prepared to deal with anything at that time.

When I did appear on the April 2nd I informed Judge Morgan of my situation and the fact that I was without legal counsel. At the same time I advised the Judge that I was planning to submit what is known as a Rowbotham application to the court – a Rowbotham application being a legal document wherein an accused person who has been refused legal aid and who cannot afford a lawyer and who is facing a criminal charge that could include a jail sentence if found guilty can apply to the court to have the government appoint a lawyer if the case is deemed serious enough and the applicant (accused) can show that they aren’t in a position to afford a lawyer nor are they capable of defending themselves due to the complexity of the case.

Judge Morgan then gave me 14 days to prepare the Rowbotham application and set the next date for Tuesday, April 16th, 2013.

Still reeling from the viral infection I did my best to get all the paperwork done by the 16th. For the most part it was complete but in the interim period, on the advice of a lawyer, after reading through some of my previous correspondence with former counsel Doug Christie, I decided to make a second application to the court for an order wherein the Crown would have to furnish me with what is known as “particularization” of the Information. Allow me to explain what that is.

When Crown eventually got around to releasing Disclosure (basically their evidence) of the information surrounding the sec. 319(2) Criminal charge against me on January 31st, 2013 (after an eight and a half month delay!), it became fairly evident that they had scrapped together as much miscellaneous documentation that they could possibly come up with (My immediate impression was that he who had the most pages, regardless of their relevancy, would win :-)). Disclosure showed that there was over a 1,000 pages of purported evidence that my lawyer was then going to have to wade through.

Given this fact Doug had expressed to me some time after receiving the Disclosure disks that it would be extremely difficult to determine how long a potential trial might take considering that the over 1,000 pages of disclosure contained no real indication as to which of my writings they intended to focus on at trial. If they planned to go through it all and Doug had to raise defences of truth, fair comment, etc. over and over for everything that I’d ever written, (not to mention other writers included in the Disclosure) a four-week trial wasn’t that unrealistic. Thus the need to seek particularization of the disclosure.

On April 10th, 2013 I made an Application to a Judge for the following order: “Particularization of Information” and I based my reasons on the following statement:

“The Crown has provided over 1,000 pages of disclosure, including a broad array of material written by myself (the accused). The Crown has failed to indicate which of this material constitutes “willful promotion of hatred” within the meaning of Section 319(2), and which of the alleged hateful material is not covered by one of the defences in Section 319(3). Without specifics as to which of my writings are alleged to be hateful, it is impossible for me to make an accurate time estimate as to the length of the trial, or indeed to make full answer and defence.”

Part of the reason for making this application was the fact that in order to complete the Rowbotham application it was necessary for me to indicate the duration of any potential trial in order to get an estimate of the cost for hiring a counsel for that period.

Judge Morgan wasn’t present on the morning of April 16th and I appeared before a Justice instead. She asked me if the Rowbotham application had been filed yet and I informed her that it had not but that it would be completed that same day. She then told me that it was the intent of the court to go ahead and set a new date for the preliminary hearing regardless of whether I had counsel or not. Crown also indicated that the likelihood the original dates set for the preliminary hearing would still work were unlikely. The Justice then informed the Crown that unless a date was set soon it would mean a rather long delay again because at that point the earliest a preliminary hearing might be heard was already November or December of 2013.

Following this discussion the Justice then moved on to my most recent application of April 10th and instructed me to come to her office at 1:30 pm that same day and she would then tell me what the dates would be for a hearing for the “particularization” application and for the preliminary trial.

As I had all the documents with me to complete the Rowbotham application I spend the remainder of the morning completing and filing it. Part of that procedure entails sending both a sworn Affidavit and also what is known as a “Notice of Application and Constitutional Issue” to three separate parties, the Crown Counsel, the Attorney General of Canada and the Attorney General of British Columbia.

By my afternoon appointment with the Justice I had all these documents filed and sent off. In the process I also filed another document with the court registry. This one was called a “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment”. Basically it is a document that argues the reasons (as stated in case law) for why particularization of the Disclosure is vital to my defence.

Now, speaking of my Defences in this case I will quote below precisely what these are as they appear in the Canadian Criminal Code. This is where the chutzpah of those who have been instrumental in the laying of this specious charge will be most clearly evident, given that a jury of twelve of my peers would have to unanimously agree that none of the defences listed below, were relevant. Further information on the actual nature of the Section 319(2) charge I’ll deal with in future posts.

Under Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code of Canada we see the following:

Defences
(3) No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2)
(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an
opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of
which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be
true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters
producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in
Canada.

When I met with the Justice at 1: 30 pm on April 16th she had some new information to add to what she’d told me earlier in the morning. I’m presuming this had to do with the fact that in the interim period I had filed the Rowbotham application as well as the additional “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Indictment”. The Justice told me that they weren’t clear at this point regarding the Rowbotham application and they were therefore assuming that once the Attorney General of B.C. received the application that the AG’s office would then send me further instructions as to what additional information I must furnish the court with in order that a hearing on the Rowbotham application might then be set. the Justice appeared to think that I would receive these instructions and be able to respond to them by the 16th of May, 2013 and so she set that date for my next appearance; one which would also include speaking to my April 10th application regarding “Particularization of Information”.

I trust that all my readers have this clearly in their minds by now. 🙂

I’ll summarize this update with one final editorial comment. By all appearances it would seem that there will be a concerted and determined effort on the part of the Crown aka Attorney General of B.C. to have this Rowbotham application quashed or denied. Why? Well, from speaking with other counsel who are in the know, it seems that the government really doesn’t like it when an innocent and financially challenged person is accused of a criminal offence and then displays the audacity to expect that the Crown would ensure that they have professional legal counsel in order to deal with all the spurious and specious accusations made against them. Unfortunately, for them, they have to deal with both the Constitutional Question Act, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 68, Section 8; and the Constitution Act, 1982, Part 1, Sections 7, 11 (d) and 24(1), both of which protect my inherent right to a fair trial and defence.

So it goeth out here in Lotus Land as of April 19th, 2013 as the free speech advocates continue their struggle to rid our nation of foreign Zionist interlopers hell-bent on destroying our country, our institutions and our democratic way of life by entrenching their heinous “hate crime laws” in our judicial system so as to cover up their own misfeasance and seditious actions against Canada.

Stay tuned folks!

For Justice and Freedom of Speech for Everyone,

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

———

PLEASE NOTE: More than ever, now that my former lawyer Douglas Christie has died, I am dependent upon financial help to carry on.

The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn’t come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign Zionist lobbyist/censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada.

Being a ‘Senior Citizen’ on a very limited pension and having now been denied assistance by Legal Aid services here in B.C. I’m left in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations from supporters to pay my legal and related expenses.

I would ask readers to give serious consideration to helping out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Please don’t make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to me.

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

To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.

Thank you!

Radical Press Legal Update #8

 

NewLegalUpdateLogo-700

notice4RP

 

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech,

January 3, 2013 was a good day in B.C. and across the nation for those who have taken up metaphorical arms in defence of Canada’s fundamental right to freedom of speech on the Internet.

Here in B.C. and out in Ontario those battling against the forces of media censorship and repression were, in both cases, successful in their efforts and thus, for once, I have only positive news to report.

I should preface this update with a short apology to some readers who were sent an alert yesterday indicating that I had unexpectedly been called to court. That was an error on my part due to some confusion arising from the previous bail hearing that took place on December 19, 2012 wherein I got the date for my next appearance mixed up. Call it a senior moment if you will. 🙂

During the last court appearance in December presiding Judge Church, after hearing arguments from both the Crown and Defence regarding the Crown’s rather strident and persistent effort to reimpose the original bail conditions that were placed on me by Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM back on May 16, 2012, reserved her judgement on the issue until January 3, 2013.

My lawyer Doug Christie attended by telephone from Victoria, B.C. and I and my wife were in the Quesnel Court room at 1:30 p.m. to hear Judge Church’s decision.

The Judge first gave an overview of the Crown’s arguments and those of Defence lawyer Mr. Christie before presenting her own position on the issue. According to Judge Church the Crown’s basic argument was that while I had legally resumed publishing on RadicalPress.com on November 2, 2012 I was still publishing material that the Crown felt was of the same calibre as that originally complained of by Agent X and Agent Y of B’nai Brith Canada. To back up Crown’s argument Crown Council Jennifer Johnston had submitted to Judge Church on December 19, 2012 a couple of screen shots taken from the radicalpress.com website that had supposed controversial headings which CC Johnston felt were significant enough that they warranted reinstating the original draconian restrictions that Cst Terry Wilson had unilaterally saddled me with on the day of my arrest in May.

Having considered these apparently pithy examples of willful promotion of hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group” Judge Church went on to say that while the screen shots may have (as Crown was alleging), indicated an “undertone” of hatred toward those of the Jewish faith, Crown had not gone so far as to state that the captured text was in fact hateful. Furthermore, Crown had not disclosed to Judge Church any additional corroborating information pertaining to the screen shots in question which Crown was alleging were displaying such sentiments and so, according to the Judge, she had no way of determining whether or not the screen shots or the accompanying articles were, in fact, contravening sec. 319(2) of the CC of Canada.

Judge Church then went on to review Defence council Doug Christie’s arguments which basically stated Crown was attempting to pre-judge the published materials before a trial was held to determine whether or not they were in truth a contravention of sec. 319(2). It was also established that I am, in fact, a publisher and that under Canada’s constitution I have the right to publish articles deemed to be of interest to the general public and until such time that said articles are proven in a court of law to have contravened Canada’s hate crime legislation that my right to publish should not be pre-emptively prohibited simply because of allegations of wrong doing by those who feel particular materials are wilfully promoting hatred toward an ethnic minority. Throughout the course of her comments the Judge referred to the cases cited by both Crown and Defence during the previous hearing on December 19, 2012.

Another issue that had come up on December 19, 2012 was that of Disclosure. The Crown had then argued that they were withholding disclosure from my attorney because of a breach of protocol that had occurred back in the summer when a confidential document released to Doug Christie was later found to have been posted on a third party website (FreeDominion.ca). The Judge went on to describe the event which had to do with what is called a “Warned Statement” which was a digitally recorded conversation between myself and the arresting officer Cst Terry Wilson on the day of my arrest. The Crown alleged that the breach (committed by me due to ignorance of the nature of the document) posed a serious threat to the safety of the two complainants in the case and for that reason Crown had filed a further application demanding that my lawyer not provide me with any further disclosure because I might intentionally publish it or give it to someone else who might publish it and in the process endanger the complainants. CC Johnston had cited the case of the Basi-Virk Trial involving the BC Rail/BC Liberal government scandal as reasoning for her allegations.

The Judge then went on to state that the case law cited by Crown in fact dealt with examples where secondary parties who were testifying may have been at risk but that in my case it was information which I personally had given to Cst. Terry Wilson and was, as my lawyer had stated, not of the same nature and certainly did not pose any direct threat to either of the two individuals who had complained to the RCMP. As such the Judge did not feel that the Crown’s argument that Mr. Christie be restricted in sharing disclosure with me was valid.

Judge Church also considered Doug Christie’s counter argument that it would be an unreasonable and onerous position to be placed in were he not allowed to share the information in any disclosure with his client unless I was under his direct supervision given the fact that he was in Victoria and I was 700 km away in Quesnel. Mr. Christie had indicated on December 19, 2012 that he and his client would be more than willing to sign an undertaking prohibiting me from disclosing any further confidential information in order to insure that no such breach occurred a second time. The Judge was able to see the logic of Mr. Christie’s arguments while at the same time dismissing Crown’s position that the breach in question could have endangered the two complainants and went on to say that while she would not be imposing the two original conditions that prohibited me from publishing on radicalpress.com or writing articles for publication wherever I so chose she would be issuing an order that would make it illegal for me republish any further disclosure. At this point she also stating she would not impose upon Mr. Christie the condition that he be in attendance whenever disclosing confidential documents to me.

Having read out her decision regarding the matters at hand the Judge reinstated the new bail conditions and asked me if I understood them. I acknowledged that I did. As such here are the new bail conditions under which I am now to legally abide by:

CONDITION ONE: You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

CONDITION TWO: You shall have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Agent Y and Agent X except as follows: (a) while in attendance at court; (b) through legal counsel.

CONDITION THREE: You shall not possess any weapon as defined in Section 2 of the criminal Code except for purposes directly related to your employment.

CONDITION FOUR: You shall not distribute, circulate or share all or any part of the Crown disclosure material with any person or organization.

CONDITION FIVE: You shall not publish or post all or any part of the Crown disclosure material on any internet site that can be read by the general public.

Having listened to the conditions of the new undertaking and given my consent to obey them the Judge then concluded the hearing. My wife and I then went for coffee and returned later to the Court Registry office where the undertaking was waiting for my signature. After signing it and obtaining a copy we left the building.

Included in the new undertaking was a notice stating that I would appear in court on April 2, 2013 at 1:30 pm PT in Quesnel for the preliminary hearing.

For some unknown reason Crown Council Jennifer Johnston was absent from the court room and another assistant Crown Council was sitting in for her.

So by all indications it looks like I will finally have some temporary respite from all the legal machinations that have been occurring over the past three months and I can focus on raising funds and adding further information to radicalpress.com that will assist others in understanding both the importance of this case and why it is that Canadians must sit up and pay much more attention to what these foreign lobbyists are doing to wreck our inherent right to freedom of expression and censor any and debate that focuses on the criminal and racist actions of the state of Israel and its dangerous and supremacist ideology known as Zionism.

 

Sincerely

 

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches by Jim Goad

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Currently there’s some serious cyber fistacuffin’ going on in the alternative media ring between proponents who, as this poignant piece below points out, see everything as being a direct result of Jewish malfeasance and every “Jew” equally culpable when it comes to the multi-faceted query known historically as “The Jewish Question” and those who tend to discriminate (oi!) and assign guilt or responsibility only to the ones (and their sycophants) directly responsible for the woes that befall the self-chosen.

The article below is one of the best interpretations of this problem that I’ve come across. Please take the time to read and share it with others.

Oh yes, and lest I forget… This particular post is also for Det-Cst Terry Wilson of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM who arrested me, traumatized my dear wife, put me in jail and then illegally entered my home and stole all of my computers and firearms back on May 16, 2012. Ever since his shameful, ignoble performance he faithfully reads all of the posts on www.radicalpress.com each day (when he’s not reading all of my thousands of personal emails that were on my computers) in order to scrape together “evidence” that he then sends along like a good little school boy tattle tale to Crown council Jennifer Johnston in Quesnel, B.C. who further flaps pages of all of my posts before the eyes of the Judges so as to reinforce the Queen of England’s (Regina) false sec. 319(2) CC charge of willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.”

On occasion I like to reinforce this person’s traitorous behaviour with a graphic showing the evidence covering his face. I know how important it is for Terry to have his mugshot in the media as it helps him and his accomplices to justify in their own petty little minds not only their existence but also that fat pay cheque they get for acting as Orwellian thought police for the foreign lobbyists who currently control Canada’s Prime Minister and all of the opposition parties. I am, of course, referring to B’nai Brith ‘Canada’ the Israeli lobby 5th Column Mossad agency that is responsible for attacking me in the courts for the past six years.

WilsonFramedFinal-copy-2

http://takimag.com/article/the_men_who_taste_jews_in_their_sandwiches_jim_goad#axzz2GSd5taZI

Notes From the Edge

The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches

by Jim Goad

November 19, 2012

I woke up this morning with a bit of a chest cold and decided not to blame the Jews for it. Some mystical yearning deep inside my heart—I believe it’s called “common sense”—led me to surmise that I am probably not afflicted with the Jew Flu.

It’s not that I hold Jews blameless, because they are human beings, too, Shylock, and are therefore not to be trusted. I hold other groups—blacks, feminists, and homosexual sausage-gobbling rump-wranglers—to the same standard. Merely because they find it fashionable to hide behind a shield of historic persecution to further their group interests and seemingly insatiable hunger for power doesn’t mean they are presumed innocent in all situations. I see Jews as human and therefore likely to be up to no good at any given moment.

Then again, neither do I blame the Jews for everything. But there is a tiny, bitter, and relentless subset of individuals who tend to do this reflexively. I call them “The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches.” They also taste Jews in the soup they slurp and in the apple pie they eat for dessert.

Merely by stating this, I’m certain I’ll be accused of being afraid to admit that Jews control the sandwich industry.

These types inevitably turn any conversation toward Jews, no matter how little the topic at hand has to do with Jews. If Godwin’s Law predicts that every Internet discussion will inevitably lead to Nazi and Hitler comparisons, these creeps who eagerly leap across the line from logical to pathological are apparently bound by the inexorable forces of Goldman’s Law…or Goldstein’s Law…or Goldberg’s Law. In their diseased brains, all neurons lead to Jews. Perhaps one day this psychological disorder will be diagnosed and a book written about it called The Man Who Mistook His Hat for a Jew.

What’s ironic is the fact that although I don’t personally taste Jews in my sandwiches unless I’m eating a Reuben with kosher pickles, I likely ask some of the same questions as do the schmucks who even taste Jews in a slice of Wonder Bread with mayonnaise. I’m drawn to the Jewish Question merely because it’s such an untouchable topic. I realize that the mere act of questioning Jewish power and influence is a career-killer in much of the West, and that in certain countries asking certain questions about the Holocaust is enough to get you jailed. It’s one topic about which most “irreverent” and “non-PC” people are extremely reverent and effusively PC. I’ve also noticed that it’s a topic that many people are eager to talk about off the record but terrified to mention in public.

So here’s where I stand on Jews…OK, wait, roll back the tape…I don’t literally stand on Jews, because that would clearly be anti-Semitic. Here are some ancillary questions I have concerning the Jewish Question, and if it makes me anti-Semitic merely to ask them, I suppose I won’t be invited to your son’s Bar Mitzvah. If you want to crucify me merely for asking questions, well, I guess you’re one of The Men Who Tastes Nazis in Your Sandwiches.

The Jewish Question always seemed to lead to more questions than answers, so here goes:

• Are Jews members of an ethnic tribe or members of a religion? If the latter, how do you explain Jewish atheists? What exactly is a “Semite,” and why does the term “anti-Semitism” seem to embrace people who appear to be of Eastern European derivation while it tends to exclude Arabs and other indigenous Middle Easterners?

• If you’re so secure that the evidence surrounding the Holocaust is irrefutable, then why jail people who question the evidence? Why does the Western media feel compelled to mention the Holocaust almost daily while it routinely ignores the 30-50 million non-Jewish civilians—not soldiers, but civilians—who were killed in World War II? Were their lives not nearly as important?

• Why are certain “right-wing” writers brave enough to criticize communism, open immigration, the liberal media, and political correctness while they’re mortified to even consider that Jews were often the primary architects behind such movements—or at least disproportionately represented?

• Isn’t the idea of “God’s Chosen People” cosmically racist and supremacist? Is the Talmud not hostile to goyim? Haven’t the Jews historically been racially separatist, all while accusing other groups of “racism”?

• Is it even remotely possible that Jewish behavior, rather than a murkily mystical and ultimately unprovable notion such as “anti-Semitism,” sometimes led to negative perceptions about Jews? Even once throughout history?

• In a European Union document calling for “equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin,” why does it urge that we should focus “in particular” on “anti-Semitism” if everyone is to be treated equally?

• Why does our current cultural climate allow one to decry “white privilege” but never “Jewish privilege,” especially since Jews are undeniably overrepresented statistically when it comes to wealth and power?

• At the moment, Israel and some of its enemies are lobbing missiles at one another. Why should I care about Israel? Why should I deem this dubiously founded and eternally disruptive nation so important that it’s worth starting World War III, shoveling out tax dollars, and enduring much of the world’s wrath to protect it? What do I get out of the deal?

So those are my questions. I won’t hold my goyishe breath waiting for you to answer them. But dismissing them outright as “paranoid” or “anti-Semitic” is either dishonest or naïve.

My questions are honest and sincere rather than “hateful,” and calling me all the nasty names in the Torah won’t budge my feelings or cause me to relent. And I believe that a huge quotient of the population has similar questions but have been terrorized into silence at the mere thought of asking them. As a truth-seeker rather than a team-joiner, I find this troublesome. So sue me!

And this is the main reason why The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches are such a pain in my tuchis. They live up to the crude stereotype of rabid, delusional anti-Semites, and by so doing, they tend to allow all criticism of Jews to be painted with the same broad Jew Brush. They’re the ones who tend to give so-called “anti-Semites” a bad name. It almost makes me suspect that some of them may be Mossad agents.

Making EVERYTHING about Jews gives Jews far too much credit. So ease up, fellas. There are no Jews in your sandwiches. There are no Jews in your soup. If you have a chest cold, you likely didn’t get it from shaking hands with a Jew…or maybe you did, but that’s what you get for being friendly to Jews.

——–

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/the_men_who_taste_jews_in_their_sandwiches_jim_goad/print#ixzz2GSfhBxgg

 

Radical Press Legal Update #7

NewLegalUpdateLogo-700

notice4RP

Radical Press Legal Update #7

Radical Press Legal Update #7

Yesterday’s  Bail  Hearing was a three hour session in the Quesnel Court house.

The regular Judge who has been presiding over the various applications thus far was unable to attend and instead we had a female Judge by the name of M. Church who heard the application.

Crown of course had first kick at the cat and Crown Council Jennifer Johnston opened her remarks by giving Judge Church a brief overview of the case which included her reasons for why Crown has still not provided my lawyer with full disclosure in the case.

According to CC Johnston the period from my initial arrest on May 16, 2012 until October 9, 2012 had proven to be an insufficient time period in order to get enough evidence together so that an Indictment could be handed down by the October 9 deadline and that, apparently, somehow justified not providing Mr. Christie with full disclosure.

After the October 9 deadline I was no longer under the original bail conditions that restricted me from posting on my website although for some odd reason I didn’t become aware of this fact until close to 3 weeks after the fact .

The Crown eventually got their sworn information on November 5, 2012 and notified my lawyer that there would be a call date set for Nov. 6 where I was to appear in court. That date was subsequently changed to the 8th of November as Doug Christie was out in Saskatchewan attending to another case and couldn’t appear via telephone on the 6th. It was Crown’s letter to Mr. Christie on Nov. 5th that also informed him that Crown had asked for an endorsed warrant that would allow Crown to have all of the original bail conditions reinstated.

When I appeared on November 8, 2012 the Judge listened to both sides of the arguments and ruled that only some of the original conditions would remain i.e., those concerning my order not to have any contact with the two knaves  who laid the alleged complaint to the RCMP and also the cops hanging on to my illegally stolen firearms. At the same time he set a new date of December 13, 2012 when Mr. Christie could be in court to represent me and Crown would be given the opportunity to argue for the reinstatement of the additional restrictions originally imposed on me by Det – Cst Terry Wilson on the day I got out of jail.

Of course December 13, 2012 proved to be bad timing weather wise and my lawyer was unable to fly into Quesnel that day so again a decision on Crown’s application was delayed for another week which brought it up to December 19, 2012 which was yesterday.

After running through that time line Crown then began their argument for wanting to reinstate the additional Orwellian restraints that would prohibit me from posting articles anywhere on the Internet available to the general public or to allow anyone else to post on any of my other websites that were owned by me.

Just prior to commencing her argument Crown Council Jennifer Johnston told Judge Church that unfortunately she hadn’t been able to provide Mr. Christie with the big fat 1″ thick bail disclosure document because she had been informed by Det – Cst Terry Wilson that when the Indictment was handed down the National Post had published an article on the case which contained statements that the reporter had gleaned from another website called FreeDominion.ca. Those statements were from what is called a “Warned” statement which is considered by the courts to be part of disclosure and therefore confidential information that is not supposed to be given out to the public. The Warned statement was a digital voice recording that Det – Cst Terry Wilson had made of his conversation with me just prior to my release from jail on May 16, 2012. Why IT was given to my lawyer when all the other disclosure documents are still being withheld by Crown is still a mystery to both myself and Mr. Christie but in the case of this particular document when I received a copy of it I didn’t realize it was confidential and had so I had shared it with an associate in a private email and unbeknownst to myself failed to notify them that it was confidential.

Anyhow a couple of quotes were taken from it and posted in the National Post and that was the big reason, according to CC Jennifer Johnston why she was refusing to divulge any more disclosure materials to Mr. Christie. This issue had come up on Dec. 13 when Crown was arguing before Judge Morgan that a second application had been filed regarding the matter of the illegal disclosure but no agreement could be found at the time and Mr. Christie had refused to agree to it.

At this point Crown told Judge Church that she would be willing to let Mr. Christie take a look at the bail disclosure document even though Crown’s application had not be resolved but that he would have to give it back at the end of the hearing! All of this was the typical Catch-22 scenarios that have been playing out since day one of this charade.

The Judge obviously knew that Mr. Christie couldn’t be expected to argue against something he hadn’t even seen so after a bit of discussion it was agreed that Crown would give Mr. Christie the disclosure document and a short 15 minute recess would be called so that he and I would have an opportunity to take a look at what Crown was planning to use in their argument for reinstating the original harsh bail conditions on me.

It only took about 5 minutes of perusing the document to realize what was going to be the Crown’s argument and we quickly went back and let the clerk know that the recess should end as soon as possible and court resume. Mr. Christie was well aware of the time constraints and needed every minute for his arguments.

Court resumed and Crown Council Johnston began her argument that I had been publishing all these articles, updates, etc. since November 2, 2012 (legally, mind you) and then proceeded to go through individual posts selecting various quotes to back up her position. It was the standard Zionist double-speak argument that posts were continuing to spread hate toward the Jews and Zionists and were attacking unfairly Det -Cst Terry Wilson and his partner-in-crime Cst Normandie Levas and thus possibly endangering their safety!

This went on until about 3 p.m. when she finally concluded her remarks and a break was taken before Mr. Christie was given time to present his arguments.

The issue of the leaked disclosure was addressed first and Mr. Christie told that Judge that he would have no problem with the Court issuing an Order stating that in future neither he nor myself would disclose any confidential information to any third parties not directly connected to the case and definitely not for publication.

Doug then commenced his argument with a bountiful supply of case law references and quickly outlined for the Judge some precedents which included the legal right for publishers and writers to criticize both Jews and Zionists citing articles in various mainstream publications like the New York Times and other Zionist controlled media. His point being that no particular group is exempt from criticism and that includes Jews or those who support political Zionism. Regarding my criticisms of the RCMP he also pointed out to the court that the RCMP were certainly not above criticism and given their public image of late he didn’t feel Crown’s argument in this regard was worthy of consideration.

He also made it crystal clear that what Crown was attempting to do flew in the face of any and all statutes currently within the Canadian legal system. By that I mean Crown’s attempt to curtail my Charter Rights to freedom of expression and access to the Internet prior to my case being heard in a court of law and a decision being handed down as to whether or not I did in fact publish materials that were ultimately deemed to be “willful promotion of hatred” as contained in sec. 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code.

To a priori assume that whatever I am publishing is “hatred” and then ask the court to impose such severe curtailments upon my Charter rights prior to being tried is verboten and should not be considered as a reasonable argument.

During Crown’s argument CC Johnston had cited the Basi-Virk Trial (of all trials!) to back up some of her comments regarding the need to protect witnesses. In this instances she was trying to correlate my Warned statement conversation with Det – Cst Terry Wilson with that of secondary witnesses in the Basi-Verk case. When Doug came to this he quickly pointed out to the Judge the vast difference between witness evidence by anonymous third parties and statements directly given to the arresting officer by the accused as was the case in point regarding Crown’s argument.

One by one Mr. Christie countered Crown Council’s arguments and this went on until around 4:15 p.m. at which time Mr. Christie concluded his remarks by informing the Judge that he had a plane to catch before 5 p.m. and that he would have to stop. Doug asked me at this point to call the airport to confirm the exact time when the plane was leaving so I had to leave the court room for about five minutes.

While I was gone Crown apparently tried to refute all of Doug’s arguments and told the Judge that because I was charged with a “Hate” crime that Crown could then basically impose whatever restrictions they wanted to on me. The Judge apparently wasn’t convinced and just when I got back into the court room I heard her telling Crown and Defence that she would be considering the arguments and submitting a request to another body (not sure which one at this point) for further clarification come early January and then after that she would notify Crown and Defence of her decision.

So basically there will be no further bail conditions imposed on myself until January of 2013 at the earliest. We quickly packed up our things and drove Doug out to the airport where he bid us a fond fair well.

For now we will finally have a couple of weeks grace in order to relax a bit and enjoy the Christmas season.

——–

NOTE: Out of necessity I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the censors. Due to the fact that the Crown is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able to furnish legal aid with the required documents that they demand before looking at whether or not I might qualify for legal financial assistance. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses. The airfare alone yesterday for my lawyer to appear in court in Quesnel to defend me against these false charges was $1,050.00 return and given my minimal monthly pension it’s virtually impossible for me to cover these expenses.
As such I would once again implore readers to give serious consideration to helping me out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Cash of course also works.
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
Canada
V2J 6T8
To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site.
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press

 

 

 

 

 

B’nai Brith, ADL, Child Porn, Regina and Arthur Topham by Arthur Topham

B’nai Brith, ADL, Child Porn, Regina and Arthur Topham

B’nai Brith, ADL, Child Porn, Regina and Arthur Topham

by 

Arthur Topham

December 17, 2012

From the very beginning of my longstanding legal battle with B’nai Brith Canada and the International Jewish Lobby it has been my intention to point a fierce yet truthful finger at World Jewry: the primary purpose being to bring to the forefront for Canadians the true identity and purpose of these front organizations that the Zionists have set up over the past couple of centuries to deceive the gullible goyim (non-Jews) on multiple levels.

A prime example of how, like clockwork, Zionists inevitably resort to the same tactics over and over, is the recent behaviour by the Crown in my upcoming sec. 319(2) CCC “Hate Crime” case involving B’nai Brith Canada and the RCMP’s Det-Cst Terry Wilson of the “BC HATE CRIME TEAM”.

In my last Legal Update #6 published on December 14, 2012 reference was made to the fact that I would publish an article related to the subject of this incident that took place (again) during my last court appearance on December 13, 2012).

Since the onset of the false allegations brought on by Agent Z and Agent Y of B’nai Brith Canada that led to my arrest on May 16, 2012 the Crown has done its damnedest to portray me in a false and negatively perverse light.

Beginning with my first appearance in the Quesnel court room Crown Council Jennifer Johnston immediately began her vilification of my person by resorting to “case law” (examples from former court cases used as precedents that purported prove similar intent and purpose) that equated the cases referenced by her to my own situation with respect to the articles which I have posted on RadicalPress.com.

The “case” in point here being the Crown’s feeble and malicious attempt to suggest to the presiding Judge that articles published on RadicalPress.com are of the same revulsive caliber as photographs and videos of child pornography and sexual abuse that are illegally posted on the Internet and exchanged between perverts via email and that when it comes to any consideration on the part of the Judge as to the degree and severity of bail conditions that ought to be imposed upon me during the course of this bolshevik show trial that this fallacious argument on Crown’s part ought to be given serious consideration so that I would not be permitted to continue to post anything further on the website or possibly even be permitted to email friends and associates.

This, dear lover of freedom of speech, is the degree of chutzpah (arrogance) and deception which permeates not only the mindset of the Jewish lobbies around the world but also that supposedly impartial, independent and august body within Canada’s judicial system (the Crown) which is currently doing the bidding of this foreign agent of Israel – B’nai Brith Canada.

One of the hallmarks of Zionist thinking is to turn whatever truth exists upon its head and then attempt to portray the actual perpetrator of a crime as the innocent victim and nowhere will you find a better example than in the case of sexual perversion, child pornography, deviancy of all types and the secretive masonic order known to the world as B’nai Brith.

I might add too at this point that it’s a known fact, boldly and unabashedly announced by the perpetrators themselves, that the global porn industry was initiated by and has been controlled by Jews since the very beginning. Anyone doubting this need only type into the Google search engine the aforementioned topic and they will find this simple fact out for themselves.

In my own case because of these false allegations made against my person, my life’s work and Truth itself I will site two precedent setting cases that show both the hypocrisy and the deceit that this purportedly “benevolent Jewish society” has projected upon the public’s perception via their controlled media over the past century.

The first is a recent incident that actually took place at the time when I was battling with the Canadian Human Rights Act’s sec. 13(1) complaint that Agent Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada had filed against me back in 2007.

During the course of that long and protracted exchange of arguments and motions that eventually led to a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to uphold and lend credence to the complaint; one which eventually moved the case into the hands of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (another communist/zionist style, quasi-judicial body of appointed Zionists doing the bidding of their taskmasters from Israel) B’nai Brith’s touted moral superiority and unblemished integrity suffered a serious blow when one of their former Canadian directors of B’nai Brith Quebec, Bill Surkis, was arrested and charged on May 29, 2009 with possession of 86 videos containing close to nine hours of footage showing men engaged in sexual abuse of under children between the ages of six and fourteen. On top of the videos were an additional 153 photos also showing children being abused.

To add insult to injury Surkis’s lawyer Steven Slimovich (no pun intended!) at first attempted to convince the Crown that his client had all this porn on his computer for “The purpose of his viewing the child pornography material [in order] to educate himself on the topic of child pornography” so that afterwards he would be able to “go into schools and give lectures on people abusing people.”! That, I suggest, is the sort of chutzpah one continually confronts whenever this touted “benevolent” front organization gets caught with its pants down.

Of course even the Crown in this instance couldn’t pretend to fall for such a scam and they had to prosecute Surkis but given the severity of the charges: all three – possessing, accessing and distributing of child pornography – each carrying a maximum penalty on conviction of 10 years in prison, the final outcome of the trial which included plea bargaining to drop the “distributing child pornography” charge was one that showed the powerful influence of the Jewish lobby when it comes to protecting one of their own.

Out of a total of possibly 30 years imprisonment for the three initial charges what did this former registered lobbyist and Quebec Regional Director of B’nai Brith Canada, board chairman for the Holocaust Memorial Museum and Academic Dean of John Abbott College for 22 years receive as punishment for his crimes?  Why a grand total of 45 days in jail to be served on weekends, the minimum sentencing allowed under the law!

Oi veh is all I can say!

Yet in my own case, where a conviction for a said sec. 319(2) CCC  “Hate Crime” carries a maximum 2 year sentence, do you think that were the Crown to win their case that they would sentence me to say a relatively similar punishment of 5 to 10 days in jail to be served on weekends? Fat chance!

And so it’s fairly evident by now, given Crown Council Jennifer Johnston’s repeated references to Judge Morgan directly associating RadicalPress.com’s articles with child pornography, that her motive is designed to convince the Judge that extremely severe restrictions are justified and must be imposed upon me to prohibit me from writing and publishing any further (pornographic?) articles in my own defence or providing updated information to my long list of supporters and donors who are helping me (and themselves) in this battle to retain my Charter right to freedom of speech on the Internet.

One final irksome comment in this regard. Sturkis’ lawyer Slimovich also did his best to insure that his client, a “stellar” member of his Jewish community, who he stated was a “staunch individual” who “stood up for what is right” would not lose his privilege of retaining his home computer so that he could “continue to serve” his community. Whether he gained that right I was at this point unable to determine.

The second example is one that I will touch upon only briefly but will furnish readers with an url to a website where they can read about it in depth so as to understand the duration of time that has passed since this “benevolent” charity called B’nai Brith that has been fronting as a philanthropy organization for the past hundred years and longer first began their attempts at covering the blood soaked tracks of their membership via the use of their mainstream media propaganda mechanisms using both print and television to gain their dubious ends.

Today the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai Brith is the foremost American Jewish watch dog and lobbyist for the state of Israel and for support of the Zionist ideology that buttresses said state’s political doctrines. Its influence in the USA is notoriously well known and its victims are legion since its inception back in the year 1913. The following “case” exposes the history behind why B’nai Brith created the ADL in the first place and it serves as yet another reminder of what this essay is trying to do, i.e. expose B’nai Brith’s true identity and its historic links with pedophelia.

Back in 1913 the United States of America witnessed a rather grizzly murder trial involving a Jew by the name of Leo M. Frank who was the owner of a sweat shop Pencil Company that employed young girls. Leo M. Frank was also president of the Atlanta, Georgia, Gate City [masonic] Lodge 144 Chapter of B’nai B’rith which had about 500 members. The controversy surrounding his sensational trial and subsequent conviction has been ongoing with the ADL still attempting to exonerate the pedophile sex killer as late as 1986.

I highly suggest that readers take a look at the website which exposes all the machinations surrounding this historic trial. It can be found at the following url: http://www.leofrank.org/introduction-to-leo-frank/

I believe these two examples given in this essay are reason enough to challenge Crown Council Jennifer Johnston’s erroneous assertions that she is putting forth in court which suggest that my work and the information contained on RadicalPress.com are somehow related to pedophilia and child pornography when the facts suggest that those who were involved in laying the complaint against me are the ones who ought to be ashamed and embarrassed by the ongoing behaviour of their own members in this highly suspect and shady Jewish lobby organization that is aggressively pursuing its agenda of supporting these so-called “Hate Crimes” in order to silence any criticism of themselves or of the state of Israel and its ideology of Zionism.

I’m sure there will be more to report on this issue as the trial unfolds.

—–