Welcome to 2017! from Radical Press

ashall1500

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Dear Radical Readers,

My wife Shasta and I spend New Year’s eve at our local community hall in Cottonwood, B.C. enjoying a wonderful pot-luck dinner and then playing country music with our friends and neighbours.

2017 is now here and it promises to be another exciting year of global turmoil and unexpected surprises both good and bad!

On behalf of Radical Press I want to wish all subscribers and readers the very best in the days and months ahead and thank everyone for their ongoing support throughout my own “trials” and tribulations in the Canadian justice system.

This coming March will see the results of my Charter challenge to the infamous “Hate Crime” legislation now contained in Sec. 318 to 320 of Canada’s Criminal Code. Until then it’s back to the waiting game and carrying on with publishing as much truth and real news as possible.

I’m still trying to raise money to cover legal expenses (what’s new!) so any help in defraying these costs is always appreciated. If you’re not already deep in debt to the Rothschilds after all the Christmas spending spree then you might want to check into my GoGetFunding site and add a bit more to it.

Most politically-minded folks around the world are now awaiting with baited breath the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America and debating and wondering what his administration will do in order to improve the global situation which has been steadily growing darker and darker. Will it be the Zionist business as usual or something possibly dramatic and positive? Time will soon tell but the odds are not in the truth-lovers and peace-makers favour and so we must remain vigilant and strong and continue to sing the songs of freedom come what may.

God bless and keep us all.

 

Sincerely,

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

AND LEST WE FORGET

hatecrimelawbbccjc-copy

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 theSpecial 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 theSpecial 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, focussing 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 focussed 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 travelling 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.)
 

Tenure’s End: Foreign Israeli Lobby B’nai Brith Attacks Canada’s Longstanding Academic Tradition to Safeguard Freedom of Speech

Tenure’s End: Foreign Israeli lobby B’nai Brith Attacks Canada’s

Longstanding Academic Tradition to Safeguard Freedom of Speech

By Arthur Topham

The foreign, Jew’s-only, secret Masonic lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada and its ADL-ed component the League for ‘Human Rights’ of B’nai Brith are on a rampage through Cyberspace in their ongoing attempts to destroy Canadian’s constitutionally guaranteed Charter right to freedom of expression.

One of the most recent, egregious examples by this traitorous, Israel-sponsored, Fifth Columnist organization is their  despicable attempt to destroy Canada’s longstanding tradition of academic Tenureship via their relentless, underhanded attacks upon tenured Professor Anthony Hall of the University of Lethbridge, Alberta.

Using every dirty trick in their bag of lies, this traitorous “benevolent society” of Zionist Jew, duel-citizens  have been falsely maligning Professor Hall both in their Zionist-controlled mainstream media and via Canada’s legal system through their misuse of provincial “Human Rights” organizations.

The usual plethora of slander, lies, vilification, ugly epithets and guilt by association, coupled with copious amounts of arrogant innuendo, are their standard psycho-weapons of destruction and in the case of Professor Hall they’ve pulled out all the stops.

I have been covering Professor Hall’s plight for some time and observing how this Public Enemy #1 of Canadian sovereignty, B’nai Brith Canada, has been viciously libeling Hall in their Jewish publications both here in Canada and in the foreign state of Israel’s  media outlets as well as in the mainstream media.

It’s well beyond time that Canadians WAKE UP and smell the kosher coffee that’s been brewing beneath their noses for decades and realize that this subversive agent of the foreign state of Israel is quickly destroying the underpinnings of Canadian culture through their blatant attempts to dismantle and subvert every level of the nation’s government, media, judiciary and, now, academia.

Watch the above video and listen carefully to the words of Professor Anthony Hall and TAKE HEED! If this apocalyptic beast hidden with the Trojan Horse called “B’nai Brith Canada” isn’t collared and put on a leash soon all hell will be breaking loose as our rights and freedoms dissolve and we shift into either a state of anarchy or totalitarian dictatorship.

Please share this article with your friends and associates and if you can, write to those persons listed below and tell them how you feel about this deplorable affront to Canada’s freedom.

Those concerned about the B’nai Brith’s assault on Professor Anthony Hall can contact Lethbridge University President Mike Mahon. Email: mike.mahon@uleth.ca and cc contactmeliorist@gmail.com  program@ckxu.com  antoniusjameshall@gmail.com

Write, fax, or phone: Mike Mahon President & Vice-Chancellor A762 University Hall, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada  T1K 3M4. Phone: (403) 329 -2201. Fax: (403) 329-2097.

There is also a Petition that’s been started where you can help support Professor Hall and our rights and freedoms. Here’s the link:

https://www.change.org/p/kurt-e-schlachter-kurt-e-schlachter-step-down-as-chair-of-the-board-university-of-lethbridge

As the old saying goes, “JUST DO IT!” The time for hesitation is long past. Let’s put our country’s freedoms ahead of our own petty and personal agendas for a change and start standing up for CANADA instead of kowtowing to the interests of a foreign, racist nation!

—–

CBC Prince George Reporter-Editor Betsy Trumpener: Lying, Anti-free Speech Hack Agent for B’nai Brith Canada’s League for ‘Human Rights’ By Arthur Topham

screen-shot-2015-02-08-at-6-30-10-am-copy

CBC Prince George Reporter-Editor Betsy Trumpener: 

Lying, Anti-free Speech Hack Agent for B’nai Brith Canada’s League for ‘Human Rights’

By Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press

betsycbcziotroll

Betsy Trumpener CBC “reporter”Prince George, B.C.

As the Constitutional Charter challenge to Canada’s notoriously unjust, Zionist-created “Hate Propaganda” legislation contained in Sections 318 to 320 of the Canadian Criminal Code was due to commence in Quesnel, B.C.’s Supreme Court on Monday, October 3rd, CBC’s Prince George reporter-editor ran a hit piece on the hearing that was posted to the CBC website on September 30, 2016 under the title of B.C. man convicted of promoting hate on web to challenge law in court today.

Due to a court order imposed upon Topham prohibiting him from publishing the names of the traitorous scumbags who’ve been attacking him and his family and website for the past 10 years this article cannot post a direct link to the Trumpener article.

The slanderous excuse for an objective news story was pure Zionist vilification of Arthur Topham, Editor and Publisher of RadicalPress.com that consisted of lies, half-truths and mis- and dis-information.

Trumpener, who has been following the case of R vs Roy Arthur Topham since Topham’s trial back in Oct/Nov. of 2015, has been publishing lies and half-truths about the case in an attempt to portray the publisher of the alternative news site as an “anti-Semitic, Racist, Jew-hater” who’s been using his website to publish articles calling for the “sterilization” and “genocide” of all the Jewish population in order to resolve the “Jewish Problem” once and for all.

In her most recent repulsive screed aimed at defaming Topham’s motives and character, Trumpener, without speaking to Topham and getting his perspective on the case and the Charter challenge, interviewed the Zionist Jew scumbag B’nai Brith agent from Victoria, B.C. who had filed the Sec. 319(2) against Topham back in May of 2011 and prior to that had also filed a Sec. 13 complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission back as far as 2007 alleging that Topham was “promoting hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnicity and/or citizens of Israel”. No shit. Promoting “hatred” toward citizens of the foreign, racist, Jews-only state of Israel.

Trumpener then quotes the lying scumbag Mossad operative known as “Agent Z” and publishes all of his bullshit lies about Topham including the most insidious falsification of all – that Topham was calling “for the sterilization of all Jews” and that, in the scumbag’s demented mind meant “incitement to genocide”.

The same lying Israeli sayan Trumpener had sat through the trial back in 2015 and knew full well that the scumbag from Victoria was lying when he made these statements. She knew that this agent for the foreign racist, supremacist, criminal state of Israel was misquoting statements from a satire that Topham had posted on his website called Israel Must Perish!  This hack “journalist” also knew that Israel Must Perish! was a satirical response to a REAL BOOK published back in 1941 in the USA by a JEWISH writer by the name of Theodore N. Kaufman, titled Germany Must Perish! 

Trumpener was aware that Topham had merely chose some of the more juicey and outrageously hateful sections of the real book of Kaufman’s and then digitally reprinted them VERBATIM. The only alteration of the actual text of the real book was when Topham changed the words “Germany” and “German” and “Nazi” and “Hitler” to “Israel” and “Jew” and “Zionist” and “Netanyahu” in order to transform the original, lurid production of Kaufman’s into a satire or parody of the original work.

It was Kaufman in his book Germany Must Perish! who was calling for the total sterilization of the German population in order to wipe out the German race. It was Kaufman who actually wrote and published this book and when it was placed on the market for sale this heinous publication calling for the absolute genocide of the German population was endorsed on the back cover by some of the leading and most prestigious newspapers and magazines in the United States. Time Magazine and the Washington Post as well as the New York Times and the Philadelphia Record (as illustrated below in the graphic showing the actual front and back covers of the book) all added their voices to the Jewish call for the “total sterilization of the German population in order to wipe out the German race.”

“The lying hack “journalist” Trumpener from CBC Prince George also was cognizant of the fact that in creating the online, digital satire of Kaufman’s book Topham had explained to his readership why he had come up with idea of satirizing Germany Must Perish! and the bottom line rationale for doing so was that the Zionist Jew lobbyists here in Canada had been falsely accusing and vilifying Topham in their Zionist controlled media (including CBC) for close to a decade and calling him a “hater” and a “racist” and an “anti-Semite” and Topham finally had had enough of these hypocrites and bigots calling the kettle black when, in truth, their own tribe of Jewish hate-mongers were the REAL HATERS and ADVOCATES OF GENOCIDING THE TOTAL GERMANIC RACE!”

actualcopyoffrbkcovergermmustper
The lying hack “journalist” Trumpener from CBC Prince George also was cognizant of the fact that in creating the online, digital satire of Kaufman’s book Topham had explained to his readership why he had come up with idea of satirizing Germany Must Perish! and the bottom line rationale for doing so was that the Zionist Jew lobbyists here in Canada had been falsely accusing and vilifying Topham in their Zionist controlled media (including CBC) for close to a decade and calling him a “hater” and a “racist” and an “anti-Semite” and Topham finally had had enough of these hypocrites and bigots calling the kettle black when, in truth, their own tribe of Jewish hate-mongers were the REAL HATERS and ADVOCATES OF GENOCIDING THE TOTAL GERMANIC RACE!

So the satire appeared and when the scumbag Agent Z from Victoria, B.C. saw it he immediately saw his opportunity to twist it around 180 degrees and use it to accuse ME of wanting to genocide the “whole Jewish population”. He filed his complaint with the faggot Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team and Wilson swallowed Agent Z’s story hook, line and sinker (along with who knows what else) and proceeded to commence an investigation that eventually led to the arrest and incarceration of Topham on May 12th, 2012 and the Sec. 319(2) charge of “promoting hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnicity”.

It never seemed to have registered on the scumbag Agent Z or Det. Cst. Terry Wilson OR the BC Attorney General’s office who laid the charge that if Topham was calling for the “genocide of the total Jewish population” then he should have been charged under Sec. 318 of the Criminal Code NOT Sec. 319(2) because Sec. 318 deals with the promotion of genocide.

That folks is what the lying, hasbara Israeli reporter from CBC should have published in her story about Topham’s Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2) for that is the TRUTH about what happened and why Topham was framed and exploited and incarcerated and dragged through over four years of endless litigation. But then of course that’s NOT what B’nai Brith Canada wants done and CBC, given that it, as well as all of Canada’s major mainstream media, are controlled by the Zionist Jew lobby, instead publishes the LIES that the Zionist Jews want published.

So the question remains – who are the real haters in this psycho-drama now unfolding throughout Western civilization and when are they going to be held accountable for their traitorous acts against Canadian citizens?

——

Canada’s illegal witch-hunt: Arthur Topham trial continues Monday By Denis G. Rancourt

rancourtvtisraelgazaattack2014

In a shameful display of state hubris, Canada is using illegal concocted provisions of its Criminal Code to prosecute a citizen for innocuous postings on a personal blog (The Radical Press). The provisions allow a maximum 2-year prison sentence, where the state prosecutor (“Crown”) does not need to prove intent to harm or any actual harm to a single person. Intent and actual harm are not even relevant legal considerations in the proceeding. Both harm and intent are presumed.

The said Criminal Code provisions are straight out of the playbook of a totalitarian state.

The show trial was separated into two parts, despite the objections of the accused. In the first part the accused was found criminally guilty, for one blogpost, while not guilty for the other blogpost of the Crown’s charge. In the second part, which is scheduled to start tomorrow Monday October 3rd, the constitutionality of the law is being challenged on limited grounds. Any sentencing will be decided after the ruling on constitutionality.

The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.

The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.

Meanwhile, the “defendant” was gagged from identifying the original complainants (the usual crew) but allowed to continue blogging about the process until a conviction is finally secured, and has mounted a funding campaign for the expensive constitutional challenge.

These kinds of show-trial proceedings and the associated media assaults are attempts to create a false impression of a victimized Israel, to shield the apartheid state from international condemnation for its on-going violations of the Geneva Conventions, illegal annexation, constant violations of human rights, and mass-murder “mowing of the grass” in Gaza. Israel wants a free hand to continuously expand by the same criminal methods it has used for decades. Therefore, when successful, the domestic show trials (most prominent in Canada, France, and Germany) are geopolitical in character by virtue of Israel’s leading role in US interference in the Middle East, with Canada and France as lead accompanying sycophant states.

Canada’s Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has defended Arthur Topham against the state’s attack on freedom of thought and expression with several interventions. OCLA applies the principle that those who’s views are most at odds with orthodoxy and who are most aggressively attacked using the state apparatus are those most in need of civil defense.

The OCLA’s 2014 on-line petition to the state authority gathered over 1,400 signatures. OCLA also, in 2015, intervened by letter against other “civil liberties” associations that adopted a statement that harmed Mr. Topham’s case.

This year, OCLA intervened prior to the constitutional part of the trial by sending a letter directly to the trial judge, with all the state actors in cc. OCLA’s letter, reproduced below, spells out the illegal character of the criminal law being used in this particular show trial and witch hunt:

January 13, 2016
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 Freedoms, 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.”
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. 319(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 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.
If 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,

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

[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.
[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).
[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 (CanLII); and see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 SCR 139, 1991 CanLII 119 (SCC), p. 210 (i).


SOURCE ARTICLE

Prelude to Freedom of Speech or Zionist Hate Laws and Censorship? The Upcoming Charter challenge to Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws By Arthur Topham

preludehdr1000

Prelude to Freedom of Speech or Zionist Hate Laws and Censorship?
The Upcoming Charter challenge to Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” lawsBy
Arthur Topham“I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

~ The Canadian Bill of Rights.
The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons Debates, July 1, 1960.

There is a grave danger to any democracy when the laws of the land begin to shift from the concrete to abstract/emotional/ethereal planes of mental cognition. Such has been the case for many years now in Germany where freedom of speech has deteriorated to the point where, in reality, it no longer exists. A German citizen, if they so desire to question the authenticity of the purported “6 Million Jewish Holocaust” are automatically charged with “holocaust denial”, arrested and, when pronounced guilty, imprisoned, regardless of the fact that the state refuses to prove that the inquisitive thinker wrong in a court of law. All that was necessary was to create the “holocaust denial” legislation out of the shady realm of psychological cogitation; state that it was “manifestly obvious” that the event had occurred the way it was written (by the victors in WWII; and if anyone suggests otherwise then they are to be punished with a prison term up to 5 years in jail.

A similar reality existed here in Canada during the days when Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was being used by the Jewish lobby groups and their sycophant supporters to harass, intimidate, fine and even incarcerate Canadian citizens who were deemed “guilty” of having committed the offence of promoting “hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.” If victims were publishing information on practically any topic related to either the state of Israel, Jews, or the political ideology of the Jews-only state known as Zionism they were considered fair game and Jewish lobby organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress (now defunct) and B’nai Brith Canada considered it open season on their critics and would scan the Internet in search of any sign of dissenting viewpoints which they could then attack via the Sec. 13 clause. While Sec. 13 existed in Canadian jurisprudence truth was not considered a defence against such accusations and if the Canadian Human Rights Commission decided to prosecute you it was commonly understood that you didn’t stand a snow’s chance in hell of ever winning. All you could look forward to was being forced through the quasi-judicial wringer then known as the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, for years, having your whole life turned upside down and then inevitably being found guilty of promoting “hate” and duly punished. The only difference between this process and that of the Stalinist Soviet Union’s Show Trials was that the Canadians at least attempted to defend themselves rather than simply admitting guilt and grovelling before their oppressors.

Fortunately for Canadians Sec. 13 was eventually repealed back in 2012. The story behind why it was repealed is a whole other can of worms that time and space won’t allow me to go into here. Suffice it to say that the law proved itself to be a “double-edged sword” and therefore was deemed unsuitable to the Zionist lobby here in Canada. The Zionist controlled media then consciously conspired to focus on it and before you could say “Bobs’ Your Uncle” it was gone from the statute books.

“A judiciary which functions as an auxiliary to Canada’s foreign, Zionist Jew lobbyists inevitably must produce absurd rulings for the simple reason that Hate Propaganda laws, in and of themselves, are the quintessential example of legal sophistry and not in any way reality based.”
~ Arthur Topham

What remained though and is currently enshrined in the Canadian Criminal Code and of much greater danger to our rights and freedoms is the section known as the “Hate Propaganda” laws which span Sections 318 to 320 of the Code. When it came time for the mainstream media to focus on that specious area of Canadian jurisprudence though their powerful and persuasive voice suddenly became muted.

The section under which I was charged in 2012 reads as follows:

• Wilful promotion of hatred
• (Sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada
• 319. (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.

Having been found GUILTY on Count One of the crime of “Hate Propaganda” under Canada’s Section 319.2 of the Criminal Code and, simultaneously, found NOT GUILTY on Count Two of the exact same charge, by a jury of 12 Canadian citizens back on November 12th, 2015 I realized fully why it was that I had fought against this Orwellian section of the Canadian Criminal Code for over four years. What the legislation itself has now proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that the whole concept of supposed “hate crimes” are irrational in nature and illogical in practise. When attempts are made by the legal system to insert them into a structure of jurisprudence that is purported to be based upon logic, common sense, the principle of Truth and, in the case of criminal offences, a foundation upon which real victims who have suffered some type of overt, damaging injustice are either present in a court of law to testify or else 6 feet under, they only exacerbate the absurdity that we currently are witnessing in Germany. A judiciary which functions as an auxiliary to Canada’s foreign, Zionist Jew lobbyists inevitably must produce absurd rulings for the simple reason that Hate Propaganda laws, in and of themselves, are the quintessential example of legal sophistry and not in any way reality based.

When the verdict first came down I, like most of those present in the court room, was taken by surprise. When I heard the spokesperson for the jury state that I was guilty on Count One I automatically assumed (given that the charge was identical) that I would be found guilty of the second charge as well. When a Not Guilty verdict was then announced for Count Two it blew me away and immediately I began to question why the jury would have come to such a conclusion.

An answer to that seemingly contradictory verdict wouldn’t be easy to figure out as Supreme Court Justice Butler, who had overseen the proceedings, made it perfectly clear to the jury members that their decision (in either of the two Counts) was to remain hermetically sealed forever and that it was a very serious offence if any jury member were to divulge the rationale for why they had come to their two diametrically opposed decisions. The matter of this process will of course play out in the ensuing Charter challenge set to occur in the Quesnel Supreme Court during the week of August 3 to the 7th, 2016.

To Satire or Not to Satire
One of the alleged claims during the trial by the Crown and the arresting officer (former) Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Unit, was that I was promoting the genocide of the Jewish population by having published my satire Israel Must Perish! and it was a point that the Crown Prosecutor consistently alluded to in her attempt to convince the jury that I was promoting “hatred”.

In the case of my satire of an actual book written by Theodore N. Kaufmann titled Germany Must Perish! I composed it in order to show the blatant hypocrisy of the Jews who subscribed to and supported the actual genocide of the German people and the only simple way of doing that (for me) was to turn the tables on the original author and his supporters by changing a few simple words in the text and shooting the very same book at them.

In the eyes of non-Zionists and non-Jews the idea of doing this in order to show the glaring bigotry of the Zionist lobbyists who were instrumental in creating Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws was not only self-evident but also considered an act of brilliance on my part. What better way to expose the machinations of the serpent powers who control Canada’s judicial system and its media than to publish a satirical article depicting their own malfeasance and hubris while at the same time revealing who, in actual fact, are the real haters.

Another fundamental point is, had there been some solid evidence contained on my website that clearly showed I was promoting genocide of the Jewish race or population or ethnic group then, by such logic, I should have been charged under Sec. 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada not Sec. 319.2 for advocating genocide.

Section 318 reads as follows:

Advocating genocide
• 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
• Definition of “genocide”
(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
• (a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

As in Germany so in Canada?
The example of present day Germany is but a foreshadowing of what the rest of the worlds’ democracies can expect should they allow the forces of Zionist dictatorship to invade and take control of their respective judiciaries.

Since my trial ended in November of 2015 we’ve witnessed more cases where the foreign Jewish lobby organization B’nai Brith ‘Canada’ has been instrumental in attacking and vilifying and destroying or attempting to destroy the livelihoods of other Canadians who have shown the courage to speak out about the crimes of the Zionist state or the lies surrounding the now dismantled myth of the so-called “6 Million Jews” holocaust.

First we saw Buddhist teacher and videographer Brian Ruhe having his employment with various school districts in Vancouver, B.C. destroyed by the same individual agent of B’nai Brith who first charged me with a Sec. 13 “hate crime” back in 2007 and then lodged a Sec. 319(2) complaint with the BC Hate Crime Unit in 2011. This agent of a foreign, secret, Jews-only Masonic order (which is what B’nai Brith is) lives in Victoria, B.C. and has been responsible for numerous crimes against Canada’s Charter right to freedom of Expression. Were it not for a court order imposed upon me by B.C. provincial court Judge Morgan back in 2013 I would divulge the name of this traitor.

The more recent case is that of musician and activist Monika Schaefer of Jasper, B.C. who has also been attacked by the Jewish lobbyists for having produced a short video on the holocaust lie while holidaying in Germany this past summer. Ms. Schaefer’s vilification and slandering and the subsequent loss of her position as a music teacher in Jasper is just one more example of what Canadians will be seeing on a regular basis if these despicable and unjust “Hate Propaganda” laws are not speedily removed from Canada’s statutes.

As well as these two German Canadians we also are seeing the academic careers of university professors being threatened by these same cliques of power-crazed control freaks whose lust for dominance over the nation’s legal system has gone berserk. The case of tenured Professor Anthony Hall from Lethbridge University in Alberta comes to mind and his is but the latest not the last if we don’t curtail this madness within the legal system that’s making Canada look like a remake of Bolshevik Russia under Stalin.

On October 3rd of this year I will once again be appearing in B.C. Supreme Court in Quesnel, B.C. to argue that Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code is an infringement of Sec. 2b of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms which unequivocally states:

Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

It’s my heartfelt hope that justice will prevail and that B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler, who will be presiding over the hearing, will see the logic and the reasoning and the justice in defending this extremely important basic human right and free Canadians from these notorious dictatorial laws so that like former Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker said, they will be once again “free to speak without fear, free to worship God in [their] own way, free to stand for what [they] think right,” and “free to oppose what [they] believe wrong”.

In closing, and on behalf of my loving and devoted wife Shasta and myself, I would like to thank the many friends and associates from Canada and around the world for their steadfast support over these past ten years of litigation. There’s absolutely no way that we could have carried on without your moral, spiritual and financial support. God bless you all!

May Truth and Justice prevail.
_____

Those wishing to help out with the additional costs of the upcoming Charter hearing can do so by going to the following website and making a donation.

gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings

THANK YOU!

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

B’NAI BRITH: #1 ENEMY OF FREE SPEECH IN CANADA By RadicalPress.com

1enemy

HELP DEFEAT THE UNJUST, ORWELLIAN, ZIONIST “HATE PROPAGANDA” LAWS IN CANADA!

PLEASE DONATE AND SUPPORT ARTHUR TOPHAM’S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO

SEC. 319(2) OF CANADA’S CRIMINAL CODE

gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings

SUPPORTFREEDOMOFSPEECHNew

gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings

THANK YOU!

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

HELP ARTHUR TOPHAM CHALLENGE CANADA’S REPRESSIVE SEC. 319(2) “HATE PROPAGANDA” LAWS AND DEFEND FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN CANADA

SUPPORTFREEDOMOFSPEECHNew

A&STophamQuesCrthse

RPEdNew400-copy-3

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech,

The time quickly draws nigh when I will be attending Supreme Court in Quesnel once again to challenge the federal government’s “Hate Propaganda” legislation contained in Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

The Constitutional Challenge will take place during the week of October 3 to 7, 2016 and will mark the final effort by myself to have this specious law shown to be unconstitutional and eventually removed from Canada’s statutes.

Should my efforts fail then I will be facing Sentencing on October 31st, 2016 for the Guilty verdict in Count 1 of the alleged offence that I did “willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

In order to meet this challenge I need to appeal once again to supporters for additional funding in order to pay the additional costs incurred by this Charter challenge. Please read the information contained in the GoGetFunding page shown below for further details.

This may be my last opportunity to accomplish what I set out to do, i.e. get rid of this censorship legislation once and for all so that ALL Canadians will be free to express their opinions and views and thoughts without fear of the Zionist Jew lobbyists filing these nefarious Sec. 319(2) criminal charges against everyone who stands up for Canada and their Constitutionally guaranteed rights and freedoms.

Please go to my GoGetFunding webpage to make a donation if you can. If you can’t please pass this message to those who may be able to help out. Do what you can while we still have the ability to make changes to our legal system.

gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings

Sincerely,

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


HELP ARTHUR TOPHAM CHALLENGE CANADA’S REPRESSIVE SEC. 319(2) “HATE PROPAGANDA” LAWS AND DEFEND FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN CANADA
CANADIAN PUBLISHER FACING JAIL FOR POLITICAL WRITINGS NOW PURSUING A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE SCHEDULED FOR OCTOBER 3RD, 2016
Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Sec. 2b of the Charter states:
Fundamental Freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
Dear Free Speech Supporters,
My name is Arthur Topham and I am the owner, publisher and editor of the online alternative News site RadicalPress.com which has been operating in Canada since 1998. Since 2007 I have been involved in legal battles with the Canadian government – first the Canadian Human Rights Commission (2007) and now the federal legal system (2012) over alleged offences that purportedly violate Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws (Sections 318 – 320) of the Canadian Criminal Code (CCC).
On May 16th, 2012 I was charged with a Sec. 319(2) ccc “Hate Propaganda” violation. I was arrested and jailed and my home was entered illegally by the RCMP’s “Hate Crime Team” who proceeded to steal all of my computers and electronic files. Since that date I have been involved in a protracted and onerous legal battle, first with the British Columbia provincial court and now with the British Columbia Supreme Court.
My trial, known as R v Roy Arthur Topham, finally got underway Monday, October 26, 2015 in Quesnel, B.C., twelve hundred and fifty-eight days (1258) after my arrest on May 16, 2012. The Indictment stated that I, Arthur Topham, did “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 trial was presided over by Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Bruce Butler and consisting of a 12-member jury of my peers (8 women and 4 men).
Of primary importance in understanding the nature and outcome of the trial is the fact that I was charged TWICE with the same Sec. 319(2) criminal offence. The first time was the day of my arrest on May 16, 2012 and the second time was January 14, 2014. The wording of the second Indictment was identical to that of the first. The reason for the second charge, like that of the first, was so that Crown might try again to have my bail conditions altered in order to prevent me from publishing. These additional attempts (there were three in all) to increase the severity of the bail conditions were buttressed upon the questionable pretext by Crown that the police investigation was “ongoing” and therefore the second Indictment (Count 2) was merely a result of additional evidence gleaned from posts I had added to my website after my initial bail conditions ended on October 9, 2012.
Throughout the whole of the 14-day trial what stood out most for the defence (as well as many observers in the gallery) was the overwhelming volume of documentary evidence (all taken from the RadicalPress.com website) which the Crown downloaded on to the jury. Coupled with that fact was the additionally onerous presence of two bulky Binders which were of such poor quality they were virtually unreadable, thus making the task of comprehending the details of the evidence not only formidable but in all likelihood an impossibility for the jury to comprehend. In fact it wasn’t until the morning of Friday, November 6th, ten days into the trial, that new exhibits of Binders 3 & 4 were finally made available to jury members.
On the afternoon of Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler read out his Charge to the jury. On top of the other thousands of pages of online books and articles the jury was now given an additional 62-page document instructing them on how to go about deliberating on all of the evidence presented over the previous 12 days of the trial. After reading out the document to the jury Justice Butler then instructed them to retire and seek a decision on the two counts.
The decision was rendered on the morning of Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:27 a.m.
Count 1: Guilty
Count 2: Not Guilty
Once the initial shock of the guilty verdict in Count 1 had subsided and time allowed for a reconsideration of all of the events surrounding the trial it became apparent that the verdict of “Guilty” in Count 1 was, in reality, the key to opening the door for my (the Defence’s) ultimate objective which was to challenge the Constitutional legitimacy of the actual section of the Canadian Criminal Code (Sec. 319(2) now containing the infamous “Hate Propaganda” legislation which threatens freedom of expression for all Canadians.
After numerous delays on July 11th, 2016 a date was finally fixed for the hearing to be heard in Quesnel Supreme Court beginning the week of October 3rd to October 7th, 2016. As well, at that time the date of October 31st, 2016 was set by Crown for Sentencing should my challenge to this specious legislation fail to be overturned during the upcoming hearing.
As of this update (September 6th, 2016) there remains less than a month before the Charter challenge is set to begin and there is still a dire need to raise additional funding in order to cover the costs of having three Expert Witnesses appear via video during the hearing. Also, it is necessary for me to procure funding to provide airfare and hotel accommodations for my assistant legal counsel (Mr. Jeremy Maddock) to be present in court during the week of the hearing. Mr. Maddock lives in Victoria, B.C. and has played a vital role in my court case over the past four years of ongoing litigation. The estimated additional costs will be approximately $3000.00 to $4000.00 in total.
Should the challenge to Sec. 319(2) fail then my next and final option will take place during Sentencing on October 31st, 2016 when I will have to decide whether or not to appeal the guilty verdict in Count 1 or accept my fate.
—-
To read the full text of the Transcript of the trial please go to the following url? http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=9133
For the full text of the Memorandum of Argument please go here and read it in pdf format.
The future of Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code will depend in part on the outcome of the planned Constitutional challenge now scheduled to take place during the week of October 3 – 7, 2016. Please try to assist me in making this challenge a success for the future of freedom of speech in Canada. It’s vital that we win this battle to protect Canada’s Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech.
I continue to have the support of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. Please see here Ontario Civil Liberties Association and here http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-… and here OCLA writes to Attorney General Anton on September 24, 2014
Please try to donate online using my GoGetFunding site but if you are unable to do so then try helping out by sending either cash, a cheque or a Money Order to the following postal address. Please make sure that all cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8
Thank You so much!

Whatcott hit with $104 million lawsuit by Toronto Gay Pride Queer Lawyer By Bill Whatcott

Screen Shot 2016-08-13 at 9.52.51 PMScreen Shot 2016-08-13 at 11.25.37 PM

QueerLawyerWhatcott

I hope this class action lawsuit against me and those who choose to stand with me wakes Christians and others up to the reality of what is happening in the West. As homosexual activism and other libertine and anti-Christian movements gain power in Canada, freedom and truth are dying and those cherished principles are being replaced with falsehood, censorship and tyranny.

I have no intention of divulging the identities of anyone who has chosen to help me. My advice for my Christian friends is be wise and courageous. Pray and do what you can to stand against this tyranny. Also if you sent me some cash, offered me a bed, or helped make a Gospel condom, keep your mouths shut if these vengeful homosexual activists come snooping. Ask your friends to keep their yaps shut too. If the Ontario courts are corrupt enough to go along with this and if they put me in jail for not cooperating with this witch hunt, just send me the occasional $20 for prison canteen, so I can enjoy some potato chips and continue to write God pleasing commentaries from my jail cell. As much as possible, I don’t want anyone to make it easy for these homosexual activists and lawyers to silence debate or attain any sort of a financial reward at my or my friend’s expense.

Sincerely,

Bill Whatcott


$104-million lawsuit filed against Toronto Pride parade crashers

Bill Whatcott and his ‘gay zombies’ face possible legal injunction

Published on Fri, Aug 12, 2016

http://www.dailyxtra.com/toronto/news-a … ers-203986

Prominent gay lawyer Douglas Elliott has filed a $104-million class action lawsuit against anti-gay activist Bill Whatcott for crashing the 2016 Toronto Pride parade.

Elliott is also seeking an injunction from the court to prevent Whatcott and his associates from crashing anymore Pride parades in Canada.

Whatcott and several unidentified allies suited up in neon green body suits and disseminated anti-gay literature at the July 3 Toronto parade, calling themselves “gay zombies.”

The lawsuit seeks in part to determine the identities of those who marched with Whatcott and those who financially supported the political stunt through subpoenaed documents.

“Those who paid for his airfare or donated Aeroplan miles to get him to Toronto, those who put him up in Toronto, the people who paid to print the pamphlets: anyone who helped him in any way could be on the hook for $100 million dollars.” says Elliott, whose firm Cambridge LLP is handling the lawsuit.

Screen Shot 2016-08-13 at 11.16.36 PM

Bill Whatcott and his assistants wore green bodysuits to sneak into Toronto’s Pride parade on July 3, 2016. 

The two main representatives of the class action suit are well known in the gay community, Christopher Hudspeth, who owns Pegasus Bar in Toronto’s gay village, and former MPP George Smitherman, Ontario’s first openly gay provincial representative and first openly gay cabinet minister.

Both marched in the parade on July 3, 2016 — and in the case of Smitherman have marched in every parade dating back to 1986. Smitherman says he joined the suit to “do all we can to stamp this hateful individual out.”

“Too often, religion is used as the justification for the vilest of homophobia. From my life on the inside of the fundamentalist movement, I know that promoting homophobia is a great way to raise money from other fundamentalists,” explains Hudspeth, who was raised in a fundamentalist Pentecostal home and spoke of the experience at the Aug 12 press conference in Ottawa announcing the lawsuit.

“There is no doubt in my mind that some fundamentalist group, either here or in the United States, is backing these activities. We need to smoke them out.”

As a gay father, Smitherman says he is deeply offended that Whatcott is once again equating homosexuality with pedophilia.

“My outrage and disgust at the duplicitous means by which Whatcott and his so-called zombies will go to to interrupt this place where love is supposed to be safe and to use the most defamatory statements possible, to regurgitate the most untruthful and disgusting stereotypes with respect to gay and lesbian people, means this [lawsuit] is the right thing to do,” Smitherman says.

Screen Shot 2016-08-13 at 11.15.49 PM

Toronto Homosexual Pride Parade in the 1970s. Sodomite activist George Smitherman sues Bill Whatcott, accusing him of speaking falsehoods and stereotypes, yet the Toronto shame parades prove what Bill is saying is true!

“We need to get right to the heart of the matter, which is the financial resources that allow for this disgraceful person to continue his act, which is hurtful to the thousands and thousands that it has impacted.”

When reached by Facebook, Whatcott tells Daily Xtra that he should have been welcomed into the Pride parade, not sued for participating.

“I just read the statement of claim. It seems to me the poor homosexuals are angry at God and the Gospel. They should have welcomed me in their parade as a much needed truth teller and indeed I was far less disruptive than BLM [Black Lives Matter]. Not sure why the homosexual activists aren’t suing them,” Whatcott writes.

DSCF2629_zpsifcywhen

Angry at God and the Gospel: A Homosexual in the 2016 Toronto sodomite parade 

puts Jesus on his crotch and has profanities directed at Jesus on his behind

If the class action is certified, Elliott says he intends to ask for a summary judgment.

“Where a case is clear cut, there is no point in going through the expense and delay associated with a trial, [so we can] bring a motion to the court for a summary judgment and get it over with, quickly and inexpensively,” Elliott says.

However, they still need to serve Whatcott who, without a permanent address, has been difficult for them to track down, the plaintiffs say.

Whatcott is well known to courts and tribunals in Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia as an anti-gay activist for previous protests, both at parades and on university campuses.

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld part of a 2005 Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal against Whatcott, for distributing flyers targeting gay and lesbian Canadians.

Before infiltrating the Toronto Pride parade in 2016, Whatcott had similarly faked his identity in 2014 to march along with the Vancouver Pride parade, that time under the disguise of fictitious Calgary Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to distribute anti-gay leaflets disguised as condoms.

pic16_zps4de50e2b

Whatcott disguised as Matthew Davidson, the “gay” high priest of the Calgary Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster giving hugs and delivering thousands of desperately needed Gospel condoms to homosexuals and their messed up allies, telling them to keep their pants on and turn their lives over to Jesus so they can have their sins forgiven.

Whatcott told Daily Xtra that he and six of his supporters distributed 3,000 flyers at the Toronto Pride parade, including to parade goers, that warned of risks allegedly associated with gay sex.

20160703_162445_zps7cjsnrra

A Crack Christian Commando from the top secret Christian Truth Activist Gospel Counter Intelligence Unit disguised as a “gay zombie” in a tutu poses with an unsuspecting leatherman at the Toronto Homosexual Shame Parade

The two-page flyer featured graphic photos of anal warts and a dead body described as an “AIDS fatality.” A second page criticizes the “homosexual activism” of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and former Liberal defence minister Bill Graham.

They, among other Liberals, are being listed as a subclass to the class action suit, as having been targeted by the content of the pamphlets and singled out for their political affiliations. The two main classes of the suit are those marchers who legitimately signed up and marched in the Pride parade, and those who received copies of the flyer at the parade.


To see the flyers that were distributed at the Toronto homosexual shame parade by the “Gay Zombies” and to stand in solidarity with Bill Whatcott and further distribute these truthful “Zombie Safe Sex” messages before the homosexual activists get them banned download them here!

Front of Flyer

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Ol-X … sp=sharing

Back of Flyer

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Ol-X … sp=sharing

file.php.jpg

Bill Whatcott

Administrator

 

Enough Already! HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

EnjoughAlready!

HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

Holocaust deprogramming course

Do you care to know about how the people you have trusted all your lives have lied to you?

If anything were to ever convince you of the terrible Jewish lies about World War II, this would be that document. You can’t possibly read this compilation of sources by hundreds of serious minded examiners and still believe the lies that mainstream accounts have forced upon you as “the truth” of World War II.

Many thanks to my friend “pdk” in France.
Please read as much as your mind can tolerate. You will never find as many courageous truth tellers represented in one place.
Best wishes,
John Kaminski

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rules in favour of Trinity Western University’s law program

TWU

News Release
Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Nova Scotia Court of Appeal rules in favour of Trinity Western University’s law program

 

HALIFAX: The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF.ca) expressed its satisfaction with the Nova Scotia Court of Appeal decision released earlier today in Trinity Western University v. Nova Scotia Barristers’ Society. The Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the Supreme Court, which had ruled against the Barristers Society’s refusal to accredit Trinity Western University’s law school.

The law societies of B.C., Ontario and Nova Scotia have ruled against recognizing the law program of Trinity Western University (TWU), a private Evangelical Christian university in Langley, B.C. The Federation of Law Societies of Canada has approved the law program of TWU as meeting academic and professional standards. The Barristers’ Society does not allege that there is anything wrong with TWU’s law program, but claims that TWU’s Community Covenant discriminates against the LGBTQ+ community. The Community Covenant prohibits numerous legal activities such as vulgar or obscene language, drunkenness, viewing pornography, gossip, and sexual activity outside of the marriage of one man and one woman.

“The Charter is not a blueprint for moral conformity. Its purpose is to protect the citizen from the power of the state, not to enforce compliance by citizens or private institutions with the moral judgments of the state.”

The Justice Centre previously intervened in this case at the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia in December of 2014, to argue for the Charter section 2(d) right to freedom of association, including the right of every charity, ethnic and cultural association, sports club, temple, church, and political group to establish its own rules and membership requirements. On January 28, 2015, Justice James Campbell of the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia ruled against the Barristers’ Society, stating that “The Charter is not a blueprint for moral conformity. Its purpose is to protect the citizen from the power of the state, not to enforce compliance by citizens or private institutions with the moral judgments of the state.”

“The court’s decision is a victory for freedom of association, freedom of conscience and religion, and freedom of expression,” said Justice Centre president John Carpay. “All Canadians must be free to peacefully associate with one another under common beliefs and values, without punishment, and this court today upheld those freedoms.”

For more information, contact:

John Carpay, president, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms:
403-619-8014 or jcarpay@jccf.ca

Jay Cameron, staff lawyer, Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
403-909-3404 or jcameron@jccf.ca

Read Court Documents and Case Background

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms
#253, 7620 Elbow Drive SW Calgary, Alberta, T2V 1K2

JCCF.ca

“Defending the constitutional freedoms of Canadians”

Escape From The Holocaust Lie by Arthur Topham

EscapeHoloHdr

Escape From The Holocaust Lie

By
Arthur Topham

“The first and most important value is the freedom to debate, the freedom to think, the freedom to speak and the freedom to disagree. This prosecution, has already had a very serious effect on those freedoms. If it were to result in a conviction, I suggest to you that a process of witch-hunting would begin in our society where everyone who had a grievance against anyone else would say “Uh-huh, you are false, and I’ll take you or pressure somebody else to take you to court and force you to defend yourself.”
~ Douglas Christie, Barrister & Solicitor from his Summation to the Jury
in the Ernst Zundel Trial, February 25, 1985

I chose the above quote from Douglas Christie, the greatest defender of freedom of speech Canada has ever produced. Doug, more than any other person I know (and I knew him personally for seven years right up to the time of his death in March of 2013), epitomized the spirit of Truth, intelligence of Heart, the noble Grace and indefatigable Courage and Integrity of a free man all combined with an adamantine faith in God.

DouglasHChristiecopy_zps43b1b5c0

It was due in great part to the efforts of Doug Christie during the trial of Ernst Zundel that he, like the biblical Moses of old, was able to lead the captured consciousness of Truth Seekers of the 20th Century out of their mentally-induced prisons into the fertile lands of freedom of speech and expression.

tazebook_dees-1-copy

Ernst Zundel had been charged under Section 177 of the Criminal Code for having knowingly “published false news that was likely to be injurious to the public good” when he began dispensing a small booklet titled Did Six Million Really Die? – one which he hadn’t written himself but felt expressed his views on the alleged Jewish Holocaust. It was Zundel’s trial that finally brought to a head the (then) forty years of Canadians wondering aimlessly through a cognitive “6 Million” wilderness of deception not knowing that all the while they were being psychically manipulated and conditioned to believe the greatest LIE ever told to humanity.

Awhile ago I typed out and digitally recorded on RadicalPress.com Doug Christie’s Summation to the Jury which first appeared in booklet form not too long after the trial ended and I highly recommend that anyone in the least concerned about this massive experiment in mind control read it. If nothing else it will vividly show you the brilliance and logic (and levity) of the lawyer who honestly earned his handle “The Battling Barrister”.

ZundelTrialFreeSpeechDC800 copy

Doug Christie put the issue of Ernst Zundel’s concerns before the jury in the following manner:

“The booklet Did Six Million Really Die? is more important for German people than it is maybe for others, because there is a real guilt daily inculcated against German people in the media every time they look at the war.

The German people have been portrayed for forty years in the role of the butchers of six million.”

In Christie’s Summation to the Jury at the culmination of the trial he recapped much of what was revealed to the court through weeks of mind-bending cross-examination, regarding this one fundamental LIE that has superseded all other interpretations of what took place during WW 2 in German occupied territories in Eastern Europe.

During the Zundel Trial Christie literally demolished the illusions of the “gas chambers” and the “6 Million Jews” myth that the Crown and its Expert Witness Raul Hilberg had attempted to foist upon the Jury and, by extension, the nation and the world as a whole. The final results showed that the much-touted, world renowned “holocaust expert” Raul Hilberg’s testimony (the Jews considered Hilberg to be their No. 1 man) ultimately proved to be nothing more than unsubstantiated bluff.

As Doug Christie put it in his summation:

“Who denies Dr. Hilberg the right to publish his views? Who denies that he should be free to say there was a Hitler order to exterminate Jews? Not my client; not me; nobody in society denies him that right. Who denies anyone the right to publish their views? Well, it’s the position of my client that he’s obliged to justify his publication. And I suggest he has….”

“Has Dr. Hilberg proved a single thing here to be false? No, he hasn’t. He says he had documents. He produces none. He talks about the train tickets and schedules. What train tickets and schedules? If we’re talking about a criminal case we should have evidence. There isn’t enough evidence here today to convict one person for murdering one other person. But they want you to believe that six million died, or millions died, and that this question mark is false. Where is the evidence to support one murder by one person? There is no Hitler order; there is an alleged order somewhere by somebody alleged to have heard it from somebody else. There’s no evidence.”

RaulHilbergPic

And the Beat(ing) Goes On

Now, seventy-one years later (thirty-one years after Doug’s summation) we’re still witnessing the relentless, malicious efforts of the Zionist Jews (and their sycophant zombie clones) to brow-beat, bludgeon, bedazzle and intimidate Canadians into accepting as FACT everything that the Ernst Zundel trial legally established as mere FICTION.

I am specifically referring to the current mainstream media uproar of feigned sound and fury that’s overtaken not only the local media in Jasper, Alberta The Jasper Local, and the Canadian Edmonton, Alberta media but has even extended itself to the state of Israel’s Haaretz newspaper since one of Jasper’s better known residents and peace activists, Monika Schaefer, published a short video denouncing the alleged “6 Million Jewish Holocaust”. The video in question was titled, Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust.

MonikaSchaeferSorryMomHdr copy

No ifs ands or buts, it’s intentional mind-control on the same level as that of MKULTRA.

No ifs and or buts, it’s intentional mind-control on the same level as that of MKULTRA. Canadians, like people everywhere, have been unwittingly under the hypnotic, sorcerer’s spell of Jewish controlled “mainstream media” since the end of World War 2. They have surreptitiously endured a lifetime of brainwashing and mendaciously motivated mind control and for many today they still have little or no clue that the alleged “6 Million Jewish Holocaust” was and is the BIGGEST and most pervasive LIE ever foisted upon the world.

Of course that’s how it was intentionally designed to be when the perpetrators of this fantastic fiction first formulated, then forecast for use on such a massive scale, their serpentine “6 Million” siren song purposely meant to entrap the masses into subconsciously entering a Zionist-induced cognitive gulag or concentration camp strikingly similar to their own Talmudic Rabbi’s historically induced ghetto consciousness that forms the superstructure upon which Zionism’s atheistic ideological edifice rests.

Back in 2009 I wrote an article titled Israel’s Wall: For Palestinians or Jews? where I try to show the similitude between the wall that the Israeli government constructed on stolen Palestinian land and the mental/emotional wall that the Talmudic Rabbis built around their own tribe in order to control the minds of each successive generation of Jews and keep them trapped in the Talmudic oral “law”; an alleged law that purported made them especially chosen by God to rule over the world and because of that exclusiveness therefore separate and a step above the rest of humanity. It was a thesis first put forward by the British author and journalist Douglas Reed in his monumental classic, The Controversy of Zion.

The final point thought that needs to be restated again and again is the fact that down through history and right up until the 20th Century the most astute observers of civilized development in the West continually questioned and criticized the actions and motives of the Babylonian Talmudic tribe of Pharisees whenever they began to meddle too deeply in the affairs of other nation states but beginning with the take-over of the majority of the media in the West around the turn of the 20th century this practise began to cease and in its place there began renewed efforts on the part of the Zionist Jews to attack any and all critics of their ideology and their actions with the endless epithets of “anti-Semite” and “racist” and “Jew Hater”, an enterprise that has today reached such epidemic proportions that critics of present day Zionism lay wasting away in dungeons and website owners, university professors, researchers and writers everywhere are being accused of “hate crimes” throughout most, if not all, western nations.

Monika Schaefer’s case is the latest in that long and disgusting list of Truth Revealers who Jewish lobby organizations like B’nai Brith Canada and the new viper on the holohoax block The Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs (CIJA) along with all their trance-induced toady followers are attempting to smear and degrade and destroy in order to keep the BIG LIE from being questioned.

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5

What to do?

The longer this travesty of injustice goes on the more insanely vile and blood-thirsty the Zionists are becoming. Their desperation has grown almost exponentially over the past decade as they wend their way through the corridors of Canada’s justice system plying their rag-tag “hate crime” laws in order to safeguard the collusion they’ve made with the Devil.

No better example of just how demented it’s becoming was the latest attack upon Monika Schaefer that occurred but a day or so ago in Jasper. When Monika Schaefer moved to Jasper, Alberta busking (i.e. the playing of an instrument on the public streets) was illegal. Bearing that in mind, in communication with Monika over this matter  she told me the following:

“The irony of the fact is that it was me who brought the issue of busking to town council already a few years ago, made a presentation (at least on one occasion, and have raised it a few times since…) to support busking in town. You see, it has always been illegal to busk in Jasper. Yes, you read correctly Arthur. Anyway, so you see the irony – I have been pushing for busking for a long time. This summer is the first time it is legal. So when I went yesterday to get my busking license, my senses already went up. Dave wasn’t there, but the woman who was there (whom I have also known for decades – it’s a small town) was behaving very cagy. Then I left a phone message, text message, and email message with the person who was supposedly in charge (someone else, not even Dave). Today my gut feeling of yesterday was proven correct when I received Dave’s message.”

And here’s the rub for those who haven’t read the article. Dave’s message read: “We have considered your application for a busking permit in Jasper. In light of your recently publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs we have decided to decline a permit to you at this time.”

“publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs” !!!???

As one commenter on RadicalPress. com wrote in reply to the article, Surely you guys are making this up! because no one can possibly be dumb enough to actually write and publish that sentence – NOT, in Canada, no f’n way!”

Unfortunately for Canada someone in an official position with the municipal government of Jasper, Alberta DID write that sentence and sent it to Monika Schaefer.

Since my own arrest, incarceration and criminal case began back in May of 2012 after I was charged with “communicating statements” that did “willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code” I’ve been doing my damnedest to warn Canadians of the extreme danger of these so-called “Hate Propaganda” laws that the Zionist Jew lobbyists created and are using with increasing fervour and zeal to censor any and all criticism of their deeds both here at home and abroad in the state of Israel. And of course the kicker is the fact that they used the “6 Million” holocaust lie in order to justify the inclusion of these Orwellian anti-free speech laws into Canadian jurisprudence.

Given the current Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau’s, longstanding indoctrination on the holocaust deception and his unabashed public display of obeisance to the perpetrators of this hoax there’s little chance that we will see him do what Conservative PM Stephen Harper did with the equally nefarious Sec. 13(1) legislation formerly contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act; that is, repeal the law. But that is the only and final solution to this “hate speech” madness that’s slithered like a snake from out of that den of vipers known as the Canadian “Jewish Lobby”.

RepealHateLaws-1000 copy 2

The issue must be taken from Cybespace’s Facebook and the Alternative media and transposed down onto the streets and turned into a public spectacle that the mainstream media cannot refuse to cover. Instead of focussing their attention on Gay Pride festivities it’s time that the Jewish-controlled media was forced to recognize that the fundamental rights of ALL Canadians are being jeopardized by these draconian “hate speech” laws and the only way this is going to happen is if normal, law-abiding citizens of Canada get their act together and begin to openly PROTEST this blatant act of sedition by these foreign lobbyists against Canadians’ lawful right to freedom of expression both on and off the Internet.

The time to organize this is NOW. Their game plan is so in our face obvious and the people know it. All that remains is for concerned Canadians to stand up, take to the streets and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

If we want our basic freedoms we’re going to have to fight to hang on to them one way or another.

______

Authoritarian Jasper Violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom by Attempting to Silence Monika Schaefer’s Violin in Canada’s Jasper National Park by Prof. Tony Hall

BIGOTSVILLE

Authoritarian Jasper Violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom by Attempting to Silence Monika Schaefer’s Violin in Canada’s Jasper National Park 

by Prof. Tony Hall

Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 10.17.57 AM

To Dave Baker,

I am dumbfounded by the decision you delivered on behalf of some unnamed authority. To Ms. Monika Schaefer you write, “We have considered your application for a busking permit in Jasper. In light of your recently publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs we have decided to decline a permit to you at this time.”

Please clarify who is included in this “we” on whose behalf you claim to speak? Who takes responsibility for the decision to violate core provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the community of Canada’s Jasper National Park?

This unilateral decision extends the so-far-unaccountable decision of those in Jasper’s Canada Day Committee to silence Monika Schaefer’s violin playing last July 1st. Because some Jasperites apparently threatened to disrupt the event, presumably in response to Ms. Schaefer’s peaceful video expression, the precedent was set that Jasper is a place of censorship where freedom of expression and conscience can be subordinated when threats of violence arise.

Now comes this gross violation of fundamental principles of Canadian decency, not to mention the rule of law, as dictated by whatever authority it is on whose behalf you, Dave Baker, claim to be acting in handing down this truly reprehensible arbitration.

Canadians should know that because of the treatment by officialdom of Monika Schaefer, a very active and contributing 35-year citizen of the community you share with her, Jasper should not be considered a safe place suitable for hosting international visitors. From what I have been learning, Jasper seems to be a place where intolerance and arbitrary measures go forward founded on nothing more than the political opinion of unaccountable decision makers.

So far Monika has been dis-invited from her invited Canada Day performance. She has, as reported in The Fitzhugh, been banned from the Jasper Legion No. 31 seemingly on the unilateral say so of Ken Kuzminki. She has been refused by The Fitzhugh newspaper a right of a full response. Her censored full response to the original smear piece against her was considerably shorter than Paul Clarke’s report. Now you and those unnamed individuals for whom you claim to speak have decided to discriminate against Ms. Schaefer because of her beliefs. Characterizing her opinion as “non-inclusive” you have determined she is ineligible for a busking permits to play music in the Jasper town centre.

Your decision is exclusionary as well as discriminatory. The actions taken by you and others are thought to be “justified” on the basis of personal opinions about her video, a 6 minute item that some dislike and many more like. At last count of the 70,000 or so views, over 1400 individuals registered a “like” of the video while almost 600 voted thumbs down.

Given the way Jasper authorities are dealing with this controversy so far, should those that express “like” for the video be banned from Jasper National Park? Should entry into Jasper National Park be conditional on expressing dislike with Ms. Schaefer’s “Sorry Mom” video? Should entrants to the park have to go through screening for political correctness? Should all existing residents be subjected to a thought test like that to which Ms. Schaefer is currently being subjected?

Will the next step be to require Ms. Schaefer to wear some marker, say with a Germany-related symbol, to announce to visitors that she is the punished Jasper citizen whose ideas are so verboten that her violin playing in the streets of Jasper has been prohibited? Will all applicants for a busking permit be subjected to Internet checks to make sure everything they have published is consistent the Values and Principles Statement emanating from the Jasper Community Habitat for the Arts? To do any less would be discriminatory.

I await your indication of who is behind the decision to ban Monika’s beautiful violin playing from the streets of Jasper because she dared speak her mind on a controversial issue that should be treated with nuanced responses rather than with the authoritarian approach that you express in your terse statement to her. How many benefit events in Jasper have been graced by Monika’s legendary violin playing, now transformed into a political football to be thrown around for self-interested political advantage by Jasper’s self-appointed arbiters of community values and tastes.

Yours Sincerely,

Tony Hall
Professor of Liberal Education and Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge

——————————————
From: Dave Baker <betabake@gmail.com>
Sent: July 23, 2016 11:55:28 AM
To: Monika Schaefer
Subject: RE: Busking Permit

 We have considered your application for a busking permit in Jasper. In light of your recently publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs we have decided to decline a permit to you at this time.

 habitatvaluestatement2 (1)

Traitorous, Zionist Secret Masonic Jew Lobby group B’nai Brith Canada Bitching & Whining and Complaining About Elementary School Teacher’s Support for Palestine By Jillian D’Amours | MEE

Traitorous, Zionist Secret Masonic Jew Lobby group B’nai Brith Canada Bitching & Whining and Complaining About Elementary School Teacher’s Support for Palestine

Pro-Israel group claims Shoufani called for ‘violence against Israelis’ when she said Palestinians had right to resist occupation.

By Jillian D’Amours | MEE | July 15, 2016

Screen Shot 2016-07-22 at 5.56.48 PMTORONTO, Canada :– A Toronto-area school board and Toronto city police are investigating an elementary school teacher after pro-Israel lobby groups complained about comments she made during a rally in solidarity with Palestinians.

The teacher, Nadia Shoufani, addressed a downtown Toronto rally on 2 July, marking al-Quds Day, an annual event held around the world to support Palestinian rights and to protest Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.

“Silence in situations of oppression and injustices is a crime against humanity,” Shoufani said in her speech at the rally, in which she condemned the Israeli occupation and Israel’s policies of home demolitions, land confiscation and arrests of Palestinians.

Shoufani also quoted Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani, an important figure in the left-wing Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), who was assassinated by Israeli Mossad agents in a car bombing in Beirut in 1972.

“We say no, no, no to the occupation. We are here to tell the world that Palestinians are not alone,” Shoufani said:

 

Pro-Israel lobby involvement

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5

On its website, pro-Israel group Bnai Brith Canada accused Shoufani of “glorifying terrorists” in her speech.

“We are greatly concerned that an individual who espouses open support for terror and praises terrorist groups is teaching Canadian youth,” the group’s CEO, Michael Mostyn, said in a statement.

The group also accused her of “calling for violence against Israelis” by saying that Palestinians had a right to resist the Israeli occupation and its policies.

The Dufferin-Peel District Catholic School Board told Middle East Eye it is investigating Shoufani after the speech was brought to its attention by various sources, including Bnai Brith Canada and another pro-Israel group, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

ProPalHateCrime? copy 3

Shoufani teaches at an elementary school in Mississauga, a large suburb of Toronto, school board spokesperson Bruce Campbell said in an email. “We are actively investigating the issue brought to our attention,” Campbell said.

“In order to conduct a comprehensive investigation we are unable to place a definitive timeline on determining the results of an investigation at this point. However, given the serious nature of the issue, we would look to reach a resolution as quickly as possible,” he said.

 

Police launch investigation

Tyler Levitan, campaigns coordinator at Independent Jewish Voices-Canada, a group that supports Palestinian rights, said organisations like Bnai Brith Canada and Canadian Friends of Simon Wiesenthal “are shills for Israel”.

“Ms Shoufani was speaking passionately in support of the Palestinians’ right to defend themselves against an occupying power,” Levitan told MEE in an email.

“Under international law, those living under military occupation and a system of colonialism have the absolute right to resist. Ms Shoufani spoke as a defender of the rights of an occupied and besieged people to resist an obscenely violent and criminal military occupation over their lands.”

Meanwhile, Caroline de Kloet, a spokeswoman for the Toronto Police Service, told MEE on Thursday that a complaint was filed with police on 6 July about “comments made at a rally”.

De Kloet would not disclose which specific comments were subject to the complaint, or which and how many individuals were under investigation. She also would not disclose who filed the complaint.

“I can’t tell you who filed the report or what’s being looked into, or any of the specifics,” she said, “But right now there is a report on file and it’s being looked at.”

Shoufani could not immediately be reached for comment.

 

‘Put a chill’ on organizing

Recently, pro-Israel lobby groups in Canada have launched several campaigns targeting groups and individuals supporting Palestinian rights.

Bnai Brith Canada lauded a parliamentary motion passed earlier this year condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to hold Israel accountable under international law.

In March, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs accused Canadian law professor Michael Lynk of demonstrating a pro-Palestinian bias and of being involved in “anti-Israel advocacy”. The accusations came after Lynk was appointed as the new Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Pro-Israel groups have also urged Canada to maintain funding cuts on the United Nations agency that supports Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.

They are also pressuring the Green Party of Canada to dismiss two motions, set to be debated at a party convention in August, that would strip the Jewish National Fund of its charitable status and endorse BDS.

“I know from past experience that Bnai Brith would be using every means possible to try to shut down the al-Quds rally,” said Ken Stone, treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War and another speaker at the al-Quds Day rally in Toronto this year.

Stone told MEE that Bnai Brith Canada has taken the comments made at the rally out of context and distorted them in an effort to shut down the annual event and silence Canadian supporters of Palestinian rights.

“What they’re trying to do is … put a chill on people like Nadia Shoufani,” he said.

“[And] put a chill on people who might be tempted to get up at an al-Quds rally and declare their support for the Palestinian cause.”

—-

This article was originally appeared on Mid East Eye.

I was once a very proud Canadian by Alberta Al

ALBERTAALNEWHDR copy 3

Editor’s  Note: Alberta Al responds to an email from Paul Fromm containing a video of Monika Schaefer’s titled:

Sorry, Mom, I Was Wrong About the Holocaust

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E0_BZphQ7Qo&feature=youtu.be 4m48s

“Why German guilt is based on the most unjust accusation in history. Here is the truth from a proud German.

And here is my two cents worth on this subject; if the morons who fought for the allies against Germany had fought for the right side in the first place, there wouldn’t have been any Vietnam or Korea or any of the other subsequent wars including the phony “War on Terror” and the coming WW III which will result. So don’t ever talk to me about being a “proud Canadian”. I damn near puke every time I hear some brain dead idiot parrot that expression.” ~ Terry Long

 

I’ve seen this already. I have yet to receive a reply from the JDL to my question put to them 2 years ago: please tell me how the Israeli government, their spokesmen and their agencies arrived at EXACTLY 6 million Jews being killed by the Germans during WW2?

I have read extensively on the subject and have kept numerous articles and research papers but I could NOT find anything DEFINITIVE on the answer, particularly how the answer might pertain to all the Jews in German-occupied territory during WW2. All I have is speculation dating from the 1890s when a Jewish person, whose name immediately escapes me, predicted that 6 million would die but he didn’t state WHO would kill them and from whence these Jews would come. We have definitive evidence that the statistics of the numbers of those who died in Auschwitz decreased from 4.5 million to what is exhibited now at 1.5 million and this number includes ALL persons who died in that camp from about 1942-45.

One of the fascinating things about mankind is its ability to concoct, fabricate and make up false stories that, when published, are believed by the dumbed-down masses to be the truth. To me lying, corruption and murder are simply mans way of life, his eternal and historical legacy. And the worst part about this is that they get PAID for lying and that honesty being the best policy has been shuffled to the back of the bus just like virginity. So, the question remains: who is responsible for TEACHING this way of life? The answer is as simple as the question: MAN HIMSELF AND HIS GENIUS, HIS INVENTIVENESS AND THE TOTALITY OF HIS THINKING WAS THE GENESIS OF ALL THIS AND THE PERPETUATION OF IT CAN ALSO BE LAID AT THE FEET OF MAN!

Enough of this. Let me comment on the words of Terry Long. I don’t know the chap but presumably he is a Canadian born in this country having attended school here and maybe university and has been a productive member of our sick society.  I was once a very proud Canadian when I could see my country having a semblance of unity from sea to sea, where people who emigrated here in short order assimilated with the existing population become useful and productive members of our society. Our blinds and minds were open and there was no internal strife except for the Quebecois civil revolution and the killing of LaPorte. Everything changed seemingly overnight when Pierre E. Trudeau and his cabal of Frenchies were elected by us in 1968. People across our nation got hung up with his so-called “charisma” but he was uglier than sin. The demographics of our nation changed so much that we became disengaged from each other, we avoided discussing political and other meaningful affairs and instead concentrated on rock concerts, sports, the feminization of our society and the dictatorship into which we have fallen – with nary a squeak from the public.

We have been silenced by the goon squads consisting of the various Human Rights Commissions and changes to our Criminal laws making it an offence to offend someone because of our eroding freedoms. It’s come to the point where you have to shut your fucking mouth because the walls have ears. Don’t get me wrong; I did once upon a time respect the German people. I am more bloody proud of the Brits for opting out of the EU than I am of my country, Canada, where I was born, raised, bred and educated and faithfully paid my GD taxes. I’ve worked since I was 12 and have never been without a job. I have never asked for welfare nor any government of other assistance whatsoever. I DID EVERYTHING MY WAY AND NEVER SOLD MY SOUL TO FOREIGN INTERESTS LIKE THE ISRAELI ZIONISTS AND THEIR LOBBYISTS HERE IN CANADA. NOR HAVE I EVER NOR WILL I BELIEVE THAT ISLAM IS A FUCKING RELIGION OF PEACE.

AlRomanchukPic300

So where does it leave people like me at 80 years of age who participated in the political affairs of his nation and community? Any worthwhile suggestions that I have made over the years have gone unheeded. Our governments continue to be unaccountable and transparent to us but my goodness they sure let us know how many billions they have GIVEN to foreign nations only to be frittered away or used to build opulent premises for their GD governors. We continue to allow the City of Victoria to dump some 129 million litres a day of raw sewage into the Pacific, but dole out billions to the Indians and other minorities for nothing under the aegis of MULTICULTURALISM. We are a nation so divided today that I don’t think anything will bring it together again; the English and French in Ontario and Quebec and NB are continuing the fight that should have ended on the Plains of Abraham. Like someone wrote recently we were settled by geniuses but are ruled by idiots. I think all of us have to look into our mirrors and take stock of who the hell we are and where we are going. But to me most people will shy away because they are afraid to answer simple questions and they are afraid to ask simple questions. Like William Aberhart said in 1938: “IF YOU HAVEN’T BEEN PUNISHED ENOUGH, YOU HAVE THE GOD-GIVEN RIGHT TO BE PUNISHED SOME MORE”.

We have allows our fate and destiny to be determined by foreign interests and our sovereignty is also slowly eroding. I learned the other day on the golf course that NEXEN, a relatively large Canadian oil company, was sold to the Chinese for mega bucks. Why would anyone turn down something that is hard to refuse. The Chinese are buying up as many corporations and housing as they can get their hands on and no one gives a good God damn! The rich are waiting for our economy to crumble so that they can pick up companies at pennies on the dollar and you can bet your jolly jumper that the Jews, Arabs and Chinese will be the first in line making us crawl into gopher holes. We have become WIMPS AND COMPLAINERS. We are leeches upon a society which continues to be productive, i.e. those that produce goods and those that labour to produce them.

Enough of Al’s rant for the day. I had to get these things off my mind so that I can enjoy a cool beer and watch the Eskies take of the Ottawa Red Blacks in Edmonton in a few minutes. Take care.

Al

romanesq@shaw.ca

CANADA: The New Sodom and Gomorrah? By Arthur Topham

 

CANADASODOM?

CANADA: The New Sodom and Gomorrah?

By
Arthur Topham

On May 17th, 2016, a day recognized by the federal government as “International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia”, an edict emanated forth from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office (PMO) stating that the Liberal government was planning to make additional changes to the “Hate Propaganda” laws (Sections 318 to 320) of the Criminal Code of Canada in order to “protect” the nation’s sexually deviant members.

UpYoursTrudeauJr

The unabashed and strident manner in which the federal government is pushing forward with its controversial agenda of planned perversion and subversion of Canadian society (under the guise of supposed “human rights” for sexual aberrants) is an issue fraught with deep and troubling concern, not only those Canadians of the Christian faith who prefer to rely upon the eternal wisdom of God and Nature but also for millions of other citizens whose moral standards won’t permit them to accept the subversive and sinister hidden aim within the government’s mandate to criminalize public dissent and discussion on moral, ethical and health standards affecting the nation as a whole.

In the words of the PM, “To do its part, the Government of Canada today will introduce legislation that will help ensure transgender and other gender-diverse people can live according to their gender identity, free from discrimination, and protected from hate propaganda and hate crimes.”

FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP copy 4

The reality that the federal government intends to expand rather than repeal Section 318 – 320 of the Canadian Criminal Code is disconcerting  in itself given the excessively subjective nature of this draconian section of the Code. The concept of “Hate Propaganda” as a “criminal offence” is nothing less than a blatant example of government mind control; one that, here in Canada, has proven itself over the last half century of contentious litigation, to be extremely controversial, provocative and unjust and a clear and present danger to freedom of expression or “free speech” as defined by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The alarm bells ought to be ringing across the country at the thought of this new “Liberal” government of Justin Trudeau pulling the Orwellian zipper of censorship even tighter over the mouths of Canada’s citizens than his predecessor Harper. It appears to be a new day but still the same old shit – of increasingly repressive laws and greater restrictions on individual freedoms theoretically guaranteed by our Charter.

5FeetFury copy

In fact the threat of expanding Canada’s “hate” laws to include ‘Tranny’(i.e. transvestite) protection has already angered and incensed Canadian bloggers as we see in the following reaction by Kathy Shaidle, one of the veterans of the previous “Section 13” wars that were ongoing during Harper’s reign.

As I’ve stated numerous times and especially in my essay Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” Laws, these Communist-inspired laws were surreptitiously and deliberately put in place through the mendacious actions of various Jewish lobby organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada and, more recently, the newly-formed Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs, all of whom have worked in tandem for decades to ensure that issues to do with Israel and its Zionist ideological political system would ultimately fall within this section of the Code and therefore make any truthful and factual statements about important civil and national issues indictable offences.

What must be clearly understood from the start when discussing the issue of  “Hate Propaganda” laws is that the notion of elevating the natural emotional feeling of hatred into a pseudo-legal category wherein it becomes an indictable offence is purely an invention of the Zionist Jews and in certain respects an historical concomitant of the Bolshevik era’s Leninist/Stalinist totalitarian terror regimes. One could rightly state that its essential character is embodied in such classics of “hate” literature as Germany Must Perish!, a book written back in 1941 by the Jewish author Theodore N. Kaufman with the sole purpose of inciting America to hate Germany and then translate that hatred into the USA joining the Allies in their unjust war against the National Socialist government of Germany.

EyeOnFreeSpeech600

In a previous article entitled Canada: Hypocrite Nation Ruled by Zionist Deception & anti-Free Speech Laws I had the following to say about these despicable, sham legal subterfuges disguised as legitimate jurisprudence:

“The war to silence Canadians and stymie any public speech that the Jewish lobby felt might negatively impact them or Israel in any way (either on or off the internet), gained its foothold back in 1977 when the federal government first implemented the so-called Canadian Human Rights Act and created its attendant enforcement agencies, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT). Both the commission and the tribunal were quasi-judicial, i.e. “crazy” judicial in that they basically set their own rules and guidelines and consistently changed the “legal” goal posts depending upon whatever case they were dealing with, in order to ensure a conviction. If fact, of the hundreds of Canadians dragged before these Stalinist style “Show Trial” tribunals, EVERYONE was found guilty for the simple reason that all it took was for someone to register a complain against them and that, in itself, sealed their fate. When I describe Section 13 as a “Bolshevik” type law I do so with the full knowledge that under the former Soviet system, Lenin, in one of the regime’s very first acts upon gaining absolute power, was to make “anti-Semitism” a crime punishable by death. Death, that is, without so much as a trial even. All it would take, (just as with the Section 13 “complaints”) was for someone to accuse another of said crime and the Cheka (soviet secret police) had the excuse to liquidate the victim.”

Reporting on this issue in Christian News Heather Clark remarks that apart from the criminal aspects of this proposed legislation there are those like Charles McVety, president of the Institute for Canadian Values and others who consider the bill to be “nebulous and reckless.”

Clark’s article goes on, “Bill C-16 is so vague, it is unenforceable,” he [McVety] said in a statement. “The fluid nature of gender identity is so nebulous that people can change their gender identity moment by moment. In that the bill seeks to change the Criminal Code of Canada, people may be sent to prison for two years over something that is ill-defined, and indeterminable.”

“It is also reckless as the proposed law will establish universal protection for any man who wishes to access women’s bathrooms or girls’ showers with momentary gender fluidity,” McVety continued. “Every Member of Parliament should examine their conscience over the potential of their vote exposing women and girls to male genitalia.”

JewShitter

In the context of our Charter rights Clark says, “There is also uncertainty as to how the law will be applied to free speech. As previously reported, in 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the conviction of activist William Whatcott, who found himself in hot water after distributing flyers regarding the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexuality throughout the Saskatoon and Regina neighborhoods in 2001 and 2002.”

Bill-Whatcott-Image

As Charles McVety rightfully stated the proposed Bill C-16 is definitely “nebulous and reckless” but as past convictions in both the cases of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code show, simply because it’s “vague” doesn’t mean that it isn’t “enforceable”. All it takes are judges and justices within the Canadian judicial system who will interpret and lend credence to subjective definitions of nebulous terms such as “hatred” so that they may then shapeshift into whatever meaning the Crown wishes in order to fit the charge. No better example currently exists than the latest and most severe case of Whatcott.

Conclusion: What’s coming next?

During the heated Sec. 13 Campaign here in Canada when the Canadian Human Rights Act was being wielded like a club by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and bloggers around the country were being bludgeoned and jailed, fined and nailed to the “hate crime” cross the Zionist element within the Conservative Right finally realized that the Sec. 13 legislation no longer was serving just their purposes but was being turned against them as well. As a result they garnered the support of Canada’s Zionist media monopoly and the lobbying to repeal the specious section of the Act was eventually accomplished back in June of 2012. Unfortunately they weren’t smart enough to realize that the “Hate Propaganda” laws within the Criminal Code were even more insidious than Sec. 13. They figured that as long as Sec. 319(2) of the ccc was there and could be used against critics of Israel and anyone else accused of “anti-Semitism” then that was just fine with them. To hell (or jail) with “freedom of speech” if it meant allowing bloggers to speak openly and frankly about the Jews or the Zionist empire builders.

But the tables appear to be turning once again as the new Liberal government of Justin Trudeau begins forcing their faggot philosophy down the throats of unwilling Canadians and then, on top of that monumental insult, threatens the nation with increased criminal penalties of up to two years in jail for anyone who doesn’t want to go happily and gayly along down the road to Sodom and Gomorrah carrying their little rainbow flag in hand.

Will they eventually start campaigning to repeal these anti-free speech laws contained in Sec. 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code and get rid of the last vestiges of Orwellian censorship in Canada?

Time will soon tell.

——

SUPPORTFREEDOMOFSPEECH

The upcoming challenge to this Zionist-created false flag legislation will determine once and for all whether or not Canada will adhere to the spirit and intent of its Charter of Rights and Freedoms or continue to bow down to foreign interests and sacrificing its citizen’s fundamental rights.
Please try to assist in this process by making a small donation to the cause. My GoGetFunding site can be found here: http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/
Standing for Canada and our democratic ideals I remain,
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Come and Get Me, You Fairies! by Kathy Shaidle!

TAKI mag

Come and Get Me, You Fairies!

by Kathy Shaidle

5FeetFury

Screen Shot 2016-05-31 at 10.58.24 PM

Normally I wouldn’t subject you to two columns in a row about Canadian goings-on, but I see my new topic has already been deemed worthy of attention here, at “The Week That Perished.”

“Canada Proposes Imprisonment for Anti-Tranny ‘Hate Speech’” topped the list:

Trudeau is pushing a bill that would protect Canada’s eternally vulnerable transgender community by sending offenders to prison for up to two years if they dare commit the unpardonable sin of uttering “anti-transgender speech.”

(And before you scroll down to the comments to lecture me on your clearly overrated First Amendment, American readers should bear in mind that New York state, for one, already has similar laws on the books, and they carry fines of up to $250,000. And this Oregon “transmasculine” teacher got $60,000 because her colleagues wouldn’t refer to “it” as “they.”)

No, the Canadian law hasn’t been passed yet, but Trudeau’s Liberals have a majority in Parliament, so they can theoretically shove through any law they want to. The Grits’ priorities are weed, “green” bullshit, assisted suicide, and, well, another kind of “assisted suicide”: fighting on the “Allies” side in “World War T.” When it comes to chicks with dicks, the Libs are determined to dress on the right (that is, left) side of history.

“Soon we’ll all be obligated by law to say and think the same thing—or else. I choose door No. 2.”

(Then again, so are the Conservatives. At their convention last weekend, the party voted overwhelmingly to drop their official opposition to gay “marriage,” quoting—apparently without irony—their former nemesis PM Pierre Trudeau’s maxim that “the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.”)

More proof that we normals are losing this fight? Trannies are rewriting not just the laws of the nation(s) but of politics and other facets of society. You know the old saw about “a dead girl or a live boy”? Well, as Gavin McInnes reported here, the guy behind the North Carolina bathroom bill is a registered sex offender who “fondled a 15-year-old boy when he was 20.” And…Bruce Springsteen and his fellow state-boycotters either haven’t heard or don’t care.

A few leftists break rank and declare their exasperation with all things “trans.” Articles like “My Dad Was Transgender. Why I Still Think Gender Can’t Be Changed” appear with semi-regularity. Activists admit they’ve been pulling our every remaining dangling appendage this whole time:

“We know trans people are one of the most targeted groups. And they experience violence at a much higher rate than other people,” he said.

But because we don’t collect data, we don’t collect information on these circumstances, it makes it difficult to put in place any programming or training for police or communities that address these crimes.”

None of that matters.

Instead, Canada’s largest newspaper, and one major private broadcaster, have recently been celebrating this “transgendered dad” (and longtime human toothache) who “breastfeeds.” If you’ve got a dodgy gag reflex, you’d best skip over the “how,” although listening to the anchor declare, “It’s a wonderful story and I appreciate you coming on and telling us about it,” is just about as puke-inducing.

Soon we’ll all be obligated by law to say and think the same thing—or else. I choose door No. 2.

I’ve said for years that transsexuals are delusional amputation fetishists, and way too many are manipulative narcissistic bullies and liars, and often prone to violence.

That if they really do commit suicide in epidemic numbers, that’s because, well, they’re clearly insane.

Trannies were cute and funny when they were in movies once in a while—hell, I actually watch The Prancing Elites sometimes, because (I dare you) it’s kind of hard not to—but now they’re everywhere, and I’m sick of them.

I’d compare trannies to kudzu, but kudzu turns out to be mostly a rural legend, whereas trannies are a for-real creeping menace, spreading mendacity and extortion across the land and costing taxpayers untold millions.

To stick with the Southern Gothic metaphor, though, trannies are more like Max Cady in drag. The villain in Cape Fear skirts (pun intended) around the law relentlessly, never doing anything you can actually arrest (or better yet, kill) him for. His mission: to destroy a normal, law-abiding family—precisely because they are normal and law-abiding—in a twisted, selfish campaign for “justice.”

This is the part where I’m supposed to cuck out and put in that transsexuals are clearly mentally ill and deserve our compassion. That they’re being exploited as exotic human pets and fashion accessories by everyone from teenage weirdos on Tumblr (forgivable) to powerful media gatekeepers, greedy surgeons, and political power-grabbers (not).

Yeah, fuck that. I don’t care.

In order to ostensibly protect “transgender and other gender-diverse” individuals, the new Canadian law criminalizes “hate propaganda and hate crimes.” So how’s this?

I hate trannies. I think other people should hate trannies, too.

Does that work?

Hate is just a human emotion. If gays are allowed to tear apart and (ineptly) rebuild 5,000 years of civilization in the name of “love,” why shouldn’t I be allowed to stomp on their sand castles in the name of “hate”?

At this juncture, I’ll get lectured by conservatives that “we” don’t believe in breaking the law. That if we object to an unjust piece of legislation, we’re supposed to work diligently to overturn it blah blah soooo sleepy zzzzzzzz

The left has gotten every item on their agenda over the past 60 years through the “Rosa Parks” model. As my fellow Canadian blogger Kate McMillian likes to say, “‘Not showing up to riot’ is a failed conservative policy.”

I dare the police to arrest me first the day this law is passed. If they don’t do so spontaneously, then I challenge some chippy little tranny to press charges.

I can’t possibly plead “not guilty.” I won’t even insist that I was “just citing statistics” or “performing a thought experiment” or “being satirical.” Those are all typical (and irregularly effective) defenses in situations like this one. They also don’t apply here.

I have no defense. I don’t even want one.

Come and get me, you fairies.

When I get out, you’ll be able to stick me right back in again, because by then Justin & Co. will also have “outlawed Islamophobia.”

So let’s see if you have the balls.

——

SOURCE ARTICLE

Young Canadian Truth-revealer Evalion has her You-Tube channel ‘liquidated’ by Joogle’s Zionist-Bolshevik Hate Commissars by KIN KARASIN FOR MAILONLINE

EvalionCensord

Angel-faced Youtuber, 18, is kicked off the site after sharing racist views and singing Happy Birthday to Hitler – with swastika CUPCAKES
By EKIN KARASIN FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: May 20th, 2016

••• 88 •••

An official YouTube spokesperson said: ‘That channel was terminated by us because it violated policies against hate speech.’

JEWSLOSINGPOSTER

Screen Shot 2016-05-22 at 11.48.15 AM
An 18-year-old woman, known as Evalion (pictured above) was banned from Youtube for posting videos where she praised Hitler and condemned Jews

A racist vlogger has been booted off YouTube after she sang happy birthday to Hitler and called black people ”niggers’ in her videos.

The woman, known as Evalion, caused outrage by calling Hitler a ‘brilliant’ and ‘compassionate man and condemning Jewish people.

Her true identity isn’t known but she is believed to be 18, living in Canada and well spoken.

Evalion’s channel was suspended after a profilic YouTuber, called Leafyishere uploaded a video about her entitled ‘The Most Racist Girl On The Entire internet’.

In Evalion’s videos called Why Hitler Wasn’t Evil and How Feminists Supported Rape by Causing the Migrant Crisis, she shared her support for Hitler.

There was shock when she made swastika cupcakes with birthday candles and sang happy birthday to a picture of the Fuhrer – who was behind the execution of six million Jewish people during the Second World War.

AdolfQuoteImage

Evalion insists that the leader of the Nazis was a good man whilst also admitting to being a Holocaust denier.

The baby-faced blogger is openly anti-Semitic by opening her videos with lines such as ‘Do you despise the Jews as much as I do’ and ‘Do you want to know how to spot a Jew.’

She also went on to use racist language by saying: ‘Don’t you hate those lazy niggers who are never satisfied even after they are given reparations.’

Screen Shot 2016-05-22 at 11.41.13 AM

Evalion caused outrage after she made Swastika cup cakes with birthday candles and sang happy birthday to a picture of Hitler

She also holds contempt for feminists blaming them for the migrant crisis and singling out criticism for Labour MP Jess Phillips.

The banning of Evalion has sparked intense debate on social-media with some people outraged at YouTube’s decision to censor her.

Disturbingly Evalion had over 40,000 subscribers before she was exiled.

One Twitter user called Spanky the Monkey said: ‘If you love free speech, then you have to allow ALL people to speak!’

And @Polite-Critical said: ‘I don’t support what Evalion says, but I defend her right to say it.’

Screen Shot 2016-05-22 at 11.43.06 AM

Teen YouTuber sings happy birthday to Hitler in shock video
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3600710/Angel-faced-youtuber-18-kicked-site-sharing-racist-views-singing-happy-birthday-Hitler-swastika-cupcakes.html#v-7373024103982284359

However other people agreed with the Google owned video platform’s decision.

@HeroticTV said: ‘YouTube has every reason to ban Evalion from YouTube.’

And Craig Ewen added: ‘I think Evalion deserved it. At the end of the day YouTube is a place kids 5+ can go to.’

An official YouTube spokesperson said: ‘That channel was terminated by us because it violated policies against hate speech.’

Young EvalionSpeaks

In Evalion’s videos called ‘Why Hitler Wasn’t Evil’ and ‘How Feminists Supported Rape by Causing the Migrant Crisis’ she describes Adolf Hitler as a ‘brilliant’ and ‘compassionate man’


SOURCE ARTICLE

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Stands with Racist, Zionist, Supremacist, Terrorist Israel from PMO office

ATEDITOR0216

[Editor’s Note: For the record. The ongoing statements emanating forth from the Prime Minister’s Office that promote and laud the barbarism and murder and terrorism and lies and deceit of the Zionist Jew ‘state’ of Israel are solid confirmation that the Liberal government of Canada under Trudeau Jr. is fully under the control of the Jew lobbyists here in Canada. 

Issuing this type of blatant bullshit propaganda on the Israeli state while at the same time refusing to allow French comedian Dieudonne to enter the country is the height of hypocrisy and bigotry and makes Canada a laughing stock of nations around the world who are well versed on the true, actual reality of what the ‘state’ of Israel is really about.

Canada is still another Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG) and the nation is being blacklisted around the globe because of these unabashed lies and propaganda that our government keeps sending out to the people here and around the world.

Justin Trudeau. You’re just another lying, two-faced, ignorant puppet/sycophant of the Jews and you’ll go down in real history as a traitor to Canada just as your Marxist, Communist father did.

Shalom my ass! There will never be peace until Israel is removed from the nations of the world and Zionism and Jewish power is destroyed just as Syphilis and other contagious diseases inimical to a healthy world.]

JustinIsraelPuppetStatement by the Prime Minister of Canada on Israel Independence Day

May 12, 2016
Ottawa, Ontario

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement in celebration of Yom Ha’atzmaut:

“Today, we celebrate the 68th anniversary of the founding of the State of Israel with our Israeli friends and Jewish communities, both here in Canada, and around the world.

“The State of Israel is a thriving and vibrant country, which Canada is proud to call a close partner and steadfast ally.

“Canada and Israel unite in their people-to-people ties, shared values, respect for democracy, and growing trade relationship. I look forward to continuing to strengthen our strong friendship.

“Although today is a joyous day, let us also reflect on the threat that Israel and its people continue to face throughout the world in the form of terrorist attacks, acts of anti-Semitism, and religious intolerance. Canada stands with Israel and will continue to promote peace and stability in the region.

“On behalf of Sophie and our children, I wish everyone celebrating Israel’s Independence Day a Yom Ha’atzmaut Sameach. Shalom.”

—-

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN CANADA IS STILL UNDER ATTACK! HELP ARTHUR TOPHAM DEFEND CANADA’S CHARTER RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH

SUPPORTFREEDOMOFSPEECH

ATEDITOR0216

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech,

After a somewhat welcome hiatus in this seemingly endless struggle to retain our basic rights and freedoms; one that commenced after the trial in mid-November, 2015, the next stage of battle is about to begin.

On March 29, 2016 I will once again be appearing in the Quesnel Supreme Court to hopefully “fix a date” for the upcoming Constitutional challenge to Canada’s censorship laws contained in Sec. 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code.

When the actual date will be set is yet to be determined but it is necessary in the interim time period proceeding the hearing to raise an additional $2,000.00 in order to pay for an Expert Witness to appear on my behalf when the Charter issue is argued.

If there were a mere 200 Canadians willing to part with $10.00 the problem would be solved in short order but things don’t always turn out to be that easy.

Given the new Liberal government’s pro-Israel stance and its recent “condemnation” of individuals and groups who are supporting Palestine via the BDS Movement it doesn’t look like there’s going to be any changes in the government’s position with respect to “standing with Israel” on any matters dealing with human rights abuses, international law or ridding the nation of these noxious “Hate Propaganda” laws that were insinuated into Canada’s jurisprudence over the past half century of Zionist Jew lobbying on behalf of the state of Israel.

The upcoming challenge to this legislation will determine once and for all whether or not Canada will adhere to the spirit and intent of its Charter of Rights and Freedoms or continue to bow down to foreign interests and sacrificing its citizen’s fundamental rights.

Please try to assist in this process by making a small donation to the cause. My GoGetFunding site can be found here: http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/

Standing for Canada and our democratic ideals I remain,

Sincerely,

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

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN CANADA IS STILL UNDER ATTACK!

CANADIAN PUBLISHER FACING JAIL FOR POLITICAL WRITINGS NOW PURSUING A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO CANADA’S NOTORIOUS “HATE PROPAGANDA” LEGISLATION!

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Sec. 2b of the Charter states:

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

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

Dear Free Speech Supporters,

My name is Arthur Topham and I am the owner, publisher and editor of the online alternative News site RadicalPress.com which has been operating in Canada since 1998. Since 2007 I have been involved in legal battles with the Canadian government – first the Canadian Human Rights Commission (2007) and now the federal legal system (2012) over alleged offences that purportedly violate Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws (Sections 318 – 320) of the Canadian Criminal Code (CCC).

On May 16th, 2012 I was charged with a Sec. 319(2) ccc “Hate Propaganda” violation. I was arrested and jailed and my home was entered illegally by the RCMP’s “Hate Crime Team” who proceeded to steal all of my computers and electronic files. Since that date I have been involved in a protracted and onerous legal battle, first with the British Columbia provincial court and now with the British Columbia Supreme Court.

My trial, known as R v Roy Arthur Topham, finally got underway Monday, October 26, 2015 in Quesnel, B.C., twelve hundred and fifty-eight days (1258) after my arrest on May 16, 2012. The Indictment stated that I, Arthur Topham, did “willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

I was charged on two separate occasions using the same section of the criminal code (Sec. 319(2)) and after a 14-day trial ending on November 12th, 2015 – presided over by Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Bruce Butler and consisting of a 12-member jury of my peers (8 women and 4 men) – I was found Guilty on the first charge (Count 1) and Not Guilty on the second charge (Count 2).

Given that both counts were based upon the same section of the criminal code, i.e., Sec. 319(2) the dual and conflicting verdicts pose a serious legal problem which will be challenged in the days ahead.

What this now means is that I am moving on to the next stage of the legal battle by challenging the Constitutional legitimacy of the actual section of the Canadian Criminal Code (Sec. 319(2) now containing the infamous “Hate Propaganda” legislation which threatens freedom of expression for all Canadians.

The future of Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code will depend in part on the outcome of the planned Constitutional challenge. On March 29, 2016 I will be attending court again to “fix a date” for the upcoming legal challenge. It could be set for sometime in April or May or possibly even further into the year. In the interim period leading up to that challenge I remain free to publish and carry on with soliciting for funding in order to persevere in my efforts to have this unconstitutional section of Canada’s Criminal Code repealed.

The next crucial step demands additional funding to defray the cost of paying an expert witness to appear (via video) at the planned Constitutional challenge. I must raise an additional $2,000.00 in order for this to happen and time is of the essence.

Should the challenge to Sec. 319(2) fail then the next step will be an appeal of the guilty verdict in Count 1.

I continue to have the support of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. Please see here Ontario Civil Liberties Association and here http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-of-BC.pdf and here OCLA writes to Attorney General Anton on September 24, 2014

For the most recent account of the proceedings regarding the trial and future plans to undertake a Constitutional challenge please go here:

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 December 4th, 2015

I NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE STILL IN ORDER TO WIN THIS CASE. The purchasing of the court transcripts of the trial and now carry on with the challenge to the legislation require me to ask for further financial support in order to win this battle to protect Canada’s Constitutional Rights and Freedoms as contained in the Charter.

Please try to donate online using the GoGetFunding site but if you are unable to do so then try helping out by sending either cash, a cheque or a Money Order to the following postal address. Please make sure that all cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:

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

Thank You so much!

THE TRIAL: REGINA V ROY ARTHUR TOPHAM

TheTrialHEADERFINAL copy

ATEditorPic185 copy

Editor’s Note: With the exception of the final Charge to the Jury by B.C.S.C. Justice Butler the full transcript of the trial proceedings in the case of R V ROY ARTHUR TOPHAM from October 26, 2015 to November 12, 2015 are contained in the following pdf files.
It is suggested that these files be downloaded for future reference and in the interest of securing a permanent record of this important free speech trial in Canada.
Sincerely,

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

_________________________________

PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL (Excerpt – Opening Remarks by Court and Crown and Testimony of Terry Wilson) (DAY 1)

DAY2-173249.Oct 27 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY3-173249.Oct 28 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY4-173249.Oct 29 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY-5173249.Oct 30 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY-6173249.Nov 2 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY7173249.Nov 3 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY8-173249.Nov 4 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY9-173249.Nov 5 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

D10-173249.Nov 6 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DII-173249.Nov 9 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

D12-173249.Nov 10 15.Trial.Excerpt.Electronic copy 2

D13-173249.Nov 11 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

D14-173249.Nov 12 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

Anti-BDS Motion – Why Does Canada Sanction Other Countries for Human Rights Violations but Not Israel? By Julie Lévesque Global Research

BDSCANADAVOTE

http://www.globalresearch.ca/anti-bds-motion-why-does-canada-sanction-other-countries-for-human-rights-violations-but-not-israel/5510386

Anti-BDS Motion – Why Does Canada Sanction Other Countries for Human Rights Violations but Not Israel?

By Julie Lévesque

Global Research, February 26, 2016

BDS-Logo-Israel-Boycott-400x242

 

The international community, speaking through the United Nations, has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights – colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation… Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem contains elements of all three of these regimes”. – John Dugard, UN’s former Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

This week, the Canadian Parliament overwhelmingly voted in favour of a motion condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

The motion, passed on February 22 by a 229-51 vote, states:

“That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.”

First, there is no such thing as “friendship” between states. States have no friends, they have interests and nothing else.

Second, the BDS movement does not promote “the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel,” as the motion puts it, in a very unfactual and questionable manner. The BDS movement promotes international law and Palestinian rights and condemns Israel’s total lack of respect for both.

Despite its emotional and propagandist wording, the motion completely fails to hide the fact that it condemns criticism of human rights violations by Israel. This calls for some explanations.

By condemning a peaceful movement that tries to bring Israel to account, Canada expresses its total disregard for human rights and international law and its sheer hypocrisy when faced with human rights violations.

There are currently 22 states targeted by Canadian sanctions, several of them for human rights violations. And Israel, being Canada’s “friend”, is not one of them, even if the sanctioned countries’ misdeeds pale in comparison to the death and destruction Israel has imposed on Palestinians for decades.

While not one sanction has been imposed on Israel for its war crimes and crimes against humanity, some countries have been sanctioned by Canada simply for “misappropriating state funds.”

There are no words to describe the scale of this hypocrisy, but, we don’t need any since the facts speak for themselves. Before looking at the list of sanctioned countries and the reasons behind their sanctions, it is worth mentioning only a few facts about Israel.

As mentioned in the quote above, Israel’s policies and practices violate the most fundamental human rights of the Palestinians. The Hebrew state has been the subject of at least 77 UN resolutions since 1955, and has been criticized in at least 26 resolutions for its violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

In July 2015, a report by Amnesty International found “compelling evidence of serious violations of international humanitarian law by Israeli forces” as well as “strong evidence of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity” during Israel’s 2014 assault on Gaza.” Evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity were also found during Operation Cast Lead in 2008.

Of course, most reports from the U.N. as well as the ones from human rights organizations mentioned below pretend to be “balanced” by equally blaming both sides, the Israeli army as well as Palestinian militias. If opinions can be “balanced”, facts, however, cannot, and the scale of death and destruction doesn’t lie. Most, if not all the damage and loss of life occurs on the Palestinian side. Every single time.

These few facts about Operations Cast Lead in 2008 and Protective Edge in 2014 prove it:

Cast Lead:

[B]etween 1,385 and 1,419 Palestinians were killed during Cast Lead, a majority of them civilians, including at least 308 minors under the age of 18. More than 5000 more were wounded. Thirteen Israelis were also killed, including 3 civilians.

According to the UN, 3,540 housing units were completely destroyed, with another 2,870 sustaining severe damage.

More than 20,000 people – many of them already refugees, some two or three times over – were made homeless.

Protective Edge:

At least 2,100 Palestinians were killed, of whom the United Nations identified more than 1,500 as civilians, and approximately 11,000 people, mostly civilians, were injured. The tens of thousands of Israeli attacks caused the vast majority of destruction during the fighting, which left uninhabitable 22,000 homes, displacing 108,000 people, and left hundreds of thousands without adequate water or electricity.

Attacks by Palestinian civilians injured 61 Israeli settlers in the West Bank as of October 31, the UN reported. In addition to the three Israeli teenagers who were killed in June, nine Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians.

How many dead Israeli civilians compared to Palestinian civilians? How many housing units destroyed in Israel? How many homeless Israelis? Let’s be honest. A truly balanced report would reflect the facts and not try to equally blame both sides. The forces in this conflict as well as the damage done are anything but equal. They are completely disproportionate.

That being said, Israel’s contempt for international law is legend and with this motion, Canadian Parliamentarians have just proven one more time they are bought and sold.

It is now worth taking a look at the countries against which Canada has placed sanctions and why, since all of them, without exception, pale in comparison to Israel’s bloody record.

The list clearly shows how Canada has no credibility whatsoever when it comes to condemning states for their lack of respect for human rights or people who protest against criminal states, for that matter.

Here is the list of the countries sanctioned for human rights reasons. It should be noted that several, if not all, background explanations provided on the Canadian Government web site (in brackets) are totally biased and simplistic, when not pure propaganda.

Belarus: “[D]eteriorating human rights situation.”

This includes “widespread harassment and detention of opposition party campaign workers, the physical assault of senior opposition figures, arbitrary use of state powers to support the incumbent president, pressure on state workers and students to support the President, restrictions on the ability of opposition campaigns to communicate with the electorate, and control of the state media to severely restrict access by opposition candidates.”

What happens it the Occupied Territories is much worse, yet no sanctions against Israel.

Burma: “[G]ravity of the human rights and humanitarian situation…, which threatened peace and security in the entire region.”

Libya: “[V]iolence and the use of force against civilians.”

Day-to-day in the Occupied Territories.

Russia: “Activists were beaten, kidnapped and tortured [in Ukraine]. The Russian government encouraged, and supported, these measures.”

Meanwhile, more and more “Palestinian children [are] beaten and tortured by Israeli security forces while in detention.” Read also Israeli NGO B’Tselem’s report Backed by the System: Abuse and Torture at the Shikma Interrogation Facility.

Sudan: “[H]umanitarian crisis and widespread human rights violations resulting from the conflict in Darfur region”

Syria: “The Syrian Government’s violent crackdown on peaceful protesters led to many civilian deaths and injuries. Thousands of civilians were detained arbitrarily and there were credible reports of summary executions and torture.”

Israel arbitrarily detains Palestinians on a regular basis, including children, and summary executions and torture and common.

According to B’Tselem: “At the end of Dec. 2015, 422 Palestinian minors were held in Israeli prisons as security detainees and prisoners, including 6 administrative detainees.”

According to Human Rights Watch:

“Israeli security forces continued to arrest children suspected of criminal offenses, usually stone-throwing, in their homes at night, at gunpoint; question them without a family member or lawyer present; and coerce them to sign confessions in Hebrew, which they do not understand… As of October 31, Israel held 457 Palestinian administrative detainees without charge or trial, based on secret evidence. Israeli prison authorities shackled hospitalized Palestinians to their hospital beds after they went on long-term hunger strikes to protest their administrative detention.”

Last year, Amnesty International has condemned “what it called a ‘clear pattern’ of… summary killings… as the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces this month [October 2015] rose to at least 61. )

Ukraine: “Activists were beaten, kidnapped and tortured.”

Zimbabwe: “marked escalation in human rights violations and violence directed at the political opposition, a stolen election, the denial of a peaceful democratic transition and a worsening humanitarian situation.”

Other reasons for which Canada has sanctioned countries include:

– “political crisis and conflict” (Yemen, Somalia);

– “violations of ceasefire and hostilities” (Ivory Coast, Democratic Republic of the Congo);

– “misappropriated state funds” (Egypt, Tunisia);

– “heavy loss of human life and widespread material damage resulting from a conflict” (Eritrea, Somalia);

– “nuclear program” (Sanctions on Iran, which has a nonexistent nuclear program, but none on Israel, which is known to possess between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads.)

– “invasion” (Sanctions on Iraq for the invasion of Kuwait… but no sanctions for the U.S. which has illegally invaded Iraq, among other countries, and of course, no sanctions on Israel for decades of occupation);

– “continued escalation of hostilities” (Lebanon)

– “support for the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone” (Liberia)

– “violation of the constitution and international law” (Ukraine).

– “conducting a test of a nuclear weapon” (North Korea)

– “acts of violence and the increase in acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea against vessels” (Somalia)

– “engaging in violent conflict, much of it along ethnic lines” (South Sudan)

As you probably noticed, none of these countries has been accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Canada imposes sanctions on countries for misappropriated state funds, but regards war criminal state Israel as a “friend” which deserves that it condemns its own citizens for protesting against its supreme crime.

Parliamentarians need to explain this nonsense.

As a member of the United Nations, Canada should, as stated in the U.N. Preamble, “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and… establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained.”

By voting in favour of this motion, Canadian Parliamentarians have failed to honor their obligations.Miserably.

—–

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Julie Lévesque, Global Research, 2016

TO FIND OUT HOW YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT VOTED PLEASE GO TO THIS LINK

Hypocrites in High Places by David Cole from Taki Magazine

HypocritesHighPlacesHdr

http://takimag.com/article/hypocrites_in_high_places_david_cole#axzz410V1v215

HUMAN RIGHTS
Hypocrites in High Places
by David Cole
February 18, 2016

You know you’re getting old when you can remember a time when Canadians were funny on purpose. John Candy, Harold Ramis, Eugene Levy, the entire SCTV crew. Back then, Canadians invited the world to laugh with their nation, not at it.

How things have changed. These days, Canadians are still providing top-notch laughs, but, sadly, it’s usually at their own expense. Smart and savvy Canuckian commentators can do little else but sit back and gawk along with the rest of us at the train wreck that is present-day Canadian politics. There’s no need for me (or any similarly ugly American) to retread the territory covered so ably by sites like The Rebel and expats like Mark Steyn (wait, I mean “immigrants” like Mark Stein. It’s now genocidal racist white supremacy to call a white man an expat. Haven’t you heard?). However, I had a good belly laugh at Canada’s expense last week, and it might just involve a potato (Yukon Gold, I’d assume) that’s too hot even for some of Canada’s most politically incorrect pundits.

Apparently, Canada’s political and media bleeding-heart elites have their panties in a bunch over a new campaign by the Chinese government to round up and “bring home” Chinese dissidents who have sought refuge in other countries. Over the past few months, the Chinese have been putting pressure on foreign governments to deport dissidents who have been convicted in China (sometimes in absentia) of “crimes against the state,” which always translates to crimes involving speech.

Last month, two Chinese dissidents living in Thailand who had been granted safe haven in Canada were deported back to China by Thai officials. The dissidents, political cartoonist Jiang Yefei and anticorruption activist Dong Guangping, were whisked back to their homeland against the wishes of Canada’s new Liberal government, which had planned to resettle the two men and their families as government-sponsored refugees. Needless to say, Canadian officials are very worked up “aboot” this travesty. The gist of Canada’s beef is that China has no right to demand the return of dissidents whose crimes consist solely of speech.

Global Affairs Canada spokesperson François Lasalle told the Toronto Star that Ottawa has “serious concerns” regarding the “human rights” and “dignity” of the deported Chinese dissidents. Amnesty International Canada has condemned the fact that the Thais deported “peaceful critics” of Beijing. For its part, Thailand has repeatedly stated that Jiang and Dong were deported because of “immigration violations,” to which Ottawa has responded that “immigration violations” are not a legitimate reason to deport someone facing prosecution for “speech crimes.”

“That’s some nifty hypocrisy there, Canada, eh? ”

Canada’s government officials and self-righteous journalists are lucky that the rest of the world is too damn chickenshit to bring up the case of Ernst Zundel. Zundel is a Holocaust denier who was prosecuted throughout the 1980s by the Canadian government for the crime of publishing a pamphlet. After being convicted twice, and after having his conviction overturned twice, Zundel finally picked up and left for the U.S., joining his wife (an American citizen) in Tennessee. In 2003, Zundel was scooped up by the U.S. feds for a supposed immigration violation. Deported back to Canada, Zundel, whose landed immigrant status had by then been revoked, was slapped with what the Canucks call a “security certificate.” Under Canadian law, a security certificate essentially means “We can do whatever the hell we want to you without charge or trial.” For two years, Zundel languished in a 6-by-8 cell, the lights always on, no hot food, no desk or table for writing, no charge, no trial.

dd395-free (site) copy 2

I’ll remind you at this point that his initial “crime” was publishing a pamphlet denying the Holocaust. I’ve known Ernst Zundel for 25 years, and there’s no question the man’s loopy as hell. But that’s completely, one-hundred-percent beside the point. His crime was publishing a pamphlet containing dissident views. He was imprisoned for speech. Nothing should matter beyond that.

Even though Zundel hadn’t lived in Germany for 45 years, the Germans wanted him back to prosecute him under that country’s anti-Holocaust revisionism and denial laws. And how exactly do you prosecute a guy for breaking the laws of a nation in which he doesn’t live? Germany’s fascinating legal theory was that since the content Zundel legally posted on his website while in the U.S. was “brought” into Germany by the Internet, he therefore violated Germany’s speech prohibitions no less than if he’d physically entered the country to give a speech.

As Zundel was wasting away in his Toronto cell, an interesting development occurred back in Knoxville, where District Court Senior Judge James Jarvis, ruling on the legality of Zundel’s deportation from the U.S., came to the troubling conclusion that although he had serious problems with the way the feds treated Zundel, there was little he could do now that Zundel was in Canada.

Little, that is, except politely ask the Canadians to allow Zundel to have a fair hearing. Addressing the Canadian authorities directly, Jarvis stated, “[Zundel’s] wife, she’s a citizen, and she has rights, and she’s hurt by this. Surely, the Canadian courts will listen to her as a United States citizen, perhaps give her some relief.”

zundd_deesP1 copy 3

In the words of Knoxville News Sentinel reporter Jamie Satterfield, “Judge Jarvis found himself in a troubling position. He wanted to help but could not.”

So here was awesome humanitarian Canada, holding a man whose deportation was being demanded by a country (Germany) that wanted to prosecute him for his dissident beliefs, while meanwhile, a judge in another country (the U.S.) was appealing to Canadian authorities to rethink their course of action. Canadian officials had a choice: listen to Judge Jarvis’ reasonable plea, or bow to Germany’s ironfisted demand. And what did the Canadians do? Take a guess. Ottawa ordered Zundel shipped to Germany to be imprisoned for his Holocaust views—views that had been posted online legally, in the U.S., while he was a U.S. resident. Zundel ended up serving five years in Germany, in addition to the two he’d already spent in his Toronto cell.

And now the Canadians have the hypocrisy to raise global holy hell over the fact that the Thais deported two dissidents on supposed immigration violations to a country that plans to imprison them for their political views. All of a sudden, the people who held Zundel in a 6-by-8 cell for two years with no charge or trial, the people who decreed that he should eat only cold food, sleep with bright lights on, shower under supervision, and go to the bathroom in front of guards, the people who sent Zundel to a foreign nation to rot in prison for violating speech laws in absentia, are now concerned about the “dignity” of dissidents and the “right” of Chinese expats to escape punishment for violating anti-free-speech laws in their homeland.

ErnstZVictim copy

That’s some nifty hypocrisy there, Canada, eh?

Mind you, the Canadians aren’t the only hypocrites braying over the deported Chinese dissidents. U.S. government officials and journalists have been up in arms about it as well. Time, Slate, CNN, and, of course, The New York Times have all weighed in this month on the plight of Dong and Jiang. Again and again, outraged protectors of human rights have pummeled the Thai government for its decision to deport the two men. “What kind of a nation would deport people to a country that plans to imprison them for merely stating politically unpopular opinions?”

Well, the U.S., for one.

At the exact same time that Canada was showing its love of human rights by throwing Zundel into a dungeon for two years, the U.S. government was considering what to do with Germar Rudolf. In the early 1990s, Rudolf, then a chemist at the world-renowned Max Planck Institute in Stuttgart, was asked by the defense team of a Holocaust denier on trial in Germany to prepare a forensic report about Auschwitz. Unfortunately for Rudolf, preparing a purely scientific report to aid in the defense of a denier on trial is itself a criminal act in Germany, and soon the young chemist found himself facing fourteen months in prison. Rudolf fled Germany and settled, legally, in the U.S. He married a U.S. citizen, and they had a child.

GermarRudolfPic

Naturally, Germany decided to—how did CNN phrase it in reference to the actions of the Chinese government?—“go global in its pursuit of dissidents.” Germany demanded that the U.S. hand Rudolf over for the crime of writing his forensic report, and, wouldn’t you know it, the U.S. complied, ripping Germar from his family and shipping him back to Germany, where he spent four years in prison for writing a booklet that is not only legal in the U.S. but readily available. To put a finer point on it, Rudolf was deported to Germany by the U.S. to be imprisoned for speech that is completely legal in the U.S.

As Rudolf attempted to fight deportation, I covered his case for a documentary film I was producing (the movie also included footage of Zundel from inside his Canadian maximum-security home). At the time, I received only scorn and criticism from the U.S. and Canadian “human rights” advocates I approached for comment. Oh, sure, I tried my best to explain that the Rudolf and Zundel cases had an importance beyond the fate of those two men, that a precedent was being set, and that other governments would take advantage of it and demand the return of other dissidents who had escaped prison sentences for other thought crimes, but my “Jewsplaining” fell on deaf ears.

Even now, as China is going to town on escaped dissidents, there is a reluctance by pretty much everyone in the North American “mainstream” (left, right, and center) to acknowledge the precedents set by the Zundel and Rudolf cases, or even to acknowledge that the cases existed. But the fact remains, all this bellyaching about “global dissident pursuits” is bunk. The U.S. and Canada have no problem at all with cross-border critic-grabbing and critic-deporting. And while the North American press may be deaf, dumb, and blind to the hypocrisy emanating from Ottawa and D.C., one suspects that the Chinese are all too keenly aware of it.

It’s hard to fault them for paying attention, especially when they seem to be the only ones.
——

Source Article

PLEASE DONATE TO THE RADICALPRESS.COM LEGAL DEFENCE FUND

NewRPFundingAd

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
THANK YOU!

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