Freedom Of Speech: Topham vs Kay By Arthur Topham

Freedom Of Speech: Topham vs Kay  

By Arthur Topham

On February 7th, 2017 Barbara Kay, long time journalist for the pro-Zionist National Post published an article titled, How long until my honest criticism of Islamism constitutes a speech crime in Canada?

What follows is my response to Kay’s veiled yet disingenuously deceptive hate-provoking screed; one, that like all Zionist ‘literary’ works, is never what it appears to be on the surface.

Permit me to answer your questions Barbara regarding criticisms of Islamic practises and law and how and why they may soon constitute “a hate crime in Canada.”

Following the Zionist modus operandi (“By Way of Deception Though Shalt Cause War”) of always inverting the truth I will begin by partially paraphrasing your own words and switching from “Islamism” to “Zionism” in order to make my point as clearly and succinctly as possible.

“I harbour no animus whatsoever for my fellow JEWISH citizens when I write about these issues. People are people.” I have merely changed the religion by substituting Muslim (Islam) for Jewish (Judaism) yet in doing so I already have broken Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code because at the present time Canadians are not permitted to criticize either the state of Israel or people of Jewish ethnicity or religion or even the political ideology of the state of Israel (Zionism) lest they be indicted under Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” legislation contained in Sections 318 to 320 of the Code.

I have been fighting and challenging this sec. of the Canadian Criminal Code here in B.C. since May of 2012 when the foreign Jewish lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada filed a Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” complaint against me and my website RadicalPress.com for doing precisely what you and the National Post and the majority of other “mainstream” newspapers across Canada have been doing repeatedly toward the Muslims since at least the start of the first Iraq War back in 1990. After 911 and the boxcutter scam of course the vilification and lies have increased with a vengeance and haven’t ceased to this day. In other words you Barbara Kay, as the representative of the Zionist media, have been overtly, unabashedly and knowingly promoting “hate” (according to Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada) toward people of the Islamic religion or Arab ethnicity for the past 25 years and longer without restraint all the while fully aware of what you are doing and why you are doing it. In fact your own newspaper was one of the first to begin vilifying and slandering me as soon as the indictment in my own case came down in November of 2012.

In the fall of 2015 I was found guilty in BC Supreme Court of one count of promoting “hatred” toward “people of Jewish ethnicity”. Since that time I’ve been involved in a Constitutional challenge to this specious section of the Criminal Code arguing that Sec. 319(2) of said Code violates Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec. 2b which, I’m positive, you are well aware of.

The decision on the Charter argument will be handed down this coming March 11th in B.C. Supreme Court. If I lose the challenge I could face up to a 2 year prison term for criticizing “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin.”

Like you Barbara I have “critiqued” Zionist Jew organizations with problematic links to genocide of the Palestinian people and links to criminal acts in contravention of International law and theft of Arab territory in order to build illegal settlements in land that doesn’t belong to the state of Israel. I have commented frequently on the blatant murdering of Palestinian children and women by the IDF and repeatedly expressed aversion for the racist, supremacist, apartheid system of government that Israel follows where Arab citizens of Israel are not given the same legal rights as Jewish citizens and are treated as second-class citizens.

And again, to paraphrase your own sophisticated sophistry, there isn’t a single column I would withdraw or redact in light of all the criminal acts and genocide committed against the defenceless Muslim (and Christian) Arabs of Palestine and I most certainly do not believe anyone in his right mind could possibly be incited to violence by reading my critiques of Zionist crimes against humanity. Yet, all it took was one Zionist Jew and one chronic Jew sycophant notorious for laying “hate crime” complaints against Gentile writers to lay a Sec. 319(2) against my person and my legitimate publishing business (now in its 19th year) in order for the thought police to arrest me, steal all my computers and files and then subject me to this ongoing Stalinist Show Trial we all know as “Prime Time Hate Crime.”

Like you say in your conclusion Barbara these questions of whether or not your writings may soon be revealed for what they truly are (hateful) no longer are rhetorical questions. Well, all I can say is welcome to the club my dear Jewess sister.

I’m also certain that you were around during the whole of the Sec. 13 “hate speech” controversy involving the Canadian Human Rights Act, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal and know that this other quasi-judicial “hate speech” legislation was finally repealed by the Harper Conservative government back in 2012 when it became blatantly obvious to the Jews that the legislation was a double-edged sword which the Muslim community finally realized could also be use against their  Jewish enemies and media personalities like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn – two of Canada’s most notorious Zionist zealots – who were spreading their Islamophobic “criticisms” of the Muslims via the Zionist-controlled media, in particular, the National Post and Maclean’s Magazine.

Had the National Post not stopped lobbying for greater freedom of expression after the fall of sec. 13 and went on to rid Canada of these notorious “Hate Propaganda” laws contained in Canada’s Criminal Code you wouldn’t have to be fretting now about criticizing Islam and I wouldn’t be facing a possible two year jail sentence for criticizing Zionism and the Talmud. But the interesting thing Barbara (and I know you’re fully aware of this) is the Jewish lobby in Canada began working tirelessly right after WWII to create these so-called “Hate Propaganda” laws that you are now feigning displeasure of. And you also are well aware of the fact that the Jews wanted these laws inserted into Canada’s statutes specifically for the purpose of protecting their own asses and therefore did nothing to repeal them. Now these very same Bolshevik-Marxist laws may be coming back with a vengeance to bite you on the ass.

But, m’thinks you complain too much Barbara. I don’t actually believe that you think the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau would ever do anything to endanger the present political power structure of the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada. The Zionist Jews are in full control of the Trudeau federal government (just as they were the Harper government), the mainstream media, academia and the federal judicial system. You can bet your bottom shekel sister that they ain’t gonna be filing a sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” complaint against you. Those laws are designed specifically for the dumbed-down goyim just as your Talmudic laws (aka Noahide Laws) are designed to enslave everyone but the Jews. All your huffing and puffing and moaning about “Sharia law” is, like everything else you whine and cry about, nothing but a serpentine subterfuge and distraction for the goy rabble who are still enthralled by Zion’s siren songs about “freedom of speech.”

While I would love to see you and the rest of the Jew lobbyists and media indicted in the same manner I was for criticizing your actions and your Talmudic Zionist Laws, even more I would rather that these “Hate Propaganda” laws were totally repealed and the country left with a level playing field where ALL citizens had the right to express their opinions and viewpoints on any and all religions and ideologies. That would be the right and democratic way to deal with these Orwellian censorship laws. All else is Zionist deceit.

FREEDOM TO OFFEND EVERYONE BUT THE JEWS By Arthur Topham

FREEDOM TO OFFEND EVERYONE BUT THE JEWS

By
Arthur Topham

January 25th, 2017

Fake News sites come in all sizes, shapes and flavours during these heady days of Alternative vs Zionist media wars. And one of Canada’s top deceptive “Fake News” sites has to be TheRebel.Media run by “Rebel Commander” Ezra Levant, Zionist Jew and self-chosen saviour of Canada’s dumbed down goyim ‘christians’, assorted atheists, Germanophobes and most recently Islamophobes.

Ezra loves to think of himself as Canada’s Number One defender of “Free Speech” and has been active in the free speech movement for a long time. In fact it was the issue of freedom of speech that first brought him to my attention a decade ago when the Zionist Jew lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada first filed a Sec. 13 “hate speech” complaint against me with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the summer of 2007 and I suddenly found myself the latest member of that exclusive Canadian association known as the “Anti-Semitic, Racist, Jew-hating, Neo-Nazi, Hate-mongerer’s Club.”

Of course I wasn’t alone any longer in my then ongoing struggle to bring forward to the Canadian public the facts surrounding the true nature of political Zionism and the ongoing conspiracy by this Rothschild created Apocalyptic Beast to wreak havoc not only in the desert sands of middle eastern Arab nations but around the globe in their relentless quest to create a new world order under the iron heel of Talmudic totalitarian despotism. As is evident in the graphic below I was now amongst the former luminaries of Canada’s modern-day revisionists who, ahead of me, had already solved the ancient riddle known as “The Jewish Problem.”

Initially, because Ezra Levant had also been accused of a Sec. 13 “hate crime” by an Islamic organization here in Canada prior to my own case, a mutual acquaintance attempted to connect us up in the vain hope that we might work together but Levant’s immediate response was to label me an “anti-Semite” and therefore one of the untouchables.

Since that time I’ve covered a number of Levant’s serpentine adventures in the mainstream media, including the example of when he has used his position on national television back in 2012 to libel and vilify me personally via his former position with Sun News media and his tv show “The Source.”

Levant’s modus operandi is to hoodwink gullible goyim Zionist Christians and other assorted small “c” conservatives, atheists and regular tv watchers and mainstream newspaper readers and fill their minds with hatred toward Muslims and Germans and anyone else who might display the chutzpah to criticize the Zionist ideology or the racist actions of the state of Israel or anything remotely related to enterprises that the Jews have their fingers and their shekels invested in.

A couple of other related articles on this zio-wolf in sheep’s clothing that readers might wish to take a look at are the following:

?http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=5722

http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=6000?

A recent article by one of Commissar Levant’s lieutenants, the young, pretty naive and zealous Faith Goldy, a self-confessed “fearless journalist and devout Catholic who stands up for family values, freedom, and firearms” titled, FREEDOM TO OFFEND: Support free speech, not sharia! caught my attention as its title obviously calls out to all those who value the God-given right to be able to speak one’s mind openly and freely without fear of the state or some special interest group laying a “hate speech” complaint against you.

In her article, embellished with a glitzy video presentation to enhance her Islamophobic argument, Faith Goldy slams the Liberal government’s “anti-Islamophobia initiative”; one that was brought on by a petition to the government calling “upon the House of Commons to recognize that terrorists are not real Muslims by condemning all forms of Islamophobia, with no exact definition of what they meant by the term.”

Faith was vehemently outraged by the fact that the petition had gained unanimous consent of Canada’s MP’s. She was also incensed by the Liberal’s tacitly implied proposal to introduce further draconian legislation to prohibit Canadians from “offending” Muslims; legislation that would most likely fall into Canada’s current Criminal Code “Hate Propaganda” sections 318 to 320, the very same legislation that the foreign Zionist Jew lobbyist organization B’nai Brith Canada used to indict me back in 2012 under their spurious claim that:

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

Faith sums up her angst with the Liberals by stating:

“In short: The Canadian government is preparing to silence anyone who criticizes Islam.

Their anti-Islamophobia motion (which will, in all likelihood, be voted on during this parliamentary session) resembles a kind of blasphemy law in favour of one preferred religion above all others. If this motion passes, Canadians can be persecuted for expressing any criticism of Islam, even when warranted.

This unfounded anti-Islamophobia legislation flies in the face of our Constitution and its embedded Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sharia law and it’s related speech codes are not a reasonable limit on my freedoms.

According to our charter of rights and freedoms — we’re all equal. Every individual (not a belief system or ideology) is equal before and under the law. We all have equal protections and benefit equally from the law.

Muslims do not get special treatment or protections.”

Enter the Bigots and Hypocrites

Allow me now to repeat what I did on my website with Theodore N. Kaufmann’s book, Germany Must Perish! in a satire of it that I titled, Israel Must Perish! and change but a few salient words of what Faith wrote so it now reads:

“In short: The Canadian government is preparing to silence anyone who criticizes Judaism.

Their anti-Semitism motion (which will, in all likelihood, be voted on during this parliamentary session) resembles a kind of blasphemy law in favour of one preferred religion above all others. If this motion passes, Canadians can be persecuted for expressing any criticism of Judaism, even when warranted.

This unfounded anti-Semitic legislation flies in the face of our Constitution and its embedded Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Talmudic Jew law and it’s related speech codes are not a reasonable limit on my freedoms.

According to our charter of rights and freedoms — we’re all equal. Every individual (not a belief system or ideology) is equal before and under the law. We all have equal protections and benefit equally from the law.

Jews do not get special treatment or protections.”

Now either Goldy the intrepid and fearless journalist is extremely naive when it comes to Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” legislation or else she’s intentionally avoiding the fact that these laws were knowingly and specifically introduced into Canadian jurisprudence by the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada in order to first and foremost protect the Jews and the actions of the foreign state of Israel. There’s no other reasonable explanation for why she would make such a ludicrous statement that the Liberal’s “anti-Islamophobia motion resembles a kind of blasphemy law in favour of one preferred religion above all others.” Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws are precisely that; laws that “favour of one preferred religion above all others” and that religion just happens to be Judaism, whether Goldy likes it or not.

Surely, as a Roman Catholic, Faith Goldy must have a very clear understanding that the Catholics and Christians in general certainly don’t warrant any protection under Canada’s current “Hate Propaganda” laws. Canadians are free to criticize, vilify, malign, libel and hate Christians as much as they like. As a Christian I can verify the veracity of this statement. The same goes for any other religion, with the one exception – Judaism – and that’s why the Zionist Jew mainstream media here in Canada has been attacking the Muslims with a vengeance and with impunity ever since Israel and its Mossad secret service, in collusion with the Zionist infested White House in Washington, D.C. and its Zionist controlled CIA, pulled off the greatest caper of the 21 century when they orchestrated 911 and then blamed it on the Muslims in order to justify their planned, pre-emptive wars with any Arab nation not willing to bow down and kiss the ass of either the Zionist state of Israel or its global bully the USA.

If Faith Goldy is the “fearless journalist” that she professes to be then she would display that professed trait by looking fearlessly into the politics of Canada’s media and research the involvement of the Jew lobbyists like B’nai Brith Canada, the former Canadian Jewish Congress and the more recent umbrella org know as the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs and the roles they’ve played in corrupting and poisoning Canada’s justice system so that it consistently and inevitably favours only one religion, that of the Jews.

But alas, I fear that this seemingly narrow-minded, glib-tongued Roman Catholic is not about to face the truth about Judaism and its bastard satanic, atheistic son Zionism any more that she’s about to face the truth about Ezra Levant and his goy-seducing “Rebel” disinformation site that she’s now using as a soap box to promote the Zionist agenda of spewing forth endless hatred toward Muslims, all of which is designed with the long range goal of inciting yet another major war between the Christians and the Islamic nations; one that will, as all the wars inevitably do, solely benefit the Jews and their sinister plans for global hegemony.

The double-edged sword

Allow me to conclude this critique of Faith Goldy and Ezra Levant with a general explanation as to why the Zionist Jew media and their lobbyists here in Canada were so fervently opposed to Sec. 13 and its “hate speech” provisions as contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act and why, when that draconian legislation was repealed in 2012, they didn’t then proceed on to ridding the country of the far more dangerous, Orwellian and freedom-denying legislation contained in Sec. 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code known as the “Hate Propaganda” laws.

For many years the Jewish lobby groups in Canada used the Sec. 13 legislation to attack anyone who criticized either Israel or its political ideology known as Zionism. Then, the Muslim organizations here in Canada realized that they too could wield this same legislation in order to prohibit the Jew mainstream media from spreading hate and lies about them and so they set out to do just that. They laid complaints against Ezra Levant for publishing the insulting and degrading images of their spiritual leader Mohammad as well as Mark Steyn; two Canadian Jews who had been vilifying and promoting hatred toward the Muslims and their Islam religion for years. On top of that Steyn was a regular contributor at Maclean’s Magazine and suddenly it found itself embroiled in the Sec. 13 “hate speech” complaint. That was when the Zionist Jews in Canada finally saw the light and realized that the sword they’d inserted into the Canadian Human Rights Act right after 911 was double-edged and could be used against them too. Oi veh! they exclaimed. Such a deal! This law has to go. And it did. It took a number of years of promoting it via the Jewish media establishment and on social media and blogs around the country but eventually enough awareness was raised and political pressure applied that the Conservative government under Harper finally buckled under and decided they had to get rid of Sec. 13.

I, like many others, fought long and hard to have the legislation repealed. Of course I had a vested interest in seeing it thrown out. I was being forced to run the gamut of both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal where “Truth” was no defence and the only outcome of appearing before the dreaded Stalinist tribunal was to be found guilty and have one’s rights to freedom of speech squashed along with the strong possibility of incurring exorbitant fines and restrictions on using the internet and ever publishing one’s views again. And I wasn’t alone. There were dozens of others who had already suffered and were still caught up in this vortex of madness that the Zionists had created thanks to their narcissistic, power-crazed delusions of power and grandeur. When the legislation was repealed there was great rejoicing amongst those who had been caught up in the merciless machinations of this Talmudic-driven censorship machine that had been running over our Constitutional and Charter rights for so long.

By the time the repeal occurred I had already come to the conclusions stated above and realized that the chances were not likely that the same forces who had brought to bear enough political and media pressure upon the government to repeal Sec. 13 were now going to do the same for Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws. And for obvious reasons. The “Hate Propaganda” laws had taken painstaking years of Jewish lobbying in order to get them implanted in the Criminal Code and it was understood by the Zionists that these laws were their last refuge and defence against having their long-range, secret agenda exposed to the general public on the internet. Without these Bolshevik-inspired laws to stem the inevitable tide of “anti-Semitism” that would automatically and naturally begin to rise once the public began realizing what the bigger picture was all about and their game plan was unravelling on the Internet they knew damn well that in order to keep the gullible goyim in their place and restrict the truth about their conspiracy they had to keep those “Hate Propaganda” laws intact and protected.

No sooner had Sec. 13 been repealed the same B’nai Brith Jewish lobbyists who filed their Sec. 13 complaint against me did an about turn and filed a Sec. 319(2) criminal code “hate complaint” against me in order to perpetuate the harassment and intimidation and legal torture that had finally ceased with the repeal of Sec. 13. When my trial came up in the fall of 2015 none of the former “rebels” and “free speech warriors” who I had worked with on the Sec. 13 campaign were to be found. Former allies in the fight for “freedom of speech” scurried like rats off a sinking ship. The likes of the great “free speech” fighters like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn suddenly pulled a disappearing act. Others, like Marc Lemire, whose Sec. 13 battle was the final spike driven through the draconian heart of the Sec. 13 legislation and who I had worked tirelessly to assist, were now as silent as lambs when it came to Regina vs Roy Arthur Topham. Mark and Connie Fournier who had run the conservative website and forum known as “Free Dominion” and, ironically, had won the George Orwell Award from Lawyer Doug Christie’s Canadian Free Speech League after labouring for years to have Sec. 13 repealed also faded into the void when the trial of Arthur Topham was reported across the country in the Zionist media. All of my efforts to help them during their tribulations proved fruitless. Instead of standing up for Canada and going the extra mile required in order to destroy these “Hate Propaganda” laws once and for all they chose instead to betray the country and their fellow partisans in favour of Israel, Zionism and Judaism. Hypocrites, one and all, they will go down in history as being little more than Zionist sycophants who enabled the destruction of the nation’s Charter rights to freedom of expression.

God have mercy on their tormented, deluded souls.

As for Faith Goldy there appears to be little Hope and no Charity for the Islamic nations of the world. It appears that Goldy has traded her Bible in for a copy of the Babylonian Talmud and is now in total denial of the words of Jesus Christ, her supposed Saviour, who once so prophetically stated in Revelation 2 verse 9: “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”

——

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”

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)

GLARING Hypocrisy Interview with Truth-Teller Monika Schaefer

GLARING Hypocrisy Interview with Truth-Teller Monika Schaefer

By Sean M. Madden
July 15, 2016

GLARING Hypocrisy Interview with Truth-Teller Monika Schaefer

(GLARING Hypocrisy) On June 17, 2016, Monika Schaefer, a native-born Canadian citizen of German parents, posted a brief video to YouTube entitled “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust”.

This led to a fellow citizen of Jasper, Alberta (Canada) filing a complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission. Although we watched Monika’s video shortly after it was published to YouTube, we only learned of the formal complaint and general local backlash on Thursday July 14, the same day we recorded this nearly hour-long Skype interview with her.

We recommend you take the six minutes to watch Monika’s above video — so you can hear her in her own words, and get a taste of her love for music and life. You’ll then be well-equipped to listen to our below interview with this gentle yet courageous truth-teller who has managed to free herself from the stifling birdcage of countless Jew World Order lies so that truth itself can soar unhindered to the minds of many others.

GLARING Hypocrisy Crowdfunding Update: On July 5th, we launched our self-hosted crowdfunding campaign in search of patrons who’d like to help us reach our goal of earning our full-time living via GLARING Hypocrisy, so that we can direct all of our passions and creative energies into resisting the Jew World Order. And we’re honored to report that we now have 9 such patrons, and are 4 percent of the way towards reaching our Stage 1 “Daily Bread”, and 1.6 percent towards reaching our Stage 2 “Sustainable Living”, goals. And we’re at 9.7 percent of our Equipment Upgrade goal as well. If you’d like to become a patron, or to learn more, click here.

 

 

Toronto’s Orwellian Thought Police Launch Another Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” Investigation of Dr. James Sear’s Your Ward News by Charles Mandel, N.O.

Screen Shot 2016-07-06 at 5.42.53 PM

Toronto police investigating racist newsletter for hate crimes
By Charles Mandel in News, Politics | July 6th 2016

JamesSearsImage
James Sears seen standing amongst a collage of images from Your Ward News. Photo from YouTube

The Toronto Police Service is investigating an offensive anti-Semitic newsletter over allegations it willfully promoted hate and hate propaganda.

Scott Purches, a detective with the intelligence branch of the Toronto Police, confirmed with National Observer that an active investigation is ongoing into the publication known as Your Ward News. Judy Foote, the minister of public services and procurement, ordered Canada Post to cease distribution of the newspaper in early June.

“Right now [we’re] in the midst of the investigation to evaluate it to see if it meets the threshold of hate propaganda,” Purches said.

The detective said that the branch has been looking at Your Ward News since the spring of 2015 following complaints from the public. This is the first confirmation that an investigation is underway.

The investigation would probe both the content on both the print version and the publication’s web site, he explained. It would then consider the appropriate sections of the federal criminal code to see if it meets the criteria for the willful promotion of hate and hate propaganda.

The criminal code defines hate propaganda as any writing, sign or visible representation advocating or promoting genocide or its communication

Another section of the code makes it a crime to communicate, except in private conversation, statements that willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group.

James Sears, the newsletter’s publisher, maintains that the publication is political satire.

“That’s how he’s presenting himself,” Purches said. “That is the fine line in which we have to objectively evaluate the material.”

Once the detective completes his evaluation, an investigative package will go to the Ontario Attorney-General’s office and it will determine whether or not charges are laid before a justice of the peace or a judge.

Purches couldn’t say when he might wrap up his investigation.

Citizens’ coalition welcomes police investigation

Lisa Kinsella, a member of a broad coalition of citizens and activists in Toronto who have been trying to have the publication stopped, applauded the news of the investigation.

“I think it’s about time,” she said. “It’s a good decision on their part and I hope they follow it to their full conclusion.

“We’ve worked very hard to make sure we keep this trash out of our mail boxes. The government of Canada did their part and we did our part and it’s time for the police to do their part.”

Canada Post was ordered to stop distributing Your Ward News in June. Sears is currently appealing the government order.

In late April, Ottawa lawyer JSX* filed a strongly-worded human rights complaint against Canada Post and the Canadian government in order to stop distribution of the offensive newsletter.

“Canada Post and the Government of Canada are regularly and knowingly delivering misogynist, racist, anti-Jewish, anti-Muslim, and homophobic hate propaganda into Toronto-area homes,” alleged JSX in his complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Since 2015, Your Ward News has been the subject of complaints from the public and postal workers alike, who have bristled at the newsletter’s alleged hate propaganda.


* A court order prohibits RadicalPress.com from publishing the name of said lawyer. The same lawyer who filed the Sec. 319(2) complaint against Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com back in 2011. Ed.

 

CANADA DAY – EH? By Arthur Topham

CanadaDayEh?2

CANADA DAY – EH?
2016

By
Arthur Topham

It’s been a bit of a tradition here at Radical Press to write a few words each year on Canada Day. Kinda like keeping a diary that reflects the demise of a nation or, taken in an individual sense, sort of like a cancer patient keeping a daily account of their deteriorating condition up to the point where the pain meds finally block out any further attempt to document their quickening death.

If this is beginning to sound a bit pessimistic then you’re on track. That Maple Leaf pictured in the header above isn’t exactly a healthy, robust image of my country as it exists today. It’s more akin to something Shakespeare might have had in mind while composing Macbeth.

?MPTrudeau&queersupporters

You could say that I have a vested interested in my country’s judicial system and want to see it perform for the betterment of the nation as a whole. Those familiar with my own legal issues will understand why this is of prime importance to me (and my family).

Around this time last year Justin Trudeau was out campaigning and rounding up his potential future cabinet and for all the folks who were still reeling in one way or another from the previous decade of “FREE SPEECH” battles with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and it’s Tribunal there was some long-awaited closure when the federal Conservative government finally repealed the draconian censorship legislation on June 27th, 2014. Being one of the many candidates awaiting my turn before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (a Stalinist-style, make-believe, gong show where EVERYONE CHARGED WAS FOUND GUILTY and Truth was as useless as tits on a boar) having that monkey off my back was a relief even though by that point I was already facing another criminal charge under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada (CCC).

?Section13OfficRepeal

But as we all know the quest to rid Canada of it’s obnoxious and freedom destroying “Hate Propaganda” legislation still far from over and, in fact, is being expanded further to prevent Canadians from expressing their thoughts and opinions on a growing number of dramatic legal changes that will penalize discussion of policies deemed by many to be so egregious that the moral character of the nation is on the verge of collapse. Of course I’m referring here to the Queer Agenda that the present Liberal government is bound and determined to make into an indictable offence.

Last year they were spraying the country with chemtrail poisons just like they were the year before and the year before and …. This year is more of the same and in many places getting worse by the day. Another good reason not to get too optimistic that anything good is going to come out of this latest government.

If I recollect correctly Justin Trudeau was going to make some long-awaited changes to the marijuana laws and stop penalizing people for puffing on a J. So far diddley squat on that. Possibly he’s saving it for when his ratings drop below Harper’s? I don’t know but I’m sure there’s a lot of heads out there getting pretty impatient.

At this writing I’m sitting in a condo looking out from North Vancouver across the water at the Vancouver skyline. The fireworks have just started and the night is exploding in colours. It’s 10:30 pm. Better get this posted before the day’s gone.

I do hope that Canadians were able to get out and enjoy the day. The country worth saving from the jaws of the Beast.

WE MUST GET RID OF THE HATE SPEECH LAWS!

All the best!

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
RadicalPress.com

Globe & Mail steps up to the “free speech” plate to support Dr. James Sears & YOUR WARD NEWS publication

ATEditorRedCap200

[Editor’s Note: While this article is far from being a ringing endorsement for the repeal of Canada’s anti-free speech legislation contained in Section 318 to 320 of the Canadian Criminal Code it definitely is a good start in the right direction. Apart from the standard zionist show of obeisance in Marcus Gee’s needless epithets aimed at Dr. Sear’s character and motives the focus on government and private corporate (Canada Post) censorship is refreshing to see in a msm publication and, in Facebook is deserving of a “like”.]

Postal censorship is a cure worse than the disease

By MARCUS GEE

The Globe and Mail

June 7th, 2016 

Dr.SearsG&Mpic

Canadians who value free speech – and let’s hope that is all of us – should be deeply troubled by Ottawa’s decision to tell Canada Post to stop carrying a fringe Toronto newspaper. Public Services Minister Judy Foote ordered the postal service to cease delivering Your Ward News, which has been accused of being anti-Semitic and pro-Nazi. Her “interim prohibitory order” gives its editor 10 days to appeal.

This is a catch-all ASF view; only displays when an unsupported article type is put in an ASF drop zone

Those who have campaigned against the free paper are “ecstatic.” But consider the awful precedent this act of postal censorship sets.

If people who are offended by something that appears in their mailbox can complain and get it banned from the post, where does it stop? Can a pro-choice feminist block the graphic pro-life pamphlet that comes in the mail? Can a fierce pro-lifer ban a flier from an abortion clinic? Or consider the feelings of the victim of East European communism who gets a Marxist tract in the mail? Why should an agency of the government that her taxes support be allowed to introduce that propaganda into her home?

This is the trouble with just about all limits on free speech. Who says what is beyond the pale? Deciding to block child pornography or open incitement to violence is easy enough, because of the direct physical harm they can be shown to cause. After that, it gets tricky.

Someone must have the power to determine what is dangerous or odious speech and what is merely passionate expression. It is always a matter of opinion. The line is impossible to draw, the scope for abuse endless.

Even in democratic countries, authorities have often succumbed to the impulse to black out what they don’t like. Communist propaganda was blocked on the grounds that it threatened national security, erotica on the grounds that it undermined public morals. The postal system was once one of the main agents of censorship. A century ago, postal censors blocked mailed instalments of James Joyce’s Ulysses.

Your Ward News is not Ulysses. Its editor, James Sears, who has been known to style himself as Dimitri the Lover, told City News that Hitler is his second-biggest idol, after Jesus. He ends his e-mails “Expel the Parasite!” – all in capital letters, of course. The group that has been fighting him calls his publication a “neo-Nazi-rag” that “has been permitted to disseminate racism, homophobia, misogyny and anti-Semitism to as many as 300,000 homes in Toronto.”

If so, there are a couple of ways to fight back short of censorship. One is simply to toss Your Ward News where it belongs: in the recycling bin. Nobody is forced to read it when it comes in the mail. People like Mr. Sears thrive on the oxygen of attention. Ignoring him is the best revenge.

Another is to argue back. If his opponents feel his maunderings are too despicable to pass over, they can always denounce or refute him. It is always better to fight speech with speech than to gag the speaker.

It is a good time to remember these old lessons about how to handle troublesome speech. Free expression is always under attack to some degree, and the danger seems especially acute today. The little tussle over Your Ward News is part of a wider struggle.

Overseas, authoritarian governments from Moscow to Beijing to Cairo are cracking down on the right to speak openly without fear. Canadians got a small glimpse of their attitude when China’s foreign minister dressed down a reporter in Ottawa for daring to ask a question about human rights. At home, on university campuses and beyond, the tendency to take offence is stifling healthy debate and silencing dissenting voices.

Sometimes those voices can be obnoxious, but it won’t do to try to snuff them out. Ottawa has no business telling the postal service to censor the mail just because some people don’t like what comes through the slot.

—-

SOURCE ARTICLE

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

Canadian Roundtable – The Trial of Arthur Topham & The Jewish Lobby in Canada by Red Ice Radio

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2016/02/RIR-160210.php

CanRound Final

 

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!

Today’s Free Speech Rant: Advocating for Brad Love and Arthur Topham by Alberta Al

ALBERTAALNEWHDR copy 3

Today’s Free Speech Rant: Advocating for Brad Love and Arthur Topham

by Alberta Al

ATEditorPic185 copy

Editor’s Note: The following rant by 79 year old Alberta Al is in response to an article by Paul Fromm on political prisoner Brad Love who has been in and out of jail here in Canada for the past 14 years for the horrendous crime of . . . . writing non-theatening letters of criticism to politicians and bureaucrats on controversial topics! Freedom of expression for Love has turned into hatred by the alien forces of repressive censorship who now rule the Canadian state. Alberta Al’s remarks are poignant and worthy of serious consideration.

________

If thousands of us across this once great nation were to publish CRITICAL comments about Zionist Israeli policies and programs and deny that the holocaust occurred, and those comments were applied to all Jewish lobby groups in Canada; and if all of us were charged under section 319(2) of the CRIMINAL CODE; and if ALL of us pled GUILTY to the charges there would NOT be enough rooms in our jails and loonie bins to house us all.  So what would the Crown do with us?  If I were charged and pled guilty I wouldn’t mind the comfort of a private cell where I receive 3 meals a day without having to prepare one morsel, free medical and dental care, free library facilities, free TV and internet and (because some perverts have taken advantage of it) a free make-over making one a woman from a man.

True red-blooded Canadians who have any substance to them have slid into almost nothingness along with the rest of our complacent, uncaring and unfriendly society.  We have lost our ability to communicate with each other orally to debate issues or express our opinions without fear of retribution.  Instead, we have become robotically engineered by those IN POWER to dance tunes on our bee-bop-a lulus, our gadgets and devices, from which we can HIDE and call anyone any blasphemous name or expletive they can think of.  Just look at the comments after particular articles and you will see what I mean.  You will also notice that by and large the commentators don’t know the English language which proves to me that FUNCTIONAL ILLITERACY is alive and well in Canada even though we spend BILLIONS on trying to educate our children to………THINK ANALYTICALLY!

In the last 40 odd years our politicians have learned very well NOT to communicate with us peons, not to be accountable and transparent to us.  They sit back in their GD comfortable office pews with their feet on their desks and fall asleep while the ship of state is floundering.  Governments of all stripes have learned that the best way to be reelected is to GIVE money to every Tom, Dick and Mary and corporation and increase the public debt…………………seemingly without batting an eye!  What do they care?  It’s not their money?  And anyway they get 1/3 of their salaries TAX FREE!  When was the last time YOU got tax-free wages or salaries?

One cannot advocate for Brad Love – and Arthur Topham – strong enough.  Our rights to FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS guaranteed under the CHARTER are being washed away by the shifting, whispering sands.  We no long respect and love each other because it is much easier to………………………….HATE!  We have become cowering cowards, afraid of our own shadows, afraid to speak out except when we hold a gun to someone’s head!  Amen and hallelujah!  Al has completed his rant for the day.

Contact Alberta Al: Al Romanchuk romanesq@shaw.ca

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

Open Letter from Dr. James Sears: Financial support for Arthur Topham’s legal battle for Freedom of Speech in Canada

Open Letter from Dr. James Sears: Financial support for Arthur Topham’s legal battle for Freedom of Speech in Canada

Dec. 10th, 2015

Dr. James SearsPic

Dec. 10/15

Arthur:

Firstly, thank you for having the courage to stand up to the powerful ZioMarxist lobby.  If you ever lose faith in your ultimate victory, please keep in mind that Jesus survived it, and so will you!  Secondly, thank you for publishing my satirical story on your court case.  I will be writing more stories on your saga very soon.

I am writing you today because I understand from a mutual acquaintance that you are about to incur substantial legal costs, including over $4,000 to order trial transcripts, and that these costs may be prohibitive, potentially jeopardizing your appeal.  I love Canada, so I refuse to allow ZioFascists to take down a good man, because for all I know, any one of us could be next!

Therefore, I have email transferred you a token $5,000 to relieve some of your immediate financial stress.  I have set aside a substantial sum of money that you may tap into at any time, with just one call or email to me.  However, further donations are contingent upon the freedom-loving, patriotic internet community matching my initial donation. In other words, as I give you each tranche of money, I expect the community to match what I have given you before my next tranche comes in. In essence, I will pre-match every dollar you collect.

All I ask in return is that you fight these parasites to the bitter end.  Do not give up until you have achieved victory or you have taken your dying breath.

EXPEL THE PARASITE!

Dr. James Sears
Founder and Leader
New Constitution Party of Canada

 

 

Wailing Wall-‘Wrecking Ball’ by Miley Cyrus Parody – Shiksa Goddess

WailingWallShiksaGoddess

The Expert Witness – Part 1 by Gilad Atzmon

Screen Shot 2015-11-09 at 7.05.41 AM

The Expert Witness – Part 1
November 09, 2015  /  Gilad Atzmon

The following is the first part of Gilad Atzmon’s Expert Witness Testimony at Arthur Topham’s criminal trial.  This part contains a brief summary of Atzmon’s perception of the Jews and their politics.  In the next part Atzmon will explain how these ideas serve to vindicate all forms of criticism of Jewish politics, ideology, symbols, rituals and so on.

Attorney Barclay Johnson: Mr Atzmon, can you please elaborate on the notion of Jewish Identity Politics.

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: Identity politics is a relatively new study that looks into the meaning and the means of identification of various groups. Instead of asking what is X or Y, identity politics delves into the question of what identifying as X or Y may entail.  I have gone through the court case documentation and detected a considerable lack of understanding of the complexity of the terminology related to Jewish matters: identity, religion, race and politics. In particular, I encountered confusion in the comprehension of the crucial distinction among:

A: Judaism (the religion)

B:  The Jews (the people)

C: Jewishness (the ideology)

In order to grasp these notions we must elaborate first on the meaning of Jewish Identity Politics.

Instead of asking what or who are the Jews, we will simplify the question. We will ask what those who identify themselves as Jews mean by that.

Years of studying of Jewish identity politics led me to the conclusion that we are dealing with three non-exclusive categories.

A: The Religion – people who identify as Jews because they believe and follow the Torah/Talmud. Ladies and gentlemen-this category is innocent. The history of hundreds of years of rabbinical Judaism proves that orthodox Jews have never been involved in a genocidal act against another people.

B: Ethnicity – people who identify as Jews due to ancestry and family lineage. Ladies and gentlemen, this category is also innocent. Having a Jewish mother doesn’t make one into a war criminal!

C: Politics – those who identify politically as Jews. Ladies and gentlemen, unfortunately, this category is far from innocent. Zionism-the promise to bring about a Jewish homeland in Palestine was executed at the expense of another people: namely the Palestinians. But Zionism is not alone. In fact all forms of Jewish politics are racially exclusive. Ask yourself, can Mr. Topham or any other ‘Goy’ (gentile, non-Jew) in this room join the group ‘Jews for Peace’ or ‘Jews for Human Rights’? The answer is NO. And why? Because the Goyim in the room are not racially qualified. The conclusion is inevitable. The 3rd category is racially oriented and to a certain extent, racist to the bone.   ‘Jews for peace’ is in practice as racist and exclusive as “Aryans for Palestine” or “Whites for free love.” And yet, most of us would react angrily to White only clubs but we are somehow forgiving when it comes to Jews only associations.

Attorney Barclay Johnson: Mr Atzmon, please make sure that we understand you correctly. Are Jews a race?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: Not at all. Jews are neither a race nor they are a biological entity, but Jewish politics is always racist or at least driven by racial orientation!

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  How does the model you sketched above help to understand Israeli politics, Jewish Identity or progress in this court case?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: In practice, every Jew who identifies as a Jew subscribes to one, two or three of the categories above.  Let’s examine the case of an American Jewish settler living in occupied West Bank. Yes he follows the Torah (1st category), yes he is Jew by ancestry (2nd category) and certainly, he identifies politically as a Jew (3rd category). But what about the Jewish Marxists who went as far as Spain to fight Franco in the name of the revolution? These revolutionary Jews didn’t follow the Jewish religion, they were not the 1st category. They only subscribed to the 2nd and the 3rd categories. What about Noam Chomsky? He is not a religious Jew. Again, he only subscribes to the 2nd and the 3rd   categories. He is a Jew by ancestry and also identifies politically as a Jew[1]. Albert Einstein? The Jury is out on that one but it would be reasonable to argue that he subscribes to the 2nd category.

I argue that it is the Jewish political element, the subscription to the 3rd category that leads towards some unsavoury acts whether they be the cold blood murder of Palestinian families or extensive Jewish Lobbying in the West.  Those acts deserve criticism, politically and ideologically.

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  But how does this model help this court to further its understanding the case of Arthur Topham or the accusation of hate speech?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: As I mentioned before, categories 1 & 2 are totally innocent. And indeed, no one really criticises Neturei Karta (Torah Jews) or Satmar Jews in related to Israeli crimes in Palestine. These two ultra orthodox Jewish groups made it clear that they oppose the crimes committed by the Jewish State and Zionism. Moreover, nowadays, no one really criticises Jews as a race, biology or ethnicity. What we do see is opposition Jewish politics and ideology. However and this is crucial. In the West we tend to believe that every politics & ideology must be subject to political and ideological criticism. My Lord, if every form of politics and ideology must be subject to criticism, this rule must be applied also to Jewish politics and ideology, and as far as I can tell, Jewish politics and ideology deserves a lot of criticism.

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  But it seems as if Jews are often feel hated if their politics is criticised.

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon:  Correct, yet, the fact that Jews feel hated doesn’t mean that anyone really hates them. It is also be possible that some Jews feel hated because they actually project their own hatred onto others.

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  I am slightly confused here it seems as if we are dealing with a sophisticated multi layered identity.

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: You are totally correct, this topic is indeed confusing and for a reason. Contemporary Diaspora Jewish politics struggles to maintain this confusion because it stifles any from of criticism of Jewish politics. In order to understand this construct we should imagine the following kosher trinity.

1447063494308

When we criticise Jewish politics (Israel, Zionism, the Lobby etc’) some Jews are“racially offended” in spite of the fact that race, biology, blood or ethnicity was never mentioned.   When we criticise Jewish racism some Jews hide behind the argument that we are criticizing their religion. When we occasionally criticise the religion or some obscene Jewish religious teaching we are quick to learn that Jews are hardly religious anymore (which is true by the way). The meaning of it is simple, yet devastating. The Jewish triangle makes it very difficult, or even impossible to criticise Jewish politics, ideology and racism because the Identity is set as a field with a tri-polar gravity centre. The identity morphs endlessly. The contemporary 3rd category (political) Jew is everywhere and nowhere simultaneously, this is the quantum mechanics that is set to supress any possible criticism.

Attorney Barclay Johnson: In the last 7 days this court learned about some very problematic segments within the Talmud and the Torah. Yet, you insist here that the religion is innocent. Can you please enlighten us about the role of religion?

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: This is a crucial point. While I argue that the Jewish religion is an innocent category, this is far from saying that Judaism is clean of some very problematic teachings and even racist and supremacist preaching.

Here is the problem. The historical facts are plain. In spite of some very problematic Judaic teachings that are both Talmud and Torah related, rabbinical Jews have never been involved in any collective murderous attempt against anyone else. This fact suggests that in spite of some horrid segments, it was actually the Talmud that restrained the Jews for centuries. Such a view vindicates the Talmud despite its uncomfortable teachings. But things are about to get very uncomfortable now.

It is not a secret that in contemporary Israel, it is the orthodox Jews and the followers of the Talmud who lead the most racist and murderous abuse of the indigenous Palestinian population. Thus, we have a clear question to answer. If it was the Talmud that restrained the Jews for centuries, why doesn’t it restrain orthodox Israeli Jews now? The orthodox rabbis argue that it is the addition of political orientation that interfered with Judaic peaceful teaching.

Another possible answer is that we were wrong all along.  It wasn’t the Talmud that restrained the Jews, actually it was the ‘anti-Semitic’ church that repressed Jews. The collapse of the Church together with the rise of Israel and the influential Jewish lobbies in the West have led to a severe sense of impunity that is translated into a tsunami of violence and rise of Jewish supremacy that is religiously driven.

Here are some marbles taken from the Rabbi Ovadia Yossef, an Israeli Chief Sepharadi Rabbi. http://www.timesofisrael.com/5-of-ovadia-yosefs-most-controversial-quotations/

On Goyim:

“Goyim were born only to serve us. Without that, they have no place in the world – only to serve the People of Israel.”  Weekly Saturday night sermon in October 2010

On Muslims:

“They’re stupid. Their religion is as ugly as they are.”

— Weekly Saturday night sermon in December 2009.

I cannot judge whether this is indeed the case but I can clearly say that the only way to deal with these issues is to discuss them openly and to make sure that as much information as possible is available to all of us. Ladies and Gentlemen, I do believe that this is the principle that guides Arthur Topham, who for over 30 years has made some of the most important texts on the matter available to us all.

I wouldn’t know about‘Germany Must Perish’ unless Mr Topham had made it into a satire. Would you? Even the Crown Expert, Mr Rudner, admitted that he wasn’t aware of the text and actually confirmed by this admission the importance of the Radical Press. Two days ago Mr Rudner admitted that ‘Germany Must Perish’ is a hateful text. Congratulation to Mr Rudner. It took the Jewish world more than 7 decades to denounce one of the most horrible Jewish texts ever. Is not Mr Rudner long awaited denunciation the direct outcome of Mr Topham’s satire?

Attorney Barclay Johnson:  History. In your book, ‘The Wandering Who,’ you delve into the notion of History and Jewish history in particular. Can you please elaborate on the topic and its relevance within the context of ‘Holocaust denial’ and so-called ‘hatred?’

Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon: History becomes a meaningful adventure once we learn to narrate the past as we move along. This means that as we are changing constantly, our understanding of the past is also shifting. Accordingly, history, at its best, is the ability to visit, re-visit and revise our past as we progress in time. This understanding of history must be applied to any chapter in our past including the Holocaust.

It is no secret that Jewish institutions oppose the Holocaust being subjected to revision and the outcome of this opposition is tragic, especially for the Jews. Instead of letting the Holocaust become a dynamic universal ethical lesson it has been reduced into the new canonical Jewish religion. It has its shrines (museums) prophets, preachers and even a new God figure: ‘The Jew,’ the one who was forsaken by God, yet resurrected himself from the slaughter, and against all odds, made Israel into a nuclear super power that too often threatens world peace.

Once again, our duty to the Jews, to humanity, to Canada as well as to Israel is to fight this intellectual stagnation. To burst the bubble with an injection of refreshing and controversial thoughts. But isn’t that what Radical Press and Arthur Topham have been doing for the last 35 years?

Ladies and Gentlemen, one of the most disturbing images of National Socialist Germany’s persecution of the Jews are those old archive films of book burning. It is rather disturbing that in Canada in 2015 it is actually the Jewish lobby that leads the call for book burning. One would expect Jews to draw the necessary lesson from the Shoah. Freedom of speech and expression are our most precious assets. It is what made Athens into the core of universal thinking. It is down to us to keep this promise for the sake of our future generations and humanism in general.

GILAD&BARCLAY

—–

[1] Professor Chomsky recently endorsed Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP): http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/mazal-tov-to-chomsky-and-jews-voice-for-peace.html

Anti-Zionist Jew web postings about ‘synagogue of Satan’ at heart of Arthur Topham’s trial by Betsy Trumpener/CBC

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/hate-jew-topham-quesnel-website-crime-israel-synagogues-of-satan-1.3309060

Anti-Zionist Jew web postings about ‘synagogue of Satan’ at heart of Arthur Topham’s trial

Topham trial ‘the biggest waste of taxpayer money’ says his lawyer

CBC News Posted: Nov 07, 2015 9:19 AM PT Last Updated: Nov 08, 2015

CBCAT&ST

Arthur Topham and his wife Shastah Topham leave the Quesnel courthouse Friday Nov. 6. (Betsy Trumpener/CBC)

Betsy Trumpener

Arthur Topham’s views on Judaism are far from “mainstream,” but his lawyer says his website is far from criminal.

The Quesnel man’s lawyer said Friday his client is the victim of an “inquisition” for espousing controversial views on a politically sensitive topic.

Topham is charged with willfully promoting hatred against Jewish people through his website RadicalPress.com.

An expert Crown witness said Friday that Topham’s postings demonized and distorted Jewish people with phrases like “synagogues of Satan” and a satiric article calling for “the extermination of Israel and all Jews.”

Lawyer Barclay Johnson conceded that that his client’s views deviated from “the mainstream” but pointed to the fact that Topham did not hate individual Jews, and in fact, his own wife is Jewish.

In closing arguments Johnson said B’nai Brith and the former Canadian Jewish Congress alerted authorities about Topham’s website, describing them as “lobby groups for a foreign government trying to shut down a Canadian web site for criticism of Israel and Jews.”

Johnson then called the trial “the ultimate insult to freedom, and the biggest waste of taxpayer money.”

The crown is scheduled to deliver its own closing arguments Monday, Nov. 9.

—-

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

Arthur&TheJewsFINAL

Arthur & the Jews

The controversy over freedom of speech

By

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
RadicalPress.com

October 23, 2015

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

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

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

~ Jesus Christ, Ch. 8, Verse 17

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

EndHateCrimeLegislation 2 copy 2

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

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

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

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

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

FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP copy 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•••0•••

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

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

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

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

 

The Realist Report: Support Canadian Patriot Arthur Topham

http://therealistreport.com/support-canadian-patriot-arthur-topham/

RealistReport

http://therealistreport.com/support-canadian-patriot-arthur-topham/

12115719_10153247045925197_7255172481947330438_n

•••• ••••

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

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

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

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 24

NEWERESTLegalUpdateLogo-700

notice4RP

RPEdNew300 copy

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 24
August 8th, 2015

Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,

A considerable amount of time has lapses since the previous Legal Update that appeared back on April 17th, 2015. There were plans to update my legal situation after the next court appearance but due to urgent family matters I was unable to do so. May and June were consumed with caring for my brother who was dying of cancer and that was a major contributing factor in not publishing anything further. As a result this update will be somewhat lengthy in order to cover the essentials.

Just to recap, the April 17th court appearance and all the subsequent appearances since then were the result of my attempt to have the BC Supreme Court address the following Charter issues surrounding the case and in so doing circumvent the unnecessary cost and time to taxpayers and the courts by attempting to hold this mock “hate speech” trial in October of 2015:

As the Applicant the Issues that I wanted raised and which were included in my Memorandum of Argument are as follows:

• Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code constitutes an infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

• The Crown bears the onus of justifying the infringement of Charter rights on a case-by-case basis.

• The present case is distinguishable from Keegstra on its facts.

• The infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter is not reasonably justified by Section 1 in the circumstances of this case, and specifically:

The “pressing and substantial objective” of legislation must be defined narrowly for the purpose of a Section 1 analysis.

• The use of Section 319(2) in this case is not rationally connected to the pressing and substantial objective of preventing harms associated with hate propaganda.

• Criminal prosecution by indictment is not a minimal impairment of the Applicant’s Charter rights.

• The infringement of the Applicant’s Charter rights is disproportionate to any possible salutary effect that Section 319(2) could have in the circumstances of this case.

• The appropriate remedy is to read into the law a constitutional exemption, to the effect that Section 319(2) is not a reasonable limit on Section 2(b) in circumstances where the allegedly hateful material is legal to possess and lawfully available from other sources.
My Argument is as follows:

Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code constitutes an infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

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

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.”

Section 2(b) of the Charter protects the right to freedom of expression, a “fundamental freedom” enjoyed by all Canadians:

“Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: …

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

The issue of Det. Terry Wilson (the Arresting Officer) having obtained an illegal search warrant and then entering my home and stealing all of my computers and electronic files as well as all of my hundreds of thousand of emails was brought up in my Memorandum of Argument.

As I stated it:

“Whether or not the Applicant’s personal emails are being introduced into evidence, the fact that personal emails were accessed must be considered in regard to the issue of minimal impairment. Detective Wilson’s own evidence is that he and his colleagues accessed information which was outside the scope of the search warrant.

The search of the Applicant’s computers did not give rise to any incriminating evidence. Nevertheless, the search of the Applicant’s personal emails was an overbroad and “intrusive invasion of privacy.” This must be taken into account with regard to minimal impairment.

Performing an overbroad search of an individual’s personal computer in support of an application for an “overbroad prior restraint” on that individual’s right to freedom of expression is not a minimal impairment of Charter rights.

The infringement of the Applicant’s Charter rights is disproportionate to any possible salutary effect that Section 319(2) could have in the circumstances of this case:

Aside from a “point of principle” against offensive speech, the application of Section 319(2) in the present case has no possible salutary effects. The removal from one website of alleged hate propaganda which is legal to possess and lawfully accessible from dozens of other websites does not constitute a salutary effect.

On the other hand, a conviction under Section 319(2) would have a devastating effect upon the Applicant’s Charter right to freedom of expression. Furthermore, it would constitute an endorsement by the court of a breach of the Applicant’s most basic privacy interests.
In all of the circumstances, it will be respectfully submitted that the infringement upon the Charter-protected interests of the accused is grossly disproportionate to any possible salutary effect of this ongoing prosecution.

The Order Sought reads as follows:

Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 reads as follows:

“52. (1) The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.”

After citing R. v. Sharpe in support of Section 52(1) the Applicant respectfully requested an order as follows:

A declaration that Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code constitutes an infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter, as already established in R. v. Keegstra.

A declaration, pursuant to Section 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, that Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code is not reasonably justified by Section 1 of the Charter in circumstances where the allegedly hateful material is legal to possess and lawfully available from other sources.

For the full text of the Memorandum of Argument please go here and read it in pdf format.

From the get go the Crown did not want to have these Charter issues argued prior to the trial and in order to accomplish that objective the Attorney General’s office in Victoria, B.C. assigned Rodney G. Garson, a special Crown Prosecutor out of their Prosecution Support Unit within the Crown Law Division of the Ministry of Justice to act as Counsel for the Respondent (i.e. The Queen of England).

In my own case I was able to raise enough funding to hire Barclay W. Johnson, also from Victoria (and former partner with my initial lawyer Douglas Christie who passed away on March 11th, 2013), on a limited retainer to act on my behalf with respect to my Application.

Stepping back a bit my wife and I attended another court appearance in Quesnel on June 10th, 2015, again to deal with the Charter question. It was unattended by Crown and I was hooked up via telephone with in the court room with S.C. Justice Butler, Crown Prosecutor Rodney G. Garson and my counsel Barclay W. Johnson. After some bantering about it was decided that the three of them would meet again in the flesh on June 22nd, 2015 in the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver to present final arguments. At the time of this arrangement it was agreed that I would be able to attend via telephone from Quesnel rather than make the costly trip to Vancouver.

Three days later I had to return to North Vancouver in order to attend to my brother and ended up staying down on the coast until the June 22nd hearing. At first my counsel wasn’t able to gain permission from the Vancouver court registry for me to attend the hearing! They told Barclay Johnson that there wasn’t “enough room” in the courthouse. (?) Eventually I was able to attend and entered the law courts just after 10 a.m. on the morning of Monday, June 22nd.

Walking around the building at 800 Smythe Street looking for Court Room #55 on the 5th floor I was reflecting back thirteen years to the last time I was in that architectural wonder of Arthur C. Erickson’s. It was the year 2002 and I was appearing on my own behalf to argue against an attempt by the then NDP government to gain an interlocutory injunction against my monthly newspaper The Radical. I had been publishing articles exposing alleged wrong-doings by the NDP Minister of Children and Families, Edward John; serious allegations of pedophilia and child abductions within the Ministry of Children and Families and the Attorney-General’s office.

SLAPP-STICKVOL3#9RADICAL copy

Ed John did get his injunction but the libel charge ended up being dropped some years later when John assumed the role of Grand Chief Ed John of the First Nations Summit and didn’t want any adverse publicity linking him to the former allegations. If one googles John you will find no mention of his former connections with the NDP in his official bio.

But my special relationship with Vancouver’s Supreme Courthouse(s) goes back further even than 2002. Much further. Back to the turbulent days of the latter half of the 1960’s in fact when my career as a political activist and writer first began.

It was on Saturday, March 8th, 1968 when a group of us Hippies were gathered at the old Vancouver court house on West Georgia Street that the Mayor of Vancouver, Tom Campbell, sent the “fuzz” (the police) to harass and intimidate us into leaving the area or else face mass arrest using bogus “John Doe” warrants. I was one of those who refused to be intimidated and was subsequently arrested and charged with “loitering”. The following article from the Vancouver Sun tells the sordid tale of that day.

1968Arrest1

1968Arrest2

1968Arrest3

1968Arrest4 copy

In 1968 Mayor Tom Campbell was calling Hippies “parasites” and “scum” and other hateful words but we never ever considered charging him with a Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” offence. There is an excellent 6 minute CBC interview with former Vancouver Mayor Campbell that I discovered while putting together this update which I’m sure many of the older readers would enjoy watching. It took place at the old Vancouver courthouse fountain on the 18th of March not long after the big arrest.

MayorCampbell 1968

(And yes, one of the other “Hippies” arrested that same day was Udo Erasmus, now known in the alternative medicine community for his famous “Udo’s Oils”. Another of those “lowlife scum” who’s contributed immensely to improving the health of future generations.)

Getting back to the present the hearing commenced at 10:50 a.m. with Justice Butler, Prosecutor Garson, Counsel Johnson, Johnson’s legal assistant Jeremy Maddock and myself in attendance. The courtroom was large with seating for likely 50+ and more but was empty.

Barclay Johnson spoke first and gave an overview of the case citing the main points mentioned above and also arguing that Crown doesn’t have solid evidence to warrant going to trial and wasting taxpayer’s money and precious court time that would be better used for serious cases. He also voiced the position that my case was politically motivated.

When the Crown Prosecutor Garson’s turn came to speak he made a point of registering a formal objection to Justice Morgan regarding Barclay Johnson’s assertion that the case was politically motivated, assuming what I felt was feigned righteous indignation on the part of the Attorney General’s office.

Garson then launched into his argument with the following Introduction:

1. The applicant, Roy Arthur Topham, is charged with the criminal offence of willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, contrary to s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

2. In defending himself against that charge, he has filed a notice of application under the Constitutional Question Act, [RSBC 1996] c. 68. The application challenges the constitutionality of s. 319(2), despite the provision being found to be constitutionally valid by the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697.

3. At the last pre-trial conference in relation to this case, this Court directed that a hearing be held in relation to a single threshold issue. That issue is a simple one in that it relates to the binding effect of the Keegstra decision, and in particular that portion of the majority decision which ruled that the s. 2(b) Charter violation engendered by s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code was justified under section 1 of the Charter.

4. The applicant says that the Supreme Court of Canada’s ruling on the constitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code in Keegstra is only partially binding. According to the applicant, every Canadian court is bound by its legal conclusion that s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code violates the freedom of expression guarantee in s. 2(b) of the Charter. But no Canadian court is bound by its legal conclusion that the violation is justified by s. 1 of the Charter. Consequently, the applicant argues that the Crown must justify the legislation on a “case-by-case” basis, every time a person is charged with and prosecuted for an offence contrary to s. 319(2) of the Code.

5. The Crown submits that the applicant’s argument is entirely without merit. Not only is the argument without any support in the jurisprudence, the Supreme Court of Canada has expressly set out the conditions under which a trial court may revisit Charter rulings of the Supreme Court that would otherwise be binding. The onus to satisfy a trial court that this threshold has been established is clearly on the Charter claimant.

The full text of RESPONDENT CROWN’S SUBMISSIONS ON THRESHOLD ISSUE CONCERNING CHARTER S. 1 JUSTIFICATION AND R. v. KEEGSTRA, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697 can be viewed here.

After Crown’s presentation and concluding arguments by both parties Court recessed for lunch but just prior to doing so Barclay Johnson handed Crown Prosecutor Garson a copy of the Applicant’s Reply to Crown’s arguments. When he did so Prosecutor Garson nearly lost it and again protested loudly to Justice Butler that it was outrageous for Barclay to hand him my reply at such a late date in the proceedings.

I thought it was rather disingenuous of Crown to again feign such outrage given the fact that, in my own experience with court, it’s always been par for the course for Crown to hand me documents just prior to a session commencing and think nothing of it. Apart from that Counsel Garson himself had not furnished my Counsel with his Argument on the date he had committed to doing so and only sent the document to Johnson on the day prior to him having to leave Victoria to attend the hearing in Vancouver.

After Garson’s rant Justice Butler said that we would return at 2:00 p.m. after taking lunch and that would give Crown an opportunity to look at my reply and respond to it. That is what then transpired.

When the hearing ended Justice Butler informed everyone that he would be reserving his judgement and would inform both Crown and my Counsel in the most timely manner possible.

Again, on a personal note, the hearing itself was beneficial for me in the sense that I finally had the opportunity to meet up in person with both my Counsel Barclay Johnson and his Legal Assistant Jeremy Maddock since my arrest on this spurious Sec. 319(2) offence back in May of 2012. Prior to then my only face to face meetings had been with my former lawyer Douglas Christie.

This was the last court appearance to date.

On July 8, 2015 Justice Butler issued his Reasons for Judgment which concluded with the following:

Ruling

[11] The proper approach when considering a motion to quash an indictment on grounds of constitutional validity is set out in R. v. DeSousa, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 944. While the defence has not brought a motion to quash, the relief it is seeking invites the court to make a finding on constitutional questions which would have the same effect as a motion to quash. Accordingly, the principles in DeSousa are instructive in this matter. In DeSousa, at 954, Sopinka J. affirmed the discretion of a trial judge to rule on a pre-trial motion before trial or at the conclusion of the trial. The discretion is to be exercised with regard to two policy considerations:

… The first is that criminal proceedings should not be fragmented by interlocutory proceedings which take on a life of their own. This policy is the basis of the rule against interlocutory appeals in criminal matters. See Mills v. The Queen… The second, which relates to constitutional challenges, discourages adjudication of constitutional issues without a factual foundation. See, for instance, Moysa v. Alberta (Labour Relations Board)… and Danson v. Ontario (Attorney General)… Both these policies favour disposition of applications at the end of the case. In exercising the discretion to which I have referred the trial judge should not depart from these policies unless there is a strong reason for so doing.

[12] The Court went on to identify those circumstances where there might be a compelling reason for the court to rule on such an application before trial. The only circumstance which could apply to the present case is described as follows at 955:

… Moreover, in some cases it will save time to decide constitutional questions before proceeding to trial on the evidence. An apparently meritorious Charter challenge of the law under which the accused is charged which is not dependent on facts to be elicited during the trial may come within this exception to the general rule.

[13] I will deal with the second policy consideration first; constitutional questions should not be adjudicated without a factual foundation. The defence argument regarding the constitutionality of s. 319(2) is clearly not a challenge to the “law under which the accused is charged which is not dependant on facts to be elicited during trial”. The defence says that the facts of this case are different from those in Keegstra, and it is that difference which gives rise to its argument. In these circumstances, the determination of the question should await trial and the findings of fact.

[14] The first policy consideration, which militates against the fragmentation of criminal proceedings, is also relevant here. There are two reasons for not fragmenting the process by hearing a constitutional challenge before trial. First, there might be no reason to consider the issue as the accused might be acquitted on some other basis. Second, the fragmentation can lead to multiple appeals and longer proceedings. An extreme example of this occurred in R. v. Martin (1991), 2 O.R. (3d) 16, affirmed [1992] 1 S.C.R. 838 and R. v. Martin, [1994] O.J. No. 1161, 1994 CanLII 225 (C.A.). The trial judge twice acquitted the accused on pre-trial motions challenging the constitutionality of provisions under the federal Export and Import Permits Act. On both occasions the Court of Appeal overturned the acquittal and sent it back for rehearing. On both occasions the court noted that it was inadvisable for the trial judge to consider and grant judgment on a pre-trial application to enforce a remedy under the Charter. The comments of Griffiths J.A. at 29 of the first appeal were quoted with approval by Finlayson J.A. in the second appeal, at para. 10:

… At the opening of this appeal, all members of the court expressed their concern about the propriety of the lower court judge dealing with a challenge to the constitutionality of s. 13 of the Act, on a pre-motion hearing, before any plea had been entered or any evidence adduced. In my view, the court should not, at this early stage, entertain or dispose of an application to enforce a remedy under the Charter, except in those cases where it is abundantly clear that a constitutional right has been infringed or threatened. In my opinion, this case does not fall into that category and it would have been preferable for the trial judge to decline to enter into the constitutional issue at the stage of a pre-trial motion and to leave such issue to be raised by the appellant by way of defence at the conclusion of the evidence at trial. It is, of course, quite possible that the appellant might have succeeded on some other line of defence at trial, rendering the Charter challenge entirely moot.

[15] As I have indicated, both policy considerations outlined above are relevant here, and both favour disposition of the constitutional issue at the end of the trial. I do not see any reason to attempt to adjudicate the issue raised by the defence before trial. It may be that the accused will be acquitted for reasons which are unrelated to the constitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code. If that does not happen, the court will require a factual foundation on which to consider the arguments of the defence. The efficient use of court time does not militate in favour of taking a fragmented approach to the issues raised by this case.

[16] When I determined that I should hear argument on this matter in a pre-trial application, I was concerned that the position taken by the defence might require a ruling as to the admissibility of evidence which should be considered before the jury is empanelled. Having heard the arguments of counsel, no such issue is before the court. The Crown will have to decide in the usual course what evidence to put before the court to attempt to prove the charges. There is no application before me to find that certain evidence or any category of evidence is inadmissible.

[17] Finally, I note that counsel have raised a number of issues regarding the charge under s. 319(2). As I have indicated, the arguments advanced concerned the constitutionality of that section, the application of s. 1 of the Charter, the nature of the onus under s. 1, and the kind of evidence required by the Crown to prove the offence. Given the conclusions outlined above, I will not comment on these arguments.

[18] Accordingly, the defence application is dismissed.

“Butler J.”

The decision by Justice Butler to not “attempt to adjudicate the issue raised by the defence before trial” did not come as a great surprise to me and quite frankly did not produce any great measure of remorse knowing that now, barring any unforeseen and extraordinary circumstances, the trial would definitely be a go this coming fall. The only other event that could possibly have had a bearing on the actual date set was the additional matter of my lack of funding and the necessity for me to once again apply for a Rowbotham application a second time. That matter too has now been resolved.

Mr. Rowbotham and Legal Aid

As mentioned earlier my fundraising efforts to date were not sufficient to hire counsel for both the Constitutional challenge and the actual trial. What money was raised by donations went to cover the expense of hiring Barclay Johnson to address the pre-trial Charter application. Knowing that should the case proceed to trial I would have to re-apply once again for a Rowbotham application meant that I first had to apply to the regional Legal Aid office here in Quesnel in the area where I live. Rather than wait until the application was heard I made an appointment with Legal Aid in Quesnel and attended on June 4th, 2015. After the intake worker looked at my documents which showed that I was getting a whoppingly huge pension of $1684.34 which was for both myself and my wife plus the donations which had come in over the previous five months she informed me that I was over the threshold and that I did not qualify financially and therefore was refused.

My next step was to then write to the Provincial Supervisor at the head office for Legal Aid in Vancouver and appeal the local decision. If I was refused a second time by head office then I could file an application to the B.C. Attorney General’s office for a Rothbotham application. On June 7, 2015 I sent a letter via Canada Post to Legal Aid in Vancouver requesting that they reconsider my request.

The letter was long, blunt and to the point. I will include only two paragraphs from it here; ones which I felt were vital for head office to consider:

“Even with the amount of donations now sporadically coming to me I am only able to cover my basic living expenses and the cost of maintaining my website and keeping food on the table and utilities covered and put a little aside to pay for paralegal advice. To actually assume that a qualified criminal lawyer who knows the ins and outs of Canada’s infamous “hate speech” laws can be hired to deal with my case and win it based upon my present income transcends all logic and common sense and it doesn’t take a legal wizard or even a financial wizard to figure out.

The case of R v Roy Arthur Topham is a precedent setting one that will affect countless other publishers, bloggers, journalists, writers across the spectrum of Canadian media, both mainstream and alternative, and YOU expect that I ought to be able to easily come up with the funds necessary to hire professional counsel to deal with this important case – one that endangers the country as a whole in terms of a citizen’s basic right to freedom of speech – based upon the meager amount of donations that I must add to my less than meager old age pension cheque?”

I fully expected to receive a final refusal within the next three weeks to a month as was the case in my first application back in 2013. The weeks passed and I was preoccupied with caring for my brother and then dealing with all the contingencies that accompany death in the family and it wasn’t until I had to return to North Vancouver at the end of July that I decided to go directly to the downtown office on Burrard Street and enquire about my June 7, 2015 letter. I was able to talk to a receptionist who arranged for me to speak with an Intake Legal Assistant. When I asked about the letter I was told that I didn’t receive a reply because the “system” was undergoing some major changes (mainly computer oriented programs) and everything had slowed down considerably. I was asked if I had my documentation with me regarding my income, etc. and I informed the person that I had only come to find out about my letter and all my documents were back at home. They then opened up a new file for me and I was to send them certain documents when I got back to Quesnel. The August 1st long weekend was approaching and I told the Legal Assistant that I would be home on the weekend and send the required documents to his office on Tuesday, August 4, 2015.

On Friday, August 7, 2015 I called the person I had been dealing with to inquire whether he had received the information and he said he had and that a decision would be made by the end of the day. Within a couple of hours of speaking with the Intake Assistant I received an email from him stating, “I have approved your application for legal aid and sent a contract to Mr. Barclay Johnson as per your request.”

I immediately wrote back saying, “God bless you!”

Conclusion

Now that a trial is certain and I have been able to secure funding from Legal Aid to assist me in hiring counsel the remaining time from this point to the October 26th trial date will be a busy time spent in preparing for the grand event. There is still much to do.

A last word on funding. Although Legal Aid has been granted in this case it needs to be stressed that funding for all of the contingencies leading up to the trial will still be required in order to cover a number of costs associated with preparation. As a result I will continue to solicit for financial help over the next three months.

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

 

 

Freedom of expression and criticism of Israel by British Columbia Civil Liberties Association (BCCLA) with commentary by Arthur Topham

https://bccla.org/2015/04/freedom-of-expression-and-criticism-of-israel/

BCCLA Hdr

Freedom of expression and criticism of Israel
April 1, 2015

by BCCLA

The BC Civil Liberties Association is deeply concerned about the effects on freedom of expression of recent changes to hate speech laws and the 2015 Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Canada and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the State of Israel regarding Public Diplomacy Cooperation.

Section 318 of the Criminal Code prohibits advocating or promoting “genocide.” Genocide is defined as intending to destroy, in whole or in part, any “identifiable group” by killing members of the group or deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction. The “identifiable groups” covered by this provision were expanded in 2014 in the misnamed “cyber-bullying bill.” Identifiable groups now include sections of the public not only distinguishable by ethnic origin, but also by national origin.

Whatever other subjects the government intended to capture by expanding the hate speech laws to include “national origin,” it surely had a view to Israel, given that shortly after the passing of the Bill, the government issued an MOU with Israel in which it claims “that the selective targeting of Israel reflects the new face of anti-Semitism.”

The BC Civil Liberties Association has had long-standing concerns about the use of hate speech laws, and in particular, about the ability of hate speech laws to chill legitimate political speech. Our association is unequivocal in denouncing anti-Semitism and other forms of racism. We believe that the goals of fighting racism and defending civil liberties can and must be advanced together and that censorship weakens Canadians’ freedom without reducing racism. We best defeat racism by actively promoting arguments in favour of racial amity, not by enlisting the state to silence people.

 canadian_charter_of_rights_and_freedoms_ext

All decent people will agree on the noxiousness of anti-Semitism. But reasonable and decent people can and do differ about what the law should do to address racism. The BCCLA has long argued against “hate speech” laws, which do more damage to democratic debate than they do to protect those vulnerable to acts of bigots. The expansion of the hate speech laws and the language of the recent MOU clearly suggest that strong speech criticizing the state of Israel or its policies could be construed as illegal. Yet this is speech clearly protected by the Charter.

This situation constitutes a two-fold threat. The Charter rights of Canadians whose speech criticizes Israel are threatened. In addition, failing to meaningfully support Canadians’ right to political speech in this context, threatens the legitimacy of Canada’s work to combat anti-Semitism.

The BCCLA joins many organizations in calling on the Canadian government to ensure that citizens’ Charter rights are protected in the context of political speech and legitimate political actions, such as boycotts, with respect to criticism of the state of Israel.

——

 Commentary by RadicalPress.com Publisher & Editor  Arthur Topham

ATEditorPic185

[Editor’s Note: These comments were posted on the BCCLA website] Tentatively this post is encouraging but the BCCLA must go beyond section 318 and address the more meaningful and dangerous aspects of section 319(2) of the Criminal Code which deal with so-called “Hate Propaganda”. It’s there that “Freedom of expression and criticism of Israel” is being challenged and it’s there that the BCCLA must take a stand in order to ensure that any Canadian who criticizes either the state of Israel or its political ideology Zionism, is fully protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Currently this is NOT the case and it is exemplified by my own situation wherein the Jewish lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada has been harassing and legally attacking me and my website http://www.radicalpress.com since November of 2007. They began their assault on my Charter right to freedom of expression by first laying a sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaint against myself and my website in November of 2007. That quasi-legal procedure lasted right up to the day when the specious section of the Canadian Human Rights Code was finally repealed in June of 2012.

Knowing full well that sec. 13(1)’s shelf life was over and that they wouldn’t be able to use it any longer to try and censor my writings and publications B’nai Brith Canada then turned to sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code and charged me with the very same “crime” of “promoting hatred toward Jews” (only this time they left out the words “and citizens of Israel” which were included in the original sec. 13(1) complaint).

As a result I’m now facing a possible 2 year jail term for publishing material (not even written by myself and freely available on numerous other websites) critical of the state of Israel and its Zionist ideology. I was arrested in May of 2012 and all my computers and electronic files stolen by the BC Hate Crime Unit and my case is currently before the BC Supreme Court.

Should the Crown win and a precedent be set with regard to the issue of criticism of Israel then that precedent will undoubtedly be used against any other Canadian publisher, writer, blogger to stifle debate and shut down websites.

I highly recommend that the BCCLA issue a public statement regarding the use of Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code to thwart freedom of expression and criticism of Israel and make it perfectly clear that Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” legislation is not acceptable in a free and democratic nation.

For further information on Regina v. Radicalpress.com please see here: http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=2553

——