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.”

——

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 by Arthur Topham

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

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

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

Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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”

Enough Already! HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

EnjoughAlready!

HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

Holocaust deprogramming course

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

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

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

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

 

 

TRUTH JIHAD: Gilad Atzmon bears witness to the trial of Arthur Topham by Dr. Kevin Barrett

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/11/14/gilad-arthur/

KBarrettVTHdr

TRUTH JIHAD: Gilad Atzmon bears witness to the trial of Arthur Topham
By Kevin Barrett on November 14, 2015

Trial was Alice-in-Wonderland meets Franz Kafka – judge, jury & crown unable to grasp concept of “satire”

GILAD&BARCLAYGilad Atzmon, expert witness, with Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson

Canadian publisher Arthur Topham will likely be appealing his conviction on one count (accompanied by an acquittal on the other) of “promoting hatred toward the Jewish people.” The conviction appears to have been the result of the prosecutor, judge and jury’s inability to understand the concept of satire. Check out Arthur’s article “Guilty/Not Guilty” for details. If and when Arthur appeals, I will be happy to volunteer my services as an expert witness. I have four advanced degrees in literature (three MAs and a Ph.D.) and have done extensive work on the literary theory of Bakhtin, whose work provides the best possible basis for an accurate understanding of what satire is and how it works.

Meanwhile…Shortly before the verdict came in I recorded this interview with ex-Israeli philosopher-musician Gilad Atzmon, who may be the world’s leading expert on Jewish identity politics. When Arthur Topham was charged with “willfully promoting hatred against the Jewish people,” hauled into court, and menaced with a possible two-year prison sentence, Gilad flew to Quesnel, British Columbia to appear as an expert witness. (Read Gilad’s description of his testimony, “The Expert Witness“).

Arthur Topham (who has appeared on Truth Jihad Radio) is a kind, decent person without any apparent hatred in his heart. It is his love of justice, not his hatred of anyone, that led him to criticize Zionism and the dark side of Jewish identity politics. Arthur and his wife Shasta, who is Jewish, have behaved with amazing restraint and decorum during their eight-year ordeal, during which their remodeling business was destroyed.

What was Arthur Topham’s alleged crime? Parodying Zionist Jew Theodore Kaufman’s book “Germany Must Perish!” by changing “Germany” to “Israel” throughout the text. This tiny change produced the satirical masterpiece “Israel Must Perish!” – and led Canada’s Zionist Power Configuration to have him jailed on “hate crime” charges!

Who is the REAL hater here – Arthur Topham, or the Zionists like Kaufman who wanted to commit genocide against Germany, and are now committing genocide in Palestine with the full support of the governments of the US and Canada?

And how has Jewish identity politics morphed into genocidal Zionism? If anyone can explain that, it would be Gilad Atzmon.

Also check out my interviews with Arthur Topham:

Arthur Topham puts Zionist double-standards & hypocrisy on trial! (December 17, 2013)

Persecuted writer-editor Arthur Topham: “Zionists assault free speech” (January 21, 2015)
Related Posts:
Arthur Topham vs. Theodore Nathan Kaufman
Outlawing Free Speech on Jewish Identity
Gilad Atzmon’s Expert Witness Testimony at Arthur Topham’s criminal trial – Part 1
Gilad in the USA- May 15th
Ten reasons why I Support Alan Dershowitz, Not

——-

For only $3.95 a month you can listen to shows on-demand before they are broadcast – and also get free downloads and other perks from Kevin! If you are a subscriber, just log in to the members area of TruthJihad.com to get early access to the shows. Help Kevin keep these shows on the air – become a subscriber today!

GUILTY/NOT GUILTY! by Arthur Topham

FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP copy 3

The British Columbia Supreme Court trial of R v Roy Arthur Topham concluded today in Quesnel’s Supreme Court at 11:27 a.m. when the Jury Foreman responded to the two charges laid against Arthur Topham and his website RadicalPress.com.

Both charges in the case were identical. Only the time period in which the evidence on the website was investigated differed. The charge itself read:

Count 1

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, wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

Count 2

Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 29th day of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

When asked by the Court Registrar what the verdict was for Count 1 the Jury Foreman replied GUILTY.

When asked a second time by the Court Registrar what the verdict was for Count 2 the Jury Foreman replied NOT GUILTY.

After announcing to the court the verdict in both counts Justice Bruce Butler then thanked the jury for their time and dedication to the judicial process and following that he instructed them that anything they had discussed during the course of their deliberations was to remain secret and that to divulge anything that had taken place was a criminal offence. After that the jury was released.

Immediately upon releasing the jury Crown Prosecutor Jennifer Johnson attempted to have Topham’s bail conditions changed, presumably in order to have more stringent conditions imposed other than those already in place.

Justice Butler was not prepared to entertain the Crown’s immediate offer. Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson addressed the Justice stating that if Crown wished to alter Topham’s bail conditions then the proper procedure would be for her to file an application to that effect and a hearing take place. Justice Butler agreed and a hearing on the matter was set for Thursday, November 19th, 2015.

Following that court adjourned.

At this point in time the question remains as to why a guilty verdict was handed down for Count 1 and why a not guilty verdict was handed down for Count 2.

Speculation is that Count 1 included evidence which the jury felt wilfully promoted hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group. Count 1 also included the book Germany Must Perish! written by the Jewish author Theodore N. Kaufman as well as the parody/satire of Kaufman’s book by Topham titled Israel Must Perish! which Crown, from the onset of the trial, has adamantly claimed was a “book” that Topham wrote rather than merely a satire of Theodore N. Kaufmann’s book.

It is believed that the jury was convinced by Crown that Topham’s satire of the original book was in fact his own work and that Topham was therefore promoting the total destruction of the Jewish people which the jury felt was proof that Topham did “wilfully promote hatred toward an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

The next stage in this unfolding drama could conceivably be an appeal based upon a Constitutional challenge to the criminal code’s section 319(2); one which had already been attempted back in June of 2015 but failed. It was deemed at the time of Justice Butler decision that a Charter application challenge to the legislation would be more appropriate following the outcome of the trial. Now that the outcome has resulted in a guilty verdict in Count 1 the way is open to again challenge Section 319(2) under Sec. 2b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code must be repealed based upon a Charter challenge and the framework for such a challenge may finally be in place.

 

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM

ATEditorPic185

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

by
Arthur Topham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NetfirmsWilsonLet

Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner

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

Len Rudner copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

BCHCTFILE 2007-23814

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

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

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

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

Defence Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon

GILAD&BARCLAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crown’s Cross Examination of Gilad Atzmon

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

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

Gilad Atzmon: No.

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

Defence’s Summation to the Jury

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final observations on Crown’s handling of evidence

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.13.33 PM

Still to come

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

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

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

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham by Eve Mykytyn

Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 4.51.44 PM

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham

Part 1

by Eve Mykytyn / November 7th, 2015

Five security guards, members of the RCMP, two in bulletproof vests, all entrants pass through metal detectors, undergo a wand search, check all electronics including cell phones and have their bags meticulously scrutinized. Why all the security? The crown was presenting its criminal case against Arthur Topham, for the crime of “hate.’

The Law

Section 319 of Canada’s criminal code is an extraordinary law by most western standards. It reads, in relevant part: “(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully 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.

The statute does not define hatred, but does provide 4 statutory defenses.

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

It is important to understand that the prosecution (the Crown), with all of its resources, need only prove ‘hate,’ and then the only available defenses are affirmative, meaning that the burden of proof switches to the defense.

This week I attended some of the extraordinary trial of Arthur Topham in the Supreme Court (the highest provincial trial court) in Quesnel, British Columbia. As a lawyer, the differences in procedure between American and Canadian courts were of interest to me. Ahead of the trial, I read a little about the Canadian legal system and found that on paper the differences appeared minor. I don’t know if the huge differences in practice that I observed in this trial has to do with the way trials are usually conducted in Canada, the understandable loosening of formality in a court in a small town and/or the nature of the trial.

The Background

The history of Mr. Topham’s travails can be found here.

It is sufficient to understand that this trial follows eight years of harassment. Mr. Topham has already had to close his successful remodeling business. This is a criminal trial, and Mr. Topham could go to prison for two years. Mr. Topham and his wife live on a remote property on which they maintain a chicken coop, grow vegetables and engage in other rural activities. But it is clear that Mrs. Topham could not live there alone. These are not wealthy people. Mrs. Topham told me that she is not a political person, but she loves and supports her husband and believes in free speech. The defendant and his wife have exhibited bravery, courtesy and calm to a degree that is awe inspiring.

The police arrested Mr. Topham for ‘hate’ after they received complaints from various Jewish people who found his writing hateful. Although the police clearly knew where he lived, they arrested Topham as he and his wife were driving, leaving his wife stranded and Mr. Topham in jail. While jailed, Mr. Topham’s house was searched and his computers, shotguns and other items were taken. (Shotguns are essential in an area where grizzlies often decide to take up residence on the porch.)

The Trial

I understand that before I arrived, the Crown presented the arresting and investigating officers. Clearly the officers are not qualified to establish ‘hate,’ so how does the Crown do this? There is no victim to present, no one whose injuries the jury must assess, instead it is to the jury to decide if ‘hate’ is present, no injury need be shown.

The Crown chose to use an expert witness to show hate, and qualified Len Rudner as an expert in Judaism and anti-Semitism. Mr. Rudner’s biography indicates that he is a ‘professional Jew,’ in that he has been employed for the last 15 years by the Canadian Jewish Congress and its successor organization, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). Prior to this trial, Rudner has attempted to force Mr. Topham’s internet service provider to shut down his web site, and has lodged civil complaints against Mr. Topham.

The crown used its questioning of Rudner to introduce what it considered to be the most damaging articles on Topham’s site, Radical Free Press (RFP). These included a list of books and articles, all of which are easily accessible on the internet and/or for sale at Amazon.ca.

Most of these publications accuse Jews of some pretty nasty politics. What at first appeared to be the Crown’s most damning evidence was a picture of a stereotyped Jew holding puppets that were Canadian politicians. On cross examination, it was hard for Mr. Rudner to counter what a careful viewing showed to be a clear political statement. I think the shocking picture of the Jew served to make the statement more powerful. But is it the job of the court to evaluate the strength of a political cartoon?

Without going to the truth of the matters presented, I am troubled that Mr. Topham is on trial for reprinting sources that are widely available in Canada. Again, on cross examination, Mr. Rudner had to admit that this was so. A quick google search for “the protocols of the Elders of Zion,” reveals hundreds of sources that display the protocols in full.

The procedure, at least in this court, was that all objections had to be heard outside the presence of the jury. This meant that each objection forced the jury to leave the room (not the judge and the lawyers) thus making an objection, even for the record, was a cumbersome and time consuming process.

In one of these interminable objection interludes, the Crown stated that ‘free speech is not on trial here.” Shockingly, Judge Butler echoed her sentiments. Legal fictions (such as that all lawyers are capable of providing an adequate defense) are generally employed to allow the system to work. In this case, the legal fiction went to the charge itself. Mr. Topham is on trial for writing and for publishing articles that presumably reflect his beliefs. What else is free speech if not that?

Mr. Rudner indicated under direct examination that he was the author of the written expert opinion he provided to the court. This was troubling, because the Crown had originally employed Bernie Farber as its expert, and Mr. Farber had provided an opinion that was word for word the same as Mr. Rudner’s. If Mr. Rudner did not commit perjury, he was at least deceptive in his presentation of his expert opinion.

The Defense

Barclay Johnson, defense attorney extraordinaire, gave an opening argument that was an impassioned call for freedom of thought and speech. Later the Crown objected, but the damage so-called had been done. Mr. Johnson endured a tongue lashing and a civil procedure lesson from the judge. The jury was instructed to ignore some of Mr. Johnson’s speech. I assume that this helped plant the speech more firmly in their minds.

Mr. Topham countered the charge of hate and argued as a defense that the writing was political with an expert of his own. Gilad Atzmon, the iconoclastic jazz musician, writer and philosopher volunteered his time to help. It seems wrong to enjoy a presentation when a man’s freedom is at stake, but it was delightful to watch Mr. Atzmon ignore or flaunt every rule of procedure and get away with it.

Atzmon was qualified as an expert on Jewish Identity Politics a topic that clearly few in the court had heard of. In his most amusing argument on the subject, Atzmon explained that there was a section on identity politics in every bookshop, and that topics included the LBGT community. Faced with political correctness, the court backed off and agreed to allow Atzmon in as an expert.

Atzmon began by explaining his system of characterization. He divides ‘the Jews’ into three non-exclusive categories. The first, Judaism, is made up of religious Jews. The second, Jews, are people who are Jewish by an accident of birth. The third, and most important category for this purpose is ‘Jewishness,’ those who identify politically as Jews. Mr. Atzmon described the first two categories as innocent. Objections were raised, innocent is, after all, a legal conclusion and if the first two are innocent, the third is, by implication, guilty. Judge Butler agreed with the Crown’s objection and then allowed Atzmon to proceed in describing the first two categories as innocent. From then on, the defense attorney, the prosecution and the judge adopted these categories for clarity of discussion.

Atzmon argued that contemporary opposition to Jewry is driven by political and ideological arguments; that no one criticizes Jews as a race or a biology. There is little criticism of Judaism, the religion, as a whole, but there has been some criticism leveled at a few aspects of the religion such as blood rituals and goy hatred. The thrust of his argument was that Jewish politics and ideology must be subject to criticism like all other politics and ideologies.

Like a rabbi on acid, Atzmon explained his philosophy, allowed few questions, and browbeat the attorneys. He dealt with his own philosophical approach to Jewishness and the dangers of believing oneself ‘chosen’ and then he got in a few swipes at categories one and two as well. The jury was mesmerized. Later, Atzmon told friends that he had directed his remarks to the juror sleeping in the first row. If he could be made to listen, presumably the others could as well.

Atzmon made the point that many of the most apparently anti-Semitic writings were made by the early Zionists. According to Atzmon, Herzl and others saw a problem with European Jewry and thought that the existence of a homeland could cure problems such as usury, discrimination against non-Jews, exclusiveness, etc. The take away is that if Jews are entitled to criticize Jews, why can’t other people? This is especially true because the Jews have a disproportionate amount of power in government, finance and the media. They clearly have the means to counter criticism if they choose to do so.

Part 2 will cover the closing arguments and the verdict.
Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.
 
•••0•••
 
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address. Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:
 
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8

 

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

Arthur&TheJewsFINAL

Arthur & the Jews

The controversy over freedom of speech

By

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
RadicalPress.com

October 23, 2015

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

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

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

~ Jesus Christ, Ch. 8, Verse 17

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

EndHateCrimeLegislation 2 copy 2

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

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

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

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

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

FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP copy 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

•••0•••

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

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

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

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