Webmaster Michael Rivero of WhatReallyHappened.com has the following commentary to make:

“The US is not the only nation whose government has been subverted by Israel, and here is a warning to Canadians. When parasites kill their hosts they simply jump to a new host, and as the United States edges closer to collapse, Israel will simply hop across the border and make Canadians their new cash cow. Obviously the groundwork has already been laid by Israel’s subversives.

Note that Libby Davies stated a factual truth; that Israel has been occupying other peoples’ lands all along, and the maps prove it! But Israel has hit the panic button and have launched a program to “cleanse” all media and government of anyone who would dare speak the truth to their power!”

Dear Radical Reader,

Here, in this audacious demand by Canada’s PM Harper, we see the full, hideous face of the farce known as Canada’s federal government. For all intents of purpose Harper might as well be an Israeli Jew. He behaves like one as does Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae who is, in fact, a crypto Jew. They, along with any other Canadian politician who pig-headedly and unquestioningly defends the indefensible when it comes to the racist, supremacist, apartheid state of Israel, is a traitor to Canada and should be removed from any position of power they might currently hold.

These complicit, submissive, sickening Zionist lackeys of Israel are a massive disgrace and an inherent danger to this country and symbolize the degree to which Canada has been infiltrated by the Zionist Jews over the last century. Due of course, also, to the blatant fact that the Jewish International Media Monopoly (JIMM) controls all of our information, the general population of this country lives in abject ignorance of what is truly going on behind the scenes both internationally and domestically.

Bob Rae is a treasonous hypocrite just like Stephen Harper and anyone else who willfully attempts to justify the supreme chauvinistic and brutal sadism that represents the modus operandi of the Jews-only state of Israel. They must be challenged from every quarter on their duplicity and continuing complicity in furthering the lies and the slaughter of innocents by this rogue, illegitimate state.

I, for one, can unconditionally state with a clear conscience and with sufficiently good reasons, that the so-called state of Israel was conceived in subterfuge and deceit and deception from day one by the Rothschild banking consortium decades prior to its illegal inception and that it has no moral or legal right to exist. Two major world wars were instigated by the Rothschild syndicate in order to justify its creation and it’s actions over the past 62 years clearly illustrate the fact that it was brought into existence in order to foment war, death and chaos within the Arab world and also to provide a beachhead (they called it, in typical Zionese deceptive language a “spiritual homeland”) wherein all the most unsavory and bigoted scoundrels in the world could find refuge, set up their citadel of Evil and man their ramparts of repression with three hundred nuclear weapons for immediate use if threatened by the truth.

The state of Israel is the ultimate manifestation in reality of what the terms Big Brother and Terrorism imply and it must be dismantled and removed from the Middle East for good if the world is ever to achieve any semblance of global peace, security and environmental harmony. Any unbiased study of the actions of this so-called “democratic” state will fully expose the fact that death and destruction and environmental degradation have followed in the wake of its creation and will continue to do so until it is dissolved.

The ongoing use of Zionist-Jew created falsehoods such as “anti-Semite” (a contraction in terms in itself) in order to silence anyone who is cognizant of this glaring hoax parading itself around the world as a democracy has got to stop. For years now I’ve been personally battling these very viperous forces here in Canada doing my damnedest to outline and show Canadians the extent to which these serpentine sleuths have permeated our very essence in terms of infrastructure, our judiciary, our supposed “free” press, our publishing companies, academia, churches and most importantly and essentially, our political parties.

JIMM, the global Jew media, coupled with their malicious and overwhelming influence and ability to instill fear in people by accusations of anti-Semitism against any person who voices displeasure with their heinous actions and lies both in Palestine and throughout the world, is the #1 enemy of true freedom and democracy and peace everywhere.

All that NDP Libby Davies stated is true beyond question for anyone who has actually removed the blinkers from their eyes and awakened to the fact that the world has been mesmerized by JIMM into believing that somehow Israel is a legitimate nation and one that is fully deserving of unqualified support regardless of its litany of war crimes and slaughter over the past six decades and more.

Only a population of mind-controlled morons could possibly view the situation and not figure out what the hell’s been going on and that, not surprisingly, is the primary purpose of JIMM – to keep the illusion alive until the day comes when they’ve gained control over all the nation states of the world and introduced legislation under the guise of “hatred toward Jews” so they can then hunt down and incarcerate and imprison anyone who has the audacity to speak the truth about this hideous Beast that calls itself a democracy yet stalks the planet like some blood-soaked Godzilla wreaking death and destruction in its wake..

The gloves have got to come off and people have got to begin speaking the truth about JIMM and the negative effect that it is having upon the freedom of people everywhere to speak their minds and think their own thoughts and express their opinions without fear of being attacked by whatever Jewish lobby group happens to pick up on their words. B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress are the two worst examples now existing here in Canada of this clandestine, seditious phenomenon; their efforts over decades having centered on creating the illusion and the lie that somehow Israel is God’s chosen nation and whatever it does to its Arab citizens and its neighbouring nations must be legitimate and justified and unquestioned.

I’ve stated this numerous times in articles that these two Rothschild creatures of cunning and deceit are anathema to a well functioning Canadian government (or any government for that matter) and to the existence of an open and informed electorate. Time and continuing examples of Israel’s evil (yes, evil) ways only further exacerbates the situation for the defenseless and persecuted who are victim’s of this global megalomania; a sickness of the mind and soul symbolizing a psychotic state being perpetually presented to the world as somehow legitimate, honorable and an ideal to be lauded and strived for.

It’s for reasons such as these that “lobby groups” like B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress here in Canada and in the USA the ADL (Anti Defamation League) ought to be outlawed and anyone who stridently objects to their dismantling should be sent to Gaza or the West Bank or Iraq or Afghanistan (preferably in areas saturated with depleted uranium) to do community service for the victims of Zionist aggression.

Federal NDP Leader Jack Layton, in making his monumentally ignorant comments about how the NDP would never “ever deny that Israel not only has a right to exist but a right to exist in secure borders in a safe context,” has exhibited his own vastly uniformed knowledge of how Israel actually is constituted and operates. He speaks about “secure borders” in total ignorance of the fact that Israel has no defined borders and never did (Israel is Rothschild is Zionism and their objective is a world without borders for the simple reason that they will control it all). He also speaks as if Israel has a defined and written constitution (which it doesn’t) and assumes that their ongoing “right” to steal land from the Arabs and call it their own is somehow clearly understood and beyond dispute. For a federal leader of one of Canada’s three major political parties to be so misinformed and outrightly stupid is a poignant illustration of just how deep and widespread this fable of Israel truly is.

Once again for the finale.

Israel is controlled by the Jewish Rothschild banking cartel and has been from day one. Period. The information is out there on the net for anyone who seriously wishes to find out the truth. One good place to start might be the archives of RadicalPress.com. There’s no excuse beyond the fear that’s been instilled in Canadians for multiple decades that to question the Jews’ lies is to be “anti-Semitic,” “hate mongering” and “racist.” This is a gargantuan ruse designed to thwart any honest investigation into the foundations that support this false messiah known as Zionism and is exempified in the Canadian legislation known as Sec. 13, a Jew-created law to silence all that I’ve been speaking of here in this article.

I propose otherwise. If you wish to know the truth and be set free of this morbid, demeaning bondage to the delusions of those who, in their ignorance and insecurity, bow down repeatedly in obeisance to this racist, sadistic entity known as Israel, then you must, personally and with conviction, face the fact that your government, your media and your legal systems are all presently in the hands of these vipers. Their generation has come to the fore and like all vicious entities who have gained control over others they will not willingly remove themselves from their positions of power and exploitation. It’s going to take a concerted effort by the majority of Canadians to stand up, show some conviction and courage and demand that their license to kill, destroy and poison, be revoked forever.

The time to do this is yesterday.

Shine your Light for Love, Peace & Justice for All,

Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″
http://www.radicalpress.com
radical@radicalpress.com
—————————–

http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/15/libby-davies-israel.html
Calls for NDP MP to resign after Israel comments

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/15/libby-davies-israel.html#ixzz0r2R7Q6ka

Prime Minister Stephen Harper called on NDP MP Libby Davies to resign as her party’s deputy leader after she suggested Israel has been occupying territory since the country came into existence.

“Mr. Speaker, this is a fundamental denial of Israel’s right to exist,” Harper said in the House of Commons on Tuesday. “It repeats the kind of comments that were made by Helen Thomas on which she was forced to resign and the member of the NDP who said those should be forced to resign as well.”

Thomas was the veteran White House correspondent who resigned after saying Jews in Israel should “get the hell out of Palestine” and “go back to Poland, Germany, America and everywhere else.”

Liberal foreign affairs critic Bob Rae also denounced Davies’ comments.

“To deny the state of Israel’s right to exist and to propose an international campaign of boycotts, divestments and sanctions against a legitimate member of the world community for over 60 years is to reveal a  level of hostility and ignorance that is truly breathtaking,” Rae said in a written statement.

In a media scrum later, Rae argued that Davies’ comments were not simply a slip of the tongue and called for her to step down as deputy leader.

Earlier this month, Davies was interviewed at a rally in Vancouver and asked if she believes the occupation in Israel began in 1948 or 1967. After hesitating, she answered:

“Forty-eight. I mean, it’s the longest occupation in the world. But I mean, I’m not going to argue numbers. It’s too long, right?” She went on to say, “I mean, this is the longest occupation in the world. People  are suffering. I’ve been to the West Bank in Gaza twice so I’ve seen for myself what’s going on.”

The state of Israel was established in 1948.

In the video, Davies is also asked if she supports the international campaign of boycotts, divestments and sanctions against Israel (known as the BDS movement).

“I haven’t even actually gone that far. You gotta understand, I’m probably the strongest supporter in Parliament. There is virtually no information in the political arena or understanding about the BDS movement. People are actually afraid to speak out on this issue.… Elected people who are sympathetic are actually afraid to speak out,” Davies answers.

Later in the video, Davies says she personally supports the BDS movement, adding, however, that she’s not “someone who’s there” but is instead a Canadian politician demanding the Canadian government speak out more on the issues.

The interview was posted on YouTube.

Since her comments were made public, Davies has posted on her website a letter she sent to the editor of The Ottawa Citizen.

“My reference to the year 1948 as the beginning of the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory was a serious and completely inadvertent error,” she wrote. “I apologize for this and regret any confusion it has caused. I have always supported a two-state solution to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and have never questioned Israel’s right to exist and the Palestinians’ right to a viable state.”

NDP Leader Jack Layton defended Davies Tuesday.

“Libby Davies has apologized and did so immediately around the serious mistake about a date. She has never and our party has never, nor would we ever deny that Israel not only has a right to exist but a right to exist in secure borders in a safe context,” he said.

Layton added that the party does not support the BDS proposal.

Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/politics/story/2010/06/15/libby-davies-israel.html#ixzz0r2R1iKcM

Canadian faces two years prison for lawful attempt to arrest U.S. war criminal G.W. Bush

Former US Attorney-General Ramsey Clark to Speak at the University of Calgary’s Peace Consortium in Defence of Splitting the Sky The Man Who Attempted a Citizens’ Arrest on George W. Bush

Joshua Blakeney
Media Coordinator of Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge

“George Bush hasn’t suffered at all over the monumental suffering, death, and horror he has caused…no matter how many American soldiers have died on a given day in Iraq (averaging well over two every day), he is always seen with a big smile on his face that same or next day”

Vincent Bugliosi, The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder, 2008

Ramsey Clark will arrive in the Canadian oil-patch city of Calgary, Alberta, Canada, this coming June 6th and 7th, mounting pressure on attempted a citizen’s arrest on George W. Bush on March 17, 2009 when the former US president was addressing an audience of business people at the TELUS Convention Centre in the downtown of Calgary.2

In his March 2010 trial STS invoked the Crimes Against Humanity and War Crimes legislation, which was enacted by the Canadian parliament in 2000, to submit to the court that he was implementing the law by seeking to apprehend Bush, and was unjustly arrested by police who were in effect “aiding and abetting a credibly accused war criminal.”

Former US Congresswoman Cynthia McKinney came to Calgary to attempt to testify in the March trial but was prevented from doing so as the judge shut down the trial earlier than anticipated. Instead McKinney spoke at the University of Calgary in support of Splitting the Sky.3

It is hoped by supporters of justice that the arrival of Ramsey Clark in Calgary will help to publicize this unprecedented case in Canadian legal history, the knowledge of which the state and their media accomplices have made a concerted effort to suppress and censor from the public domain.

Ramsey Clark has a long history of being a thorn in the side of those political elites who would seek to apply the law expediently rather than unanimously. Born in Dallas, Texas, the son of prominent jurist Tom C. Clark, Ramsey Clark witnessed as a young man the Nuremberg trials following World War II. Clark would go on to graduate from the University of Chicago law school and become Attorney General of the United States under the administration of Lyndon Johnson.

Clark has worked tirelessly throughout his career as an outspoken civil rights attorney advocating for many prominent activists and political dissidents. After the 1971 Attica Prison debacle Clark replaced William Kunstler as Splitting the Sky’s legal advocate. STS’s charges were acquitted as a result of Clark’s relentless advocacy.

On April 3, 2010 Clark was elected at a meeting of over 150 lawyers, legal scholars and human rights campaigners, to be the chairperson of a new international campaign to investigate the alleged crimes against humanity committed by the Bush regime.

Global Research reported: “Ramsey Clark emphasized that it is the imperative responsibility of the American people to relentlessly pursue this investigation, and to seek prosecution and indictment inside of the United States…Ramsey Clark made the point that all the war crimes and crimes against humanity flow from the commission of the most supreme crimes which he identified as the Crimes against Peace. This was the finding at the Nuremberg trial, and it is enshrined in the Nuremberg Principles.”6

Clark’s reference to precedents set at Nuremberg, a German city, encourages those of us who would like to see Calgary’s image in the world evolve from one of Harperite cowboys and vulture-capitalists into a city where law enforcement agencies set precedents in human rights jurisprudence and international law with the support of the polity’s residents.

Perhaps such a paradigm shift would ignite a necessary atonement for the state-endorsed despoliation of the Indigenous Peoples of the region’s ancestral resources, lands and waters which has been unpardonably gifted to mainly Texas-based oil and gas conglomerates.

How Judge Manfred Delong will be influenced by Clark’s arrival in Calgary is yet to be seen. Will Judge Delong compound the Culture of Impunity afforded to credibly accused war criminals emanating from Anglo-America - which the Harper-minority government and their equivalents around the world have supported - by “setting an example” and sentencing STS to spend two-more years of his life behind bars and burdening him with a fine of up to $5000? Or will he realize the broader implications of this trial and dismiss the case before the court that STS “obstructed a police officer”?

The more citizens who mobilize in solidarity with STS the less able the state and their media accomplices will be to sweep the profound juridical questions being raised by STS, Clark and others, under the carpet.

The proceedings are as follows:

Ramsey Clark arrives in Calgary, June 6, 2010. He will speak at the University of Calgary, Murray Fraser Hall Room 164, 4pm – 6.30pm.

The sentencing of Splitting the Sky commences on June 7, 2010 at the Calgary Courts Centre.

——————-
1Vincent Bugliosi, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.” 2008. excerpt quoted: http://www.prosecutionofbush.com/excerpt3p1.php

2Anthony Hall, “Bush League Justice: Should George W. Bush Be Arrested in Calgary Alberta to be Tried for International Crimes?” Voltairenet. March 9, 2009. http://www.voltairenet.org/article159233.html and Gail Davidson, “Barring Bush From Canada: Time for the Law to Step in.” Global Research.ca http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15733

3Anthony Hall, “Cynthia McKinney Meets Splitting the Sky.” Global Research.ca. March 14, 2010. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18115

4“Chaos Mars Saddam Court Hearing.” BBC News. Monday, 5 December 2005. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4498102.stm

5 Josh Davidson, “Ramsey Clark Speaks Out Against War at College.” The Independent. March 19, 2003. http://independent.gmnews.com/news/2003-03-19/Front_page/013.html

6“Ramsey Clark Chosen to Head Commission to Investigate Bush Crimes.” Global Research.ca. April 14, 2010. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=18610

Connie & Mark Fournier of FreeDominion.com accepting the Prestigious “George Orwell Award” at the 25th Annual George Orwell Dinner in Victoria, B.C. sponsored by lawyer Douglas Christie and the Canadian Free Speech League, August 2009.
___________________________________________________________________________

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

New Law Protects Internet Privacy Rights - Warman vs Fourniers and John Does

On April 8, 2010, a precedent-setting case regarding internet law was heard in the Ontario Divisional Court.

The case was an Appeal of a lower court motion decision in the case of Warman vs Fourniers and John Does. The ruling being appealed stated that the defendants were to turn over personal information such as IP addresses and email addresses for anonymous posters who were alleged to have defamed the plaintiff. The defendants’ position was that online anonymity should be protected until it is clear that there is a strong case that a “John Doe” has broken the law.

The Divisional Court decision that was released this afternoon changed the rules of disclosure in civil litigation so that plaintiffs must now prove a prima facie case against John Does before site administrators are required to turn over personal information about them. The ruling states, in part:

In addition, because this proceeding engages a freedom of expression interest, as well as a privacy interest, a more robust standard is required to address the chilling effect on freedom of expression that will result from disclosure….

…In the circumstances of a website promoting political discussion, the possibility of a defence of fair comment reinforces the need to establish the elements of defamation on a prima facie basis in order to have due consideration to the interest in freedom of expression.

The text of the decision can be read here: http://www.freedominion.com.pa/images/appeal_ruling.pdf

This case is a huge step forward toward changing the law to accommodate new technology.

————-

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT:

Connie Fournier
(613) 888-1169
connie@freedominion.ca
http://www.freedominion.com.pa

-30-

From Marc Lemire:

Freedom of Speech for Anonymous Posters upheld. Richard Warman loses appeal and ordered to pay $10k in costs

[44] Returning to the decision of the motions judge, it would appear that he did not have the benefit of the extensive submissions on these issues provided to the Court by the two interveners in this proceeding. Notwithstanding, it is clear that he was alert to the need to take into consideration that privacy interests of the unknown alleged wrongdoers. It does not appear, however, that the need to consider the interest in freedom of expression was raised by the parties or was otherwise considered by the motions judge.

[45] In addition, the motions judge did not take into consideration whether the Respondent had established a prima facie case of defamation before ordering disclosure of the documents sought by the Respondent. In our view, the omission to do so constituted an error of law.

[46] Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the matter is remitted to a different motions judge for re-consideration based on the principles set out above.

Costs

[47] The interveners do not seek costs in respect of this appeal. The appellants [Mark and Connie Fournier] are entitles to costs on a partial indemnity basis payable by the Respondent [Richard Warman] in the amount of $10,000 on an all inclusive basis in respect of the motion, leave to appeal and the hearing of the appeal.

CCLA welcomes Divisional Court decision to protect internet anonymity

http://ccla.org/?p=5338

The Divisional Court released its decision in the case Warman v. Fournier, Fournier and John Does 1-8, which dealt with anonymous internet commentators. The question before the Court was whether a party to a lawsuit should be automatically forced to disclose identifying information about an anonymous commentator simply because a statement of claim had been filed. The Court recognized CCLA’s concerns regarding privacy and freedom of expression, stating that “[if] disclosure were automatic, a plaintiff with no legitimate claim could misuse the Rules of Civil Procedure by commencing an unmeritrous action for the sole purpose of revealing the identity of anonymous internet commentators, with a view to stifling such commentators and deterring others from speaking out on controversial issues.”

CCLA had argued that, while the internet should not be used as a shield to allow individuals to break the law, neither should a simple request to the courts result in the disclosure of identifying information. Highly personal communication occurs online. Indeed, many use online anonymity as a way to explore difficult issues (political, legal, sexual, medical, etc.) that they might not feel free to explore publicly. The internet is a highly accessible democratic forum, with virtually limitless opportunities for discussion and debate. Court orders that force individuals to reveal the identity of those who choose to participate anonymously could chill this rigorous discussion, particularly on sensitive personal topics. Anonymity on the internet should not be compromised simply because a private individual has filed a statement of claim.

In a unanimous ruling, the Court set out four considerations which must be taken into account to determine whether disclosure should be ordered:

1. whether the unknown alleged wrongdoer could have a reasonable expectation of anonymity in the particular circumstances;

2. whether the Respondent has established a prima facie case against the unknown alleged wrongdoer and is acting in good faith;

3. whether the Respondent has taken reasonable steps to identify the anonymous party and has been unable to do so; and

4. whether the public interests favouring disclosure outweigh the legitimate interests of freedom of expression and right to privacy of the persons sought to be identified if the disclosure is ordered.

To read CCLA’s factum click here.

To read the Court’s decision click here.

Court Decision Protects Online Anonymity

http://www.cippic.ca/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=452&cntnt01origid=216&cntnt01dateformat=%25B%20%25e%2C%20%25Y&cntnt01returnid=54

The Ontario Divisional Court released a unanimous decision today that will protect the anonymity of online speakers.  The court held that before the identity of anonymous online users accused of defamation can be revealed, the plaintiff must convince the court there is an adequate basis for ordering such disclosure.  This overturns a lower court’s decision that identities must be disclosed automatically.

Warman v. Fournier
CIPPIC’s Factum

[Editor’s Note: I want to thank David Thomson for his excellent commentary here on the situation regarding Rabbi Michael Lerner of Tikkun magazine and how it compares with my own plight here in Canada regarding B’nai Brith and their sec. 13 “hate crime” complaint made against myself and RadicalPress.com. Mr. Thomson’s very thoughtful appraisal of the situation is most appreciated.]

______________

From:

David Thomson

idslayer@telus.net

To:
miriam@tikkun.org

RabbiLerner@Tikkun.org

ideas_proposals@cbc.ca

israel-un@newyork.mfa.gov.il

roch.levac@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca

Harper.S@parl.gc.ca

It is always traumatic to be targeted by criminal elements. To be repeatedly targeted in the manner Rabbi Lerner and other devotees to Tikkun have been the target of death threats and the like, even prior to last night’s disturbing act of vandalism against the Rabbi’s home. Each and every incident can be looked on as separate acts to extort, all aiming to violate these people’s rights to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Extortion is also a criminal act, is it not?

The only difference is all the physical evidence left to indicate motivation, this time, leading directly back to a highly suspect group of possible perpetrators who fit the personalities of those who drag hapless Canadians before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on charges of hate-crimes (anti-Semitic to be precise) where they happen to be critical of Israeli foreign policy, the traditional historical record and/or the rising State of Zionism.

Arthur Topham of www.radicalpress.com fame is one such Canadian currently accused of inciting hate, has been brought to task by a regular consumer of “human rights” products, one Harry Abram. Arthur claims among other things in his defense, that his reference to “Zionism” and the “State of Zionism” is purely political, not a religious or racial slur.

Yet here in your case, the police say that this is not a hate crime because it is aimed at your political stance against the State of Zionism, not your religious affiliation. Yet I’ll venture to say that you’ve been labeled as “a self-hating Jew”. That, to me, sounds “anti-Semitic”.

Am I the only one who sees a glaring contradiction, here, between the definition being thrust upon Mr. Topham for his political views, and the definition that the police provided in your case, Rabbi Lerner?

If you ask me, in both Arthur’s case and in yours, it all boils down to extorting our individual right to freedom of speech and expression, whether it is religious or political in nature. No one here is inciting hatred or violating the rights of others, except it seems, for some factions who sympathize with such extreme right-wing partisan actions as has been amply demonstrated by this latest attack on the freedoms of Rabbi Lerner, extending beyond his right to freedom of speech and political expression, violating his right to enjoy the peace, the tranquility, and the sanctity and security of his own home.

Naturally, this would extend to include Rabbi Lerner’s family, friends and colleagues, all of whom, as the police have pointed out, are also the targets in this latest attack against the efforts of any and all who support the good Rabbi in his efforts towards peace, harmony and love among all earthlings who inhabit this precious planet, people included, no matter what their race, religion or ethnicity. It could be argued that all of our common problems stem from irrational, conflicted, self-gratifying political ideologies.

Or as Howard Laswell put it: Politics: Who Gets What, When, How (1936), later penning The Garrison State (1941). Like both Rabbi Lerner and Arthur Topham, Laswell was wildly critiqued for publishing his daring perspective into the shape, the shapers and the purpose for evolving political ideologies. It is abundantly evident that for political ideologies to evolve as intended, open, intelligent debate simply will not be tolerated, as we head towards a globally-affected “garrison state”, populated by great masses of the “restless poor”, and pacified by the military might of a privileged few. See: http://workingtv.com/jeff.halper.html
Those of us who stand firm on a common platform in support of peace, justice and equality for all, stand squarely in the way of all oppressive agendas. Oppression in all its forms is the primary strategy at work against us, and to exercise our right to speak the truth is our most versatile counter-strategy, both as a shield and to swing back with. The truth can only prevail once it has been amply revealed to that critical mass that gives such weight to the power of public opinion.

We have entered the age of the “computerized communications revolution” (David Korten, The Great Turning: From Empire to Earth Community). Never before have we had such power to contribute to the flow of information that shapes public opinion and inevitably, a social environment that can foster the birth of an “Earth Community”. Thank you Rabbi Lerner and the folks at Tikkun.Org, Let us all take this opportunity to begin to think and articulate what this might look like.

Yours very truly,

David Thomson
http://british-columbia.ca.human-rights.org/
725 Franklyn Road
Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
1-250-765-6826

”
Press Release: From Tikkun Magazine     Contact: Will Pasley 510 644 1200

Rabbi Lerner’s Home Attacked by Right-Wing Zionists

Berkeley, Ca. May 3, 2010

Release date: May 4, 2010

Berkeley police today confirmed that the attack on Rabbi Lerner’s home late Sunday May 2nd or early morning Sunday May 3rd was in fact a crime and was being investigated.

The attackers used a powerful form of glue to attach posters to his door and around the property of his home attacking Lerner personally, and attacking liberals and progressives as being supporters of terrorism and “Islamo-fascism.” They posted a printed bumper sticker saying “fight terror–support Israel” next to a caricature of Judge Goldstone whose UN report on Israel’s human rights violations in its attack on Gaza last year has been denounced as anti-Semitic and pro-terror by right wingers in Israel and the U.S.. The caricature has Goldstone talking about his being kept from his grandson’s bar mitzvah, and the caricature of Rabbi Lerner responds by saying “any enemy of Israel is a friend of mine.” This attack and vandalism follows on a week filled with Lerner and Tikkun staff receiving hate mail, prompted apparently by Tikkun’s announcement that in case the South African Zionists had succeeded in preventing Judge Goldstone from attending his grandson’s bar mitzvah, as they threatened several weeks ago, that Rabbi Lerner would gladly hold the bar mitzvah in the SF Bay Area instead, and following Tikkun’s announcement that in light of Goldstone’s courageous willingness to stand up for human rights in Israel (his report called on the Israeli government to do its own independent, public and credibly objective investigation, punish those responsible for the crimes or show that they didn’t happen, and thereby show that these actions were not government policy but the mistakes or evil choices by people in the IDF who were acting as rogue elements and not as a manifestation of the people of Israel) that Tikkun will award our prestigious Tikkun Award to Judge Goldstone in 2011 at the event celebrating our 25th anniversary! This story, which was prominent in Ha’aretz and many other Jewish magazines and websites, has intensified anger against Lerner and Tikkun among those who seek to perpetuate the Occupation, and great support among those who realize that the Occupation is really hurtful both to Israel and to the Jewish people world-wide.

In the 24 years of Tikkun’s operation, we have received many death threats and vicious hate mail, including phone calls to our office announcing that “Rabbi Lerner is dead” and others saying “We will kill all of you.” This particular attack has two worrisome elements not previously there: 1. They attack Rabbi Lerner’s home. As law enforcement people told us, this is a way of conveying the message to Lerner: “We know where you live, we know your house is vulnerable, so don’t ignore our threats.”  2. By linking Lerner to alleged terrorism, they provide for themselves and other extremists a “right-wing justification” to use violence against Lerner, even though Lerner has been a prominent advocate of non-violence. He regularly critiques Palestinian acts of violence when they occur, including the shelling of Israeli towns by Hamas,  just as he critiques the violence of the Israeli occupation, and as he critiques the US war in Iraq and Afghanistan, the occupation of Chechny by Russia, the occupation of Tibet by China, the human rights violations against their own people by the rulers of Iran, the acts of violence of those resisting the US occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, the violence against women and homosexuals in many Arab and African countries (and in the US and Israel as well), the genocide in Darfur, the violence against Jews in some parts of Europe, and the list goes on.

Needless to say, this latest attack, on Lerner’s home, has caused great concern to his family.

What can you do? Let people know that this kind of thing is happening in the Jewish world to people who critique Israeli policies.

–Tikkun Magazine

To reach Rabbi Lerner directly: RabbiLerner@Tikkun.org or call the Tikkun office at 510 644 1200.

Doug Christie Takes Powerful Free Speech Message to the University of Ottawa

[Paul Fromm of the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) writes: Just 10 days after a rowdy mob of protesters, egged on by a university administration that admonished the controversial U.S. Ann Coulter against “inappropriate” or hateful speech, won the University of Ottawa, unaffectionately known as the U of Zero, a reputation for censorship, when Ottawa Police advised that the appearance be canceled rather than they preserve law and order and free speech, Canada’s foremost free speech lawyer, Doug Christie made a successful appearance before a packed standing room only meeting of 150. The meeting was organized by a number of free speech supporters and partially funded by the Canadian Association for Free Expression. Afterward, the audience listened with rapt attention and engaged the Battling Barrister in a lively discussion.]

       DOUGLAS CHRISTIE – CANADA’S FREEDOM OF SPEECH LAWYER

___________________________________________________________________________

Notes for Doug Christie’s Speech
University of Ottawa, April 8, 2010

I’m here to talk about free speech. I’m not here to practice it.

Unlike Ann Coulter, I don’t need a warning from the provost. I am a Canadian, trained by law in the way of silence, sullen silence, and code language. I have been trained by the Supreme Court not to engage in hate speech, even though no one can define it in advance, so I can avoid it.

There are general taboo topics which I must avoid or tread lightly around, like race, religion, ethnic origin, sex, sexual orientation, mental or physical disability or mental status. Then there are peripheral taboo topics like multiculturalism, immigration, affirmative action programs and a host of other ill-defined topics.

I have been trained to remain very sensitive to the broad political implications of these topics lest I face a very expensive lesson from the Human Rights Tribunal.

What the Supreme Court taught me when I appeared in Taylor and Zundel and Keegstra was that free speech has its limits in “hate” which means “extreme dislike.” So presumably I must like all races, religions, ethnic origins, etc. equally or at least dislike them only moderately. Or at least pretend to, which is more Canadian. I cannot denounce any one as evil.

The Law Society, through its decision of Harvey Strosberg taught me that if I speak in public, “law students” may tape some but not all of my words, and the Chairman of the Discipline Committee can issue a statement to the media condemning me as “identifying with a lunatic fringe,” even in the very act where he decides not to give me the benefit of a hearing where I could answer the allegation with evidence where both sides could be heard.

I learned in McAleer and Malcolm Ross, both of which went to the Supreme Court of Canada, that expressing your religious beliefs on your own time, is no defence and placing the messages in the United States where it is legal, is no defence if you mention where you can get the message to someone in Canada.

I learned that our parliamentarians of all parties love free speech so much that they banned someone from the precincts of Parliament who wanted to rent the parliamentary press gallery, a place anyone can rent for a press conference.

What was the press conference about? That the Human Rights Tribunal had ruled in Zundel’s case that “Truth was no defence,” and the truth of the statement could not be proven by any evidence. I know because that someone was me, the only lawyer in Canadian history to be banned by all party agreement from the precincts of parliament. Because in Canada truth is no defence. Orwell was right about double speak. Randy White a so-called Reform MP said he did not want me in his work place. Orwell was right about a lot of things.

I have learned and been carefully taught to avoid the taboo topics, to measure every word lest a tape recorder in the audience be taken to the Human Rights Commission, the police, the Law Society, or someone likes to complain to the Human Rights Commission.

I have learned to talk about free speech but never practice it. Never say anything like Ann Coulter would say, coming from a free society. And being in a university setting is all the more reason to be very careful about how you choose your words. The left-wing political giants who run most universities are able to let loose the mob with a wink and the students know their success with many professors depends on how successfully they can entrap a political foe.

Universities are the most dangerous place to practice free speech. Even topics like abortion which you would not normally think involve a taboo topic can quickly be spun into forbidden territory and sexism can result in expulsion or criminal charges. The civility of universities is accorded to those who can mobilize the largest screaming mob. No one listens.

I have to even be careful how I speak about Freedom of Speech.

(more…)

Thursday, April 08, 2010

The Attacks on Pope Benedict - a Conspiracy of Man - or God?

by Michael Hoffman

Over the centuries many sorts of masquers have bored deep into the bowels of the Roman Catholic Church. Some of these have even occupied the papal throne; others were content to be the power behind that throne.

King Henry VIII first received the theological justification for his divorce from Catherine of Aragon from the Neoplatonic brotherhood inside the Vatican; out of said fraternity would emerge Dr. John Dee, the Protestant magician who, using the Hermetic and Kabbalistic cunning of the Roman Catholic magician Marsilio Ficino, furnished William Cecil with the mind control keys and mass persuasion techniques that gained him the rule of England through a reanimated goddess Isis who is known to history as Queen Elizabeth I.

Very few believing Catholics ever glimpse this hidden reality, and when they are so privileged as to gain a fleeting vision of it, they run from it, so threatening is it to the papal Caesarism to which they kowtow like the pagan subjects of Kubla Khan. Jesus Christ did not come to institute slavish and cowering obedience to mere men, however elaborately costumed or adored. He came to save souls, which is the highest law, a law recognized by only a few churchmen, such as the late French Archbishop Marcel Lefebvre, who defied Popes Paul VI and John Paul II for that very reason.

Behind the scenes of the competing Catholic and Protestant churches exists a golden thread, a rainbow bridge if you will, that unites initiates in both camps who, believing they possess godlike powers derived from the secret gnosis of the Corpus Hermeticum, are above the morality they publicly preach, beyond good and evil, and united in processing humankind toward a “higher” destiny without the knowledge or consent of those being processed. This is the age-old mandate of the pagan-occult imperium.

Shortly before the latest uproar over pederasty within the Roman Catholic Church, a Vatican exorcist announced that the devil was active in the Vatican, even at the highest levels. Prior to this not exactly  unexpected revelation, Pope Benedict XVI completed the third of his pilgrimages to the Synagogue, the latest, on Jan. 17, at Rome itself, where this papal Judas gave every encouragement to the assembled Pharisees.

Most recently he has appointed a member of the secret society of Opus Dei to head the powerful diocese of Los Angeles, California, after child-molestation enabler and obstructor of justice Cardinal Roger Mahony retires next year with his pension intact and full church honors accorded to this patron of pederasty.

Certain Catholic automatons have marched forth, decrying a purported “media conspiracy” of “gossip” against the pope. But are the troubles that have befallen this pope a conspiracy of man, or a curse of God?

How long do the vassals of Rome imagine that God will be mocked by popes who make common cause with the ideological and spiritual descendants of those who stoned, laid hands upon and conspired in the murder of His Divine Son?

Pope John Paul II, the modern champion of the Synagogue and the first pope in history to enter its precincts as a supplicant, spent the final years of his pontificate as a hunchback, drooling spittle onto his breast. Unless he repents and makes reparation, Pope Benedict XVI can no more escape the wrath of God than did his predecessor.

If Benedict is besieged now, it may be payback for his treason to the Gospel of Jesus Christ, notwithstanding his provisional revival of the old Latin Mass, which he has integrated into a neo-Catholic hybrid Church of Holocaustianity, whereby Auschwitz is rendered far more sacred than Calvary, a revolutionary betrayal made tolerable now that it is accompanied by Tridentine incense and Gregorian chant.

Those badly deceived persons who make common cause with this pontiff might wish to consider what fate may be in store if they do not switch their allegiance from Benedict to Jesus.

———–

Copyright ©2010 by RevisionistHistory.org

      
Hoffman is the author of seven books of history and literature, including Judaism Discovered. He edits Revisionist History, a newsletter published six times a year. The latest issue, on “The Money Power,” is available for purchase online.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2010/apr/04/china-blocks-bob-dylan-gigs

China blocks Bob Dylan gigs

Bob Dylan’s planned tour of east Asia called off after Chinese officials refuse him permission to play in Beijing and Shanghai

Bob Dylan performing in 2002. Photograph: Gary Hershorn/Reuters

Aged 68 and almost half a century past the zenith of his angry, protest-song youth, Bob Dylan must almost have forgotten what it was like to be deemed a threat to society. But it seems at least one place still sees him as a dangerous radical.

Dylan’s planned tour of east Asia later this month has been called off after Chinese officials refused permission for him to play in Beijing and Shanghai, his local promoters said. China’s ministry of culture, which vets planned concerts by overseas artists, appeared wary of Dylan’s past as an icon of the counterculture movement, said Jeffrey Wu, of the Taiwan-based promoters Brokers Brothers Herald.

Dylan fans denied the chance to see their hero might also blame Björk, who caused consternation among Chinese officials two years ago by shouting pro-Tibet slogans at a concert in Shanghai, Wu told Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post.

The verdict scuppers Dylan’s plans to play his first dates in mainland China. The singer, who plays around 100 concerts a year on his Never Ending Tour, had hoped to extend a multi-city Japanese leg with concerts in Beijing, Shanghai, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong. All these would now be called off, Wu told the newspaper.

“With Beijing and China ruled out, it was not possible for him just to play concerts in Hong Kong, South Korea and Taiwan,” he said. “The chance to play in China was the main attraction for him. When that fell through everything else was called off.”

Wu said officials had become more cautious since Björk, the Icelandic singer, chanted “Tibet! Tibet!” after performing a song called Declare Independence in Shanghai in 2008. China has ruled Tibet since invading it in 1950 and views the Himalayan territory as an integral part of its national territory.

“What Björk did definitely made life very difficult for other performers. They are very wary of what will be said by performers on stage now,” Wu said.

Last year, Oasis were told they were “unsuitable” to play in Beijing and Shanghai as Noel Gallagher had appeared at a Tibet freedom concert 12 years earlier.

————-

RadicalPress Publisher Arthur Topham will be appearing as a guest on RoadKill Radio with host Kari Simpson tonight, April 6, 2010 at 7:30 PST.

7:30 –8:15 pm:  ARTHUR TOPHAM, publisher of the Radical Press joins us to talk about his ongoing battle to exercise his (and mine and yours) right to Free Speech!  A battle that is costing Canadian tax-payers (us) millions of dollars!

8: 20 – 8:55 pm:  Then, one of our favourite healthcare advocates, DEE NICHOLSON will be here to talk about “post H1N1” and the flood of adverse reports that are still coming in daily on the Canadians for Health Freedom website.  Also, Is our Sovereignty “Enlightened” or “Endangered”?

8:55 – 9:30 pm:        Current happenings that will affect you and your family, including the “Day of Silence”, an event coming soon to a school near you!

Be Wise, Be Aware & Be Informed!!

It all happens tonight at 7:30 p.m.-9:30 p.m. Pacific. Listen live at www.roadkillradio.com or check out the archived show later.

CALL IN: On-air telephone: (604) 525-4167 or (604) 525-3974
WHERE: Listen live - http://www.roadkillradio.com
EMAIL THE SHOW LIVE: Roadkillradio@live.ca

                        Canadian Senator Doug Finley

_______________________________________________________________

April 6, 2010

From:
Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
Cottonwood, British Columbia

Ph: 250-992-3479

To:
Honorable Doug Finley
Canadian Senator
House of Parliament
Ottawa, Ontario

Dear Hon. Doug Finley,

Warm spring greetings to you from central B.C.

I’m sure that by now your inbox is overflowing like the psalmist’s proverbial cup with congratulatory messages from around the country and most likely around the world as a result of your courageous and patriotic message on freedom of speech given to fellow senators on March 25, 2010.

Please allow me, as yet another proud Canadian who truly understands the value of our historic right to this most cherished of freedoms, to add to the bounteous expressions of praise and gratitude that you so well deserve.

It is always a welcome occurrence to hear someone in your position speak out for rights that so many of our fellow Canadians gave their lives for in order to ensure that future generations might benefit from their ultimate sacrifice. And to have those concerns embellished with the thoughts of great persons throughout history who were able to phrase such cogent sentiments – people like Benjamin Franklin, Voltaire, Orwell and the great Milton not to mention our own exemplars, Liberal Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier and Joseph Howe – only added an additional depth of perspicacity to what I felt was a most prescient and important speech.

I would also like to thank you for speaking out on the deplorable situation that arose here in Canada as a result of the scheduled visit to our country by the American political commentator Ann Coulter. That example, among many other recent cases, certainly brought to the forefront the dangerous trend we’ve seen occurring in our nation with respect to this present danger to our fundamental right to freedom of speech.

As you rightfully stated in regard to this incident, “Too many Canadians, especially those in positions of authority, have replaced the real human right of freedom of speech with a counterfeit human right not to be offended.” Those were true words indeed and most applicable to our times.

As well, your remarks with respect to offensive opinions versus deliberate acts wherein someone counsels violence are extremely relevant to what is taking place within the context of the Human Rights commissions and their attendant Tribunals where truth no longer is considered valid and the sensibilities of particular individuals or groups have begun to trump what once were clearly defined laws as contained in Canada’s 1960 Bill of Rights and our more recent section 2 of the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

In essence Mr. Finley you’ve encapsulated in a somewhat terse speech the growing anxiety felt among many Canadians today who sense that their legal rights are being sidelined and subverted by special interest groups and individuals who have taken it upon themselves to exploit what in retrospect appears to have been misguided and hastily conceived legislation such as that contained in sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act; legislation enacted during a period of intense fear and terror brought on by the tragic events of 911. It is precisely this piece of pithy legislation that the Canadian Human Rights Commission is now using to destroy the very traditions that you’ve so succinctly outlined in your speech to the senate.

I thought it was most apropos Mr. Finley that you brought up the case of the young newspaper publisher Joseph Howe in Nova Scotia who was charged with seditious libel for having exposed some Halifax politicians. This naturally leads to my final comments respecting the nature and intent of your speech and its applicability to my own situation.

Like Joseph Howe, I too am a former newspaper publisher and currently, in the new times of the Internet, an online publisher and also like Joseph Howe I too have been charged with a crime although, unfortunately for me, it wasn’t seditious libel, as serious as that charge may be. Had it been I would have been given the opportunity to defend myself within an actual court of law where today, as opposed to Howe’s day, the norm is that truth is a defence. But, as fate would have it, I was charged under sec. 13(1) of the CHR Act back in November of 2007 with what amounts to a thought crime and to date my struggle to fend off this attack against my good name and my sole proprietorship, RadicalPress.com is still wending its way through the quasi-judicial process that you have clearly identified as having “egregiously violated freedom of speech without any shame.”

My case, currently identified within the files of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal as Harry Abrams and The League For Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com, File Number: T1360/9008, like 99% of all similar sec. 13(1) cases, is being fought solely by myself due to the reality that I could not afford to hire a competent lawyer and therefore was forced to act in a pro se capacity.

After more than two years of litigation and constant stress and the inability to work in a regular fashion the toll taken upon my business and my person and my family has been unduly harsh and to date there is no end in sight unless this vexatious and undemocratic legislation is removed from the statutes and those who have misused it are held accountable.

I would kindly remind you that in your call for an inquiry into the erosion of freedom of speech here in Canada you requested five things, the third one being: “to show moral support for those who are battling censors.” That call Mr. Finley, rings loud and clear right across this great nation and finds a resonant place directly within the mind and heart of the author of this letter to you. At no greater time could such a welcome show of support appear than during this dark hour of oppression that has plagued my name, my business, my family and my sacred and sacrosanct rights held under Canada’s beleaguered Constitution.

I ask this support not only for myself but for all those who have had their names and reputations and livelihood tarnished and threatened by these egregious and unjust laws and remain,

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
RadicalPress.com

Friends of Freedom
Write your Senator and demand an inquiry on the Erosion of Freedom in Canada.

Dear Friends of Freedom:

On March 30 2010, Senator Doug Finley rose in the Senate of Canada and publicly asked for an inquiry on the erosion of freedom of speech in Canada.

Freespeechers and Bloggers need to unite and make our views known to all Senators.  Freedom of speech is a fundamental right and we need to express our support for Senator Finley’s request for an inquiry.

Please put aside some time and write a letter to all senators demanding they proceed with calling the inquiry.

Senator Finey stated:

“Honourable senators, I call for this inquiry to accomplish five things: first, to reaffirm that freedom of speech is a great Canadian principle that goes back hundreds of years; second, to put Canada’s censors on notice that their days of infringing upon our freedoms with impunity are over; third, to show moral support for those who are battling censors; fourth, to inquire into the details of what went so desperately wrong at the University of Ottawa to ensure that those awful events never happen again; and, fifth, to inspire a debate that hopefully will lead to a redefinition of section 13.1 of the Human Rights Act.

Honourable senators, there are times for partisan debate when parties must naturally be at odds with one another. This is not one of those times. Freedom of speech and respect for differing views is a foundational principle of our entire parliamentary system — indeed, of our entire legal system, as well.”

The words by Senator Finley are a call to Canadians to get involved.   He went on to say that “If we can rededicate our Parliament to protecting this most important right, we will have done our country a great service, but if we fail to stop and indeed reverse this erosion of freedom, we will have failed our most basic duty, the duty to uphold our constitution and the rights in it, the rights it guarantees for all Canadians.”

Please find attached to this email, a complete list of Canadian Senators who have an email address. A complete list of senators can be found at:  http://parl.gc.ca

————————————————————

Sample letter written by Marc Lemire to all Canadian Senators:

April 3, 2010

To: Senator Doug Finley
The Senate of Canada,
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada
K1A 0A4
Freedom of Speech in Canada

Dear Senator;

I am writing today to express my support for your March 30, 2010 statement in the Senate of Canada on the Erosion of Freedom of Speech in Canada.  I would welcome a Senate inquiry on freedom of speech.

By way of background, I have been battling the fanatical Canadian Human Rights Commission for the past seven years.  Back in 2003 a complaint was filed against my website, the Freedomsite [ http://www.freedomsite.org ] which alleged that my website promoted hatred and/or contempt in violation of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.  In September 2009, after a 32 day hearing, I was completely exonerated for alleged hate speech, and Section 13 was found to be unconstitutional.  Although the case took 6 years, and in the end I “won”, I was not able to claim a cent of compensation for dragging me though the system.

As a result of my 6 year persecution, I have amassed the largest collection of critical material on the CHRC and their systemic corruption.  These documents show the abuse, totalitarianism and corruption of the CHRC.  If an inquiry is called, I would like to present some of this shocking information to the Senate.

The information which I have uncovered includes:

• CHRC theft of internet communications
• CHRC staff signing onto questionable websites and entrapping people
• CHRC staff’s contempt for freedom of speech, including their testimony that “Freedom of speech is an American concept”
• 99% conviction rate before the Tribunal
• The corrupt investigations of the CHRC, which includes dismissing a complaint because it was a “double-sided” fax
• CHRC exchanging information with Police and others, thus usurping safeguards in criminal law
• CHRC contravening the Canada Post Act, by setting up mail drops in Ottawa, to send out hate posters to receive mail under false names
• CHRC editing court transcripts to remove explosive testimony about the CHRC #1 complainer,  then distributing copies of the doctored transcripts to members of the media
• Decision from the Office of the Privacy Commission, chastising the CHRC for refusing to release information

The CHRC: an Affront to all Canadians

Canadians are sick and tired of the totalitarianism of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and their obsession to restrict freedom of speech on the Internet. Editorials from every major newspaper across Canada have demanded that Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act needs to be scrapped.  The Canadian “Human Rights” Commission (CHRC) has become the single largest threat to freedom of expression, religion and personal beliefs in Canada’s History.

Sections 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act are a direct attack on the freedom of expression guaranteed to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The provisions of these sections allow the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to prosecute anyone alleged to have said or written something “likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt” whether there is a living, breathing victim or not.

Vague concepts such as speech or writing “liable to cause hatred or contempt” are the basis of expensive state-funded prosecution of individuals. The statute provides no objective legal test for “hate” or any objective means of determining what constitutes “contempt”. As a result, the CHRC is used by various groups and individuals, as a risk-free taxpayer funded method to silence their critics and those they disagree with. CHRC investigators have testified that that “freedom of speech is an American concept” and therefore not valid in Canada. Such statements are contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but are standard operating procedure at the CHRC.

Commissioners of the Canadians Human Rights Tribunal, who are not judges and are often not even lawyers, have held that “truth” is not a defence against prosecution under Section 13.  Intent or fair comment are also not defenses.  In fact, there is not a single listed defence under Section 13! Because of the lack of any defenses, the Tribunal has a 99% conviction rate since 1978. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal routinely ignores the principles of fundamental justice, such as the rules of evidence, and these kangaroo courts, even allow hearsay evidence.  The CHRA provides for each Tribunal to make up the rules as they go.

Every journalist, writer, Internet webmaster, publisher and private citizen in Canada can be the subject of a Human Rights complaint for expressing an opinion or telling the truth. Given the ambiguity of Section 13, it is virtually impossible for any individual to determine if they might be in violation of Section 13. Arbitrary censorship and punishment are wrong, and cannot be justified in a free society.

“Human Rights Commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society…It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.”

(Stephen Harper BC Report Newsmagazine, January 11, 1999)

Hallmarks of Suppression

1: The Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal are not fair, and make arbitrary decisions based on who an accused is rather than on a fair and impartial application of the statute they enforce. High profile accused, such as Macleans, Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant are given a free pass, while others, less prominent and lacking the resources to hire legal council are relentlessly prosecuted. This creates a chill on the freedom of expression since there is no discernible “line” between speech that is prohibited and speech that is “acceptable” to the CHRC.

2: The CHRC pays no heed to constitutionally protected rights such as Freedom of Expression. In place they use imaginary “rights” such as the “right to be free from contempt”. There is no such right in our Charter. Both the CHRC and the Attorney General’s office considered freedom of speech to be an American concept that does not apply to Canadians. The CHRC only believes in “group” rights, and not the rights of individuals to “speak truth to power”, hence the 99% conviction rate.

3: The CHRC is out of control and is currently under three investigations. CHRC investigators are under criminal investigation by the RCMP for the criminal theft of telecommunications services; the Privacy Commissioner is investigating complaints of CHRC breaches of personal privacy; and CHRC investigation techniques are under review by the Parliamentary Justice Committee. In the meantime, the CHRC continues to apply the law in an arbitrary and capricious manner.

4: The CHRC engages in clandestine spying on Canadians including using aliases to engage others in conversation and writing questionable material while asking for support for views of the alias for use in a subsequent prosecution.

5: The entire process is paid for by taxpayers on behalf of the complainants. The defendants must pay their costs personally. There is no legal aid and there is no way to claim costs, even if the defendants are found innocent.

Over the past few years, the CHRC has tried to bump itself up into a quasi National Security type agency.  Shamelessly, this politically motivated outfit operates in almost complete secrecy, with no rules, no public oversight and continually deflects Access to Information requests over their activities with absurd claims of “security”.

The CHRC has employed some very shady and possibly illegal tactics including;

• Hijacking a private citizens Wireless Internet connection to connect to neo-Nazi websites and print of material and post messages
• infiltration and spying operations on Canadians
• the use of private police databases such as CPIC, (which holds records of millions of Canadians, including data such as dental records, known aliases, addresses, last contact with police, etc)
• infiltration of internet message boards

• telephone record searches

• motor vehicle record searches

• search warrants

• and even tenancy agreements for rental properties.

Because the CHRC is exempt from parliamentary oversight and doesn’t report to a minister, in enjoys carte blanche to do exactly as it pleases.  Inside the CHRC, there are no guidelines on how they need to investigate complaints.  Nor are there any rules on what CHRC employees can do in the course of investigations.  This includes even the totally unacceptable practice of trying to entrap respondents dragged before the CHRC.

Furthermore, to Canada’s great shame, in any Human Rights Commission case, truth is no defence!  It’s a slap in the face of 200 centuries of jurisprudence as intent, malice, effect, fair comment – none of these factors are taken into account by CHRC Tribunals. In fact, if you argue the truth of your statements, it is then used as proof of your guilt, and a rational to increase the amount of fines! Under the legislation there are no defences available. Is it any wonder that from 1977 to 2009 not a single person in over 32 years has ever won?

Tribunals and political inquisitions have no place in Canada. Recently, David Warren writing in the Ottawa Citizen called the Tribunal a “Kangaroo court” and “Star Chamber”. Others have compared them to the Communists, the Nazis, and the medieval Inquisition.  We need to stop the censorship enforcers and let freedom of speech reign. It’s time to abolish the Canadian Human Rights Commission and pack off this shameful censorship outfit to the “embarrassing lapses” dustbin of history.

I hope to hear from you on this pressing issue.

__________________________
Marc Lemire

Email:  marc@lemire.com

Members of Parliament who have openly stated their support for a repeal of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act:

Liberal MP Keith Martin
Liberal MP Dan McTeague
Conservative MP Brad Trost
Conservative MP Rob Anders
Conservative MP Brent Rathgeber
Conservative MP John Baird
Conservative MP James Rajotte
Conservative MP Bruce Stanton
Conservative MP Lee Richardson
Conservative MP Russ Hiebert
Conservative MP Kevin Sorenson
Conservative MP Helena Guergis
Conservative MP Nina Grewal
Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre
Conservative MP Rick Dykstra
Conservative MP John Williams
Conservative MP Rick Casson
Justice Minister Rob Nicholson

Canadian Senators support Freedom of Speech and slam “Human Rights” Censorship

Canadian Senator Doug Finley slams “Human Rights” Commissars
_______________________________________________________________

Canadian Senators support Freedom of Speech and slam “Human Rights” Censorship

“…our own Canadian Human Rights Commission has egregiously violated freedom of speech without any shame. In a censorship trial in 2007, a CHRC investigator named Dean Stacey testified that, “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” He actually said that. The Canadian Human Rights Commission actually admits they do not give free speech any value. That is totally unacceptable.”

Senator Finley – Senate of Canada – March 30, 2010

———————————————————–

Debates of the Senate (Hansard)

3rd Session, 40th Parliament,
Volume 147, Issue 13

Tuesday, March 30, 2010

http://parl.gc.ca/40/3/parlbus/chambus/senate/deb-E/013db_2010-03-30-e.htm?Language=E&Parl=40&Ses=3#52

Erosion of Freedom of Speech

Inquiry—Debate Adjourned

Hon. Doug Finley rose pursuant to notice of March 25, 2010:

That he will call the attention of the Senate to the issue of the erosion of Freedom of Speech in our country.

He said: Honourable senators, I rise to call the attention of the Senate to the erosion of freedom of speech in Canada.

There can scarcely be a more important issue than this one. Freedom of speech is, and always has been, the bedrock of our Canadian democracy. The great Alan Borovoy, who was the head of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association for more than 40 years, calls freedom of speech a “strategic freedom” because it is a freedom upon which all other freedoms are built. For example, how could we exercise our democratic right to hold elections without free speech? How could we have a fair trial without free speech? What is the point of freedom of assembly if we cannot talk freely at such a public meeting?

Freedom of speech is a most important freedom. Indeed, if we had all our other rights taken away we could still win them back with freedom of speech.

Benjamin Franklin once said: “Without Freedom of thought, there can be no such Thing as Wisdom; and no such thing as public Liberty, without Freedom of speech.”

Freedom of speech is embedded in Parliament’s DNA. The word “Parliament” itself comes from the French word “parler,” to speak. As parliamentarians we guard our freedom jealously. No member of the House of Commons or the Senate may be sued for anything that is said in Parliament. Our freedom of speech is absolute.

Yet, only last week, a few miles from here, censorship reared its ugly head. Ann Coulter, an American political commentator, had been invited to speak at the University of Ottawa. Before she even said a word, she was served with a letter from François Houle, the university’s vice-president, containing a thinly veiled threat that she could face criminal charges if she proceeded with her speech.

On the night of her speech, an unruly mob of nearly 1,000 people, some of whom had publicly mused about assaulting her, succeeded in shutting down her lecture after overwhelmed police said they could not guarantee her safety.

Honourable senators, it was the most un-Canadian display that I personally have seen in years. It was so shocking that hundreds of foreign news media covered the fiasco, from the BBC to The New York Times to CNN. It was an embarrassing moment for Canada because it besmirched our reputation as a bastion of human rights — a reputation hard won in places like Vimy Ridge, Juno Beach and Kandahar.

More important than international embarrassment is the truth those ugly news stories revealed. Too many Canadians, especially those in positions of authority, have replaced the real human right of freedom of speech with a counterfeit human right not to be offended.

An angry mob is bad enough. That may be written off as misguided youth, overcome by enthusiasm. However, such excuses are not available to a university vice-president who obviously wrote his warning letter to Ms. Coulter after careful thought.

Ann Coulter is controversial, she is not to everyone’s taste, but that is irrelevant because freedom of speech means nothing if it applies only to people with whom we agree. To quote George Orwell: “Freedom is the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”

In a pluralistic society like Canada, we must protect our right to peacefully disagree with each other. We must allow a diversity of opinion, even if we find some opinions offensive. Unless someone counsels violence or other crimes, we must never use the law to silence them.

Freedom of speech is as Canadian as maple syrup, hockey and the northern lights. It is part of our national identity, our history and our culture. It is section 2 of our 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms, listed as one of our “fundamental freedoms;” and it is in the first section of Canada’s 1960 Bill of Rights.

Honourable senators, our Canadian tradition of liberty goes much further back than that. In 1835, a 30-year-old newspaper publisher in Nova Scotia was charged with seditious libel for exposing corruption amongst Halifax politicians. The judge instructed the jury to convict him. At that time, truth was not a defence. The publisher passionately called on the jury to “leave an unshackled press as a legacy to your children.” After only 10 minutes of deliberations, the jury acquitted him. That young man, of course, was Joseph Howe, who would go on to become the premier of Nova Scotia.

Our Canadian tradition of free speech is even older than that. It is part of our inheritance from Great Britain and France.

[Translation]

Quebecers are heir to article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, 1789. This article states:

The free communication of thought and opinion is one of the most invaluable rights of the man; any citizen can thus speak, write, [and] print freely. . .

France has produced some of the most well-known defenders of free speech in the world.

(1650)

François-Marie Arouet, better known by his pen name, Voltaire, was a polemicist who used satire and criticism to press for political and religious reforms. He paid a personal price, facing censorship and legal threats.

[English]

Voltaire put it best when he famously wrote, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” His passionate advocacy helped shape liberty on both sides of the Atlantic.

English Canada has an impressive legacy of free speech, too. Like Voltaire, John Milton, the great poet who wrote Paradise Lost, was constantly hounded for his political views. His 1644 pamphlet on free speech, Areopagitica, perhaps the greatest defence of free speech ever written, is as relevant today as it was 350 years ago. In it, Milton wrote, “Let Truth and Falsehood grapple; who ever knew Truth put to the worst, in a free and open encounter?” and, “He who kills a man kills a reasonable creature, but he who destroys a good book kills reason itself . . .”

Yet, despite our 400-year tradition of free speech, the tyrannical instinct to censor still exists. We saw it on a university campus last week, and we see it every week in Canada’s misleadingly named human rights commissions.

This week in Vancouver, a stand up comedian named Guy Earl has been on trial before the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal for the crime of telling jokes that someone did not find funny. An audience member who heckled him is suing him for $20,000 because she found his retorts offensive. They may have been offensive, but what is more offensive is that a government agency would be the arbiter of good taste or humour. Nobel Prize winner Alexander Solzhenitsyn was sentenced to eight years of hard labour for telling a joke about Stalin’s moustache. It is a disgrace that Canada is now putting comedians on trial.

There is not a lot that the Senate can do about the B.C. Human Rights Tribunal, but our own Canadian Human Rights Commission has egregiously violated freedom of speech without any shame. In a censorship trial in 2007, a CHRC investigator named Dean Stacey testified that, “Freedom of speech is an American concept, so I don’t give it any value.” He actually said that. The Canadian Human Rights Commission actually admits they do not give free speech any value. That is totally unacceptable.

Freedom of speech is the great non-partisan principle that every Member of Parliament can agree on — that every Canadian can agree on. I will never tire of quoting the great Liberal Prime Minister Wilfred Laurier when he said that Canada is free and its freedom is its nationality. I will readily give credit to Keith Martin, the Liberal MP from British Columbia, who two years ago introduced a private member’s motion to repeal the censorship provisions of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Honourable senators, I call for this inquiry to accomplish five things: first, to reaffirm that freedom of speech is a great Canadian principle that goes back hundreds of years; second, to put Canada’s censors on notice that their days of infringing upon our freedoms with impunity are over; third, to show moral support for those who are battling censors; fourth, to inquire into the details of what went so desperately wrong at the University of Ottawa to ensure that those awful events never happen again; and, fifth, to inspire a debate that hopefully will lead to a redefinition of section 13.1 of the [Canadian] Human Rights Act.

Honourable senators, there are times for partisan debate when parties must naturally be at odds with one another. This is not one of those times. Freedom of speech and respect for differing views is a foundational principle of our entire parliamentary system — indeed, of our entire legal system, as well.

I look forward to the constructive comments of my friends and colleagues on both sides of the aisle to build on the bipartisan history that Canadian free speech enjoys. If we can rededicate our Parliament to protecting this most important right, we will have done our country a great service, but if we fail to stop and indeed reverse this erosion of freedom, we will have failed our most basic duty, the duty to uphold our constitution and the rights in it, the rights it guarantees for all Canadians.

I know that, like so many generations of Canadians before us, we will meet the challenges of our time and live up to our responsibility to pass on to our children the same freedoms that we inherited from our parents. God keep our land glorious and free.

———–

 Voice of Reason Radio Network.com


http://reasonradionetwork.com/?p=6792
The Heretics’ Hour: Interview with Arthur Topham

March 29, 2010

Arthur Topham               Carolyn Yeager

Carolyn Yeager interviews Arthur Topham, a Canadian publisher & editor fighting a legal battle against B’nai Brith Canada, which filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in 2007. Topics include:

• How the CHRC and Section 13 came into being
• Harry Abrams and the power of B’nai Brith Canada
• Importance of the Marc Lemire case in saving fundamental freedoms
• Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion as a blueprint
… and more

About Arthur Topham

Arthur Topham is the publisher and editor of Canada’s alternative news network, RadicalPress.com, founded in 1998. Since November of 2007, he has been involved in a legal battle with B’nai Brith Canada, which filed a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission under the controversial Section 13 legislation contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act alleging that he and his website were contriving to promote hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel. The case has been ongoing now for over two years and is currently being processes by the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Arthur Topham’s website is located at RadicalPress.com; extensive documentation related to his fight for freedom of speech in Canada can be found here.

13 MB / 32 kbps mono / 0 hour 56 min.

http://reasonradionetwork.com/_archive/VoR_The_Heretics_Hour_20100329.mp3

Contact Carolyn:
carolyn@reasonradionetwork.com

© 2008-2010 The Voice of Reason Broadcast Network · All rights reserved · XHTML · Log in

STS Versus the War Criminals © Edna Spennato 2010.

Photomontage made on 17 March 2010

Mundo dos Sonhos
World of Dreams

Hi friends,

Just to let you know that a new photomontage has been posted at Mundo dos Sonhos, in support of the trial last week in Calgary, BC, of the veteran Mohawk activist, Splitting the Sky, who attempted to arrest the war criminal, GW Bush, when he came to Calgary a year ago.

Some interesting links and audio and video footage are included in the blog post.

With love

Edna

March 18, 2010

Splitting the Sky Versus the War Criminals

Edna Spennato

On 17 March 2009 in Calgary, Canada, Splitting the Sky (aka John Boncore) was arrested and charged with obstruction (as he fully expected) when he tried to serve George W. Bush with a citizen’s warrant, and to arrest him to stand trial for war crimes and torture. In doing so, he sacrificed himself for ALL of us who are concerned with Truth, Peace and Justice. His trial took place on 8 and 9 March, and judgment will be passed on 7 June 2010.  The trial was closed down by the state after 2 days, though he was originally given 5 days to present evidence of war crimes and torture, as well as the involvement of the Bush regime in the events of 9/11, to justify his actions under the legal principle of “civil resistance”.

STS needs our support… Updates on the trial at his home page and blog.

Listen to STS – Anthem for Dissent

Citizen’s Arrest of George W. Bush for War Crimes – The Trial of “Splitting the Sky”

by Prof. Anthony J. Hall

Who and What is on Trial?

When Splitting the Sky broke through police lines in his attempt to conduct a citizen’s arrest of former US president George W. Bush, the Mohawk freedom fighter pierced a thick wall of tyranny. He broke through a tight phalanx of state protection for the perpetrators of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and crimes against the peace.

With his courageous act, Splitting the Sky announced the unwillingness of millions of global citizens to tolerate any longer the culture of impunity that places a small, interlinked global plutocracy above the law….

Read in full here.

9/11 Truth is “Splitting the Sky”

by Peter Zaza

…John Boncore was born in Buffalo, New York on January 7, 1952. His Mohawk name, Dacajeweiah, translated into English means “Splitting the Sky”. From the age of seven he endured many years in New York foster homes and youth detention centres where he was ill-treated. Eventually he would become the only man convicted as a ringleader of the infamous 1971 Attica State Prison rebellion in upstate New York, in the course of which 43 inmates were killed. This event has inspired several movies — “Against the Wall” (1994) starring Samuel L. Jackson, and “Attica” (1980) starring Morgan Freeman — and documentaries including “Attica” (1974), and “The Ghosts of Attica” (2001). He was listed by former UN Ambassador Andrew Young of the Carter administration as the number one political prisoner in the USA in 1975.

Splitting the Sky founded an organization to unite all Indigenous Peoples into a great confederation called the League of Indigenous Sovereign Nations of the Western Hemisphere (LISN). In 1995 he was the Sun Dance Chief at Gustafsen Lake, British Columbia, during the Gustafsen Lake Standoff, which was precipitated by a rancher who attempted to evict the Sun Dancers from what he claimed was his property. The incident turned into a major protest against the occupation of unceded native land. Splitting the Sky was an outspoken critic of the government’s handling of the incident and was among those who raised the question of so-called “Aboriginal Title” under international law. Specifically, aboriginal title is enshrined under the Royal Proclamation of 1763, which is validated as an aboriginal right in section (35) of the Canadian Constitution.

On September 10th, 2001, Splitting the Sky and his family were checking out of the Marriott Hotel one block from the World Trade Center in New York. Had he stayed an extra day or two, as was originally planned, he and his family might have suffered the fate of 400 others at that location who lost their lives during the 9/11 tragedy. As if by some intuition, he and his wife decided to cut short their stay and get out of New York City. While many researchers for 9/11 Truth deal with the never ending incongruities and falsehoods of the government’s story regarding 9/11, or the various examples of forensic evidence proving controlled demolition, Splitting the Sky has studied the complex web of people and organizations he believes to be the authors of this crime. Through careful deconstruction of the financial entities involved, as well shining the light on those specific figures who occupy the principle seats of power within those structures, he follows the age old maxims of criminology which compel us to “follow the money”, as well as determine “who benefits”….

Read in full here.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Cynthia McKinney Meets Splitting the Sky – Calgary, Mar 9th, 2010 See here
14 part video playlist (90 minutes) at the above link will stream all 14 segments consecutively. Teaser at this link.

———-

Edna Spennato
Earth Heal Geoharmonic Research Project
Founder of Earth Heal, healing facilitator, writer, artist
Based in Cape Town, South Africa and Alagoas, Brasil

Earth Heal Blog: http://earthheal.blogspot.com/
Photomontage: http://mundosonhos.wordpress.com/

(Editor’s Note: The following Two Part interview with Splitting the Sky aka John Boncore took place via telephone conversation back in September of 2000. Due to the limited extent of the newspaper’s coverage back during that period the interview did not make it onto the Internet. Today, with Splitting the Sky back in the news online after his dramatic attempt this past September to make a citizen’s arrest of the War Criminal, ex-President of the USA, George W. Bush in Calgary, Alberta, it seems appropriate to re-issue this dramatic activist’s interview with Radical Press.

Readers are bound to find it an exciting, informative, provocative, highly enlightening and spell-binding expose of a life of one of today’s foremost radical activists. Ed.)

———

A Radical Interview with John Splitting the Sky, Gustafsen Lake Defender

Vol. 3 No. 3 The Radical October, 2000

By Arthur Topham

©RadicalPress.com

Part One

(The Radical is most appreciative for having the opportunity to present the following interview with John Splitting the Sky Hill. As readers are about to realize Mr. Hill has led a most remarkable life; one fraught almost from the onset with challenges, dangers and responsibilities that the average person would cringe at the thought of having to endure.

For all of John’s trials though, he has emerged- tempered by the fires of life- as a leading spokesperson for native sovereignty issues and a living example of the persevering spirit of resistance that has kept the aboriginal people of this continent strong.

This interview will be covered over the next two issues of The Radical due to it’s length.

In short it’s an abbreviated odyssey, an epitomizing epic of one man’s struggle to maintain his dignity and spirit in a world where native traditional values are no longer given the respect and honour that they once knew. John Splitting the Sky Hill’s story of how he survived a brutal prison system in New York state only to end up playing a major role in the Gustafsen Lake Stand off during 1995 will surely come as a major surprise to readers who only heard the one-sided reports that came from the corporate press during that time.

It’s a riveting tale with a message as relevant today as it was almost thirty years ago. Ed.)

RAD:   John it’s now been almost 10 years since the Oka uprising occurred and 5 years since the stand-off at Gustafsen Lake just west of 100 Mile House, B.C. The  incident at Gustafsen Lake in many ways marked a turning point here in British Columbia for the manner in which our provincial government conducted itself toward native disputes. You and Wolverine, aka William Ignace or Jonesy were to play some major parts at Gusfafsen Lake. Hopefully this interview will allow Radical readers to gain a much clearer insight into what was going on behind the corporate media’s blockade of information that the general public were subjected to back then. But prior to getting into that I would like to ask you if you could talk about your own personal history and how it was that a native rights activist like yourself, originally from New York state, USA ended up running a Sundance ceremony at Gustafsen Lake.

While in Vancouver for the Under the Volcano festival in mid-August I heard

you speaking in a workshop. At that time you mentioned that you had been directly involved in the infamous Attica Uprising in New York back in 1971 and ended up being the only player in that incident that did time. Let’s begin then with some background on how it was that at the ripe old age of 19 you became involved in one of America’s most bloody uprisings of the last century.

StS:   Well, at the time of this talk I’m 48 years old and I’ll be 49 next January. I was born in Buffalo, NY. My mother is from the Mohawk Nation in Branford, Ontario and so my roots are basically here in Canada. As well my Grandmother was a Cree woman from Fort Qu’Appelle,  Saskatchewan. So like I said my roots are in Canada but my mother married my father who was from Buffalo, NY. He passed away though in 1957. He worked for U.S. Rubber and had been commissioned by the company, along with ten other men, to spray paint one of their utility tanks, these massive tanks that they had at the plant there. They had been told by the company that they didn’t need gas masks but all the eleven men ended up dying from toxic inhalation.

RAD: Oh, Christ!

StS:  And so eleven of them died and it wasn’t too long after that the child welfare department in Buffalo came and snatched up me and my sisters and put us into the foster care system.

RAD:  How old would you have been then?

StS:  Well I was 7 years old then and my sisters were like 6, 5, 4 and 3 respectively. And from that point on we were all separated into different foster homes.

I then went through a number of boarding school situations and orphanages. The boarding schools were like the residential schools here in Canada in fact the residential schools pretty much got their ideas from the boarding schools in the states.

So having gone through those schools for a number of years and resisting the kind of abusive treatment and brutality that existed within these joints I began to gain a reputation for being what you would say was an “incorrigible” person. I detail a lot of this information in my soon to be released Autobiography of  Splitting the Sky Along With My Wife Sandra Bruderer subtitled: From Attica to Gustafsen Lake.

(more…)

Calgary Police “taking down” Splitting the Sky while attempting to make a citizen’s arrest of War Criminal George W. Bush in Calgary, Alberta on September 17, 2009. 
________________________________________________________________________________

Arthur Topham RP Publisher

March 10, 2010

Editor’s Note:

It’s fairly evident from the manner in which this case was handled that the Zionist-controlled media in Canada and elsewhere doesn’t want the issue of Bush the Barbarous brought to the attention of the general public. A protracted trial in which credible authorities might offer evidence in the defense of the accused and, God forbid, Splitting the Sky is given an opportunity to actually voice his convictions, is not the Zionist way of doing business. Better to just quash the whole damn thing and once the issue has filtered out of the public’s mind then bring in a ruling further down the road to tyranny and censorship.

Splitting the Sky

It’s my humble, yet considered opinion, that Canada’s judiciary, like the msm, is so infiltrated, permeated and manipulated by these Zionist/Jew lobbyists and their lawyer henchmen and women, that our courts today are as likely to spawn honest and just decisions as the Zionist-controlled msm is likely to present information that hasn’t first been run through the Orwellian Double Speak wringer prior to general publication.

Both these institutions (and others) bear witness to the fact that our civil and legal infrastructures are firmly in the hands of foreign, seditious entities who are using them for power and control and manipulation of the collective mindset of the Canadian public while their subsidiary organs of control, i.e. the multinational corporations, be they oil or ag or pharma or cult or whatever, drain this country of its natural resource wealth and human potential.

Due to the Zionist’s inordinate and immoral power via their financial and media influences men like Anthony J. Hall are forced to equate the machinations of the courts and the police and media to secondary and tertiary linguistic labels such as “oil conglomerates” all in order to escape the deadly-poisoned arrows of the Zionists who let fly their “anti-Semitic,” “racist,” and “hate”-tipped barbs at anyone who comes near to calling a spade a spade or a Zionist a Zionist.

War Criminal psychopath G.W. Bush, like his War Criminal psychopathic partner in crime, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, are mere puppets to the Israeli Jew lobby; flunkies and lackeys and cretins of the most despicable type who, under their false pretense of being “Christians,” carry out the dirty work of slaughtering the sons and daughters of American and Canadian citizens in imperialist wars of aggression against innocent foreign nations all for the benefit of these Zionist interlopers who haunt and invade our very lives via their omnipresence throughout the media and Canada’s judiciary.

More than just a touch of levity as War Criminal Harper reaches out to G.W. Bush
_________________________________________________________________________

Well, these traitorous intruders have been releasing their bolts of vituperative lightning at me, my family and my publishing business for over two years in a relentless attempt to silence my voice and the voices of countless others whose opinions and views I carry via RadicalPress.com and the Yahoo group site known as Anti-Zionist Canada. For the Full Monty on the complaint case involving RadicalPress.com and B’nai Brith Canada please see: http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=995 . They literally hate to see views and opinions and ideas and truths that conflict with their own morbid, draconian and hate-filled mission of destroying every nation state on the face of this globe in order to replace them with their “International” aka Zionist New World Order template of global governance.

What should have been a media bonus for the 911 Truth movement and the supporters of Palestinian sovereignty and a solid, direct hit on the forces of darkness that now control the global political and financial marketplace of ideas and opinion has once again been nullified and thwarted thanks to the machinations of those within the system as it now exists.

If we are ever to gain ground in this protracted battle with the Zionist forces we’re going to have to sooner than later face the fact that we must call these misfits by their real name and publicly identify them and the organizations through whom they operate in order to infiltrate our governmental, civic and social/cultural structures. Pussy-footing around this salient and critical factor because of fear and doubt will only prolong the time when the shyte must  inevitably hit the proverbial fan and all fecal hell breaks loose.

Let us try our best in the interim time period to keep Splitting the Sky’s courageous efforts alive.

Shine your Light for Love, Peace & Justice for All,

Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″
http://www.radicalpress.com
radical@radicalpress.com

—————————-

BE SURE TO WATCH THESE VIDEOS OF CYNTHIA MCKINNEY & STS SPEAKING AT THE UNIVERSITY OF CALGARY

Cynthia McKinney Meets Splitting the Sky at University of Calgary’s Peace Consortium (Part 1)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzDuXTFOR8g&feature=related

Cynthia McKinney Meets Splitting the Sky at University of Calgary’s Peace Consortium (Part 2)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emO-EuF3-9Y&feature=related

_____________________________________
http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/03/splitting-sky-case-shut-down-interview.html

Catch my live interview with Splitting-the-Sky, Cynthia McKinney, and Anthony Hall coming up at 2 pm Central!  http://www.noliesradio.org

Kevin Barrett
http://www.truthjihad.com
Author, Questioning the War on Terror: A Primer for Obama Voters: http://www.questioningthewaronterror.com

Bush League Justice in Judge Manfred Delong’s Calgary Court

Anthony J. Hall
Professor of Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge
10 March, 2010

Judge Manfred Delong shut down the trial of Splitting The Sky versus George W. Bush on the second day of proceedings. The court denied STS his frequently emphasized request to have two witnesses give evidence in his defense. Those witnesses were myself and Cynthia McKinney. The trial came to an end just as Ms. McKinney arrived in Calgary from London. The US-based oil conglomerates active throughout Alberta form the core business constituency of the Prime Minister Stephen Harper, who represents a Calgary riding in Parliament.

The court accepted two documents as evidence for the defense. One is Gail Davidson’s widely disseminated legal opinion for Lawyer’s Against the War. STS and I studied this document closely in the days leading up to my friend being arrested for his arrest attempt. LAW’s legal opinion highlighted some of the evidence, statutes and treaties to brand Bush as a “credibly  accused war criminal” that should not be allowed  into Canada. Prior to Bush’s touching down in Calgary to address an audience of oil executives, Davidson’s documentation was distributed widely to officials of the Harper government and Canada’s Royal Canadian Mounted Police.

The other exhibit for the defense was my own paper that I originally presented at an invited academic venue at the University of Winnipeg. It has been published under a variety of titles on the Internet, including at Global  Research.ca, 911 Blogger.com, 9/11 Truth.org and Voltairenet in both French and English. My initial title for it is “Bush League Justice: Should George W. Bush Be Arrested in Calgary Alberta and Tried for International Crimes?”

Delong will deliver his ruling on June 7. The case for the prosecution both revealed and obscured much about the new police strategies being employed throughout North America to monitor, manage, divide and spin doctor demonstrators seeking to call attention to their political dissent. In my opinion the Crown’s chief agent of prosecution, Tracy Davis, acted more as an advocate and defender of the police rather than as a representative of the Canadian people through Her Majesty as she is required to do according the constitutional tradition of the British Commonwealth.
————–

Anthony J. Hall can be contacted at raprockprof@gmail.com

————–
Arthur Topham is a writer and the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com living in the wilds of central British Columbia, Canada. He is currently involved in a sec. 13(1) free speech battle with Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.

Arthur welcomes all feedback to his articles and can be reached at radical@radicalpress.com or via telephone at (250) 992-3479.

http://www.stormfront.org/posterity/13texan/1001ndx.htm

1001 Quotes By and About Jews

Compiled By: Willie Martin

001

VOLTAIRE (Francois Marie Arouet) 18th century French philosopher, writer:

“Why are the Jews hated? It is the inevitable result of their laws; they either have to conquer everybody or be hated by the whole human race…”

“The Jewish nation dares to display an irreconcilable hatred toward all nations, and revolts against all masters; always superstitious, always greedy for the well-being enjoyed by others, always barbarous - cringing in misfortune and insolent in prosperity.” (Essai sur le Moeurs)

“You seem to me to be the maddest of the lot. The Kaffirs, the Hottentots, and the Negroes of Guinea are much more reasonable and more honest people than your ancestors, the Jews. You have surpassed all nations in impertinent fables in bad conduct and in barbarism. You deserve to be punished, for this is your destiny.” (From a letter to a Jew who had written to him, complaining of his ‘anti-Semitism.’ Examen des Quelques Objections…dans L’Essai sur le Moeurs.)

002

“You will only find in the Jews an ignorant and barbarous people, who for a long time have joined the most sordid avarice to the most detestable superstition and to the most invincible hatred of all peoples which tolerate and enrich them.” (”Juif,” Dictionnaire Philosophique)

003

“I know that there are some Jews in the English colonies. These marranos go wherever there is money to be made…But whether these circumcised who sell old clothes claim that they are of the tribe of Naphtali or Issachar is not of the slightest importance. They are, simply, the biggest scoundrels who have ever dirtied the face of the earth.” (Letter to Jean-Baptiste Nicolas de Lisle de Sales, December 15, 1773. Correspondance. 86:166)

004

“They are, all of them, born with raging fanaticism in their hearts, just as the Bretons and the Germans are born with blond hair. I would not be in the least bit surprised if these people would not some day become deadly to the human race.” (Lettres de Memmius a Ciceron, 1771)

005

CANNOT, E. 19th century French reformer. In La Renovation,journal of the socialist school of CHARLES FOURIER: “Jews! To the heights of your Sinai…I humbly lift myself. I stand erect and cry out to you, in behalf of all my humble equals, of all those whom your spoliation has brought to grief, who died in misery through you and whose trembling shades accuse you:  Jews! for Cain and Iscariot, leave us, leave us! Ah, cross the Red Sea again, and go down there to the desert, to the promised land which is waiting for you, the only country fit for you; o you wicked, rude and dishonest people, go there!!! (”Israel”)

006

“I participated with Herzl in the first Zionist Congress which was held in Basle in 1897. Herzl was the most prominent figure at that first Jewish World Congress. He worked to achieve an object which had been fixed beforehand. Just as Isaiah foresaw, decades before the event occurred, the victorious power of Cyrus before anyone else, so did Herzl foresee twenty years, before we experienced them, the revolutions brought about by the Great War, and he prepared us for that which was going to happen. He foresaw the splitting up of Turkey, and he foresaw that England would obtain control over Palestine. ‘We may expect important developments in the world.’ These were the words spoken by Herzl twenty years before the Great War. He added that the events would offer the Jewish people fresh opportunities.” (The Judisk Tidskrift, No. 6, Aug.-Sept., 1929, written by Dr. Ehrenpreis, Chief Rabbi of Sweden).

007

“Hitler will have no war, but he will be forced into it, not this year but later…” (The Jewish Emil Ludwig, Les Annales, June, 1934)

008

“Whenever an American or a Filipino fell at Bataan or Corregidor or at any other of the now historic spots where MacArthur’s men put up their remarkable fight, their survivors could have said with truth: ‘The real reason that boy went to his death, was because Hitler’s anti-Semitic movement succeeded in Germany.’” (The American Hebrew, July 24, 1942).

009

“Kill the Germans, wherever you find them! Every German is our moral enemy. Have no mercy on women, children, or the aged! Kill every German — wipe them out!” (Llya Ehrenburg, Glaser, p. 111).

010

“The millions of Jews who live in America, England and France, North and South Africa, and, not to forget those in Palestine, are determined to bring the war of annihilation against Germany to its final end.” (The Jewish newspaper, Central Blad Voor Israeliten in Nederland, September 13, 1939)

011

“Germany is the enemy of Judaism and must be pursued with deadly hatred. The goal of Judaism of today is: a merciless campaign against all German peoples and the complete destruction of the nation. We demand a complete blockade of trade, the importation of raw materials stopped, and retaliation towards every German, woman and child.” (Jewish professor A. Kulischer, October, 1937)

012

“Step by step, I have arrived at the conviction that the aims of Communism in Europe are sinister and fatal. At the Nuremberg Trials, I, together with my Russian colleague, condemned Nazi Aggression and Terror. I believe now that Hitler and the German People did not want war. But we, {England}, declared war on Germany, intent on destroying it, in accordance with our principle of Balance of Power, and we were encouraged by the ‘Americans’{Jews} around Roosevelt. We ignored Hitler’s pleading, not to enter into war. Now we are forced to realize that Hitler was right. He offered us the co-operation of Germany: instead, since 1945, we have been facing the immense power of the Soviet Empire. I feel ashamed and humiliated to see that the aims we accused Hitler of, are being relentless pursued now, only under a different label.” (Ashamed and Humiliated The British Attorney General, Sir Hartle Shawcross, said in a speech at Stourbridge, March 16/84 (AP)).

013

“Our fight against Germany must be carried to the limit of what is possible. Israel has been attacked. Let us, therefore, defend Israel! Against the awakened Germany, we put an awakened Israel. And the world will defend us.” (Jewish author Pierre Creange in his book Epitres aux Juifs, 1938)

014

“Judea declares War on Germany.” (Daily Express, March 24, 1934)

015

“Germany must be turned into a waste land, as happened there during the 30-year War.” (Das Morgenthau-Tagebuch, The Morgenthau Dairy, p. 11).

016

“The fight against Germany has now been waged for months by every Jewish community, on every conference, in all labor unions and by every single Jew in the world. There are reasons for the assumption that our share in this fight is of general importance. We shall start a spiritual and material war of the whole world against Germany. Germany is striving to become once again a great nation, and to recover her lost territories as well as her colonies. But our Jewish interests call for the complete destruction of Germany…” (Valadimir Jabotinsky, in Mascha Rjetsch, January, 1934)

(more…)

COVER FROM KOESTLER’S FINAL AUTOBIOGRAPHY PUBLISHED IN 1984
________________________________________________________________________

Arthur Koestler’s suicide NOT a Mossad operation

By Arthur Topham
February 23, 2010

Recently, in a number of emails coming across my desk screen, I have read statements accompanying articles on Arthur Koestler’s 1976 book, The Thirteenth Tribe, claiming that Koestler was murdered (or “suicided”) by the Israeli Mossad for having revealed the information contained in his provocative and unsettling book on the origins of the Kazar Jews, better known as the Ashkenazim.

This assertion, on the part of whomever started spreading the rumour is, according to the information contained in the Introduction to Koestler’s final autobiography, Stranger on the Square, and published posthumously by Arthur’s longtime friend and literary executor Harold Harris in 1984, clearly erroneous. As to why such a falsehood would be foisted upon Internet readers is another story and one possibly explained by the author of the said rumour who I am unaware of at this time.

Those who have studied the Jewish Question in any depth will be familiar with the complex aspects of this particular group and how they tend to present to the Gentile world a multi-faceted story of their origins and their mission in life so as to both promote and shield themselves from public scrutiny as they continue manifesting their ultimate, fundamental agenda of global hegemony in all spheres of political, financial, social and cultural endeavours.

Now, lest those who wish to believe this rumour about the Mossad start to think that I’m simply making up a defense for this group of calculating Israeli killers and schemers, I want to counter such thinking with the facts surrounding Arthur Koestler’s death as portrayed in the words of Harold Harris and in the process, hopefully, put an end to yet another literary false flag that ultimately could be used to make the anti-Zionist forces look both silly and inept.

The following excerpt comes from the Introduction to Stranger on the Square by Harold Harris of which I have a copy in hand:

“This book is in essence a love story, but unlike any other love story I have read. Perhaps it would be more accurate to call it a story of an obsession.

It was in July 1949 that Cynthia Jeffries, a pretty but painfully shy and rather awkward girl from South Africa, answered an advertisement. A writer wanted a temporary secretary. The writer was Arthur Koestler. He lived at the time in a house near Fontainebleau with Mamaine Paget, one of the beautiful Paget twins, whom he was later to marry when the divorce from his first wife came through. Cynthia was living in Paris.

She got the job and worked at intervals as his secretary for the next six years, partly in France, partly in England, partly in the USA. During that time she herself was married and divorced. In 1955, she threw up her job in New York in response to a cable from Koestler, and returned to London as his full-time secretary. At what stage they became lovers readers of this book must decide for themselves, but there is no doubt that Cynthia loved Arthur almost from the moment of her first awkward interview with him in Paris.

From that reunion in 1955 their lives were shared. In 1965 they were married. On 3 March 1983, their bodies were found in the sitting room of their house in Montpelier Square which figures in the title of this book. Koestler was sitting in an armchair, a glass of brandy still in his hand. Cynthia was lying on a sofa, a glass of whisky on the table beside her. Each had taken a massive overdose of barbiturates.

Koestler was seventy-seven years old. For the past seven years he had suffered from Parkinson’s disease, which had first been kept under control but had latterly taken its progressive toll. For the past four years he had suffered from leukaemia which, a pathologist testified at the inquest, was in its terminal stages. Cynthia was fifty-five and in perfect health.

To none of us who knew and loved them both did Arthur’s suicide come as a surprise. He was a writer unequalled in his generation for the extraordinary breadth of his genius. Over the years his literary output had been witness to his many-sided imagination, to his intellectual power, and to his extraordinary literary prowess as a master of the English language – in his case, an acquired art. In addition, he was usually actively involved in some campaign and, as this book demonstrates, he led a very full social life. Even though he bore the handicaps imposed by his terminal illnesses with expected fortitude, with unexpected patience, and with his own unrivalled brand of wry humour, no one who knew him anticipated that he would quietly submit to the final removal of his physical and mental faculties. Indeed, on the last occasion on which I saw him (Thursday, 24 February 1983) I felt that he might have left it too late. He was unable to stand, his speech was disjointed, and he clearly found it difficult to concentrate on what was being said to him. I felt that he might not last the night and I begged Cynthia to send for me if she needed help. Next day she told me on the phone that Arthur seemed a good deal better and had told her that he had been hallucinating when I was there. But he was unable to speak on the telephone and Cynthia had to cancel their appointments for the weekend.

As has been widely reported, he was vice-president of the Voluntary Euthanasia Society, and the news of his death on 3 March was not unexpected. The finding of Cynthia’s body at the same time, however, was not merely unexpected but came as a profound shock to all their friends. I do not think it had occurred to a single one of them that she intended to take her life at the same time as Arthur.

When did she make this decision? And why? These were the two questions we asked each other, blaming ourselves for not having foreseen it, for not having intervened in some way.

So far as the first question is concerned, we know that when Arthur wrote his farewell note ‘to whom it may concern’ in June 1982, there was no intention whatever that Cynthia would join him on his final journey. (He had written: ‘What makes it nevertheless hard to take this final step is the reflection of the pain it is bound to inflict on my few surviving friends, and above all my wife Cynthia.’) It is my belief that she had not considered doing so when I saw her on 24 February nor when I spoke to her on 25 February. All the evidence is that they took the fatal dose on 1 March, and I believe (although there is no proof) that Cynthia made her decision either on that morning or during the night of 28 February – 1 March. We do know that that it was on the morning of 1 March that she took her beloved dog, David (a twelve-year-old Lhasa Apso), to the vet and had him put down, giving as the reason that she could not look after him properly any more as she had to spend all her time caring for her sick husband. (She told their cleaner that she had given David to a friend. The 1st March was a Tuesday, and the cleaner did not go to the house on Wednesdays.)

In a brief typewritten addition to Arthur’s farewell note which I have quoted, Cynthia wrote: ‘I should have liked to finish my account of working for Arthur – a story which began when our paths happened to cross in 1949. However, I cannot live without Arthur, despite certain inner resources.’

I believe that this realization was borne in upon her when she knew that the day had actually arrived when Arthur could no longer tolerate the burden of existence.”

—————-

Dear Radical Reader,

After close to 5 months of silent conspiring the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) has now filed its documents that will begin the appeal process to try and overturn the Hadjis decision of September 2, 2009; one that basically recognized that sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act was a very flawed piece of machinery and extremely inimical to all Canadians who value their right to freedom of speech and self-expression.

In other words those within our democratic society who are more concerned with stifling and suppressing the rights of all Canadians are hell-bent on keeping this Bolshevik/Zionist/Communist law in place so that they can continue to prosecute, vilify, harass, fine, silence and imprison anyone who desires to express their thoughts and ideas on the unjust and racist/supremacist state of Israel.

As we now know, judging from the actions of our Conservative Prime Minister, Stephen Harper and his Zionist flunky, Jason Kenney, they have sold their souls to the Talmudic Chabad Lubavicher’s and their inglorious “g_d” known as  Zionism.

In other words the CHRC is now recognized by true Canadian patriots as nothing more than a treasonous and seditious Zionist Jew front organization whose sole purpose is to deceive and obfuscate and betray our nation into the greedy and blood-soaked hands of the war-mongering “state” of Israel.

In my own battle with these nefarious forces, i.e. B’nai Brith Canada, the collusion between this foreign lobbyist agent of Israel is beyond doubt and has been (in my mind) since the beginning of my legal struggles with Mr. Harry Abrams and the League for “Human Rights” of B’nai Brith Canada. It is the very reason that I made the decision to do what I could in order to bring this hidden subject to the attention of the Canadian public in whatever way that I could.

And so the Soviet Show (Trial) resumes once again as this government conjured commissariat, the CHRC and its politically appointed agents now attempt to overthrow the will of the people in order to satisfy the war-lust and greed and insatiable power struggle that Israel represents.

The final outcome of this appeal will settle, once and for all, any illusions that Canadians hold as to the real allegiance of our elected representatives in Ottawa and who it is that controls our federal judiciary.

Stay tuned folks!
P.S. some of the embedded urls in the original article are missing here. Please go to Marc Lemire’s site for details.
———————————–

Canadian “Human Rights” Censors file at the Federal Court of Canada to keep their precious censorship franchise
by Marc Lemire

marc@lemire.com

January 25, 2010

Constitutional Validity of Section 13 moves to Federal Court

http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/jan25-2010_chrc_files_factum_at_fc.html

Using tax-payers money, the Canadian Human Rights Commission has finally filed their challenge to the Lemire decision, which found that the thought control legislation of the Canadian Human Rights Act is unconstitutional and a violation of the Charter guaranteed rights to freedom of speech and thought.

CHRC’s Memorandum of Fact and Law filed by the Canadian Human Rights Commission

The CHRC’s Memorandum of Fact and Law, will be vigorously challenged by supporters of freedom of speech.  Section 13 is Canada’s shameful thought control legislation, and a positive ruling by the Federal Court of Canada, will finally end the 33 year reign of totalitarian censorship by theout of control Canadian Human Rights Commission.

To date, the Attorney General of Canada, has refused to get involved at the Federal Court of Canada to uphold Section 13.   The Attorney General of Canada (assigned to Lemire case by then governing Liberal Party) was active while the case was before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, but once the Tribunal ruled the law was unconstitutional, the Attorney General accepted the decision.

According to an Access to Information request filed by Marc Lemire, in late 2009, the Department of Justice raised the issue with the Prime Minister of Canada and his cabinet.  While the actual discussion is censored due to being in the “confines of the Queen’s Privy Council” it is clear that the Conservative Prime Minister and his cabinet ruled to not uphold this censorship legislation.

At the same time of this decision by Harper government, two separate House of Commons subcommittees were investigating the conduct of the out of control Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (JUST)
Subcommittee on International Human Rights (SDIR)
Committee Homepage

October 5, 2009: Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn eviscerate the CHRC censors

October 26, 2009:  CHRC Chief Kangaroo on the hotseat and grilled by Members of Parliament

Committee homepage

June 16, 2009:  MP Russ Hiebert slams CHRC’s David Langtry

June 18, 2009: Prof Robert Martin exposes the CHRC

The CHRC has shown over the years it is willing to go to any lengths and spend as much tax-payers dollars as needed to protect their censorship franchise.  From claiming “National Security” to hid their online infiltration and spying campaign to hacking a private woman’s Internet connection,  nothing is beyond what the CHRC will do.  Ethics guidelines?   Not at the CHRC…
Now is the time to contact organizations who support freedom of speech and request they intervene in this case, and finally rid Canada of this shameful thought control and pre-crime legislation.

What the CHRC is trying to overturn at the Federal Court
In September 2009, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruled that:

[290] Thus, following the reasoning of Justice Dickson, at 933,one can no longer say that the absence of intent in s. 13(1) “raises no problem of minimal impairment” and “does not impinge so deleteriously upon the s. 2(b) freedom of expression so as to make intolerable” the provision’s existence in a free and democratic society. On this basis, I find that the Oakes minimum impairment test has not been satisfied, and that s. 13(1) goes beyond what can be defended as a reasonable limit on free expression under s. 1 of the Charter.

c) Conclusions with respect to the claim of infringement on the freedom of expression

[295] For all the above reasons, I find that s. 13(1) infringes on Mr. Lemire’s freedom of expression guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, and that this infringement is not demonstrably justified under s. 1 of the Charter.

[279] This question, however, is not what is relevant to the present discussion. The point is that, when assessed against the characteristics of the penalty provisions enumerated in these decisions, it is evident that s. 13(1) has become more penal in nature (irrespective of whether s. 11 CharterTaylor that s. 13(1)’s limitation of freedom of expression is demonstrably justifiable in a free and democratic society, and thereby “saved” under s. 1 of the Charter. rights are necessarily triggered). The provision can no longer be considered exclusively remedial, preventative and conciliatory in nature, which was at the core of the Court’s finding in

V. CONCLUSION

I have determined that Mr. Lemire contravened s. 13 of the Act in only one of the instances alleged by Mr. Warman, namely theAIDS Secrets article. However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. Since a formal declaration of invalidity is not a remedy available to the Tribunal (see Cuddy Chicks Ltd. V. Ontario (Labour Relations Board), [1991] 2 S.C.R. 5), I will simply refuse to apply these provisions for the purposes of the complaint against Mr. Lemire and I will not issue any remedial order against him (see Nova Scotia (Workers’ Compensation Board) v. Martin, 2003 SCC 54 at paras. 26-7).

See full decision [here]

It’s time to end the censorship of the extremist Canadian Human Rights Commission!

Donate using a credit card online with PayPal

PayPal:   Send your donation to:   admin@stopsection13.com
MoneyBookers:  Send your donation to: marc@lemire.com

http://www.StopSection13.com
http://www.freedomsite.org
http://blog.freedomsite.org
http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.com

———————

Arthur Topham is the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com. He is currently involved in a free speech battle with the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada.

He is also in extremely dire need of financial support to sustain this battle with the forces of repression and censorship as he is not able to work during this period of intense litigation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the CHR Tribunal. Any donations therefore would be most welcome. Please see the following url on the Home Page (upper right hand corner) http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=657 regarding donations. Also there is a “DONATE” button there for Paypal or here at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4466120 . Feel free to use any of them if you can help out. Thanks.

Arthur welcomes all feedback to his articles and can be reached at radical@radicalpress.com .

For the Full Monty on the complaint case involving RadicalPress.com and B’nai Brith Canada please see: http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=995

 
ARTHUR TOPHAM PUB/ED
RADICALPRESS.COM
_______________________________

Editor’s Note:

The following article by Christopher Bollyn is a great asset for any Canadian citizen caught up in the massive web of deceit known as the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its attendant handmaiden, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

After two years of clashing swords with these two organizations due to the machinations of B’nai Brith Canada and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada’s B.C. representative, Harry Abrams, who, along with ‘the League’, laid a sec. 13 “hate crimes” complaint against both myself and my website RadicalPress.com back in November of 2007 I have uncovered a vast amount of hidden information on this secret masonic International Jewish society that Mr. Bollyn discusses in his most poignant of articles below.

In light of all the recent controversy over the actions of Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Zionist henchman, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, with respect to their blatant pro-Israeli, pro-Zionist policies and their attacks and accusations made against Christian and non-Christian organizations and individuals here in Canada, it should not come as a great surprise to see that former U.S. President Harry Truman, was, like Harper, deeply connected and controlled by these very same forces that continue seeking to undermine all the democratic nations of the world. In fact, from all of my research over the past few years, it’s quite apparent that other U.S. Presidents were in the same compromising boat, most notably President Wilson and Roosevelt, the two men who were supposedly leaders of the free world during the two major Zionist-induced wars of the 20th Century.

Bollyn’s sage advice to take the first step by identify who these dark figures are that inevitably are found to be lurking in the background and foreground of all the major political leaders of the 20th and 21st centuries ought to be taken to heart by anyone concerned about our loss of freedom of speech and the ongoing subterfuge surrounding these foreign Jewish lobbyist organizations’ attempts to take control of the Internet via whatever devious means they can devise.

The danger, always, when it comes to “leaders,” be they Presidents, Prime Ministers or Kings, is that they become extremely susceptible to these nefarious, sinister forces that love the darkness and anonymity which their secret societies give them and thus allow them full measure to insinuate themselves within the corridors of our touted democratic institutions in order to work their demonic magic upon sovereign nations.

My hat goes off in respect to Christopher Bollyn for his fortitude and resolve given that he has been not only been maligned and slandered by the Zionist media but also directly attacked physically for his efforts at rolling over the rocks beneath which these traitorous B’nai Brith troglodytes love to dwell and conspire together.

Please pass this along to your connections]
______________________

http://www.bollyn.com/bnai-brith-the-jewish-secret-society-that-dominates-america

B’nai B’rith – The Jewish Secret Society that Dominates America

By Christopher Bollyn

November 22, 2009

B’nai B’rith was instrumental in gaining U.S. support for the nascent Zionist state of Israel in the late 1940s.  The Jewish secret society of Freemasons used President Harry Truman’s friend - and their agent - Eddie Jacobson of Kansas City (standing behind Truman) in off-the-record meetings in the Oval Office to persuade the president to approve the Zionist land grab known as the 1947 U.N. Partition Plan of Palestine and then to recognize the state of Israel the next year following the Zionist ethnic cleansing of nearly 400 Palestinian villages and towns.  By applying pressure directly on Truman, B’nai B’rith dictated U.S. policy in spite of strong resistance from the U.S. Department of State. When Truman extended de jure recognition of the Zionist state on January 31, 1949, the only guests invited to the signing ceremony in the Oval Office were members of B’nai B’rith: Eddie Jacobson, the B’nai B’rith executive vice president Maurice Bisgyer, and the secret society’s president, Frank Goldman (sitting).

President Truman, a highest level Freemason, was forced to accept the dictates of a gang of Zionist Jewish Freemasons on crafting U.S. policy in the Middle East.  What does this say about the real hierarchy of power among Freemasons?  Truman, a Freemason since 1909, had established the Grandview Lodge No. 618 in Missouri and served as its first “Worshipful Master”. In 1940, Brother Truman was elected the ninety-seventh Grand Master of Masons of Missouri.  In 1945, President Truman was made a Sovereign Grand Inspector General, 33°, and Honorary Member at the Supreme Council of the Ancient & Accepted Scottish Rite (A.A.S.R.) Southern Jurisdiction Headquarters in Washington D.C.  The fact that Jewish Freemasons of the B’nai B’rith were able to meet secretly with the president in the Oval Office whenever they wanted and were able to direct the U.S. president, a highest level Mason, to follow their orders in shaping U.S. policy in the Middle East, shows the immense power this secret society of Zionist Jews has long had over the U.S. government and other Masonic orders.  Barack Hussein Obama was cultivated as a politician in Chicago and made President of the United States by the power of the B’nai B’rith.  It’s high time for these secret societies to be removed from the corridors of power where U.S. policy is crafted.

The first step to solving America’s most serious problems requires that we identify the people who control the hidden hand behind the disastrous policies that are destroying our proud republic.  This is the first article in a series about the B’nai B’rith, the Jewish secret society that created the state of Israel and made Barack Obama president.

After one year in office it is clear that the Obama administration, elected on a platform of “change”, is actually maintaining the policies of the Bush administration.  In some cases, such as the occupation of Afghanistan, President Barack Hussein Obama has actually added to the war effort by sending tens of thousands more troops.

The fact that the political change was only superficial and that the Obama administration intends to follow the basic policies of the previous administration can best be seen in the continuing cover up of the truth of what really happened on 9-11.  The false-flag terrorism of 9-11 is the fundamental lie that needs to be protected.  Upon this blatant lie the fraudulent “War on Terror” is based, and this illegal war policy has been embraced by Barack Obama.

When the Obama team sent Henry Kissinger to Moscow for early meetings with the Russian leadership, rather than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, it was evident that the power brokers running the Obama White House were the same as those that ran the Bush and Clinton administrations – and those before them.

Rahm Emanuel, Chief-of-Staff of the Obama administration and son of an Israeli terrorist, and David Axelrod, the president’s strategy chief and senior adviser, are two of the highest managers of Barack Obama.  Axelrod, the son of a Communist Jew, has been managing Obama’s political career since 1992.  Emanuel, as a former senior adviser in the Clinton White House, was the person who pushed the disastrous NAFTA legislation through Congress in 1993.  But who really manages Emanuel and Axelrod?  Who tells them what policies to promote and which to discard?

Our politicians and policies are given to us today via television and the controlled media like the mysterious writing on the wall appeared to Babylon’s King Belshazzar, son of Nebuchadnezzar, in the Old Testament.  But who controls the hand that creates the politicians and crafts the policies?

The election of Barack Obama has provided us with a glimpse of the hidden hand that controls the government of the United States.  The politicians and policies of the U.S. government do not actually come from the people but are presented to the public through the controlled media.  The two most influential papers in the United States, The New York Times and Washington Post, are both controlled by German Jewish families that are among the founding members of the Jewish secret society the B’nai B’rith.  The B’nai B’rith, an order of Jewish Freemasonry, is closed to non-Jews which puts its Jewish members at the top of the Masonic hierarchy.  The members of B’nai B’rith are able to join other Masonic orders but only Jews can belong to B’nai B’rith.

Barack Obama has been created as a political candidate since 1992 by David Axelrod and Bettylu Saltzman, the daughter of Philip M. Klutznick, the former head of B’nai B’rith International, the supreme body of the B’nai B’rith.  This is the secret society of Zionist Jews that controls the White House and the policies of the U.S. government.

The first Chicago newspaper report from the 1860s that revealed that a secret organization of “Israelites” had existed in Chicago for some 20 years.

‘Do you really think that criminals are clever, good people, Thrasymachus?’

‘Yes, if their criminality is able to manifest in a perfect form and they are capable of dominating countries and nations.’
- Socrates in Plato’s Republic

Secret anti-Christian organizations like the Freemasons and B’nai B’rith are like the fabled black holes of astronomy.  Like other unseen astronomical bodies, astronomers postulate the existence of black holes based on how they distort light and affect other bodies around them.  So is it with the Jewish B’nai B’rith and other Freemasonic secret societies, which we know very little about but whose presence can be seen in how they pervade every level of our society and affect everything around us.

Great nations, like the United States, France, and Germany, once had anti-Masonic and anti-Semitic political parties that acted to challenge the pernicious influence of secret Masonic and Jewish organizations.  Today we no longer have such political parties to counter these secret networks and find ourselves ruled by B’nai B’rith and Jewish Freemasons.

In the United States in 1828, the Anti-Masonic Party was the original third party to be active on the national scene. Popular opinion in America was naturally opposed to secret organizations and people feared the Freemasons, believing they were a powerful secret society that undermined republican principles.  The Anti-Masonic Party was right.  A democratic republic that allows its government, courts, and media to be run by the members of secret societies will soon find that they have taken over the republic.  This is what has happened to the United States.

In 1843, a German Jew who called himself Henry Jones founded a Jewish secret society called the “Bundes-Brueder” (League of brothers) in the Sinsheimer Café near Wall Street in New York.  Jones recruited his co-founders from the synagogue where he was in charge.  At least four of its founders were Freemasons. The order, which was later re-named the “B’nai B’rith,” was closed to all non-Jews and to any Jew who fraternized with Christians.

The power of the B’nai B’rith has grown immensely during the past 166 years.  As an independent journalist who has investigated the evidence of Israeli involvement in the false-flag terror of 9-11, I have seen how this secret society of Jewish Freemasons is able to corrupt every aspect of American society.  It is the force behind the media and government cover-up of the truth of what happened on 9-11.  It is also the secret organization behind the brutal attack on me at my house in August 2006 and the malicious prosecution and corrupt court process that followed.

Christopher Bollyn the day after being brutally assaulted by a three-man undercover tactical police squad at his home in Hoffman Estates, Illinois, in August 2006.

Finis

Sources and Recommended Reading:

“B’nai B’rith and Israel: The Unbroken Covenant,” 1998, The B’nai B’rith World Center, Israel
http://www.bnaibrith.org/unbrokencovenant/

Fuchs, J.R., Oral History Interview with A.J. Granoff, Kansas City, Missouri, April 9, 1969
http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/granoff.htm#transcript

——————–

Nothing left of Canada’s political culture

by Greg Felton

http://www.gregfelton.com/canpol/2010_01_13.htm
Canadian Arab News
January 13, 2010

Making New Year’s Resolutions is a ritual that I’ve never had much use for because the first of January is no more significant than the first day of any other month. Indulging the myth that a new year portends new beginnings invariably leads to disillusionment after the events and behaviours of the previous year show unexpected persistence.

This painful fact is particularly acute for many Canadians who yearn for a genuinely national government, but will be forced to endure yet another year of servility and imbecility from Israel’s proconsul Stephen Harper and his ruling clique of hasbaratchiks.

The problem is that Canada’s political spectrum, like that of the U.S., has shifted so far to the right that rational debate and informed opposition have become delegitimized. We used to speak of “right-wing” and “left-wing” to describe political differences, but in the absence of a political centre “right” and “left” have no meaning. “Left” and “leftist” have now become epithets used to stigmatize and delegitimize those who oppose extremist “right-wing” dogmata.

A graphic depiction of how absurdity becomes consensus politics comes to us courtesy of Joseph P. Overton—researcher, author and senior vice-president of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.

The “Overton Window” (see diagram below) indicates the range of ideas deemed acceptable in a society at any given time. Under normal, rational, circumstances, the window would oscillate between centre-left (L1) and centre-right (R1), thus clearly excluding the extremist/unacceptable range of ideas (L3–L4 and R3–R4).

However, under the influence of Israel’s fifth column in Ottawa, Canada’s window has shifted into the “unacceptable” R4 range. Under a steady propaganda barrage from hasbarats and hasbaratchiks, ideas once easily recognizable as unethical, un-Canadian, or downright criminal have acquired respectability. In turn, views opposed to the new extremism are now so far from view that they are all deemed unacceptable.

When, exactly, our political window shifted to the Christian/zionist lunatic fringe is debatable, though a case could be made that it occurred when Paul Martin became Liberal Party leader after the resignation of Prime Minister Jean Chrétien, the last real Canadian to hold that position.

Martin was, and is, an Isramerican sycophant, so immediately after he took over Irwin Cotler became Israel’s main man in cabinet; the “Liberal Parliamentarians for Israel” clique was formed; and Canada’s voting pattern at the UN became abjectly pro-Israeli. Harper is the Canadian “Likud” analog to the “Labour” Liberals, now led by Michael Ignatieff.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper reporting to his Zionist taskmasters
_________________________________________________________________________

A state where the government politicizes acceptable discourse is, of course, a tyranny, and that is what R4 Canada is. Don’t believe me? Here’s what columnist Lawrence Martin had to say recently in the Globe and Mail about Harper’s hubris:

“It is said that a hallmark of democracy is the toleration of dissent. Best leave that one in the church pew. Exceptional measures need be used to crush the opposition. Stuff such as taking the unprecedented step of launching personal attack ads between election campaigns. Or trying to push through a measure that would effectively cut off financing to the opposition.

A heavy dose of demagoguery also can go a long way. Play on simple prejudices by accusing opponents of not supporting the troops or of being anti-Israel. If nothing’s working, if the going gets really tough, don’t hesitate to bring out the heavy timber. Just after Parliament has reopened, have it shut down.”

Given that Canada has already tilted to the extreme right, is there any hope of returning the country to the rational centre? Perhaps not all the way, but two recent events give reason to believe that the country can be pulled back, however slightly.

KAIROS
For the second time in a year, Jason Kenney, Harper’s Minion of Official Bigotry, used the “anti-Semitism” smear to justify cutting off federal funding to a non-zionist organization. Last March it was the Canadian Arab Federation, because Kenney objected to being called a “whore.” In December, Kenney denied a request for $7 million over four years from KAIROS, a Christian aid agency that promotes human rights, justice and peace, viable human development, and ecological justice.

Jason Kenney - CPC’s Official Bigot

During a speech at the Global Forum for Combating Anti-semitism (!) in Occupied Jerusalem, Kenney accused KAIROS of promoting anti-semitism, and taking a leading role in promoting the BDS (boycott/divestment/sanctions) campaign against Israel. The fact that the accusation was patently false didn’t matter. Consider his audience and where it was uttered.

That this attack was politically motivated malice also comes from Harper’s own Minion of International Cooperation Bev Oda, who essentially called Kenney a liar! She told KAIROS that funding was denied because “the group did not fit the government’s priorities of food security, helping youths and economic growth”—not a word about anti-Semitism.

The Dec. 18 Toronto Star editorial captured the overwhelming public and political revulsion at the attack on KAIROS: “Is everyone who disagrees with Prime Minister Stephen Harper a Taliban stooge, a raving anti-Semite or a loony-left extremist? You’d think so, to hear the shabby low blows Harper and his cabinet are forever aiming at any and all who dare to criticize federal policy…The Conservatives invite contempt with these endless, over-the-top smears. They discredit their party and its policies.”

PARLIAMENT
In his column, excerpted above, Lawrence Martin made reference to Harper’s decision to have Parliament shut down (prorogued) until after the Winter Olympic Games. This is the second time in just over a year that Harper has pulled this stunt. On Dec. 4, 2008, he called on the Governor-General to prorogue Parliament because he was afraid of being defeated by a coalition of opposition parties in the House of Commons. The coalition subsequently petered out.

This time, Harper is afraid to face questions about his government’s knowledge about the torture of Afghan detainees, and to exploit the closure to add five stooges to the Senate to overcome Liberal “opposition.”

As a result of this chicanery, 37 bills will not be passed and, most significantly, the committee investigating the detainee cover-up will be disbanded. Harper will not have to face Parliament again until March 3.

You know a government has gone beyond the pale of acceptable conduct when a daily newspaper, in this case the Globe and Mail, runs a front-page editorial to denounce it: “The Prime Minister is turning prorogation…into an underhanded manoeuvre to avoid being accountable to Parliament. In the interests of political expediency, the government will diminish the democratic rights of Canadians.”

It’s hard to imagine a greater insult to this country that a prime minister who is afraid of the law, unless it’s a prime minister who is an obvious lackey for a foreign government. In Harper’s case both are true.

The person to benefit most from Harper’s latest chicanery is Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. He has denounced the suspension of Parliament as politically arrogant, and has promised to reinstate funding for KAIROS. If Harper wanted to sabotage his government’s chances of forming a majority government, to say nothing of being reelected, he could not have done a better job.

Until now, Ignatieff has been seen as Harper’s enabler, a weak leader who lacks the balls or party cohesion to force an election. Now, he can act like Captain Canada champion of democracy and scourge of the enemies of Parliament. Ironically, though, if an election were held tomorrow Canadians still could not elect a proper government: a choice between the Harperites and Ignatieff’s Liberals amounts to no choice at all, because Ignatieff learned the hard way that thinking for oneself amounts to political suicide.

If nothing else, getting rid of Harper would move Canada’s political window from R4 to R3. It’s a start.

——–