Point of Light By Arthur Topham

Point of Light
By
Arthur Topham
January 1st, 2017
pointoflight-copy-4

“There is a point when you cannot walk away
When you have to stand up straight and tall and mean the words you say
There is a point you must decide, just to do it ’cause it’s right
That’s when you become a point of light.”
~ Randy Travis, Point of Light

As the year 2017 begins to unfold we find ourselves living in a time of extreme darkness and evil. Trailing years of wars, bloodshed and acts of terrorism on par with those of the French Revolution, 2016 inevitably culminated – on New Year’s Eve – with yet another act of satanic bloodletting as if to reassure the masses that any hope of peace is not part of the Devil’s equation.

And so it begs the question for those of us, the seekers of real Truth, Light, Justice and Peace who are now treading ever so lightly upon a world overshadowed by fear, insecurity, doubt and a deep and unnerving sense of suspended hope, what course we will and must follow in the days and months ahead.

The Trump card still remains a mystery to all but the 45th President and his close advisors as the American Republic inches closer and closer to their own reckoning with Fate. Will Donald actually “drain the swamp” of the elitist bottom feeders and their Talmudic taskmasters who have inexorably pursued the demise of that once great nation since 1913 as he unequivocally stated again and again throughout the US election campaign? No one outside the new insiders truly knows although speculation has been building to a deafening crescendo on blog sites around the world with each passing day.

So much is out of our direct control but regardless there still remains some fundamental truths that no fickleness on the part of mainstream media can alter. First off we know beyond certainty that the global mainstream media throughout the Western world is absolutely under the control of the Zionist Jew Rothschild criminal cartel and that ALL ZIONIST NEWS IS FAKE NEWS. Secondly, we know that more and more people throughout the Western world are turning to the Alternative News media in search of real news along with real interpretations of events and a whole host of broad-ranging opinions and perspectives that resonate with fundamental human values such as honesty, morality, authenticity, open-mindedness and plain-dealing. The third and still growing certitude is the revelation that the swamp is infested with #pizza-eating satanic, demonic entities who thrive upon the basest of human behaviours that span the gamut of grotesque to despicable in terms of pedophilia, beastiality, cannibalism and child sacrifice.

strike3-700

In other words those who now run the world have three strikes against them and the general consensus of the common people is that it’s game over and time for them to leave the playing field. The only problem is they don’t want to leave, nor do they want to play by the rules of the game but would rather institute their own rules as they go along depending upon whether or not they think they’re ahead and winning or losing ground.

Now of course they’re finally coming to the realization that way too many people are on to their scams and they have to come up with a whole new ball game; one that will not only be a total game changer but also will prevent the masses from gaining further information about their nefarious schemes to destroy all semblance of the natural order of Man and substitute it with a hodgepodge of perverse, Nihilistic, satanic sexually-deviant behaviours designed to severe forever the heart and soul of humanity from its original transcendental Source. If it sounds diabolical that’s because it is. If it sounds incredibly dangerous that’s also because it is.

So the New World Order has finally struck out. They’ve been exposed through the Internet by the Truth Revealers and now stand stark-butt naked before a world fraught and fuming with anxiety, mistrust, disgust and a fiercely-felt form of universal outrage.

What to do?

That is the question for those who have, as the old saying goes, “seen the light”. One of American’s great Country & Western singers Randy Travis, has, I believe, offered us a clue to what we must do in his song from which the title of this article was taken:

“There is a point when you cannot walk away
When you have to stand up straight and tall and mean the words you say
There is a point you must decide, just to do it ’cause it’s right
That’s when you become a point of light.”

God, Truth, Love and Light are synonymous terms that identify the One source of not only Life per se but all Existence upon all planes from the most sub-atomic to the highest of the Divine. Put in layman’s terms by the Christian Bible in Genesis for all to See are the following words:

“And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.”

lightprotector-copy

The division or gulf between the Light and darkness is now reaching its zenith and as the darkness appears to be waxing in power and presence so does the resplendence of the Light workers continue to grow and glow against this background gestalt of blackness and evil that vainly would attempt to entrance and snuff out our individual candles of Light and turn heaven on Earth into a hell of perversity and hatred.

Those who, for myriad reasons, have already sold their souls to the Devil in a last-ditch, Mephistophelian attempt to acquire power over others and the planet Itself, are beyond the ken of redemption and their fate is sealed. In terms of brevity they’ve been labeled by the Truth Revealers as the “1%”. Juxtaposed with that 1% are the Light bringers whose numbers we still cannot pin-point. All we can say with any certainty is that they are the individual points of light that Randy Travis speaks of in his song and that their numbers, judging by internet stats, are legion and growing at an exponential rate. It is here that we find our greatest and most valuable weapon in the battle between Good and Evil; here that we realize we have within us the power of Understanding and, but for lack of courage and self-confidence, we can exercise our divinely given Free Will and SHARE that light of understanding with our fellow human beings who are still searching for the real news; the real Truth and not the endless litany of LIES and DECEPTION that the world has been consistently subjected to over the past century and longer. Again, I repeat Travis’s words:

“There is a point when you cannot walk away
When you have to stand up straight and tall and mean the words you say
There is a point you must decide, just to do it ’cause it’s right
That’s when you become a point of light.”

There are millions, if not billions, of people on Gaia, our Mother Ship who are still innocent of the evil that has taken over so much of our planet. They are, metaphorically speaking, the slumbering ones who for countless reasons have not yet been able to find enough of the missing pieces of the puzzle that they might see the bigger picture and realize what’s happening to them, their families, their friends and their communities and countries. Each of them is, as yet, a wick unlit; a candle awaiting the flame of Truth that will not only enlighten their inner sense of Self but will, in turn, motivate them, as Travis sang, “to stand up straight and tall and mean the words” they say. And they’ll do it “cause it’s right” and because they’ll finally understand that the power to change the world for the better lies within ourselves and not in some alien, surrogate political system outside themselves that allows for the grievous errors and darkness which now afflict the vast majority of Humanity.

themanwhofights

Let the Light continue to spread in 2017 and let it drive back the darkness and the suffering and the injustices that sorely oppress the bulk of Mankind. The time to stand up and speak out is NOW. Share the Truth and spread the Light and help dispel the NWO night!

Welcome to 2017! from Radical Press

ashall1500

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Dear Radical Readers,

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

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

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

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

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

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

God bless and keep us all.

 

Sincerely,

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

AND LEST WE FORGET

hatecrimelawbbccjc-copy

Freedom’s Light Flickers By Michael Walsh

internet-locked-800x445

Freedom’s Light Flickers
December 23, 2016

By Mike Walsh

Summary justice; defence and appeal prohibited. Amazon Kindle Direct Publishing (KDP) now denies access to Mike Walsh Books. This is a stark reminder of the dark labyrinths we are all entering. The flickering lights in the world of ethnic-Europeans are being snuffed out one by one; it is an accelerating process.

banned-books

“Violence is not necessary to destroy a civilisation. Each civilisation dies from indifference towards the unique values that created it.” ~ Nicolas Gomez Davila.

To paraphrase Martin Niemoller’s quotation:

“First they came for the National Socialists, and I did not speak out. Then they came for the writers, and I did not speak out ~ because I was not a writer. Then they came for the ethnic-patriots, and I did not speak out, because I was a liberal. Then they came for me ~ and there was no one left to speak for me.”

Think not of me but think instead of your own situation and more important think of the future of your family. Read again and again Niemoller’s paraphrased quotation.

censored-image

When a people’s enemy are this far advanced in controlling the thought processes of their trusting subjects there is neither time nor place for complacency. God helps those who help themselves.

europe-arise

Purchase on Amazon

James Larkin, the Irish revolutionary:

“The great only appear great because we are on our knees. Let us rise.”

The Soviet Union’s collapse was not due to its failings or because of negotiations between U.S President Ronald Reagan and Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev. The Soviet Bloc collapsed not because people of the Eastern European States voted against it but because the peoples overthrew their despicable unelected political elites.

SolzhenitsynGulagZioHatredquote 800

The people marched in Romania, Prague, Warsaw and Danzig, Riga and Vilnius, Leipzig and elsewhere. The protestors demanded, threatened and faced down authority, their tormentors, and they defied der lugen presse.

Some died at the barricades, many were arrested but the barricades were built again and again. The betrayed peoples edged closer to the seats of power until they overthrew their regimes and their bootlicking apparatchiks.

screen-shot-2016-12-27-at-12-04-01-pm

“And thus, overcoming our timidity let each man choose; will he remain a witting servant of the lies, or has the time come for him to stand straight as an honest man, worthy of the respect of his children and contemporaries?” ~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn.

One by one hard won valued freedoms we proudly held in trust for our children are sneaked and snatched away. Yesterday and today you can still purchase Mike Walsh Books on Amazon ~ but not from Kindle Direct Publishing. Tomorrow, who knows? Perhaps you will have a contraband copy slipped to you under the counter or mailed in a plain brown envelope.

“Rise like Lions after slumber,
In unvanquishable number,
Shake to earth your chains like dew,
Which in sleep had fallen on you.
Ye are many, they are few.”
~ Percy Byshe Shelley

Let’s not pretend we didn’t see it coming; let us remind ourselves that too few tried to awaken too many whose woeful inertia allowed their civilisation to be overthrown by their indifference. Nature abhors cowardice and is intolerant of the weak.

“For now you remain up there, you cowardly lot paid by the enemies and our people you mock. But one day justice will no longer be forestalled, then the people will judge, and God help you all.” ~ Karl Theodor Korner, German Poet and Soldier.

SOURCE ARTICLE

Canadian professor libelously targeted as “anti-semite” in coordinated attack by RAFIQ for the American Herald Tribune

amhertribune

http://ahtribune.com/world/americas/1225-canadian-professor-anti-semite.html

 

halllibelhdr

In his Now Magazine article “Facebook Removes Anti-Semitic Post after Online Blowback,” Bernie Farber explains that “the Facebook ravings on the social media site of Anthony Hall,” a tenured professor at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, have been identified as anti-Semitic. This statement might lead readers to believe that there were anti-Semitic ravings by Dr. Hall on his Facebook page, but as the article makes clear, there are no examples of such ravings by Dr. Hall, only by “one Glen Davidson,” who we are told posted these ravings on Dr. Hall’s page.

Farber goes on to state that Dr. Hall “has publicly embraced the ridiculous and obnoxious notions of Gerard Menuhin, who has purported to have proof that the Holocaust is a myth.”

Farber does not attempt to dismiss any of this proof, as one might expect an objective journalist to do, but instead takes the position that such proof can be dismissed out of hand as false without any investigation.

By comparison, Dr. Hall sounds like the more reasonable person for having actually looked at Menuhin’s book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil. Note, too, that when Hall says “I’m reading that text and having to reassess a lot of ideas,” he does not say that he has changed his ideas, only that he is reassessing his ideas. Again, Hall sounds like the more courageous thinker for his willingness to reassess his thinking on a narrative as seemingly sacrosanct as the Jewish holocaust.

Having not yet said anything that convinces me Dr. Hall is an anti-Semite, Farber adds, “Hall reportedly linked Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, with 9/11.” The role of Mossad, along with the CIA, in the 9/11 attacks is a fact well documented by credible journalists and scholars and widely disseminated online and in books. It is public knowledge and in the public domain. To admit the role of Mossad and the CIA in 9/11 is to admit the villainy of national governments and their foreign policies. Jewish identity and anti-Semitism have nothing to do with it.

Regarding  the anti-Semitic Facebook post that did not even originate with Dr. Hall, Farber writes, “To the best of my knowledge, Hall was never moved to delete this post himself.” An unbiased journalist would have contacted Dr. Hall and asked him about this matter. Well, I did contact Dr. Hall, and he informed me that he didn’t even know that the post was up on the “wall” of his Facebook page until after it had been taken down and after he had learned of the resulting controversy. So, here again, Farber offers no proof that Dr. Hall is even remotely anti-Semitic.

Not only that, but Dr. Hall’s award-winning two-volume book The Bowl with One Spoon, published by respected arbiter of scholarly history McGill-Queen’s University Press, gives every indication that Dr. Hall is the opposite of a racist, particularly in light of his deep commitment to exposing the plight of Indigenous peoples. Indeed, renowned Canadian scholar Naomi Klein, who happens to be Jewish, doesn’t seem to think that Dr. Hall is a racist either. On the cover of Dr. Hall’s book, she writes, “I cannot overstate the importance of this book. If used properly, it could change the world.”

Nonetheless, Farber goes on to bemoan that “the combined efforts of B’nai B’rith Canada and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs were unable to move the University of Lethbridge to take action against Hall.” I would like to believe that this unwillingness on the part of the University of Lethbridge to help B’nai B’rith destroy Dr. Hall’s career is due to the university’s professed commitment to liberal education and liberal values, even if Farber does portray Lethbridge as a racist backwater in conservative Alberta, where Hall is said to have “found a comfortable home amongst Holocaust deniers.”

I would like to believe that the unwillingness of the University of Lethbridge to help B’nai B’rith destroy Dr. Hall’s career is due to the fact that, as a nation, Canada has shown itself willing to reconsider history when there is good cause. Notably, Canadians have recently begun the hard process of re-evaluating our own history with respect to our nation’s cultural and physical genocide against our Indigenous peoples. Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Indian Residential Schools has just published a six-volume final report on its findings, and in the tradition of scholars like Dr. Hall, this report shows fearlessness in confronting past lies so that history can better reflect the truth, however uncomfortable that truth may be.

I would like to believe that the unwillingness of the University of Lethbridge to help B’nai B’rith destroy Dr. Hall’s career is due to the university’s high ideals and Canadian bearing, but when I contacted Dr. Hall, he informed me that the University of Lethbridge has indeed asked him to step down from his tenured position after twenty-six years as a professor. It seems that the university is ready to bow to outside pressure and to sacrifice Dr. Hall. I’m sure that Farber’s biased account of the anti-Semitic posting on Dr. Hall’s Facebook page did little to help Dr. Hall’s chances of staving off B’nai B’rith’s attack.

Farber’s misrepresentation of Dr. Hall is no less offensive than the crime of which Dr. Hall is accused, namely misrepresentation of the Jewish holocaust. The difference between the two is that, in the case of Farber, his accusation that Dr. Hall is an anti-Semite is clearly baseless, whereas Dr. Hall’s willingness “to reassess a lot of ideas” about the history of the Second World War seems to be well thought out given his reputation as a respected historian.


rafiq

How Do Canada’s Hate Propaganda Laws Work Behind the Scene? The R vs Roy Arthur Topham Case By Arthur Topham

behindthescene

How Do Canada’s Hate Propaganda Laws Work Behind the Scene?
The R vs Roy Arthur Topham Case

By
Arthur Topham

September 25th, 2016

As the Constitutional challenge in the R vs Roy Arthur Topham case moves close to the hearing date of October 3 to 7, 2016 in Quesnel, BC’s Supreme Court it’s time Canadians were told how the methods of surveilling, complaining, charging, arresting and trying a Canadian citizen for such a flawed and unwarranted “crime” actually plays out behind the scene and not just what the mainstream media and courtrooms attempt to portray in order to lend credence to the charade in the eyes of the general public.

My example, given all that I’ve learned over the past decade about how the Zionist Jew lobby organizations operate in conjunction with the police forces and provincial and federal court systems here in Canada, is, I believe, fairly typical of how the process works.

I must preface the article by first stating that there were two individuals who were responsible for laying the “hate crime” complaints against myself and my website RadicalPress.com. That’s two people out of a population of 33,476,688 citizens (as of February 2012) who decided they didn’t like my website and wanted to have it destroyed. Due to a bail order issued by the the Honourable Provincial Court Judge R. D. Morgan on April 15, 2014 I am forbidden to “post on any internet site or otherwise publish the names of the two civilian complainants… and that he [me, Arthur Topham] immediately remove their names from any internet site he has direct or indirect control of. I find that there may be a risk of harm or intimidation in posting the names of these two civilian complainants.

Of the two complainants I can state that one is a Jew living in Victoria, BC who is (or was at the time) a regional director for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and the other is a lawyer living in Ottawa, Ontario who is not a Jew but has acted on behalf of Jewish lobby organizations in Canada for at least the past twenty years and is in all likelihood Canada’s Grand Champion of “hate crime” complainants. The Jew in Victoria I will refer to as “Agent Z” throughout the article and the non-Jew lawyer from Ottawa will be known as “Agent S”. The rest of the protagonists throughout the melodrama will have their real names cited as there is no court order prohibiting mention of them.

How the Ten Year Show Trial Played Out Behind the Scenes

My “hate crime” trials initially began on February 14th, 2007 (Valentine’s Day) and have gone through innumerable twists, contortions and transmutations that saw them morph from a Canadian Human Rights Act Sec. 13 complaint in November of 2007 to a Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) Sec. 319(2) complaint in May of 2012 that resulted in my arrest on the Barkerville Hwy near Quesnel, BC and my incarceration in the Quesnel jail. From there it went to a further three years of ongoing legal wrangling that eventually resulted in a trial in BC Supreme Court in Quesnel that commenced on October 26th, 2015 and ended on November 12th with the jury finding me Guilty on Count 1 and Not Guilty on Count 2. Both Counts of course were identical.

As I said it began on Valentine’s Day when Agent Z sent me an email under a false alias calling himself “Brian Esker”. He accused me of publishing all sorts of materials on my website that he stated were “anti-Semitic” and “hateful” demanded that I take them down then let him know when I had and he would send me a list of more articles to take down. Of course he never stated which articles he wanted removed other than to mention the fact that I had The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion on my site and that was verboten as far as he was concerned.

I civilly and politely attempted to find out who “Brian Esker” really was but “Brian” refused to communicate any further with me and I never heard a thing more until I received a letter in my mailbox from the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) back on November 20, 2007 that contained a Sec. 13 “hate crime” complaint first filed with the (CHRC) back on August 14, 2007. That’s when I first learned that the skulking, serpentine troll who wrote me on Valentine’s Day was in fact Agent Z of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, the same foreign, false flag organization that’s been recently attacking German-Canadian citizens Monika Schaefer and Brian Ruhe and also doing its damnedest to slander and libel Professor Anthony Hall of Lethbridge University with false accusations in order to have him fired from his tenured professorship.

By 2008 I was coming out swinging and refusing to back down to the spurious accusations brought on by this agent of Israel. The CHRC decided that they had another victim and referred my case to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) which was another total gong show of misfits and miscreants who must have thought they were living in Stalin’s Soviet Russia back in the 1930’s and would pull any dirty trick they could think of to intimidate and torture their victims.

But I learned something else back in 2008 regarding Agent S. This snake in the Zionist grass hadn’t filed a Sec. 13 complaint with the CHRC when Agent Z did but he was personally known to Agent Z at the time. I only found out when both of them threatened Black Press (not affiliated with Conrad Black) the publisher of my local community newspaper The Quesnel Observer with a law suit because the paper was publishing my side of the story. Agent Z was going ballistic and phoning the newspaper and threatening the editor and being his belligerent, arrogant, Zionist self. So both these agents were working in tandem from day one.

The whole CHRC and CHRT charade carried on right up until the Conservative government finally repealed the Sec. 13 law in June of 2012. Fortunately for me there were other victims ahead of me and by the time my turn came up the case was stayed due to it being repealed.

But the end of Sec. 13 didn’t stop the two Israeli agents from pursuing their goal of harassment of myself and my website. The second time they came after me it was prompted by Agent S, who, by the way, was also a former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I had just published an article called Hating Harper on April 27, 2011. The following day Agent S filed his Sec. 319(2) complaint with the next player in this freedom of speech farce, Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team, centred in Surrey, BC.

On May 28th, 2011, precisely one month later, I published my controversial satire of Theodore N. Kaufman’s 1941 pro-German genocide book, Germany Must Perish! I called it Israel Must Perish! The very next day Agent Z filed his Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” complaint with Det. Cst. Terry Wilson and the Hate Crime Unit in Surrey.

gaywilsonlevasimage

Enter the Queer-Jew Connection

There are aspects to the R v Roy Arthur Topham criminal case that have yet to be revealed to the general public since this Stalinist Show Trial began almost a decade ago and had it not been for the Liberal government’s lamentable decision to threaten, via the use of Sec. 319(2), the decent folks of Canada now outraged at their government’s degrading attempt to drag the nation down into the mire of mendacious sexual masochism, these revelations may never have surfaced. But they have and so I must share now what has thus far remained hidden from the general public.

It was soon after I was arrested on May 16th, 2012 while my wife and I were traveling to Prince George on placer mining business that I found out that Det. Cst. Terry Wilson, who was leading the BC Hate Crime Team in their tireless efforts to hunt down “haters” on the Internet, was a queer. Then, as my court case carried on and further revelations occurred I also learned while cross-examining Det. Wilson during the Preliminary Inquiry back in January of 2014 that Det. Wilson had first joined the London Ontario Police Service back in 1989 and then their hate crime unit in 1995. But more importantly was the fact that as far back as 1996 Det. Wilson was already working on similar cases such as mine with the same Agent S who initially filed the first Sec. 319(2) complaint against me!

Det. Cst. Wilson has since retired from the New Westminster Police Force and has suddenly morphed into a “Hate Crime Expert” even though in court he swore under oath that he wasn’t a hate crime expert. His website http://www.hatecrimeexpert.com/ contains all the essential ingredients showing Wilson’s former connections with the Jewish lobbyists and other unsavoury characters.

screen-shot-2016-09-26-at-7-54-57-am

Now I don’t have any proof that Agent S is a homosexual or not. I do know that I’ve seen his photo on the net numerous times and read much that he’s written on his website but I’ve never seen or heard of him either having a girlfriend or being married. All I do know is that he and Wilson have been conspiring to hunt down Canadians for the past twenty years and charge them with “hate crimes”. As for Agent Z out of Victoria, BC, he’s also been working in concert with these same two “hate” hunters for at least a decade and most likely longer. Being a married man with a family it’s doubtful that Agent Z is a queer but regardless it’s no secret that the Jewish lobby has been pushing the Queer agenda in the courts and through the media for decades.

So here we have this Zionist triune of truant “hate crime” agents all directly connected up with B’nai Brith Canada and its ADL arm the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith hell-bent on accusing Arthur Topham of promoting “hatred” against people of “Jewish ethnicity” and attempting to get the jury to believe that my satire of the Jewish book Germany Must Perish! was a blatant attempt to convince the Canadian public to genocide “the whole of the Jewish population”. Did the jury buy the argument put forth by Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston during the trial that this was in fact why I wrote the satire? God only knows because the jury is under strict orders not to reveal why they found me Guilty of one count of promoting hatred and then Not Guilty of the second and identical count.

The upcoming Charter challenge to this Zionist-created legislation will argue that Sec. 319(2) is an unacceptable infringement on Sec. 2b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ought to be struck down. It will be of interest to anyone concerned about their right to open debate and freedom of speech because if these “Hate Propaganda” laws contained in Sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code of Canada aren’t repealed you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be more and more innocent Canadians charged and arrested, their homes invaded by these goon squads of “Hate Crime Units”, all their computers and electronic files stolen and God knows what else, all at the behest of these foreign interlopers disguising themselves as Jewish “lobbies” so that they can then infiltrate and poison the Canadian judicial system via their clandestine pressuring and media control in order to prevent their own crimes and the criminal activities of the state of Israel from being revealed on the Internet.


Please help out with the costs of the upcoming Charter hearing by going to the following website and making a donation.

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

Reflections on Canada’s failure as a free and democratic society – Monika Schaefer’s open letter responding to the witch hunters at the Alberta Society of Fiddlers by Monika Schaefer

Reflections on Canada’s failure as a free and democratic society – Monika Schaefer’s open letter responding to the witch hunters at the Alberta Society of Fiddlers

BY MONIKA SCHAEFER?

SEPTEMBER 24 ,2016

monika_schaefer_e6903

August 30, 2016

Dear Monika,

As President of the Alberta Society of Fiddlers, and on behalf of the Board of Directors and Executive, I am writing to advise you of decisions made at a special ASF meeting called on August 17th, 2016.

As a result of your recent public comments regarding your views on the Holocaust, we are relieving you of your duties as Director for the Yellowhead West Region of the ASF, and also rescinding your invitation to be an instructor at our upcoming music camp at Camp HeHoHa in February of 2017.

Thank you for your past contributions to our society.

We wish you all the best in your future endeavours,

Sincerely,

Randy Jones, President 
Alberta Society of Fiddlers
*******************************************************
Open letter to the Alberta Society of Fiddlers:

September 23, 2016

Thank you for the registered letter in which you informed me of the outcome of your meeting. I am being relieved of my duties as ASF Director of the Yellowhead West Region, and you are rescinding the invitation for me to be an instructor at Camp HeHoHa in February 2017. Here are my questions and comments.

At the time of the meeting, I was on the board of directors of the Alberta Society of Fiddlers. Therefore, I would expect that I should be informed of a meeting, especially if I was the subject of the meeting. Was there any attempt to contact me? It seems there was not, and if not, why not? Was there a prior meeting to discuss whether I should be invited? Is there a record of the discussion leading up to the special meeting? Who made the decision to have a special meeting? Is there a record of the special meeting? Was there a vote? Were minutes taken? I would like to see those minutes please. I would like to know if my membership will be next to be terminated. What indication do I have that I would be welcome to attend an ASF event in future?

My classes at Camp HeHoHa the last two years were well received, and the feedback, by all accounts, was very good. You are telling me now that because of my interpretation of the events of WW2, I am no longer welcome to teach at fiddle camp. Surely this is setting a precedent that a person’s opinions about history trumps their ability to play or teach the fiddle.

Last February I had the same views on the history of WW2 as I have now. I have been studying these matters for a few years now. Did anyone complain? Of course not! I did not talk much about history or politics during the camp, and definitely not in class. Whenever I have attended fiddle camp as a student or as an instructor, it was to immerse myself in the joy of playing music together with others in this wonderful musical family which has now been broken. And even if I had discussed history or politics in private conversations, what would be the problem?

We find ourselves in a world where certain conversations can only be whispered behind closed doors, and other conversations are permitted in public. Who would have imagined this could happen in our own province of Alberta in Canada? Who would have thought George Orwell’s world of thought control would prove to be so prophetic? It is shameful that the Alberta Society of Fiddlers is participating in this thought control.

I wonder what this saga teaches young people. If I was to return to the camp as a student like in years past, have you not set me up to be treated as a leper? Surely when asked why I am no longer teaching, I would tell the truth. It was not my teaching that received a failing grade, but my opinions and conclusions about an event which took place 70 years ago. I think the ASF action teaches young people to be conformist, and if they were to disagree with a prevailing view, they sure had better keep it to themselves and lie publicly about their beliefs.

This is becoming an international story. Here is a quote from a recent article by Editor-in-Chief of The American Herald Tribune, Professor Anthony Hall:

“The new configurations of authority are extending to important agencies like the Royal Canadian Legion, Jasper National Park [Parks Canada], and the Alberta Society of Fiddlers. Those overseeing these important institutions are made to feel empowered to impose arbitrary sanctions and punishments against an individual who dared to question enshrined orthodoxy.

The message is made clear that the vibrance of art and culture, the wellbeing of veterans as well as the need to protect some of Alberta’s most majestic Alpine environments have become secondary commitments. The treatment in Jasper National Park of violinist Monika Schaefer signals the end of our free and democratic society. Our right and need to express independent thought, the starting point of collective self-determination, has been sacrificed in order to enforce supine obedience to the sanctification of an historical interpretation that must not be subjected to sceptical scrutiny and reconsideration.”

I am in good company with regards to my understanding of the history of WW2. Gerard Menuhin, son of famous (Jewish) violinist Yehudi Menuhin, has written a book called “Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil”. Here is a book review and synopsis.

From the volume of messages of support that I have been receiving, it is becoming quite clear to me that there are people in every village, town and hamlet who agree with my conclusions on the “holocaust”. These messages have come to me from all over Canada and the world, and from many places in Alberta. But the vast majority of those people do not speak publicly about it, because there is a high price to pay. They are afraid of losing their jobs, their friends, and their community standing. An example is made of anyone who dares speak out, to frighten others who might be tempted to question the prevailing dogma. I invite you to read about “ritual defamation”, something that I am becoming an expert on. Evidence and facts have no bearing in this process.

Of the people who have viewed my “Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the holocaust”, those who have voted their approval or disapproval online have consistently done so in a ratio of approximately 3:1 likes over dislikes. Although not the final word, this ratio suggests that many see this video as a positive contribution, well within community standards.

Given that there are people all over Alberta who share my views, are you not now obliged to screen all potential instructors for their political views and their historical understanding? You have set the precedent by your actions against me. In the past, the sniff test might have been whether you believed the earth was flat. People used to be persecuted for saying the earth revolved around the sun.

Free thinkers are often found within the artistic community. I remember long ago hearing about political prisoners in countries far away, such as poets in the Soviet Union who were jailed because of their writings. A tyrannical state is threatened by free thinkers, so the tyrannical state often persecutes its artists. But it is strange when the artist community persecutes their own. That is the context in which I find the actions of the Alberta Society of Fiddlers to be so shocking.

The old adage “the victors write the history books” is not just about choosing the font. We have all been subjected to a life-time of indoctrination. If you have not done independent study of “The Holocaust” outside of the parameters of our schooling and Hollywood, then it is completely understandable that you disagree with my views. However, it is another matter altogether when you demonstrate such a Pavlovian response to my short video in which I apologize to my mother for having held her to account for the horrors of WW2 after having learned that the prevailing dogma is not correct.

I will give just one example to show that you cannot be 100% right and me 100% wrong. I remember learning in school either late 1960s or early ‘70s that the Germans were so evil and depraved that they made soap, lampshades and shrunken heads out of the bodies of Jews. Now they do not teach that propaganda anymore, because that has been proven to be lies. That puts a crack in the untouchable edifice of this narrative.

Aware people are everywhere. I know that. I am hearing from them. Does this mean you will all start looking over your shoulder wondering who else shares my views? Or might it give you cause to reconsider your certainty over this issue? And even if you are absolutely certain that I am 100% wrong, consider the fact that there is no other event in history for which debate is not permitted, quite literally against the law in many countries. There is something wrong with that picture. Only lies need to be protected by laws. The truth stands on its own.

This event called “Holocaust” has replaced our religions. Apparently I am a heretic, and the Alberta Society of Fiddlers is metaphorically burning me at the stake. I think in light of future history, this decision you have made will prove to be one of the more consequential in ASF history.

Will you have the courage to print this letter in your next newsletter? If not, why not? You might say it has no relevance to the fiddling world and the usual contents of that newsletter. Precisely! My views on the “holocaust” also have nothing to do with my participation in the fiddling world of the ASF. But by your actions, you have made the subject of WW2 part of the fiddling world in Alberta.

Sincerely,

Monika Schaefer


monikainfo

SOURCE ARTICLE

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

1enemy

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

PLEASE DONATE AND SUPPORT ARTHUR TOPHAM’S CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO

SEC. 319(2) OF CANADA’S CRIMINAL CODE

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

SUPPORTFREEDOMOFSPEECHNew

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

THANK YOU!

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

The New Constitution Party of Canada hosts Monika Schaefer, Canada’s most notorious Holohoax skeptic

MonikaS

Monika Schaefer

Published on Aug 27, 2016
C.A.F.E. (The Canadian Association For Free Expression) proudly presents Canada’s most notorious (and loveliest) Holohoax skeptic, Monika Schaefer. Using wit and charm, Monika captivates her audience with the story of how she awakened to the Jewish Holohoax lie, and how her open-mindedness arose out of the 9-11 truth movement. She talks about how Jasper resident, Ken Kuzminski, filed formal complaints against her with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and the RCMP. Monika also touches on her political activism as a candidate for the Green Party of Canada. We are confident that anyone who views this video will hang on her every word.

The New Constitution Party of Canada (Canada’s largest National Socialist party) and Your Ward News (The World’s largest anti-Marxist publication) hosted Monika’s speech at their offices at 163 Main Street, Toronto. Thanks to the dozens of curious neighbours who attended the event, many of which donated to Monika’s defence fund. Thanks to Monika Schaefer for flying in from her home in Jasper, B.C., for the sole purpose of speaking at the event. And a special thanks to http://www.DailyStormer.com the world’s most visited Alt-Right web site, for advertising the event.

DVD’s of the event are available from Paul Fromm through C.A.F.E.

The controversial video that Monika Schaefer posted on YouTube which questioned the Jewish Holohoax and resulted in Ken Kuzminski filing criminal complaints against her, can be found here:   https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=E0_BZphQ7Qo&feature=youtu.be

http://www.NCparty.ca
http://www.YourWardNews.ca
http://CAFE.nfshost.com

Open Letter to Green Party Leader and Executives: Your ill-advised condemnation of Monika Schaefer of Jasper, Alberta by Al Romanchuk

From: “Al Romanchuk” <romanesq@shaw.ca>
AlRomanchukPic300
Subject: Your ill-advised condemnation of Monika Schaefer of Jasper, Alberta
Date: July 29, 2016
To: <Elizabeth.May@parl.gc.ca>, “Dan \(Green Party\) Palmer” <dan.palmer@greenparty.ca>, “Emily \(Green Party\) McMillan” <emily.mcmillan@greenparty.ca>
Sir & women,

I’m an 80 year old now living in Kelowna but I have been in politics since the age of 15. Growing up in Alberta was an honour and pleasure and practicing law in Alberta and BC gave me untold pleasurable moments. I’ve belonged to many political parties over the years but today they offer me nothing but corruption, secrecy and fraud served on a silver platter! I would just as soon abolish all political parties and the rebates that they receive from the federal government following a federal election or by-election. My indisputable rights to FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS have been eroded to the point where I no longer feel patriotic to my country. The federal government, and now BC and I’m sure other provinces will follow, has passed what I believe to be the EQUITY ACT granting special privileges and PROTECTIONS to all the GD queers and perverts in our society (especially the alphabet queers who don’t know whether they are male or female) but there is NOTHING in our laws PROTECTING ME FROM THESE KINDS OF HUMANOIDS!

Which brings me to the subject at hand. All of you have condemned PUBLICLY, in the harshest words possible, Miss Schaefer for publicizing her video regarding her QUESTIONING of the Jewish holocaust during WW2, where questioning in our country should be and was the essence of democracy. Your statements are ill-advised and it is obvious to anyone of native intelligence that none of you have done ANY research into the subject of the alleged holocaust. Like MOST Canadians, and others, you have fallen for the BIG LIE because you were taught that it was the truth. I am surprised at Miss May who, as a lawyer and so-called educated person, would not have done her research before castigating Miss Schaefer and I condemn you, Miss May, in the strongest possible terms. You have voiced your concerns in the past of not being included in certain debates citing that it was a matter of FREEDOM OF SPEECH and yet you malevolently condemn Miss Schaefer for simply EXERCISING HER RIGHT IN CANADA TO SUCH FREEDOM. The remarks of Palmer and McMillan against Miss Schaefer are entirely false and it is obvious that they have not done their homework as well.

As Miss May knows it is an essential element of jurisprudence that HE WHO ASSERTS THE POSITIVE HAS THE ONUS OF PROVING IT. The Jews have ASSERTED POSITIVELY THAT SINCE THE END OF WW2 THAT EXACTLY 6 MILLION JEWS WERE KILLED BY THE GERMANS IN THAT CAMPAIGN. But NO ONE from the Jewish community has come forward to present WRITTEN PROOF of such assertion and thus, over the years, it has been believed to be the truth when there is NO evidence thereof. I have written to two Jewish organizations, one in Ontario and one in Edmonton, and asked them the above simple question: PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH WRITTEN PROOF OF YOUR ASSERTION THAT THE GERMANS KILLED EXACTLY 6 MILLION JEWS IN WW2. I have NO replies to date and the emails were sent about 2 weeks ago. One should remember, if I can jog your memories if you have them, that absolutely no written evidence of such mass killing was produced at the Nuremburg trials in 1945-46.

“If I was rich I would finance Miss Schaefer’s lawsuit against all of you for besmirching (libeling) her reputation and denying her right to earn a living. I cannot for the life of me see WHY Canadians would support your party given your totally unfounded, scurrilous and profoundly LYING statements about Miss Schaefer.”

So, where do YOU stand on the question, the vitally important question, of FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS? Do you or do you not believe that such freedoms INCLUDE the right to offend? Do you or do you not believe that people have a CHOICE on whether or not to listen to someone speak or read what someone has written? Your bitterly cold and deliberate attacks on Miss Schaefer for expressing her OWN OPINION are, to me, despicable and totally unwarranted having regard to the circumstances. If I was rich I would finance Miss Schaefer’s lawsuit against all of you for besmirching (libeling) her reputation and denying her right to earn a living. I cannot for the life of me see WHY Canadians would support your party given your totally unfounded, scurrilous and profoundly LYING statements about Miss Schaefer.

In this context I believe that all three of you should publish a public apology to Miss Schaefer. The apology should be couched in such terms that makes it abundantly clear that you did not mean to defame or otherwise condemn Miss Schaefer and that you sincerely believe that unfettered FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND OF THE PRESS SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND NEVER DENIED TO ANYONE IN CANADA. I would expect that such an apology would be published in the Jasper Fitzhugh, Edmonton Journal, Toronto Sun and Vancouver Sun within 15 days from the date of this email. The apology need not be lengthy but should be sincere. If you do NOT publish such an apology I can only presume that all of you DO NOT believe in these essential freedoms and that you have bought into the BIG LIE hook, line and sinker!

AL ROMANCHUK
Kelowna
Email: romanesq@shaw.ca

Escape From The Holocaust Lie by Arthur Topham

EscapeHoloHdr

Escape From The Holocaust Lie

By
Arthur Topham

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

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

DouglasHChristiecopy_zps43b1b5c0

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

tazebook_dees-1-copy

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

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

ZundelTrialFreeSpeechDC800 copy

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

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

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

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

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

As Doug Christie put it in his summation:

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

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

RaulHilbergPic

And the Beat(ing) Goes On

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

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

MonikaSchaeferSorryMomHdr copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5

What to do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RepealHateLaws-1000 copy 2

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

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

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

______

ANOTHER B’NAI BRITH BULLSHIT HOLOHOAX STORY By Paul Fromm (CAFE)

SimpsonsHolocaust

ANOTHER B’NAI BRITH HOLOHOAX BULLSHIT STORY

By Paul Fromm (CAFE)

Free speech in Canada? The right to dissent from perceived orthodoxy? You have to be kidding?

The snoops and censors of B’nai Brith sniffed out an article in a London, Ontario Arabic magazine, Al Saraha, that questions the numbers that have now formed a doctrine of the new religion of holocaust — namely, 6-million. B’nai Brith howled. The compliant London thought police, er “hate squad”, (yes, we really have political police in Canda, never mind all the phony window dressing about the rights of freedom of speech and freedom of the press in Trudeau Sr.’s fraudulent Charter of Rights and Freedoms) hop to it and investigate. Advertizers are contacted and, being firm believers in free speech, promptly jump ship and abandon the poor Arabs.. Liberal politicians, ever sucking up to the Third World vote, suddenly find themselves embarrassed and promise to pull future advertising. Actually, it all looks good on the multicultural crowd. Don’t confuse their stated commitment to “diversity” to mean diversity of opinion.

And the pathetic publisher is left babbling that he really didn’t know what was in the article and claimed he didn’t know Hitler is alleged to have killed six million Jews. [Come on, even the most inattentive high school student has had this number drilled into his head as our education system often demeans our own European history but slavishly peddles the tribal history of a special group.] It’s a sordid story all around.

The London Free Press (July 21, 2016) reports: “Condemnation is raining down on an Arabic magazine in London after it published a column questioning the Holocaust, the Nazi murder of six million Jews during the Second World War. But while the London police hate crime unit is investigating, and a national Jewish group urged Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne’s government — an advertiser in the publication — to distance itself from the monthly Al Saraha, its publisher says he was unaware of the facts and apologizes to Jewish people.

1297859295516_ORIGINAL

Abdul Hadi Shala the owner and GM of Al Saraha in London. (MIKE HENSEN, The London Free Press

‘I didn’t mean to reject something that happened historically,’ Abdul Haidi Shala, speaking in Arabic translated into English, told The London Free Press on Thursday.’I was curious to know why Hitler killed Jews during the Holocaust, so I read through his article and I found information,’ the publisher said. …

B’nai Brith Canada, a national Jewish human rights organization [more Zionist BS. It’s a secret, Jews-only Masonic organization created by the Rothschilds over a hundred years ago. Ed. Topham], complained about the piece in the magazine’s June-July issue, with its chief executive calling the column “despicable” and “hateful.”

While some Holocaust deniers flatly reject that Adolf Hitler and his Nazi regime in Germany ran a campaign to wipe out Europe’s Jews, complete with notorious death camps that were killing factories, others quibble over the numbers killed and the history behind it.

The piece that ran in the London monthly falls into the second category, an English translation shows, describing the six million killed as ‘a number of impossible magnitude’ and blaming ‘Jewish propaganda’ that ‘managed to spread it and establish it.’

Shala, the magazine’s owner and general manager, said he didn’t know that the facts in the piece, which he said was written by an Egyptian journalist for another publication, were incorrect.

London police confirmed hate crime investigators are reviewing the piece, whose disputed edition carried a prominent Ramadan message by Premier Kathleen Wynne and members of her governing Liberals, and a smaller ad by hometown MPP Deb Matthews, the province’s deputy premier. … London Const. Chris Loizides confirmed police are investigating whether a Criminal Code offence occurred. …

[ Ontario Liberal cabinet member Deb] Matthews issued a statement saying the Ontario Liberals were ‘completely unaware’ of the magazine’s intent to publish the piece when they bought advertising for Ramadan greetings, and condemn ‘in the strongest possible terms’ the ‘anti-Semitic and homophobic views’ in the piece. [One wonders whether Christian publication can expect Christmas greetings from the wildly pro-homosexual, anti-Christian Ontario Liberals?]

‘I assure you that our caucus and I will no longer purchase advertising space in this publication,’ she said in the statement. …

A provincially-funded London agency that helps immigrants, the London and Middlesex Local Immigration Partnership, condemned the piece Thursday and yanked the magazine from its resource list for newcomers.

[B’nai Brith CEO Michael] Mostyn called that move and a statement by the organization’s co-chair, saying it doesn’t condone racist and homophobic views, a ‘positive step.’”

And thus works thought control in politically correct Canada.

Whatever happened to a good old letter-to-the-editor to set the magazine straight. However, the apostles of the tyrannical tribal religion of holocaust do not discuss or debate. And heresy is severely punished.

If this were a matter of historical FACT, it ought to be debatable. Indeed, the number of Jews allegedly killed in WW II has fluctuated wildly. Initially, a figure of 11-million was claimed; then, it was 7-million.By the 1970s, with the creation of the new religion of holocaust, the figure of 6-million became dogma. To question it might mean prison, job loss or fines in Germany and France — a situation suggestive that we are not dealing with history here but tribal legend. After the fall of communism, documents from Auschwitz revealed that the death toll there, formerly claimed at 4-million (about 70 per Jews) was actually about a million . Applying the same 70 per cent figure, this would reduce the Jewish death toll, from all causes, by some 2-million, but,strangely, this never reduced the 6-million figure. This is a mathematical miracle unparalleled since Jesus, we are told, multiplied five small loaves of bread and two fishes to feed a multitude of 5,000.

If this were merely Jewish tribal history, the figure wouldn’t much matter. They can tell one another whatever they like. However, as the new religion of holocaust is imposed on the West, it has implications — guilt mongering, a free pass for Israel, huge reparations payments. As such, it does become of matter of concern to know or. at least, discuss and debate whether what we’re being told is the truth.

Well, not in Canada


Original story

By Hala Ghonaim, Jennifer O’Brien, The London Free Press

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

BIGOTSVILLE

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

by Prof. Tony Hall

Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 10.17.57 AM

To Dave Baker,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours Sincerely,

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

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

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

 habitatvaluestatement2 (1)

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

SUPPORTFREEDOMOFSPEECH

ATEDITOR0216

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standing for Canada and our democratic ideals I remain,

Sincerely,

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

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN CANADA IS STILL UNDER ATTACK!

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

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

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

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

Dear Free Speech Supporters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You so much!

Hypocrites in High Places by David Cole from Taki Magazine

HypocritesHighPlacesHdr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dd395-free (site) copy 2

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

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

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

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

zundd_deesP1 copy 3

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

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

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

ErnstZVictim copy

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

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

Well, the U.S., for one.

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

GermarRudolfPic

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

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

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

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

Source Article

Merry Christmas and a Happy, Hopeful New Year from RadicalPress.com

MerryChristmasA&STopham

ATEditorPic185

Dear Radical Readers and Friends of Freedom of Speech Everywhere,

On behalf of my wife Shastah and myself I would like to thank everyone who has been standing with RadicalPress.com over the past year and longer in my ongoing struggle to defend the legal right of all Canadians, as stated in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to be able to express their thoughts and viewpoints on the Internet and in other media without fear of being attacked and persecuted by the government of Canada via the use of Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

This past year saw the case move to the actual stage of trial which commenced in the B.C. Supreme Court, Quesnel, Canada on October 26, 2015 and ran until November 12, 2015 when the jury of 8 women and 4 men found me guilty in Count 1 and not guilty in Count 2 of the identical charge that I did “willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

As a result of this peculiar and strange ruling the stage has been now set for the continuation of my Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2) in the coming new year. The time when this challenge will occur is yet to be determined but the week beginning January 25, 2016 will see a date fixed for the Constitutional argument to be heard.

In the event that my Charter argument fails to convince the Supreme Court that Sec. 319(2) is in violation of Sec. 2b of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms then I will then have the right to appeal the decision of the court on Count 1 that was handed down November 12, 2015.

There were a number of extenuating circumstances that arose during the actual trial which will, of necessity, come to the forefront in the appeal and portend a strong case for having the decision tossed out and a not guilty decision rendered. Space here doesn’t allow for any elaboration on the process but the new evidence will be forthcoming in the new year.

As of today I am still raising money in order to purchase the transcripts from the trial. Not only does the legal process in this country unfairly work against the individual through unjust legislation such as Sec. 319(2) of the criminal code but when forced to defend oneself against such specious forms of “thought crime” laws the costs incurred are then further exacerbated by the state in the form of  the victim having to pay exorbitant costs for the transcripts of the proceedings in order to continue on with their defence.

As  it now stands the transcripts will cost me $7,500.00 to purchase from the sole contractor to the Attorney General’s office in B.C. JCWord Assist Ltd. The amount of support and funding for this onerous and ridiculously unfair process of procuring the transcripts has been overwhelmingly positive and to date we have already raised over $7,000.00 toward this end. I am deeply appreciative and humbled by this generosity on the part of supporters world-wide who’ve found it in their hearts to help me out. The transcripts are vital to my defence and will prove extremely useful in the days ahead as this battle to retain our right to freedom of speech continues to unfold in the Supreme Court of Canada.

The transcripts though are not the only expenses that I face and therefore I am forced to continue to ask for financial assistance and will likely do so until the process wends its way to a final outcome. It’s for this reason that I must therefore append my donation “shingle” to this Christmas greeting as well.

As the new year approaches I am filled with hope, strength and an unwavering determination to carry on with this fight until the odious sections of our legal system that make it a criminal act to speak one’s mind are defeated and repealed once and for all.

The world today stands at the brink of despair and hope. Never has there been a more urgent time in our history for the people to be able to stand up and speak out for their basic human rights in order to defend their nation against the incredibly powerful and deceptive actions of their respective governments and media; political bodies and complicit agencies who have shown themselves, over and over, to be working against the fundamental rights of the individual in order to broaden the scope of their control and propaganda now being forced upon the minds and hearts of people around the globe all at the behest of special interest groups who wield, altogether, untold amounts of unwarranted power and influence over nation states worldwide.

2016 bodes well in terms of providing the impetus to speak out and be heard. Let us pray that vigilance and discernment will be the watchwords in the days ahead and that we will retain our basic rights and continue to live freely and in peace and harmony with all of humanity.

May God bless the peacemakers and all who strive for justice and truth!

Sincerely,

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

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

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

THANK YOU!

Why I Stand for God, Canada and Free Speech, not Israel By Arthur Topham

FreedomofSpeechAkiane

Why I Stand for God, Canada and Free Speech, not Israel

By

Arthur Topham

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:27 a.m. in the British Columbia Supreme Court, city of Quesnel, I was pronounced “Guilty” by a jury of twelve men and women of the following criminal offence, also known as Count 1:

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

Immediately following I was pronounced “Not Guilty” of a second and identical criminal offence, known as Count 2:

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

Within moments of the jury leaving the courtroom Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnson was seeking new bail conditions that would restrict even further my fundamental rights as contained in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson immediately objected suggesting to Justice Bruce Butler that if Crown wants changes to my bail conditions then due process should be followed and Crown must file an application to that effect. Justice Butler agreed and the date of Thursday, November 19, 2015 was set for a hearing on Crown’s application. Later it was set for Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 10 a.m.

Given the fact that Crown has attempted on two earlier occasions to have stringent bail conditions imposed upon my freedom to operate RadicalPress.com it must be assumed that in this instance too Crown will be calling for either removal of my site from the Internet or else a total ban on my ability to operate it until final sentencing which is tentatively scheduled for late January of 2016.

In the event that Crown is able to accomplish either of its objectives, November 20th, 2015 could, theoretically, be the last day that I am able to communicate the status of my case on the Internet pending the outcome of my Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2).

It therefore behooves me to make a few comments and observations before the hearing takes place.

Our collective dilemma

Only someone in a comatose condition or willfully blind to any form of self-reflection could deny the fact that the global state of affairs today has reached an extreme state of critical disharmony.

War, and the threat of war, environmental degradation, cancer rates of epic proportions, fear levels at an all-time high and an endless array of bureaucratic and media machinations all designed to confuse and obfuscate any remedial efforts on the part of the people to rectify this imminent threat to our collective condition are the order of the day. Then, coupled with all of these Orwellian conditions, is the growing threat by Zionist infiltrated nation states to introduce illogical, totalitarian, communist tactics such as “hate crime” legislation in order to penalize those who attempt to define and interpret the present narrative of negativity.

Numerous individual writers from the past have warned us repeatedly of what would happen if we didn’t get off our collective fanny and do something about what was happening but, as is the human condition, the general populace is too busy making a living, paying off their plastic, raising families and mesmerized by Big Brother’s “Eye” tv to find the time to address and dismantle these specious, serpentine moves of the Zionist lobbyist to put in place their anti-free speech “hate” legislation.

Now that the proverbial fecal matter is hitting the fan suddenly the truth revealers are getting broad-sided by this legislation and falsely accused and dragged before Stalinist “Show Trial”courts in order to plug the failing dams of deception that are currently crumbling before their very eyes.

Holding the reins

 

In term of my own situation I’ve spent a lifetime searching for answers to this perennial problem of endless conflict and environmental destruction and now, at the ripe young age of 68, I can honestly and rightfully declare that all of my years of research and writing, coupled with the past 9 years of ‘harrowing’ legal hassles, only further corroborates and confirms that censorship of individuals who earnestly try to give warning to their fellow citizens and censorship of the Internet via the unscrupulous use of “hate crime” legislation must be stopped if we are to remain free to think, reason and peacefully protest against any form of oppression.

The final step in this ongoing process of ridding our country of the last remaining legal barrier (Sec. 319(2) of the criminal code will be a Constitutional challenge using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec. 2b which states:

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

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

Israel and the Zionist agenda

All of the hate crime legislation in the world has been created by one group, the Zionist Jew lobby, working through B’nai Brith International and other similar orgs. They’ve set themselves up in every nation of the West and their primary purpose as agents of the state of Israel is to silence any and all criticism of the Zionist ideology and its debilitating effect upon human rights and freedom of expression. This fact is now beyond dispute and case after case where individuals are charged with these duplicitous “hate” crimes the complainants inevitably are dual citizens of the foreign state of Israel or else goy sycophants in the pay of these same lobbyists.

To support Israel is to support racism, apartheid, murder of innocents, theft of other nation’s land, the destruction of other cultures, war, destruction and endless terrorist acts and media deception on a scale never before witnessed in human history.

Any Western government that “stands with Israel” is admitting to and condoning and complicit with all of these barbaric and uncivilized actions that comprise the whole of what political Zionism entails.

God

My first duty as a human being is to acknowledge, revere and do the Will of the Creator – source of all life. God = Love = Truth. If I don’t include God in every equation related to my work and my life then it all becomes meaningless and devoid of that one fundamental principle which governs both the physical and spiritual realms. Any attempt at addressing the evils that men do which omits the Truth is futile. God gave man Free Will which ultimately implies the right to express himself without fear of state repression. The atheistic Zionist agenda would end that freedom of the mind and soul and for that reason alone it must be resisted all costs.

Conclusion

My purpose in all that I’ve done over my lifetime has been to shed light upon the machinations of those who would enslave us and silence us so that we’re not at liberty to express our thoughts and ideas. Censorship now remains the #1 threat to our global survival in that without the freedom to challenge the state (any state) and its dictates and demands we’re left bereft of the ability to speak the Truth. In this sense my struggle is every person’s struggle who desires to remain free and live in peace and harmony with their fellow human beings and all other life forms.

—–

So much Canada, so little time by Jerry MacDonald, former Publisher & Editor of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer

Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 8.11.42 PM

Untitled

PUNCHLINES
By
Jerry MacDonald
February 26th, 1997
OPINIONS
So much Canada, so little time!
ATEditorPic185
[Editor’s Note: My hometown newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo Observer has been in the news a lot lately thanks to the ongoing court case involving yours truly. As a result of the guilty verdict in Count 1 of the Sec. 319(2) criminal charge, many supporters unfamiliar with the local area where I’ve lived now for the past 45 years are rather upset over the fact that the 12 person jury of my peers had reached such a guilty verdict, concluding that I’d been betrayed by my fellow community members. I don’t believe this is the case but rather a result of Crown’s deliberate strategy of unloading thousands of pages of “evidence” upon an unsuspecting group of jurors who, in all likelihood, had never before had to deal with such a monumental (thought crime) issue and were totally unprepared for the volume of materials they were suddenly given to read and deliberate upon. That, coupled with Crown’s over-riding insistence throughout the trial that my satire of Germany Must Perish! which I titled Israel Must Perish! was, in fact an actual book; one which I personally had written with evil intent to promote genocide of the whole of the Jewish population, obviously prejudiced the jury into believing Crown’s false accusations against me.

But, even so, the fact that I was found guilty in Count 1 isn’t reflective of the attitude and feeling toward myself by the community of Quesnel as a whole. And this is why I want to share with you an opinion piece by the late Publisher and Editor of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer, Jerry MacDonald who wrote the following article back on February 26th, 1997. Tragically, the following year on January 29th, 1998, just five months prior to the start up of my publishing business The Radical Press, Jerry MacDonald died of a heart attack at the early age of 44 years. Today, 21 years after his untimely death, his prophetic words regarding freedom of expression and the fear of people to speak out take on a prescient quality of their own. Jerry’s mention of myself in his article, is, I believe, a more true reflection of the sentiment of the bulk of the people here in the Cariboo who have known of my work for many decades.]

So much Canada, so little time!

“Journalism has taught me that, for the most part, the people who speak out in their youth … are the ones who will continue to speak their minds when their Canada Pension Cheques bounce.”

~ Jerry MacDonald

AS YOU READ this, I should be skating my way through the Rockies in my newer-old four-by-four Ford truck.

I’ll be in full retreat from those damned daily deadlines we were talking about earlier this month. Stan Rogers will be belting out tunes on the stereo – oh, maybe Barrett’s Privateers. And as I slip the front axle into four-high in anticipation of that black-hearted black ice, Stan and I will be wailing the chorus at the top of our respective lungs: “Goddam them all!…”

You’ve got to know Stan Rogers to follow what it is that I’m talking about here. And that’s part of what is wrong with this country of ours: too few people know of Stan Rogers.

His a guy with a voice that could make a cod fisherman smile – even today. Stan’s dulcet tones capture the energy of Canada, its solitude, our triumphs, our pain.

Had he been a separatist, his songs alone could have rallied Quebec to votez oui long ago. But Stan’s dead now. A great nationalist, a poet and a bear of a man with a Quaker’s beard and a Mop ‘n Glo pate. He had a voice from heaven. And that’s where its gone, presumably.

But he’ll be with me in the Rockies as I think about you. About Quesnel.

As Stan leads and I do an acceptable job of backup Highway mumble-harmony, what left of my mind will reflect on home and the people who make it special. And those who don’t.

So in a round-about way by introduction, this is one of those “thank you & good night” columns. And one of those “be warned” pieces too.

Journalism has taught me many things. Some of which I have actually, consciously retained.

It has taught me that if we are lucky enough, we will grow old enough to be bold enough.

In other words, most of us go through life pretty much afraid in this free society of ours to speak our minds. We’re afraid for two reasons:

In rural Canada if you speak your mind at a meeting of some kind you’re apt to be elected president. That alone is a practical inducer of self-censorship:

“You, Mouthy One! We the membership find you guilty of opinionationextravaganzi. You are hereby sentences to a two-year term as president of the Quesnel Teacher’s Association …”

You could plug in the name of your own outfit here, but the point is taken.

And so Murphy’s Law being what it is, the “intelligent members” stay home and the wannabes of the world, with the anaemic anatomy complex, take over. Now this is not true in all cases, but from politics to unions to management – it’s scary sometimes to consider just how prevalent it is.

I ramble. But you’re used to it, otherwise you wouldn’t have read this far.

When it comes to really important issues in life, however, the biological verbal governor kicks in out of fear: We’re afraid if we speak out because it could affect our jobs; the possibility for promotion; our social standing; our kids’ chances of playing on the rep team; of being branded a racist; a sexist; a capitalist; a red neckist; an environmentalist…

We’re so paranoid of being branded some kind of an ‘ist’ we’ve forgotten the ‘s’ altogether. And that’s what we’ve become: the most free society in the world, afraid to speak out because it might cost us something.

So, like a smoker waiting for a pack of butts to hit $20 before she quits, we wait to be ‘old enough to be bold enough‘. We wait for that time when we’re beholden to no-one.

Trouble is, when that day dawns most of us are dead, or too old to give a damn. Rather we spend what energy we have at the time squeezing the remote or chewing our apple sauce.

Journalism has taught me that, for the most part, the people who speak out in their youth (Youth: Any age between 30-64, a definition which changes as the amount of ear hair in the definer increases) are the ones who will continue to speak their minds when their Canada Pension Cheques bounce.

So I’d like to thank the following people for speaking out over all these years – even when it wasn’t politically correct to do so.

Arthur Topham, Bert de Vink, Judy Campbell, Jude Davis and Doug Gook: Think what you like of their politics, priorities, or values – these people often served as the conscience of the area during the 1970s, 80s and 90s. Right or wrong, they spoke their minds. They stood up for their beliefs.

In a generation that vowsd to be different from our parents, how many of us can truly say that today? They will always have my admiration because right or wrong they are people of conviction.

To Joan Huxley, Harvey Bryant, Susan Maile, John Maile, Andy Sear, Mary Glassford, Gloria Lazzarin, Bob Taft, the late Albert Johnston, the late Alex Fraser, former mayor Mikey Pearce, Ted Armstrong, former Rec Director Dale MacDonald … to all of these people we owe a debt of gratitude. Because they are been the builders in these past 20 years.

The $15 million hospital expansion; River-front Trail; building of the Rec Centre; expansion of the Civic Arena; Alex Fraser Park; the Senior’s Centre; Golden Centre – they were the eyes of the vision that has become our reality. They spoke out.

Politically, Quesnel has been assigned Lepper Colony status since Alex Fraser’s death. We are lacking not only in vision, but in integrity, credibility and – most of all – brain-pans.

Clenched in a ‘what’s in it for me’ and ‘this will look good on my portfolio’ mentality, our current  collection of potential senators have a hard time managing their own cheque books. But we’ll elect them to office and as spenders of the public purse.

MLA John Wilson is a possible exception – but John’s inability to speak in public is why guys like Dale Carnegie are billionaires.

These are the things one ponders while dodging big horned sheep and docile elk as Stan warbles away in the background, something about the Northwest Passage.

As long as the Lance Leas, and Brian Rankins, and Herb Bardens and Bob Normans and Betsy Van Haldrens and Collin Almonds of the community stay home at nomination & election time, we’ll continue to send the political equivalent of War Amps to the front lines in our battle for our future.

The sad part is we’re really no different than the rest of Canada.

We have a great community, an unbelievably beautiful province and an extremely special country. While we collectively seem to be doing our best to screw it all up, having apparently signed a long term mortgage, with the Bank of Stupid, we survive despite ourselves.

Maybe when we’re all old enough and bold enough, we’ll look back and chuckle and shake our heads at our paranoia. Cuz everything works out in the end. Cuz nothing really matters much anyhow. Maybe.

Then again, maybe we’ll all be sitting in our wheel chairs, our grey pony tails plagued by split ends, our bony shoulders littered with dandruff … and finally we’ll all join Stan in toothless harmony:

“Goddam them all…!”

—-

Swan Song by Arthur Topham

SwanSong

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM

ATEditorPic185

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

by
Arthur Topham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NetfirmsWilsonLet

Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner

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

Len Rudner copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

BCHCTFILE 2007-23814

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

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

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

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

Defence Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon

GILAD&BARCLAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crown’s Cross Examination of Gilad Atzmon

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

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

Gilad Atzmon: No.

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

Defence’s Summation to the Jury

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final observations on Crown’s handling of evidence

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.13.33 PM

Still to come

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

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

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

FREE IRA ZBARSKY plus DETENTION IN TEXAS: IRA ZBARSKY’S STORY from the Feb. 2000 edition of The Radical

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 7.22.57 PM copy

 FREE IRA ZBARSKI 

The Radical  Vol. 2, No. 8  February, 2000

Innocent Canadian Citizen Held in Texas Prison

RPEdNew300 copy

[Editor’s Preface to the two following articles. One might call these articles on Ira Zbarsky oldies but goodies but my purpose in re-publishing them 15 years later is not merely out of nostalgia.

Ever since 2007 when the foreign Zionist Jewish lobby group B’nai Brith ‘Canada’ registered their first “Hate Crime” complaint against myself and my website RadicalPress.com they have been accusing me of using my website to promote “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or citizens of Israel.” Their rallying cry of “Hate! Hate! Hate!” has been ringing in my ears and the ears of millions of free thinking people around the world for decades now along with their other emotive, sorcery-style buzz words “anti-Semite” and “holocaust denier”, all of which are designed to create, via endless repetition, unconscious feelings of guilt and fear in their Gentile victims.

This will be their theme song as my long awaited Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial, scheduled to commence within the next week on October 26th finally commences in Quesnel, British Columbia. One can bet on it that if the Zionist dominated Jewish media monopoly now controlling all the major sources of news and information and opinion here in Canada decide to focus on this supreme court trial that we will be hearing the voices of “hate of the Jews” rising up once again across the land.

Well, I’m sorry to have to disappoint these false prophets and purveyors of lies but Arthur Topham and his website RadicalPress.com (the online version of the sole proprietorship known as The Radical Press) are not “haters” of Jews but rather, lovers of Truth and firm believers in their fundamental, constitutionally guaranteed right to be able to express their opinions and ideas and beliefs without fear of being hauled into a courtroom because some foreign lobby organization representing a racist, supremacist apartheid foreign nation thousands of miles from Canada’s shore feels it’s their right and duty to libel, vilify, harass and criminally charge anyone who might have the honesty and courage to speak out online against that foreign nation.

The story of Ira Zbarsky is the story of a Jewish Canadian businessman who, back in 1999, ended up in a Texas jail because of a minor pot offence for which he had paid a $25.00 fine twenty years earlier in 1978. 

When I was alerted to Mr. Zbarsky’s plight by those in Vancouver, B.C. who were desperately trying to bring his story to the attention of the public I didn’t read the reports and say to myself, “Why should I come to the assistance of this person, he’s just another Jew and I couldn’t care less what happens to him because I “hate” Jews.” Why would I refuse to come to his aid by using my publication to advance his unjust plight? So he was Jewish. So what. He could have been Irish. Or German. Or African. Or whatever nationality or race. It wouldn’t have mattered a damn to me. My loving wife of 37 years also came from a Jewish family and I sure as hell wouldn’t stand by and allow her to be thrown in jail for months merely because her parents came from that same ethnic group.

And so, rightly, I did a front page story on Ira Zbarsky’s unjust treatment by the US authorities and the result was that his situation turned around and more and more media began to focus on him and before long he was released from jail and safely back in Canada.

There are dozens, if not more, other stories where I have used my publishing business to come to the aid of the oppressed and downtrodden and misrepresented and those without a voice to tell their story. Never once did I refuse to help those in need because of their racial or ethnic origins and that has been my practise since June of 1998 when I first entered the publishing business as an alternative news and opinion media outlet.

The real haters are those who will do anything in their power to silence the truth wherever it arises.]

VANCOUVER, B.C.:- Ira Zbarski, a Canadian citizen held in a Texas immigration prison since December 4, 1999, was was again denied a decision of release or deportation. He was called today before Judge Tovar at 10:30 AM local time. He was asked if he had evidence for his own case. He was told by the judge that he needed two additional copies of his evidence for the merits hearing scheduled for 1:00 PM this afternoon, with several hours specially set aside to hear his evidence. The judge would be in a position to offer Mr. Zbarsky’s release or deportation once Mr. Zbarsky had an opportunity to enter his evidence into the court’s record at the merits hearing.

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 6.58.56 PM

Mr. Zbarsky said that he had been held in solitary confinement for the last four days.He explained to the judge that he was not able to do photocopying during that time. He was permitted to leave his cell for only 1 hour three times per week for exercise.

Mr. Zbarsky offered to do the photocopying of the documents prior to the merits hearing at 1:00 PM. Judge Tovar refused. The prosecuting attorney also offered to do the photocopying prior to 1:00 PM but the judge refused this as well. Mr. Zbarsky then asked Judge Tovar for a written order that Mr. Zbarsky might present to guards in order to get the right to do photocopying, but the judge refused to that as well. Judge Tovar then rescheduled Mr. Zbarsky’s merits hearing for the third time, to Monday, February 7, at an unspecified time.

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 6.58.02 PM

Mr. Zbarsky has been at the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) Port Isabel Service Processing Centre, Los Fresnos, Texas (aside from short periods in other jails) since December 4, 1999. Ira Zbarski has been detained for nine weeks as part of a US Immigration removal process based on a minor Canadian conviction that occurred 22 years ago.

Mr. Zbarski has stood up for his rights and the rights of others while detained. It appears that, in consequence, Mr. Zbarski is being subjected to unfair detainment based on technicalities.

Mr. Zbarski has protested the conditions and policies of the INS since he was arrested. He has called for remedies to beatings, unwarranted searches, unwarranted surveillance of females by male guards, and the lengthy removal process. He has written letters, participated in a petition, and gone on two hunger strikes.

The first hunger strike, in December, called for a tribunal process to hear and act on detainee complaints. The second hunger strike, in which other detainees participated, and which Mr. Zbarsky terminated yesterday, February 1 due to poor health, called for Mr. Trominski (202-425-7333) the INS District Officer in Harlingen, Texas, to speed up the removal process by which detainees are released, deported or freed on bail.

Mr. Zbarski’s reports on INS detention center abuses are being collected by Nathan Selzer of Proyecto Liberated, of Harlingen, Texas, and the American Friends of Service Committee, of Philadelphia.

Friends and associates of Mr. Zbarski who are connected with SAPED (Shuswap Association for the Promotion of Eco-Desarrollo [Development]) are calling for the unconditional release and return to Canada of Mr. Zbarski, the truck he was driving, and its contents.

As well SAPED is asking the Canadian government to continue to assist Ira Zbarsky, and, if necessary, assist him in an appeal once he is back in Canada.

SAPED is also asking the Canadian government to consider carefully its policies of sharing information with US police and immigration authorities, given that Canadian citizens can be detained in US prisons that violate United Nations principles on detainees and basic Canadian rights.

SAPED is also cautioning the Canadian government to ensure that it maintains policies independent of the US on criminal law, surveillance of citizens, and the sharing of legal and criminal information with the US.

They are calling on the US government to comply with United Nations standards and covenants for the treatment of all detainees, including migrants and asylum seekers.

—-

(See Backgrounder Story on Page 11. Ed.)

 

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 6.56.24 PM copy

DETENTION IN TEXAS: IRA ZBARSKY STORY

By Suzanne Rose

The Radical 

Vol. 2 No. 8 February, 2000 Page 11

EARLY YEARS

Ira Zbarsky is a Canadian citizen, who resides in Vancouver. He was raised in Montreal. As a young man he worked on a kibbutz in Israel. In the 1970’s and 1980’s, he organized the cooperative production and distribution of organic food in the interior of British Columbia. He has a special love for orchards and farming. Mr. Zbarsky has devoted many years to green issues: the permaculture, organic food, cooperative and bioregional movements, and Green politics. He has served as external secretary for the Green Party of British Columbia and for the Green Party of Canada. He has also supported aboriginal issues.

SAPED

Mr. Zbarski has spent the last ten years working with Mayans in Guatemala and Southern Mexico. He is the project director for SAPED (Shuswap Association for the Promotion of Eco-Desarrollo [Development]), a registered Canadian charity formed in 1990 and based in Vancouver, B.C. SAPED’s goals are to promote community-based, ecologically-responsible and culturally-respectful development, using principles of mutual aid, appropriate technology, energy conservation and permaculture.

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 6.54.45 PM

ZBARSKY’S WORK WITH MAYANS

For much of the year, Mr. Zbarsky is in the Western Highlands in Guatemala and Mexico, working with several Mayan coalitions, each serving many community groups of Mayans. These people are working on projects such as natural plant-dyeing, medicinal herb gardens, livestock shelters, hand-crank roof tiles, tree nurseries, greenhouses, pedal-powered grain grinders, energy-conserving stoves, sewing and typing academies. He is also assisting with setting up an indigenous rights and training centre and a natural agriculture centre in the region.

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 6.55.40 PM

ZBARSKY’S ARREST IN TEXAS

Ira Zbarsky was returning from work in Guatemala and Southern Mexico when he was arrested and detained by US Immigration on December 4, 1999, at Roma, Texas. At that time, the truck he was driving was seized. It was carrying textiles from Guatemala and organic coffee from Souther Mexico, to be sold in Canada as part of a fair trade exchange. Although Mr. Zbarsky has traveled through the US many times, he was this time detained based on a conviction which appears in a computer database which the US immigration officers were using. Mr. Zbarsky was convicted in 1978 for possession of marijuana (for medicinal purposes). His fine in 1978 was $25.00, which is so low that it suggests there were mitigating circumstances.

ZBARSKY’S DETAINMENT IN TEXAS

Since December 4, 1999, Ira Zbarski has been detained by the US Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS). He is presently being held in Port Isabel Service Processing Centre, an immigration detention camp in Los Fresnos, Texas. He has legal advice but he is defending himself. He was willing to accept release or deportation at his first hearing, December 16, 1999. He wished to explain the nature of his 1978 conviction, because the 1978 judge was sympathetic to his use of marijuana for medicinal purposes. He requested bail December 16 and at a bail hearing January 7, 2000, this request was denied. He participated in a discovery trial January 12 and was to participate in the merits (final) hearing January 21. The merits hearing was canceled due to the judge’s illness. On January 24, Mr. Zbarsky was assigned a new merits hearing on February 2, 2000.

Screen Shot 2015-10-21 at 6.55.58 PM

ZBARSKY’S ACTIONS WHILE DETAINED

December 8-15  After public complaint on his own behalf, Ira Zbarsky was transferred from jail to jail in shackles on arms and legs, and kept for 5 days in solitary confinement.

December 22  Mr. Zbarsky, plus 18 other detainees, submitted a letter requesting hot water, warm clothing, conjugal visits, among other concerns. He also requested help from outside the prison for a Muslim detainee from Burkina Faso, Fousseni Banao, and for visits by prison monitors. Mr. Zbarsky, after requesting access to his mail that day, was pushed by two guards against a metal pipe and sworn at. Mr. Zbarsky went on a hunger strike, requesting a written apology for gross disrespect and a general tribunal process for detainee complaints.

December 30  Mr. Zbarsky ended his hunger strike. Head supervisor Jesus Rosales agreed to the setting up of a tribunal process to hear detainee complaints.

January 7-10  Mr. Zbarsky learned of the beatings that had just occurred to Alex Seymour Kerr, a Jamaican detainee in the same facility.

January 10  Mr. Zbarsky submitted letters to head supervisors Jesus Rosales and Yza Guirre, calling for an inquiry into the beatings of Mr. Kerr, the recognition of the right of bail for Texas residents, and a complaint process for problems with health services. He threatened to go on a another hunger strike. Mr. Rosales agreed to the inquiry and to direct access to the medical chief Dr. Freeth for complaints.

January 14  Mr. Zbarsky submitted a letter to an INS guard for delivery to Mr. Rosales and Yza Guirre, requesting the ending of body searches when detainees leave the dining area. He was pushed around and yelled and sworn at by three INS guards. He also sent a letter to the head of the INS. Ms. Doris Meissner, asking for improved training of guards in order that they might treat detainees with respect.

January 24  Mr. Zbarsky has submitted with other detainees a letter requesting that male guards refrain from watching surveillance videos of female detainees. Mr. Zbarsky started another hunger strike to demand from authorities that they put in writing their earlier promise to set up a tribunal process for detainees, given that they had not conducted an inquiry process into the beatings of Mr. Kerr, who has since been moved out of the facility.

January 25  About 40-50 detainees held a public meeting to plan a protest to the slow deportation process.

January 26  About 30 detainees start a hunger strike plus start a petition to authorities, calling for either speedup of release, either deportation or access to bail, unless the person is considered a risk to the US government or a flight risk.

January 27  INS authorities promised to investigate thoroughly the cases of the strikers plus certain other cases.

January 28  Ira Zbarsky and one other man remain on the hunger strike, seeking that EM Trominski, a higher-level INS authority, investigate the systematically-long delays to hearings.

Mr. Zbarsky is documenting the incidents of abuse and disrespect that he is aware of. He is passing them on to Nathan Selzer, a detainee abuse researcher with the Prison Monitoring Program of the American Friends Service Committee, of Philadelphia, and Proyecto Liberated, of Harlingen, Texas. The Muslim Immigration and Refugee Service of New York is also supporting Mr. Zbarsky’s efforts on behalf of detainees.

If you wish more information, there is available from Suzanne Rose a summary of the relevant United Nations covenants and rules, and a list of websites pertaining to US INS prison abuses and violations of human rights.

SEND A LETTER TO YOUR REPRESENTATIVE

Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Lloyd Axworthy
Fax: 613-996-5358
Justice and Attorney General of Canada,
Hon. Anne McLellan
Fax: 613-943-0044
International Cooperation
Hon. Maria Minna
Fax: 613-996-7942
Citizenship and Immigration,
Hon. Elinor Caplan
Fax: 613-992-0887
Mail address for all Canadian MP’s:
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
K1A 0A6
Doris Meissner, Office of the Commissioner,
U.S. Department of Justice and Immigration and Naturalization Service
435 1 Street, N.W. Washington, D.C.
20536
Fax: 202-305-4823
Janet Reno, Office of the Attorney General,
950 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W.
Washington, D.C.
20530 – 0001
Madelaine Albright, Secretary of State,
U.S. Department of State,
Washington D.C.,
20520

 

You could write to your Member of Parliament or Congress and your Justice, Foreign Affairs and Immigration authorities. Zbarsky’s Canadian Case Number is 99 435832.

Ask them why a Canadian citizen must be held in an American prison for more than two months awaiting a judgment on whether to be released or deported from the United States due to having a 1978 marijuana possession charge, with a fine of $25.00. As them what would happen if an American showed up at the Canadian border with a similar conviction to Mr. Zbarksy’s. Would that person be arrested and jailed for months?

There is currently a movement in Canada to purge old minor Canadian convictions from the records. Will these convictions remain in US Immigration Lookout System computer database? Call on authorities to release  Zbarsky unconditionally, investigate the US INS treatment of Zbarsky and the people he has reported on, stop violating UN rules by mistreating non-US citizens in immigration facilities, and change the laws concerning the maintaining and sharing of old minor conviction records by Canadian and US authorities.

 

•••0•••

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

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

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

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

 

Notice from RadicalPress.com regarding trial date for R v Roy Arthur Topham and support.

TRIAL OF ATNOTICE

Dear Reader and Supporter of Free Speech in Canada.

There remains but three weeks before the trial begins which will determine the course of future events here in Canada with respect to a citizen’s Constitutional Right to freedom of expression.

I would ask of you that you download this post/notice to your computer and send it out to as many of your friends and associates as you can.

It would be great to see the courtroom filled with Canadians who believe in their right to freedom of speech.

Anyone thinking of attending the trial is welcome to contact me regarding accommodations and directions, etc. Unfortunately I won’t be able to host those planning to attend this event.

I can be reached via email at radical@radicalpress.com or via telephone at 1-250-992-3479.

Thank you for all your help and support!

 

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham

Discourse on Voluntary Servitude by ÉTIENNE DE LA BOÉTIE, 1548

Screen Shot 2015-08-16 at 10.54.54 PM

http://www.radicalpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/Discourse-on-Voluntary-Servitude-by-Etienne-del-la-Boetie-copy.pdf

THE ZUNDEL TRIAL & FREE SPEECH By Douglas Christie, B.A., L.L.B.

 

ZundelTrial&FreeSpeechDC800

THE ZUNDEL TRIAL & FREE SPEECH
By Douglas Christie, B.A., L.L.B.
February 25, 1985

dchristie2

DOUGLAS CHRISTIE, B.A., L.L.B.
__________________________________________________________

[EDITOR’S NOTE: In the Introduction to this small booklet published by C-FAR back in 1985, then President of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Daryl Reside, wrote:

“In this booklet, C-FAR’s Canadian Issues Series is publishing excerpts from defence lawyer Doug Christie’s spirited summation to the jury at the Ernst Zundel trial. This summation was delivered February 25, 1985.

Zundel had been charged under Section 177 of the Criminal Code for having knowingly published false news that was likely to be injurious to the public good. In his ringing defence, Christie seeks to establish: 1) that credible reasons existed for much of what Zundel published; that is, he had justification and arguments for his point of view; 2) that he sincerely believed what he wrote and, therefore, did not knowingly publish falsehoods; and 3) that  a diversity of opinions, however controversial they may be, is vital to a democracy and in no way harms the public good. Threading its way throughout the entire summation is Christie’s passionate view that, right or wrong, a man must be permitted to search for the truth and express his point of view.

It is this fierce commitment to principle and to liberty that makes this summation an important historical document…. It should also be noted that Zundel nowhere advocated illegal or violent actions in the two pamphlets in which he was accused of violating Section 177.”

It is now going on 25 years, a quarter of a century, since Doug Christie gave this summation to the jury in February of 1985. In the interim period the forces of censorship and repression have been successful in punishing Ernst Zundel to the max and he now sits in a dungeon in Zionist-occupied Germany and has been jailed for over six years already for having committed the gravest crime of the 20th Century: Speaking the truth.

Obviously the battle to end censorship is far from over. In my own case with these same Zionist Jew forces working through B’nai Brith Canada’s League for “Human Rights”, we see their relentless and calculated designs continuing to unfold before the public’s now awakening eyes. The war for freedom of speech continues.]

DOUG CHRISTIE’S SUMMATION TO THE JURY IN 1985

ErnstZVictim

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, it’s my role as counsel, to address you now and speak to you about the position of the defence. My first observation is that probably never before in the history of your country, have twelve people had to grapple with a more all-encompassing and serious issue than you will have to deal with. When you have finished your deliberations, in all probability your country will be made different, for as long as you and I will live, by the decision that you will make here about the most serious issues that confront any citizen in a free society.

You have spent seven weeks examining the evidence in one of the most wide-scoped cases in the history of Canadian jurisprudence. I said at the beginning, and I repeat to you now, that this is a case that should never have been before a court of law in a free society because it is an issue upon which courts will have no end of difficulty in addressing and dealing with. If you have a clear understanding of the role of freedom in a free society, this may never have to happen again, because a clear indication that we permit and tolerate debate and points of view we may not agree with from a jury of twelve ordinary citizens will be the strongest indication to every politician in this country that we are not subject to the pressures of groups dictating ideas and determining how other people will think, act, and speak.

I suggest to you now that what you have heard in these seven weeks is a lot more information on the subject of the book, Did Six Million Really Die?, than you or I might ever have thought at first was likely to occur. I suggest that we have all learned something in this process. Tolerance, is indeed, one of the things that you have learned by hearing another side to a point that we always thought was so clear and so simple. But to everything we know in life, there are two sides, and many more quite often, and nobody, no matter how well informed or how expert, has all the truth, or ever will.

 

tazebook_dees-1 copy

It shouldn’t be for the law to determine the extent of debate in a free society. It shouldn’t be forced upon judges and courts to decide what is the truth about some historical belief. It’s nobody’s fault in this room that we are here. It is the duty of every one of us to do our duty as we are, lawyers, judges, jurors, but really it was a wrong political decision to bring before you and me the duty to examine history 40 years old to determine where the truth lies. It is a question that never should have been here. But having been placed in this position, we must deal with it, and we must deal with it to preserve important values in our society.

The first and most important value is the freedom to debate, the freedom to think, the freedom to speak and the freedom to disagree. This prosecution, has already had a very serious effect on those freedoms. If it were to result in a conviction, I suggest to you that a process of witch-hunting would begin in our society where everyone who had a grievance against anyone else would say “Uh-huh, you are false, and I’ll take you or pressure somebody else to take you to court and force you to defend yourself.” Even though our society says, as it always has, in this and every other charge, the burden’s on the Crown, the burden to prove every ingredient is on the Crown, the burden to prove that the thing is false is on the Crown, where does the accused stand? He’s here. He’s been here like you, at his own expense for seven weeks and whatever may become of this case, he’s already paid a very high price for the belief that he had the right to speak what he believed to be the truth.

Who could deny that he believed it to be the truth? In fact, who can prove it wasn’t the truth? If this society cherishes freedom, as men and women in the past have, then you and I must very clearly state that truth can stand on its own. In a free society we have no better protection, for my opinion and yours, than that you should be free to express yourself and I should be free to express myself, and no court need decide who’s right and who’s wrong.

Is that going to be a danger to you and me? Error, if there is such, in my opinion or yours is best determined when you and I talk freely to one another, and you and I can then debate and hear from each other many sources of information which couldn’t be produced in a court of law. How many of our opinions could stand up to seven weeks of scrutiny? How much of anything you have ever written or I’ve ever written could be analyzed line by line for seven weeks, phrase by phrase, with experts from all over the world, and found to be true? There will be errors in anything you or I believe, and thank God for it. We are, none of us, perfect. But in the thesis Did Six Million Really Die? there is a substantial point of view, a reasonable argument found upon fact, that many will reject, but many are free to reject. Who denies Dr. Hilberg the right to publish his views? Who denies that he should be free to say there was a Hitler order to exterminate Jews? Not my client; not me; nobody in society denies him that right. Who denies anyone the right to publish their views? Well, it’s the position of my client that he’s obliged to justify his publication. And I suggest he has.

I’d like to refer to something Dr. Hilberg said in his book, and I asked him about it. He said, “Basically, we are dealing with two of Hitler’s decisions. One order was given in the spring of 1941, during the planning of the invasion of the U.S.S.R.; it provided that small units of the S.S. and police be dispatched to Soviet territory, where they were to move from town to town to kill all Jewish inhabitants on the spot. This method may be called the “mobile killing operations.” Shortly after the mobile operations had begun in the occupied Soviet territories, Hitler handed down his second order. That decision doomed the rest of European Jewry. Unlike the Russian Jews, who were overtaken by mobile units, the Jewish population of Central, Western, and South Eastern Europe was transported to killing centres.”

Through all the trial and all the arguments and all the discussion, I have yet to see one single piece of evidence of either of those two Hitler orders. If they exist, why can’t we see them? No footnote, no identification of source. We have a statement of very significant fact, without a single supporting document here in that book, or there on that stand from a learned and distinguished author.

Am I saying he has no right to his views? Of course not. Am I saying that I should be able to debate his views and disagree with his views? I certainly suggest that ought to be your right, my right, and the right of every thinking person. You see, there is an example. If I were to put Dr. Hilberg or any other person in the position of the accused and say, “All right, justify that,” how would he? We all hold opinions that at times we would have a difficult job justifying. But, so what? Is it not possible for people to disagree and be free to disagree when they themselves are not absolutely certain they’re right? Have we come to the stage in society where tolerance is so limited that we must prosecute those whose views we find disagreeable?

In this trial, I often wondered and I suggest, so should you, why all this. Why? For a little booklet that published a point of view which some people reject and other people believe? Why? Well, only in the last few hours of this trial did I really begin to see the reason why. It had nothing to do with Did Six Million Really Die?; very little to do with The West, War and Islam, a lot to do with Mr. Zundel and his views. Was he a racist? Was he a lover of Hitler? Was he perhaps a neo-Nazi, as so often we’ve been told? What difference would that really make anyway? If it was alleged that he had some views of a Communist nature, so what? We tolerate those views. In a newsletter complaining about what had happened to 2,000 friends and supporters and subscribers of his newsletter, many of them old, when their homes were entered in West Germany, with warrants in the middle of the night, he was angry. So, out of 25 years of his writing letters, they found a sentence which implied some deep anger and the resort to violence. Never once has there been a suggestion of any violence from Mr. Zundel at all. No suggestion he ever owned or had or would have had a gun. None of what is suggested. But you know who he actually quoted and paraphrased? You know it was the man who said, “All legal power comes out of the barrel of a gun.” That was – if you know history – Mao Tse-tung, a man who was eulogized in the Parliament of Canada upon his death. And yet, Mr. Zundel used it, and is cross-examined as to its deep-seated significance, as if he had some sinister intent.

I began to see, as I suggest you should, that the real reason for this prosecution was his views. If any of us is subjected to that kind of scrutiny, it will mean that freedom really ceases to have any meaning. You will be free to agree but not free to disagree. That’s the kind of society which will result if a conviction can be founded upon a prosecution of this kind.

I suggest that you don’t have to believe what it says in Did Six Million Really Die?, but you probably have good reason to. There’s a lot of truth in that pamphlet which deserves to be considered by rational men and women all over the world, not because they’re academics, but because they’re thinking human beings and they want to hear different points of view. What are we, lobotomized idiots, that we only have to accept the point of view of the “majority”? Or are we free, should we be free, to think of views that are not majority views?

How do you think change occurs in society? Do you think the whole of society decides, “Oh, we were wrong about the world being flat,” and all of a sudden, bang, the whole world decides, “Oh, it’s round now.”? Ask Galileo how difficult that was. In his time, he was a heretic, his views were totally contrary to 99% of the population. But, who was right?

Now, change has to occur in everybody’s thinking from time to time. Everybody grows. I’ve learned something here; you’ve learned something here; we’re all growing. And it’s in the process of hearing other points of view that we grow. But if we decide that somebody’s point of view ought not to be heard because someone else says it’s false, we’ve terminated all significant discussion, because significant points of view are always regarded as false by somebody, and if they’re controversial, my goodness, they create lots of heat, more heat often than light. So, if we are going to keep our children and grandchildren, and for the future of our country the possibility of progress and the possibility of exchanging ideas in a free society, we’d better respect the rights of others who honestly believe that they are right, even though we many think they’re wrong.

I don’t suggest for one moment that you or I have any right to determine from the evidence before you that Mr. Zundel is wrong. I would say to you that the case is unproven as to falsehood. Unproven. In Scottish law there is guilty, not guilty, or unproven. Well, you don’t have that verdict here, but it’s an interesting point by analogy, because in the case at bar it hasn’t been proven beyond reasonable doubt that there’s anything false about Did Six Million Really Die?, not a word. It’s opinion.

Dr. Hilberg says: “Oh, I think it’s all misquotes and half truth and misconceptions.” That’s his view. I respect his right to his view. But he hasn’t proven any of that. He says, “I’ve read documents for years.” What documents did he produce? I didn’t see any. Who produced documents? Who produced books? Who produced maps? Who produced photographs? The defendant. He comes before you because he believes what he says is the truth and he wants to prove it to you. Why else would he waste a hundred thousand of his dollars and seven weeks of his life? Why do you think that he does all of this? Because he believes in the truth of what he says. He believes in it so passionately because he loves his nation. Is that a sin? He didn’t say he hated anybody. He didn’t say a word against anybody when he was on the stand. He was attacked. He said that he loved his race. He said, “I love my children, but that doesn’t mean I hate other people’s children.” Is there something wrong with that? If our society is to be scrupulous about what other people’s opinions are, who among us will be safe? If I or you were to have to reveal all our opinions on the stand, how many of them could withstand public scrutiny? If the right decision is made here, seven weeks will have been well spent in that never again will someone have to defend his position in a court of law on a statement of opinion.

You don’t have to share all of Mr. Zundel’s opinions. He has a right to his; you have a right to yours. He’s not questioning your right to yours. But there is a power that is questioning his right to his, and you are the only hope for the freedom of citizens to hold views that disagree with others. And if you can’t hold views that disagree in a free society, what is there? There are two things. If you can’t have freedom to disagree, then there’s either violence, or there is silence, neither of which is traditional in our country, neither of which is necessary in the future. Our country has been a peaceful country because we have tolerated points of view with which you and I might not agree, not because we have some hygienic method of extracting and eliminating bad views. That’s never been done before, and it should not be done now, and it should never be done again.

But there is a force in our society that wants that to happen. If there’s a means to stop it from carrying on and creating a situation where everybody has to stand before courts and justify themselves to their neighbours, we must find it.

You twelve people have more power in your hands for good or evil than any other twelve people I have ever met, and thank God for the right that you should be free today to defend freedom tomorrow, to make freedom a real thing. You or I have never really known that kind of power before, because we’ve never been put in this position before. A clear answer from you, without doubt, without fear, without malice, will put an end to a process which, if it continues, will lead us to the destruction of all freedom in society.

In his brochure Did Six Million Really Die?, Ernst Zundel presents a thesis, a thesis that men have paid a very high price for believing. No witness for the Crown needs fear for his job, for his security, for his family, but is that true for the defence? Then, why are the defence witnesses here? They are here because they love the truth and believe in what they say, and already I can tell you that the prices are being paid. So much for freedom in society, that men and women have to fight to get into courtrooms to give their evidence, to testify under fear. Well, with the right decision from you, that fear will be diminished. What little we know as ordinary citizens about communist societies indicates that where there is an official truth, where there is a state religion or belief, people become more and more afraid to speak. That should not happen here. There is what Orwell referred to as an official truth in some societies. Is that what you wish for your society? You will have more power to answer that question today than any other twelve people in our society so far. With a clear answer to that question, you will do some service to your descendants in the preservation of their rights.

I don’t know how many of you have controversial views. Maybe none. But will your children have none? Would you like to have the right to their opinions? That’s a question you too will answer.

The booklet Did Six Million Really Die? is more important for German people than it is maybe for others, because there is a real guilt daily inculcated against German people in the media every time they look at the war. You know most of us are from a background on the Allied side, I think, and so when we have Veteran’s Days, we love our country, we love our people who sacrificed for it. But what of the Germans? Are they always to bear the label of the villains? You see, they had an interest in looking into this question. There are so many people in our society who come from that background who desire to know the truth and don’t believe everything they have been told. They inquire. They have a motive. They indeed have a reason, more than you and I perhaps, to inquire, and their views may be in diametric opposition to yours. But if they have some truth let them tell it. Let them reason. Let the public decide whether they are right or wrong. Let not the courts make a decision. Let not people be forced to justify themselves in this way, but let the public decide. That’s all Mr. Zundel has asked for and that’s all anyone has a right to I suggest and it isn’t too much of a right for anyone to desire.

The German people have been portrayed for forty years in the role of the butchers of six million. Oh, I’m aware that in this case there were repeated efforts to distinguish between Germans and Nazis, but is that really the way they’re portrayed? Is that distinction always kept? Is it justified to believe what we have been told so often? You have heard some reasons which prove that the story of the six million is not correct. Those reasons are given to you by sincere, honest individuals who have done diligent research.

You have heard the evidence of many witnesses and I’d like to briefly capsulize some of the significant things about their evidence. You remember Arnold Freedman. He was transported in cattle cars. He constantly smelled the smoke in Birkenau and saw it belching from chimneys. I want you to consider a very significant question which has troubled me. To create belching chimneys, day in and day out, twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week for weeks on end, one needs coal or coke, large quantities of coal or coke. I’ve heard all the evidence, as you have, of the process of unloading the people into the concentration camps. Why would all those people be unloaded by the helpless prisoners like Dr. Vrba, and the coal be unloaded by the S.S.? Keep in mind, in the days of 1940 to 44, we didn’t have backhoes, right? We didn’t have caterpillars unloading these trucks, coal cars. Everything was apparently done by hand. Well, you know, it makes me very, very interested, to put it mildly, that all this smoke and burning chimneys and flames shooting forth should occur with nobody unloading coke trains. Did you hear anybody talk of unloading coke trains? I didn’t?

To question should never be anti-anything. Why should it be? To think is not against anybody. To reason, to question, is the free right of a thinking human being. So I wonder, where does all this right to think go, if we can’t ask the question: where were the coke trains? Where was the coal?

The evidence of Mr. Zundel was that 80 pounds of coal is necessary to cremate a human body. The amount of coal to turn a human body into ashes is a morbid subject, of course, but it doesn’t change. The laws of physics don’t change for the Germans, for the Nazis, for the Jews, or anybody; they’re all the same, the laws of physics. Now, 80 pounds of coal or coke for 1,765,000 people is nearly a hundred and sixty million pounds of coke. Where does all this come from? Nobody bothers to answer that, but they say that Did Six Million Really Die? is false.

How is that question false? How is questioning anything false? Why should the editorial opinions of our writers be any different than Mr. Zundel’s? How many editorials contain false news every day? How many newspaper stories, how many books, how many movies? What are we doing here? We’re crucifying one man’s opinion because they say he is not a nice man, when every day in all of our society there’s a thousand misquotes, misstatements. Well, what’s the difference? I’ll tell you what the difference is. This man has no political power and big newspapers and big television stations and big radio stations and big politicians do. That’s the difference.

When John Turner quotes Brian Mulroney, do you think he does it to approve of him? Do you think they quote each other out of context because they wish to point out the inconsistencies of their opponent? The Crown, in his analysis, will no doubt say there are statements in Did Six Million Really Die? that are out of context, that the Red Cross did not say there was no extermination when they wrote their report, but it is true they said there was no extermination during the war, when they were in the camps. They don’t even produce for you a shred of evidence of a gas chamber, but they say 1,765,000 people died by going between two buildings. Remember Dr. Vrba’s evidence? Well, how do you accomplish that without a gas chamber? What, do they disappear and they’re all shot? No, you have to justify the claim that millions died; you have to have gas chambers and there’s no evidence to support them.

Now the defence has tried to show that the alleged gas chambers at Auschwitz seen today, are impossibilities, scientific impossibilities. We have called evidence, witness after witness, to show they have tried to find the bottom of this story, and they have found nothing that makes sense to their experience. That’s pretty significant stuff. That’s pretty important analysis. Look what Dr. Faurisson has paid for his inquiries. He’s been beaten; he’s been beaten while he talked; he’s been subjected to quite a bit of ridicule; but does anyone deny the sincerity or honesty of his inquiry or his intelligence or his detailed analysis of what documents there are? I suggest not.

bloodyfourisson

Prof. Fourisson – beaten
by Zionist thugs in 1989
__________________________

People want the right to ask these questions, and there are some people who don’t want anyone to have the right to broadcast what they find, and I would consider that, I suggest you should, a very suspicious situation. When any group of people wants to silence an individual, you’d better ask why. Maybe it’s a good thing, maybe it’s beneficial to social tolerance that we should ask these questions. Maybe it’s time to do that now. Maybe the way to peace is not through silence and coercion on these matters but through open discussion. How will that change the world? Maybe it will be a better world when we can look at ourselves more honestly in the cold light of reason rather than the heated passions of a war just ended.

That’s what revisionism is all about. After the First World War, there were many revisionists, many people who said: “Well, we really don’t have all the answers on our side.” We used propaganda. We told people that Germans killed Belgian babies and boiled cadavers to make soap. That’s not a Second World War story at all. If we want peace there must be freedom to discuss whether or not the morality was all on one side. That’s really the social effect of the booklet Did Six Million Really Die?. You don’t have to accept it. To see even that it puts some of the things that happened after the Second World War in a different context, would be a redeeming value in itself, but the booklet has a great deal more. It has truth, a lot of truth. It’s for you to decide, for the public, indeed, too, to decide how much truth, measured, as they ought to, with their right to read everybody else’s opinion.

Error needs the support of government; truth stands on its own. In fact, what is occurring here, is the endeavor to silence one opinion, one side of the argument. “But the world is no more justified in silencing the opinion of one man than that one man would be if he had the power to in silencing all the world,” these words of John Stuart Mill are as true today as when he spoke them. Do we have to learn the same lessons all over again, every generation? Do we never entrench and understand from one generation to the next the right to differ? Do we always have to re-fight these battles time and again? I guess we do. I guess it’s always going to be a struggle to have a different point of view, but I’ll tell you, it has always been the history of Man that good men and women have valued freedom, sometimes to the extent that they would risk their lives to save it, and if anything could be done to honour the memory of men and women who died in war for the sake of freedom, it would be to recognize that freedom now, for someone whose opinions they might not have agreed with. If we have a duty to admit a fact about ourselves, it’s that we don’t have all the answers.

Let our society, from the date of your verdict, be known for the safety with which we tolerate divergent views and opinions, when truth is left free to combat error in the open arena of a free society unfettered by the heavy hand of the state. That is a simple statement of principle. I guess it is necessary for you and I once again to make the little sacrifice that you and I have to be here and fight for that principle all over again. Thank God no one was really hurt. Thank God that we can do this in a rational context with respect for each other, with understanding, with charity for our many errors, without having to go to war, to discuss controversies. Maybe there’s progress, but there won’t be if everybody who wishes to bring forward a controversial view will have to do so in a court at their own expense. If you convict, that process will have only just begun, because in society there will always be people who would like to put their enemy right there in the defendant’s chair. That’s where a lot of people would like to see somebody they disagree with, right there. If you convict, I can say to you that’s a very likely situation. There are some rather nasty politicians who would like to put their opponents right there, and if we follow down the road that this prosecution will lead, if there is a conviction, there will be no stopping those types of politicians who wish to put their opponents right there. Then where will we be? Don’t think that they wouldn’t have the power, because they can find it. There are pressure groups today who can find that power.

The book-burnings by the Nazis were wrong, but what’s going on here? A book’s on trial, two books, if you like, pamphlets, tracts, if like. But every day in our society people say a lot more controversial dubious things than are written there. Why are these people so afraid of such a little book? If it was false, would they be afraid?

You’ve heard a witness, Doug Collins. He’s been a journalist for 35 years, and he says there’s the power of Zionists in the media. Do you really need some proof of that? How many publications today criticize Israel very strenuously? Is that the kind of society you want, where one view is the only legitimate view? The smear word of anti-Semitism is so easy to put upon anyone and so difficult to disabuse oneself of once you are labeled. Is criticism of Israel or the point of view of Jews any more evil than the criticism of Americans or the criticism of British or the criticism of French points of view? Why should it be?

It’s my submission to you, that maybe the basis of the Crown’s attack, is that the accused has chosen to criticize a very obviously Jewish belief. Now, I don’t question the right of any group, Jews, Gentiles, Greeks, whomever, to hold whatever views, but why deny Ernst Zundel the same right? And then let the public decide, as every time they will, between whom they believe and whom they don’t believe.

The future of the right to hold beliefs is at stake because the truth is never self-evident. There’s always going to be a debate about the truth especially in history. How many believed, as I did when I grew up, that Christopher Columbus discovered America? Well, they don’t always agree on that today. But what’s wrong with changes of view? They happen all the time. History is controversy. Today is controversy. Yesterday is controversy and tomorrow will be controversy. But so what? Nobody is going to be able to write the history of the world until God does. I’d suggest that what it amounts to, when you come down to the bottom line of this question, is that people will always differ. The danger is that if silence one point of view, you won’t get a balanced argument.

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

Let’s look at the evidence. Dr. Vrba says he’s an eye-witness. Dr. Vrba had a little problem here. You have plans, you know, submitted by the defence, of crematoria. Now, let’s make sure we understand each other. There certainly were crematoria. But that doesn’t mean there were gas chambers to gas people. But the issue is were 1,765,000 or millions gassed, killed by a systematic plan to do so? There’s no evidence of that. Dr. Vrba gave evidence of burning pits. Well, we know these places were no Sunday picnic. We know these places were unjust. Deprivation is unjust. The Jews suffered terribly, unjustifiably. The Jews were in concentration camps for war reasons and war is not justified, really. We had people in concentration camps here too. They lost a lot. Thank God we didn’t lose the war and couldn’t feed the people in our concentration camps. What would have happened in our country if the Eastern half had collapsed, the governments had collapsed, the railroads had collapsed, the food system had collapsed, the Western half had collapsed, and we had people, Japanese, for example, in concentration camps around Ottawa? Whom would we feed first, our troops or our prisoners? Thank God we didn’t have to answer that question. The Germans did. And they were hanged for answering it the wrong way.

Have you any idea what Germany looked like in 1945? It sure didn’t look like Toronto. And when the Russians came from the east, do you think they were a nice group of fellows as we are told the Allies were? I suggest to you that there is a great deal to be grateful for in this country and one of the greatest things to be grateful for is that we have never faced that kind of desolation, when everything you know, everything you trusted, everyone you believed in, your ideals, your neighbours, your friends, your country, your home, was ruined. I hope you’ll never know a situation like that. But if we are to understand what happened in Germany we cannot ignore these facts.

Did Dr. Hilberg know that? Was he there? No. Who was? Thies Christopherson was there. It’s obvious that this is a question that could only be understood really, by someone who was there. Dr. Barton was in a camp shortly after liberation, and, like many of us who saw the film Nazi Concentration Camps, he no doubt was as horrified as you and I had every right to be, by that scene. That picture Nazi Concentration Camps was put to you for a reason. It was to persuade you that there were millions of dead people. Well, you saw thousands of bodies, thousands of people who died from privation in war. Only once was there a deliberate suggestion of gassing. That was at Dachau, and I have gone into this with detail as much as you could hope to get, I suggest, in a court, to show that now people don’t say that there were gassings at Dachau. So what happened in that situation? Why did the Allies say there were gassings and now they don’t? Well, because of the same hysteria with which we have regarded Auschwitz for 40 years; Auschwitz, where no Allied soldier could go; Auschwitz where the Russians were; Auschwitz where 4 million or 3 million or 2.5 million or 1,765,000 or 1.1 million according to Hilberg or 900,000 according to Reitlinger, were killed? Cremated? Were what?

There are many reasons to say that this book has not been proven false, that’s all. It’s never been our burden to have to prove that it was true because our law has always allowed the reasonable doubt to go to the accused. He’s presumed innocent. This is presumed to be true until they prove the contrary, and I don’t think they’ve proved the contrary. How have they? Ninety percent of the quotations in the book are proven and accepted. Ten percent are unproven. That’s all.

The Malmedy trial took place in Germany shortly after the war. It may not technically be a Nuremberg trial. But do you really think that there is no substance to the suggestion that what took place there by the same allies against the same accused, is going to be different than what they did at Nuremberg?

You also have in evidence that, at Nuremberg, they didn’t even allow the press to talk to the lawyers of the accused, let alone the accused. So, how do we know what happened to them? Well, we know because some of them said so, and when they said so, like Streicher, they struck it out of the record. Don’t want the world to hear somebody complain about us, and we sure don’t want the press to hear what the accused says unless we say the accused can say it. Do you call that freedom? I don’t. I call that the attitude of war and victor’s justice. It works, obviously. The world believes in your cause, but is it necessary that for all eternity nobody should ever think to differ? Can we now look back with a little less passion, a little less contempt for our adversaries? Could we now maybe look at whether they might have had a point or do we have to believe forever they should be damned to silence?

We’ve heard from Dr. Barton that, in 1945, there was no cure for typhus. So, here’s some of those horrible Nazis telling these people in the concentration camps, “If you don’t delouse and typhus breaks out, you are going to be cremated.” That’s the way he interpreted that. There’s a lot of truth to it. If you get typhus, you are liable to die, especially there, in close confines. That is not to say I don’t believe the Jewish people didn’t suffer. I certainly do and so does my client, and so does this booklet. That’s not to say we lack compassion for the suffering of these people. It is to say we are prepared to examine whether there was a plan of deliberate extermination. There’s quite a difference.

If people died from typhus, disease, privation of war, you don’t have a situation that much different than you had in the Boer War, except on a larger scale, or in the American Civil War, where concentration camps for prisoners of war were hell on earth. And that becomes a significant question: why, if there was a plan to exterminate the Jews, was there a delousing program at all? Why were they told that they should delouse, and why were steps taken to provide the means that they could be protected from that disease?

You remember Arnold Friedman’s evidence. He could tell the difference between skinny people and fat people from the colour of the flames. Honest to goodness! Arnold Friedman is the kind of person you would like to know. Nothing do I say against Arnold Friedman, except that it’s a little bit far-fetched to say that you could tell from the colour of the flames, the people being cremated.

I could understand, as a young boy, how the stories would go around the camp, and I could well imagine how terrifying it must have been for a young boy in camp like that. I could understand how, being separated from his parents would be frightening. It would be horrible, beyond our imagination. But I suggest that when people say things like this, we have to understand that when people suffer, they want to communicate their suffering. They justifiably tend to exaggerate a little bit because they want us to understand how horrible it was. There are other reasons to look at the question, not to hurt the survivor’s feelings, but to look at it realistically and say, as this book says, it’s not correct to believe that six million people were exterminated in this way. It’s not correct to believe that you can tell the nationality of a cremated person by flames shooting from a chimney. That is not correct.

I am not wishing to accuses anybody of being a little bit loose with the facts. Let’s realistically consider that that doesn’t make sense. Let’s not make it a crime, anyway, to disbelieve it. All right? Let’s suggest that Mr. Zundel has at least very good reasons for his belief, common sense ones that he wants to believe in. He wants to understand that his people are not guilty of this crime. He has a motive to look at this. He is interested for the sake of his people, but realistically, is he far off the mark when he says, “I doubt that.”?

I am not saying that if even one Jewish person died that that wasn’t a crime. Of course it was, but we are dealing with an accusation of genocide, a book that questions it and the right to question it. That’s all. I am not suggesting for one moment that that minimizes the suffering, justifies the concentration camps, or anything else, but it allows us, I suggest, the right to question even Dr. Vrba, for after all, he too, is not God. If he’s going to tell us these things, under oath, I want to know why. Don’t you? If somebody tells you the whole population of Toronto went between two buildings, and disappeared, are you going to say, “Yes, I believe that. I don’t question that. I must accept that because he is a survivor”? I have reverence for their pain and suffering. I am not beyond understanding for that, but if we are dealing with a factual question, why not ask the question? And when you do ask the question, what do you get for answers? Hysteria, emotion, and appeals to emotions, too, justified as they are. But we are dealing with facts, let’s stick to facts.

Arnold Friedman also said that sick, older people came into his barracks after the selection, and, therefore, were not killed. And then we come to the question of selection. He describes the selection process in referring to selecting professions even among the older people. Now, why would they select professions? To kill the people? What do you care, if you are just killing people? You don’t care whether they are doctors, lawyers, tailors, whatever. You don’t select people by profession for the purpose of killing them, unless it’s lawyers, and then there’s lots of reasons for doing that.

I remember Dennis Urstein. He said, – and this is really, I suggest, where you’ve got to look a little bit skeptically – he said he lost 154 members of his family in the “Holocaust”. I said, “Could you name even 20?” I suggest to you that if any of us say we lost 154 members of our family, it tends to be a little dubious. How many members of your family do you know and how many generations do you go back? I asked him to name 20. He didn’t get there and ended up naming someone who died in the U.S.A. six or seven years ago. What it means is that people, because they suffer, tend to want you to understand their suffering and they sometimes exaggerate, that’s all.

Dennis Urstein was another volunteer witness who spoke of the colour of bodies hauled out of the gas chambers. Now, Dennis Urstein says he hauled the bodies out of Leichenkeller I, which is an underground mortuary, in Krema II. Now, you can see on the plan where that is. It may have been Krema III, he said, but I’ll tell you something. The two, Krema II and Krema III, are identical. No one will deny that. The plans are there. The two, Krema II and Krema III, in Birkenau are identical. They are long underground areas known as Leichenkellers. They are underground, because when typhus broke out, bodies, sometimes three or four hundred bodies, would be there, so that they would not infect the rest of the camp. The colour of those bodies, he described as grayish or green, but you heard Dr. Lindsay say that if someone is asphyxiated with Zyklon B, hydrogen cyanide, his body is brick red. Now, if they were gassed with Zyklon B, why would that not be so?

There is another question that arises out of Urstein’s evidence. The bodies, he said, had no rigor mortis. No rigor mortis. Now, if the bodies were gassed, and then, he seemed to imply, they were washed and thereby were safe. But if hydrogen cyanide is, as I suggested, water soluble, then touching water associated with the bodies means hydrogen-cyanic poisoning. Yet, he survived hauling those many bodies. He alleged the gas chamber was on ground level. Now, if you look at the plans, he is referring to other than the crematoria and he is referring to the Leichenkeller. He says that it’s a closed-in area. That’s underground. If you are hauling bodies, you are not going to forget hauling them upstairs, but he says it was on ground level. I asked him about that several times and he repeated it several times. This is no minor error, because if he could remember hauling bodies upstairs, it would be hard to forget.

Furthermore, he said there were no pillars. Well, look at the plans. If he is talking about Crematorium II or III, and if he is talking about what he says he was talking about, a flat-roofed building, well the crematoria is not flat-roofed. The Leichenkeller is, and it is underground with a very small protuberance above the ground. This is where Vrba got himself into a real problem. This is a man who says he was an eye-witness. We are supposed to examine the evidence and look at what we know of the facts, and see if it conforms. If it doesn’t, there are reasons to doubt it. He says there were no pillars. If you’ll look in the plans, you’ll see in the Leichenkeller massive pillars. He said the ground adjacent to the crematorium was very beautiful, like a retreat. No collection of piles of coke or other fuel to burn large numbers of bodies which allegedly were burned in the crematoria.

Now, the story of the exterminations is that two to three thousand or more bodies a day were handled in these facilities. There has to be an explanation for the figure of 1,765,000 in two years mentioned by Vrba. If there are 80 pounds of coke required for each body, for two thousand bodies (that’s what half of what Krema II is supposed to be handling a day), that’s 160,000 pounds of coke a day.

Let me deal with Dr. Barton for a moment. He presents the truth to the best of his knowledge. He agrees that what’s in this pamphlet was accurate, and that it quoted his article. He was there. He was an eye-witness. In 1945, he was there and he was as brainwashed as everybody else at the time, saying the Germans deliberately intended the killing of these people shown in the movie. He believed all that. And gradually he began to think about it, looked into the kitchen and saw the preparation records for food, and changed his mind. The war involved a little bit more than most people comprehended would be possible in the way of destruction.

It’s my suggestion to you that he treated the subject more scientifically than most people of his time. Just look what happened to him. He dared to say that the Germans didn’t mean to kill all those people, and you know they accuse him now, on public television, as you’ve heard, of killing 15,000 Jews.

What I suggest to you is that when people disagree with the widely held views of their time, they are attacked viciously. He was attacked in the media, in the press and everywhere. Why? What did he do wrong? Well, he dared to say that the Germans were not all bad and the Allies were not all good, and that war itself was the cause of the problem. That’s what he dared to say. He dared to say that the Allies were not all good; the Germans were not all bad; and that war killed people, but not gassing. So, what’s the difference? I suppose the difference is that Dr. Barton was a witness and the accused is the accused. He said there was no treatment for typhus at that time. He thinks essentially, that views should be challenged. He agreed that the average age persons, under conditions of being subject to massive public propaganda, coupled with fears for their families, destruction of their homes, their property, their value system and the desolation of their country, may be brainwashed and make confessions. They would not be able to respond independently of their captors.

Dr. William Brian Lindsay testified that the interpretations of World War II should be looked at by a scientist. The basic problem is the vast number of charges in the readings about the Holocaust. Also, the various authorities have different answers. He said some of the primary sources of information about the Holocaust had been silent for 30 years, during which time history has been written. He looked at all the so-called murder camps in his research. He went to Belzec, Sobibor, Chelmno, Birkenau, Monowitz. He put himself in the position of knowing what the accusations are, and, as a chemist, decided how reasonable the charges are.

In describing the properties of Zyklon B, he discussed the container it came in, the special opener that had to be used, the fact that the gas is lighter than air when it vaporizes, and that the best air would be at the bottom. Now, the Crown said that, well, it’s not very much lighter than air and it would rise slowly and the crystals might have fallen on the ground, enabling people to believe that the gas would come from the ground first. But that wouldn’t explain the fact that the people would stay where the gas crystals were and stay there so they could climb above each other. They were scattered in other areas, but that wasn’t asked by the Crown and that’s why, when Griffiths asked him his questions, and I asked him mine, in the end he said he did not think his opinion had changed.

He refers to the necessity of a venting system. No such thing exists in any of the plans. Look at the plans. That’s because it is a Leichenkeller, a mortuary, not a gas chamber. They want to call it a gas chamber? Then, produce the evidence. Where is it? He concluded that it’s impossible that gassings happened as alleged. For millions to have been gassed in four crematoria, by the method described, 2000 persons crammed into a space of the size alleged, is impossible.

He refers to these spaces that are put forward as gas chambers as unsealed rooms. The difficulties of unsealed rooms in comparison to the American gas chamber, become obvious. A small container of gas is necessary due to the quality of the gas itself. If it were otherwise, chemistry would change from time to time, and from place to place, but it doesn’t. The fact is, that if there is an allegation of this kind, there has to be a real possibility of it having occurred. Otherwise, we are engaged in fantasy.

He has examined the alleged gas chamber at Auschwitz I. There are no doors between gas chamber and the crematoria. Vents are not air-tight. The doors are very very small. The whole thing wouldn’t work. And he comes to that conclusion himself.

Now, he communicated this information to Zundel. So, why shouldn’t Zundel believe him? Why shouldn’t it be credible? Who has done more research into the subject? Who has actually made a study into these gas chambers? I suppose the Crown will answer that by saying, it doesn’t matter. If there are no gas chambers, we will find some other explanation for the six million. What? What was it – shooting, Einstazgruppen, the Stroop report? It doesn’t come to five million, especially when one considers the evidence in reference to the Einsatzgruppen. But we are supposed to believe anyway.

Dr. Lindsay examined the Gerstein statement. He discussed how carbon-monoxide poisoning from a diesel engine is not possible. Yet, that is said to be the method used in Sobibor, Treblinka and others – gas from diesel tank engines, from Russian tank engines. That is the story. Well, if carbon-monoxide is not produced by diesel engines, how is it supposed to be the cause of death? Then, we have the stories of prisoners eating and drinking after handling the dead bodies. It would be suicidal. Shower baths would be abysmal to gas people. What story are we dealing with? The same story we had in Dachau. The gas chambers are showers and the gas comes from the shower heads. Yet, Dachau now has a sign that nobody was ever gassed there. Lindsay fought for the Allies during the war, and I suggest that he is not really to be regarded as one with an axe to grind.

James Keegstra testified primarily to show what happens if you try to question the Holocaust. He is where he is today, not because of his attitude on anything else, but primarily because he dared to say that there’s another view on the Holocaust. That’s when it got picked up by the media. That’s when the ball got rolling. That is when everybody got up in arms. If somebody has an opinion on politics, that’s no problem. But if somebody says anything about the Holocaust, that implies they don’t believe in it, hook, line and sinker, then they are in big trouble.

It’s bad for people who want to discuss it. It is also bad because it denies the possibility to find the truth for everybody. So, there’s a man who’s been a teacher for 21 years, who has been the victim, I suggest, of a massive campaign of vilification because he dared to question.

What a surprising thing! Anybody could be accused of rape, murder, theft or fraud. I’ll bet they wouldn’t suffer the animosity, the hate that occurs to anybody who questions the Holocaust or anybody who is accused of a war crime in the media. Tell me how many murderers have received the publicity against them that Frank Walus got? He hadn’t been tried yet. He was accused of a hideous crime, but it was ridiculous. The man wasn’t even in Poland during the war. He was seventeen years old and he was accused of being an Obergruppenfuhrer during the war, murdering Jews. And eleven witnesses came forward, and said, yes he was, and seven of those said they weren’t even in Poland during the war. That’s justice? Well, that’s not very much different than the atmosphere that prevailed in 1945 and that’s why it is relevant to the issue today, because in this booklet it says Nuremberg was probably rife with prejudice. If the hatred and the prejudice is so great today that that type of thing can happen right now, in Chicago and in the U.S.A., how much greater do you think the pressure was in 1945 for the same result?

This is 40 years later. And who gives Frank Walus anything for what he suffered? Or this man? Even if he is acquitted, who will take care to see that he gets justice, other than maybe an acquittal?

The evidence of Gary Botting is that of an English professor who desired to put forward another view of the Holocaust story. He was presented, or attempted to present, in consideration of the need to tell both sides, the book Hoax of the Twentieth Century [by Arthur Butz]. The Government of Canada decided nobody should read it in Canada. Why? Is it obscene? Take a look at it and ask yourselves this question. Is this society free for people to think, to analyze this question, if a book like that is supposed to be banned and was prevented from being read by students at college level? These are some poor timid human beings in high school as we were told some are, who could be influenced deleteriously by this book. This is college level. They aren’t allowed to have this. Why is that?

It points in another direction than the thesis of the exterminationists. What kind of a country does not permit people to read a book like that? Have a look at it. There’s really nothing abusive in it about anybody. The truth is very clear, that there is a power in this land that doesn’t want you to think about it, doesn’t want anybody out here to think about it, and has made up the mind of somebody in power that anyone who questions this belief will be prosecuted and publicly humiliated. That’s not the kind of country I want nor should any free man or woman want to live in.

Our forefathers fought for the right to be free to think and free to speak. Now, what are we doing here? The sacrifices of those who died for freedom are not respected by this legal proceeding. Gary Botting and others have paid their price for coming here. You can bet on that. Those same forces that will make this man spend seven weeks in that box will make every witness who comes here pay for having done so. You can be sure of that. Anyone who even dares to support this man’s thesis will be labeled. And that’s supposed to be a free society? It’s all very very sad. It may be, if some of those people who are dead, who thought they defended freedom, were alive, we might not be here today.

Gary Botting said it’s a dangerous precedent to do what’s going on here. You know where his father is? He’s buried at Belsen. That’s what he told you. His father. Well, it’s dangerous alright. He dared to write to the Attorney-General to question why he couldn’t read this book or have the students read it. He has no sympathy for the Nazis. His attitude was that people should be free to hear both sides of an issue. No, not in Canada. We are not smart enough even to be able to read that book. We are not supposed to be able to read this book. We are not intelligent enough to decide whether we want to believe this or not.

Is this the way we are supposed to use our brains? The measure of a person’s honest inquiry is whether a person wants to examine alternative sources. Nobody asks them to be government-funded sources, sponsored by anybody. I remember at one point somebody said the research of Dr. Fourisson was not government-funded. So what? You mean to tell me that no one should be believed unless he is on a government subsidy? If Dr. Fourisson pays through his own efforts for his research, is that an indication he is insincere? Or, if someone publishes a book, like Udo Walendy, being a publisher himself, is this to discredit it too? Have we come to the stage of 1984 where, unless it’s published by Big Brother, it isn’t to be believed?

Orwell1984BKCv

I remember the dramatic gesture performed by the Crown when he asked the accused: “Well, who published this? Institute of Historical Review?” Bang. So what? If they are all published by the Institute of Historical Review, so what? Have we come to the point where there is an official sanction on certain publishers? Is it the old argument of don’t look at the contents of the book, just see who publishes it. Well, if that is the case, I suppose the official view of history is already established.

Doug Collins was a soldier during the war. He was captured at Dunkirk. He was in German prisoner of war camps during the war, escaped, was recaptured, escaped and was interned again as far away as Rumania, and went to Bergen-Belsen even before Dr. Barton. One of the things he said about his own experience is, that when he saw the troops coming back, the S.S. released by the Russians, they reminded him of the prisoners in Bergen-Belsen, for their condition. He says Did Six Million Really Die? should be available. There isn’t an abusive line in it. “I have been more abusive in my columns.” He said politicians aren’t entitled to suppress views. This is endemic to all dictatorships.

Doug Collins

DOUG COLLINS – JOURNALIST, FREE SPEECH ADVOCATE
____________________________________________

He talked about Alice in Wonderland being banned in China. I wonder where we are. I remember when the Crown was cross-examining my client on the stand, I almost had to pinch myself to find out if I was really in the country I grew up in, because he was asking him: “Do you believe this? Are you a fascist? Did you write this?” What are we doing here? Is he on trial for his beliefs? Or is he on trial for this being false? Are we living in a free society, or are we not? He said, in the end, I guess, this country likes censorship. I wonder. If you do anything in this world, you will answer that question here. And, indeed, this might be the most powerful thing you will do in your life, certainly the most significant thing. It is a great privilege to practice law, but I don’t think there can be a greater privilege than to do what you are going to do – decide whether we like censorship or not. That’s a decision you will make. There is not, he said, an expert on the Holocaust. There are many versions. If one died, that’s important. If one died, that’s a crime. If one Jewish person died, it’s a crime. If one person, no matter whether he was Jewish or not died, it’s a crime. But that is not the issue.

AliceinWonderland

If we are dealing with the issue of genocide, mass murder by gassing, not by work or privation, or war, but this specific crime with the specific weapon of gas chambers; if that’s the issue, then we have to give freedom to others to put forward their views. That’s what Doug Collins said. He said Zundel’s pamphlet is a point of view. He doesn’t agree with it, but he upholds its right to be said.

When Hilberg was asked whether Zundel was being honest, he said what I think we all have to answer in the way of a question: “Can you read his mind? Can you look into his brain?” All you can do is look at the printed word. You had a chance to hear him. You’ve had a chance to see him cross-examined about his beliefs and whether he is this, and whether he is that. He’s not perfect. He is not a perfect human being and neither am I, neither are most people I know. So, why should he be on the stand for having views that maybe you don’t agree with? Why?

Considering The West, War and Islam, I’d like to draw your attention to a significant part of that publication. It says, for the cost of one plane, one rocket, one bullet, we can make a film, a book, or send a letter. That’s what Zundel tried to do, change the Arab response to Zionism, from violence to communication. Is that a crime? Is that an intent dangerous to the social or racial harmony of Canada, when the pamphlet was sent in a sealed envelope to people in the Middle East? Whether he said things that were right or wrong, being quite aside for the moment, would that itself be a crime – would it affect the social and racial harmony of Canada deleteriously? It would seem to me that all it would ever accomplish, if it could accomplish what it sought to do, would be to convert Arab responses of violence and terrorism into Arab responses of communication with the hope that somebody might bring influence in a political sense to bear on the whole problem of the Middle East. It would seem a fairly responsible, albeit somewhat grandiose hope, maybe a pious hope, at a time when Mr. Zundel perceived, perhaps rightly, perhaps wrongly, that problems in the Middle East were about to erupt in a world war. Most of us would sit back and watch it on television, do nothing about it and hope that somebody else would act. Well, Mr. Zundel is not that kind of man. He desired a solution. He thought he could offer one. Now, if that’s a crime, we’d better forget about communicating. It would seem to me to communicate the alternative to planes, rockets and bullets of films, books and letters, is a pretty good solution to the problem. It sure brings us a lot closer to a solution than silence or violence. I don’t, with the greatest of respect, understand how the Crown can allege that my client is supposed to have upset racial or social tolerance in Canada by sending such letters, as he did to people in the Middle East, thousands of miles away.

The only two publications in which Mr. Zundel is alleged to have done anything wrong are The West, War and Islam, and this one. Is this wrong? And when he wasn’t sure, he took the chance, and published, and sent it to whom? Hiding something here? No, he sent it to the Attorney-General of Ontario, sent it to all the Attorneys-General, sent it to the Members of Parliament, and school teachers. He even wrote to the Attorney-General and said: “If you don’t think I’m entitled to publish this, please give me some guidelines.”

If this country is going to involve itself in censorship through official channels like the Attorney-General of Ontario, then I suggest it owes it to the citizens to tell them where the legal limits to freedom lie. If it was a suggestion made by the Crown that the accused deliberately provoked a situation damaging to racial and social tolerance, then why did he ask for an answer as to what he’s entitled to publish? Why didn’t someone give him an answer? I’ll tell you why; because it’s politically embarrassing for an Attorney-General to identify the real censorship that he’s seeking to introduce through fear. It’s easier to prosecute somebody and scare the whole world into keeping quiet, because they don’t want to be where he is. It works very well, but it’s rather insidious, and I suggest the best answer to that kind of censorship through fear, is to throw out these types of charges.

If they’re going to invoke censorship, they’d better write it down and say so and take responsibility for it in the House of Commons. Then, the public will know we don’t live in a free country anymore and can vote against them; but if they’re going to play this kind of political game with censorship by scaring people, by not answering their letters, as to what they’re entitled to write, the result is self-censorship. It’s called, “everybody keep their mouth shut,” That’s something Doug Collins mentioned. The result of the controversy surrounding the Holocaust and the danger of questioning it and the fact that you always get a visit from some particular group if you write on it, results in self-censorship. It’s not official censorship and so we can tell the world that we don’t censor people, but you just watch it. You don’t write about this and you don’t write about that and you keep your mouth shut about this because it’s safer.

I suggest that if you have any doubt about that, you take a good look at the Soviet constitution. They have glowing phrases about freedom of speech, but it’s often limited by some qualifying words about security of the State, and, suddenly, people know better than to say certain things. They know better than to criticize the government, they know better than to raise questions about certain issues, and they know better than to talk about the Helsinki Accord, or a few other subjects in the Soviet Union. What’s the difference with this question? It seems that political power has some influence in what you’re entitled to say and what you’re entitled to do, without it ever being responsible for censoring publicly through the legal process.

Section 177 is a very vague way of defining what you publish. If you’re talking about history, what’s false? There are so many views and so many issues. How can you be sure what you’re entitled to say? I suppose the best solution is, as Doug Collins said, on a subject like the Holocaust, to check with the Canadian Jewish Congress or the B’nai Brith as to what you can publish.

 

BBCanlogo

CANADA’S OPPONENTS OF FREE SPEECH
_____________________________________

But I suggest that you could and should send a message to the world and to the rest of society. It’s not a message that’s intolerant; it is a message of decency, tolerance and understanding, a message to all the sincere young Jewish men and women around the world that perhaps they need not feel more persecuted nor the subject of more hate than any other group; that the war was not all that it is said to be vis-a-vis themselves; that they might no longer say, “Never forgive and never forget,” those types of comments; that they may feel no more the victims of suffering than others in war who have also suffered. Maybe that would be a healthy thing to say, beneficial to all. Perhaps. Just perhaps, they too should put behind them the story of the six million slaughter which they are being imbued and embittered with. Perhaps their suffering is no worse nor any greater than many, many others. So, for the sake of love, peace and understanding, we may not view Jews as extraordinary sufferers, and Nazis, which is a thin disguise, in much of our media, for Germans, as some inherently evil beasts. This stereotyping is intolerance. This evil exultation of hate can only be exorcized in the fresh air of free debate. That can only come through freedom to examine truth freely and throw off unnecessary guilt. If the guilt is necessary, it should be accepted. If it is unnecessary, it should be dispensed with, dropping the disproportionate lies of a mass hysteria which certain political forces daily feed upon. Stop seeing Nazis in every criticism of Judaism, or you will suffer from lack of true criticism. No one is absolutely right, not even the Jews; and no one is absolutely wrong, not even the Germans.

It should be at least open for people to discuss the Holocaust, and, if it isn’t, how healthy a society do we have? We should never suspend our critical faculties of reason and skepticism even to the suffering of the Jews on the issue of the Holocaust. Other groups of people are freely criticized every day. You know, when I was thinking about the context of this whole question, it occurred to me, that there are other atrocity stories, two of which are very famous. One is the Ukrainian Holocaust, or some people dare to call it that, where it is alleged in the thirties, Stalin starved to death five or six million Ukrainian people.

Now, if I was to put together all the evidence that contradicted that, that said it was a false belief, and published that, would that be false news? Or the Armenians say that a million or more of their people were slaughtered by the Turks in 1915 and they hold this as a very important part of their belief. If I were to dispute that and publish my views, would that be false news? And yet, whatever the truth or falsity of those beliefs may be, they stand on their own. No government sanctions say you must believe this. They are not taught in schools as history. In fact, I recently heard that you can’t teach the Ukrainian Holocaust in Manitoba in schools. But, this belief in the Holocaust has become so sacred that nobody can even question it. That is not right. In a free society, no group should have its beliefs imposed by law. We don’t have a state religion. We shouldn’t have one. We don’t have an official history. We shouldn’t have one. If this booklet is right, as the accused says it is, it should be freely heard and freely thought about and freely criticized. If it is not, why fear it? If it is false, there is easy access to a million more resources of public persuasion than this booklet ever had. It does not need the government’s help as some official repository of truth, however sanctimonious its bureaucratic officials may be. Let freedom solve the problem of any hatred or intolerance, else by suppression the human spirit, which seeks truth and seeks the ultimate truth of God, will become crippled by its fears to speak its deepest feelings. Only by our meeting fact to face, by our being as we really are with all our personal prejudices and suspicions, can we accept our faults and by airing our views without fear, learn to love each other with a true and deeper love than if we never disagreed in the first place.

Now, if my client has a wrong belief, he honestly does not believe his beliefs are wrong. He believes they are right. Then, let there be a debate. He invites debate. To the extent a free society allows debate, health and understanding will result. Let a few people decide, let the powerful decide, let some bureaucrat decide, or even, with the greatest of respect, force the duty upon a judge to decide what are true and false beliefs, and the State will inevitably have the power to define truth and become an absolute power. Violence is the end of the road for official truth. In a society where people aren’t free to have their own views, and official truth prevails, they will eventually resort to violence. You see that in many dictatorships throughout the world. If you can’t express views freely in words, in writing, in print, how do people express them? You can see in the world today how they generally do, and that’s very unfortunate.

I said in the beginning, this place, this court, is far too expensive, far too important, to be involved in debates about history. This court and the courts throughout Canada have rules of evidence which are there to determine disputes of fact, but here we haven’t dealt with fact, we’ve dealt with opinion about history. Free access to the marketplace of ideas does not and cannot take place here. This court was not designed to be a place where the affairs of the world are debated, but rather where individual conduct is inquired into.

Whoever is responsible for pursuing these kinds of prosecutions, and it is indeed, I suggest, a decision for which somebody is responsible, he should consider what is at stake, and what occurs in the court, and consider that it shouldn’t happen again. If by acquitting the accused, you make it clear that this is an improper type of thing to do to a citizen in a free society, we won’t have these sorts of trials again, I suggest. It would be less likely that those who made this decision in the first place will repeat it. But I can assure you that there are many people who would love to have the power to silence different points of view, and it’s very easy when you can put people through the kind of thing the accused has been through. I suggest the false news section may have been intended to deal with a specific allegation of false news like a publication of a sort which briefly stated a fact to be true that was false, but it surely can’t be usefully employed to deal with a matter of controversy involving history. The court should not deal with trials of historical issues. This place is too expensive and over-regulated by legal rules to permit an adequate discussion of history. For the sake of freedom, I ask you never to forget what is at stake here. You must remember that we have fought for your freedom as well as for that of the accused; that is, the accused stands in the place of anyone who desires to speak his mind. Even if you don’t approve or agree with what he says, you must take it as a sacred responsibility not to allow the suppression of someone’s honest beliefs.

I want to finish by reading you a little letter that I got once. It explains what I mean when I say history is a very complex thing and it changes from time to time and it should be free to do so. It says, “What is truth? As a child I was taught that the Indians were savages. Later on in life I found out that it was the white man who had initiated scalping and the killing of women and children. I was taught in school that Louis Riel was a traitor to his country and therefore executed and that John A. MacDonald was a hero.

Later on in life I was to discover that Louis Riel is regarded by some as a hero defending his people’s rights to their land and the famous Sir John A. had been caught taking bribes from the CPR, and resigned in disgrace. He also died an alcoholic. During the Second World War, I was told that Stalin was a good leader who fought on the good side. When I was older I found out that he was responsible for the government-imposed starvation of millions of Ukrainians in 1933. In 1941 I was told that Germany was our enemy and Russia was our ally. In 1951 I was told that Germany was our ally and Russia was our enemy. In 1956 I was told that China slaughtered millions of its own people. It was our enemy and today I’m told that China is our friend and ally, in a way.”

Therefore, when an individual has the integrity to question the credibility of a government-imposed view of history, we should listen with an open mind and search for the truth. It would seem to me that the truth will be in debate for a long time. But if we silence one side of any dispute or anyone’s view of truth because we think he is wrong then society as a whole will suffer. An individual will suffer. And you will suffer.

Patrick Henry said: “Give me liberty or give me death.” If you don’t have liberty you have a kind of spiritual death, the death that comes from people who never use their minds. That’s a real spiritual death. If we are to live in a free society where people are alive and have hope in their lives then we must have liberty.

With the right verdict people who brought this prosecution into being will not do it again. It will take a lot of courage. But you are the repository of the trust of your country and in the moment you decide to acquit and stick to that principle you will give history the best gift your descendants could ever ask for: A free country.

—–
For further information on relevant cases, articles, letters, bio, videos and more please see: http://www.douglaschristie.com/

To obtain a copy of this document please contact Paul Fromm at CAFE, PO Box 332 Station “B”, Etobicoke, Ontario, M9W 9Z9 or write to Paul at paul@paulfromm.com

 

Je suis Dieudonne! – RadicalPress.com

Je suis Dieudonne!! 800 copy

Petition on behalf of Arthur Topham and freedom of speech in Canada

Lasha DM Pet4AT

http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham?recruiter=146329715&utm_campaign=signature_receipt&utm_medium=email&utm_source=share_petition