Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 by Arthur Topham

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

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

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

Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why Steven Harper is the Real Threat to Canadian National Security by Ahmad Moussa

HarperThreatHdr

OCTOBER 28, 2014

“Winning the Hearts and Minds of Canadians”

Why Steven Harper is the Real Threat to Canadian National Security

by

AHMAD MOUSSA

 

Prior to the unfortunate events on Parliament Hill, Canada had never been a country that was victim of a terrorist attack including September 11, 2001. Yet, the aftermath of September 11, 2001 resulted in the Global War on Terror campaign that included the involvement of Canadians in Afghanistan. Notwithstanding the fact that Canada was wise in its decision not to intervene in Iraq in 2003 due to the disastrous nature of the consequences in that country in particular- such as the rise of the Islamic State, Canada and particularly under the Harper government has been producing and advocating for anti-Muslim and anti- Arab policies of a war-mongering nature based on defacto statelessness imposed against them as citizens; targeting them as a particular culture, ethnicity and religion including the Middle East region as a whole. The unfortunate events that transpired on Parliament Hill which occurred after an initial incident that involved a hit and run against Canadian soldiers are a product of what this article will expose in terms of the Harper governments stances as mentioned above.

The silence and impotence of the Arab and Muslim community from the public, political and lobbying sphere in relation to these stances have betrayed those in the community who are feeling the particular potency of their marginalization and oppression as a result of the said stances that left them no other visible option but to become a self-fulfilling prophecy through these attacks while simultaneously betraying themselves and Canadian voters by allowing the Harper government to continue to unjustly win the hearts and minds of Canadians; clearly demonstrated with the new laws that the Harper government is in the process of passing in relation to excessive police and secret service powers[1]; thereby reinforcing the same stances that we should be putting an end to. The article will attempt to win the hearts and minds of Canadians to restore the reality of what is actually happening including the way forward. During the aftermath of the events on Parliament Hill, Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave a speech to the public over the recent events in Ottawa, where he stated the following:

We are also reminded that attacks on our security personnel and on our institutions of governments are by their very nature attacks on our country, on our value, on our society, on us Canadians as a free and democratic people who embrace human dignity for all.[2]

The problem has been and continues to be that human dignity is not applicable to Arabs and Muslims based on the historical and contemporary role that Canada has played in this respect. Notwithstanding the introduction of the Canada Anti-Terrorist Act, 2001 and its controversial essence due to the trampling on civil rights and liberties, there was a sunset clause to the provisions related to preventative detentions and investigative hearings that would expire in 5 years; an issue related to protection of civil rights and liberties in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms that the Harper government decided to ignore by introducing the Combating Terrorism Act to revive these expired provisions.[3]

Canadian Arabs and Muslims have been victims of discriminatory targeting, illegitimate racial profiling and subject to arbitrary arrest and torture. One case in point is Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen of Syrian decent, was arrested at the airport in the United States via what is known as extraordinary rendition. Mr. Arar was tortured by the Syrian government for a year and the Canadian government failed to protect him as a citizen of the country. In fact, the Harper government had been colluding with the United States over the issue including the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) as opposed to protecting their own citizen.[4] Setting aside that both the Harper government and the RCMP had publicly apologized and compensated Mr. Arar for the disturbing ordeal after a Commission of Inquiry was conducted, the RCMP officers who were involved on the case were given promotions.[5]

Second case in point is Omar Khadr, a 15 year old Canadian citizen of Pakistani descent, arrested and imprisoned in Guantanamo Bay- accused of killing an American in the battlefield in Afghanistan. Notwithstanding the fact that he was arrested, charged and imprisoned as a 15 year old child, he was the only Westerner that remained in the prison; facilitated by the Harper government in ensuring his inability for extradition and repatriation even against the urgings of the Canadian Bar Association[6], UNICEF and Amnesty International[7]. Furthermore, Canadian Senator and former United Nations Peace Keeper during the Rwanda Genocide- Romeo Dallaire, had been advocating for his release and treatment as a child soldier, protesting against his torture-retrieved testimony, and yet the Harper government did not intervene until recently where he is now serving the rest of his sentence; resulting from a torture-retrieved guilty plea in a Canadian prison.[8]

Canada’s involvement in Afghanistan in a combat role in a country that did not attack Canada nor did it have any group like the Taliban wanting to attack Canada has not only lost the most amount of soldiers per capita in comparison to their allies[9] but have also been involved in a prisoner scandal in relation to torturing and humiliating civilian prisoners similar to that of Abu Ghraib in Iraq by American soldiers.[10]

The Harper government has also banned Muslim women from wearing the burqa during citizenship ceremonies[11] as well as attempted to the same in relation to Islamic garb and voting rights of Muslim women successfully rebuffed by Elections Canada.[12] Setting aside that these issues are genuine Islamophobia and contradict the provisions guaranteed within the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Harper government has allowed for the Jewish Defense League to operate legally in Canada when it is not only designated as a terrorist organization in the United States[13], Israel[14] and the European Union- but also denounced by the Anti-Defamation League for its disservice to the fight against Anti-Semitism.[15] The Jewish Defense League has made alliances with the British Nationalist Party which is a white supremacist organization and their alliance is based on one common target- the new anti-Semitism and racism against Arabs and Muslims.[16] One clear demonstration of this was the banning of British Member of Parliament George Galloway on “national security grounds” as a result of a letter sent to the Canadian government by the Jewish Defense League to have him banned as a result of his support for Palestinian rights.[17] This was a highly respected member of the Mother Parliament of Canada, banned against the decision of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service[18] (CSIS) and rather influenced by an internationally designated terrorist organization.

This form of new Anti-Semitism and stance was further reinforced with the Harper government’s recent position on Operation Protective Edge and the disturbing silence and impunity to the evident war crimes committed by Israel and the seemingly desensitization of Palestinian suffering and absence of rights; leading to a legal case being filed against the Harper government for seemingly inciting and advocating hate propaganda against the Palestinians as per the Criminal Code of Canada.[19] Furthermore, the Harper government has criticized the international investigation probe which includes the involvement of a Canadian citizen on the legal team further reinforcing that Arabs and Muslims have no right to justice and the rule of law or the preservation of life and human dignity.[20]

Defacto Statelessness has recently been demonstrated even further with the Strengthening Canadian Citizenship Act; the latest problematic and racist legislation introduced by the Harper government, creating first class and second class citizens as well as the right to revoke citizenship from those accused or suspected of terrorism. Setting aside the fact that the legislation was passed by the Harper government ignoring Amnesty International’s concerns over the legislation[21], it is precisely such draconian laws and policies that drive those who are marginalized and alienated as a result of the affects of these legislations to join groups like the Islamic State who feed off of this[22] or commit acts of terror- the result of a permanent state of humiliation through inferiorization and constant state of homelessness.[23] Both profiles of those who committed the acts against the Canadian soldiers- one as the hit and run incident and one storming into Parliament demonstrate this in some shape or form, including the profiles of new cases surfacing.[24]

Given this information, any Canadian citizen with a “heart and mind” will not accept that their country subjects some of their citizens and people of another region to such acts of humiliation and degradation in the name of “peace, order and good governance” that will only have a backfiring affect. It is time that Canadian Arab and Muslims start demonstrating and engaging in the highest form of citizenry and political efficacy by creating and organizing a strong, united, grounded and articulate voice in the public and political sphere within the Canadian political arena, through lobby groups, social movements, grass roots organizations and even political parties to reach the hearts and minds of Canadians, starting with collective self-empowerment as a community.

Harper had stated a decade after the attacks of September 11, 2001 that “the biggest security threat to Canada is Islamic terrorism.”[25] Federal elections are due in Oct 2015 making it time for the Arab and Muslim community to win back the hearts and minds of Canadians; showing that the contrary is true- the Harper government’s stances mentioned above are and and have proven to be a threat to national security of Canadians both domestically and abroad. [1]

Ahmad Moussa is a Palestinian-Canadian writer and Visiting Professor at the University of Duhok, in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

——-

Original Source: http://www.counterpunch.org/2014/10/28/why-steven-harper-is-the-real-threat-to-canadian-national-security/

Notes.

[1] http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/10/23/ottawa-attack-mideast.html

[1] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2014/10/canadian-pm-pledges-tougher-laws-after-attack-20141023141454511201.html

[2] https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-politics/stephen-harper-says-canada-will-never-be-intimidated-003221049.html

[3] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-disinclined-to-subject-anti-terror-measures-to-sunset-clause/article617345/

[4] http://www.ctvnews.ca/opposition-quotes-on-arar-from-november-2002-1.226338

[5] http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=20490e79-ee5b-4cc7-bdb9-46870e4cf3e0

[6] https://www.cba.org/cba/News/2009_Releases/2009-01-23.aspx

[7] http://www.amnesty.ca/our-work/issues/security-and-human-rights/omar-khadr

[8] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/khadr-s-rehabilitation-undermined-by-tories-dallaire-says-1.1280898

[9] http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/canadian-forces-pay-higher-price-1.789464

[10] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/canada-complicit-in-torture-of-innocent-afghans-diplomat-says/article1347481/

[11] http://www.aljazeera.com/news/americas/2011/12/201112135531620401.html

[12] http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/harper-slams-elections-canada-ruling-on-veils-1.648173

[13] http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terror/terrorism-2000-2001/?searchterm=JDL

[14] http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/french-branch-of-jewish-terror-group-coming-to-israel-to-defend-settlements-1.384723

[15] http://archive.adl.org/extremism/jdl_chron.html

[16] http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2011/12/2011121391638252910.html

[17] http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2009/mar/20/george-galloway-banned-canada

[18] http://rabble.ca/news/2010/04/galloway-hearing-determine-mps-fate-under-ban-canada

[19] http://www.thetelegram.com/News/Regional/2014-07-22/article-3808617/Man-wants-prime-minister-charged-for-advocating-for-genocide/1

[20] http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/canadian-leading-gaza-war-crimes-probe-rejects-anti-israel-charges/article19996056/

[21] http://www.amnesty.ca/news/news-releases/new-citizenship-law-will-be-challenged-on-constitutional-grounds-if-passed-say

[22] http://news.nationalpost.com/2014/09/21/isis-urges-jihadists-to-attack-canadians-you-will-not-feel-secure-in-your-bedrooms/

[23] http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/tunisian-leader-wests-injustice-fuels-terror-recruits-982171342

[24] https://ca.news.yahoo.com/another-canadian-jihadi-slips-cracks-205929948.html?cmp=cafb_news

[25] http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/harper-says-islamicism-biggest-threat-to-canada-1.1048280

Foreign policy shift puts Canada in extremists’ crosshairs by Massoud Hayoun

http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/10/23/ottawa-attack-mideast.html

HarperPolicy

Foreign policy shift puts Canada in extremists’ crosshairs

Unprecedented stance on Middle East affairs is putting Canada ‘on the map’ for armed attacks

October 23, 2014 

by

Massoud Hayoun @mhayoun Google+

A drastic shift in Canada’s Middle East policy has put the country “on the map” of international armed groups like the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), said one analyst, after two lethal attacks in the span of a week — one of which is said to have been inspired by the group.

“Canada seems to have gone far right” under the administration of Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, said Roksana Bahramitash, director of research for the Canada research chair in Islam, pluralism and globalization at the University of Montreal.

His administration’s dramatic stance on Middle Eastern affairs, what analysts call an unprecedented departure from that of previous governments, which focused their diplomacy on aid and peacekeeping missions, “puts Canada in a position it has never been in before,” she said.

Since Harper took office in 2006, Ottawa has sent funds to support the opposition in Syria’s ongoing civil war, expressed vocal support for Israel amid the ongoing offensive in Gaza and suspended diplomatic relations with Iran at a high point of tensions between Washington and Tehran over Iran’s nuclear program.

“It’s likely we will see more [attacks], not less, unless we change our leadership,” said Bahramitash.

A fragmented left and a strong coalition of conservative parties have put conservatives like Harper in office and precipitated a hawkish turn in Canada’s foreign policy, said University of Toronto political science professor Aisha Ahmad. Canada’s next general elections will be held on Oct. 19, 2015.

This month Canadian lawmakers voted to join the U.S.-led airstrikes on ISIL in Iraq. On Wednesday the government said it would not back down from its role in the strikes, after Martin Rouleau — whom Harper called an “ISIL-inspired terrorist” — ran down two soldiers on Monday, killing one. On Wednesday, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a man who Canadian media say was also inspired by ISIL, gunned down a soldier at a national monument and attempted to kill others at Ottawa’s Parliament building.

Facing a sudden rash of national security threats, some analysts point to changes in Ottawa’s reputation in the international community.

During the U.S. hostage crisis in Iran in 1980, after the U.S. severed diplomatic relations with the Islamic Republic, the Canadian Embassy in Tehran helped secure the release of the hostages after 444 days in captivity. Harper, who did not respond to Al Jazeera’s interview requests, closed that embassy in September 2012.

Ahmad said she could not recall another occasion when Ottawa had “on principle of some sort shut down diplomatic relations with a government.”

“For the longest time, we had the credibility as a power to participate in international affairs as an honest broker,” said Ahmad. “We are no longer seen that way in the Middle East. That reputation no longer exists. Clearly, that is a product of dramatic actions the government has taken on its position on Israel” and other Middle Eastern affairs.

In Jerusalem in January, Harper was reportedly heckled by Arab lawmakers at the Knesset as he made a speech in support of the Israeli government. Amnesty International criticized Canadian Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird, who has been vocal about Israel holding “such a special place in [his] heart,” for not condemning the Israeli bombardment of Gaza during the conflict this summer that left well over 2,000 Palestinians and 71 Israelis dead.

“Previous administrations have attempted to strike a balance between the sides of various Middle Eastern tensions,” said Daniel Hiebert, a professor at the University of British Columbia and a co-director of the Canadian Network for Research on Terrorism, Security and Society. “The current government of Canada has a distinct policy on the Middle East compared to previous administration.”

Bahramitash, who recently traveled along the Iran-Afghanistan border, believes that taking a clearer stance on Middle Eastern affairs endangers Canadians at home and abroad.

“I was told that as a Canadian citizen, I had to be careful,” she said, referring to her recent travels. “It used to be, if you have American citizenship, you are at risk. But now Canadian citizenship is very risky.”

Ahmad said that before, “we would all feel very proud having a Canadian flag on our backpacks traveling around the world,” but those days are gone. Canada no longer boasts the soft power of being an “honest broker.”

Hiebert, meanwhile, cast doubt on a possible link between Canada’s exploits abroad and recent attacks at home.

“ISIL is very adverse to the West in general,” he said. “There is anger toward the West in general among many extremists who’ve adopted a violent approach.”

Ahmad agreed that although Canada’s more militaristic approach to international relations with the Middle East puts it “on the map” with international armed groups like ISIL, it is too soon to determine the motives behind Rouleau’s and Zehaf-Bibeau’s actions.

Citing government figures, Hiebert said that 50 to 100 Canadian nationals have joined ISIL’s ranks in the Middle East. Some, he says, may have been radicalized in Canada. Rouleau reportedly had his passport seized after trying to travel to the Middle East to join ISIL’s fight.

Hiebert acknowledges that with Canada’s new stance on Middle Eastern affairs, the country has become more entrenched in fights like the ongoing battle with ISIL.

“When you are bringing the world into your country, you are inviting the issues of the world into the country,” he said. “We hope people will leave issues at the door. And the vast majority do.”

——-

OCLA letter to Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne: Protecting freedom of speech in Ottawa

OCLAWynneLetHdr

OCLA_logo_only_250

October 2, 2014

By Email

Kathleen Wynne, Premier

Legislative Building

Queen’s Park

Toronto, ON M7A 1A1

Re: Protecting freedom of speech in Ottawa

Dear Premier Wynne,

I write on behalf of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA), in response to media reports about your promise to defend freedom of expression in China, when you travel there on official visit later this month (e.g. “Amid Hong Kong protests, Wynne vows to promote free speech on China visit”, Adrian Morrow, The Globe and Mail, Oct. 1, 2014).

We are concerned that your taking on a role of international ambassador for freedom of speech would not be appropriate, since your government has not defended this vital right here in Ontario.

For example, you have:

• Allowed a private defamation lawsuit to be funded entirely by a public university (the University of Ottawa) against one of the university’s most outspoken critics. The plaintiff’s legal fees totalled more than $1-million, and the suit ended in a Kafkaesque show-trial that lead to loud public outcry about the lack of fair process in Ontario courts and the chill imposed on freedom of expression by this case. The OCLA’s letter to the Minister of Training, Colleges, and Universities of March 7, 2014 about this matter is available at the following link: http://ocla.ca/wp-contents/uploads/2014/03/2014-03-07-Letter-OCLA-to-Minister-Duguid.pdf

• Refused to examine the deleterious impact of defamation law on freedom of expression, and instead moved forward with a bill that will only place an inadequate patch on deep and archaic problems with a law that by its nature opposes freedom of expression. The OCLA’s position paper calling for the abolition of defamation law is available here. The OCLA’s letter to the Attorney General of Ontario about Bill 83 is available here. This refusal to re-examine

2

defamation law allows many unjust and censorious legal proceedings to continue in Ontario.

• Not taking a stance against “hate speech” provisions in Canada’s Criminal Code that threaten freedom of speech everywhere in Canada. For more information about our position on this topic, see the OCLA’s public statement regarding the hate speech proceedings against Mr. Arthur Topham here. Although Mr. Topham’s case takes place in BC, the same unjust laws apply in Ontario. The OCLA’s letter to the Attorney General of BC in this matter is available at the following link: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-of-BC.pdf

Not to mention that it was a Liberal government (in which you were a cabinet minister) that oversaw the egregious and history-making violations of freedom of speech and freedom of association that took place during the G20 protest crackdown in Toronto in 2010. We note that yesterday’s media articles place your “vow” in the current context of large-scale political protests in Hong Kong.

Serious and urgent work must be done to stop the rapid erosion of freedom of speech in Ontario. In order to give meaning to your position about freedom of speech in China, we ask that you make a vow to take positive and thoughtful action to defend freedom of speech in Ontario during the remainder of your mandate as Premier.

Yours truly,

Screen Shot 2014-10-02 at 11.22.18 AM

Joseph Hickey

Executive Director

Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca

613-252-6148 ©

joseph.hickey@ocla.ca

Cc: Members of Provincial Parliament

Cc: Adrian Morrow, The Globe and Mail ( amorrow@globeandmail.com)

About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

The OCLA vigoriously advocates for authentic and unqualified freedom of expression of individuals, on all topics and in every form, in accordance with the right to free expression enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The OCLA also advocates for unimpeded civil liberties and civil rights of all persons, in dealings with public and private institutions and corporations.

Source: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/10/2014-10-02-Letter-from-OCLA-to-Premier-Wynne.pdf

Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) issues strong support statement and online Petition for Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com by Arthur Topham

OCLA Hdr

RPEdNew400 copy

Dear Readers and Supporters of Freedom of Speech,

After eight years of unrelenting legal harassment (commencing in 2007) on the part of the Canadian government and the masonic Jewish lobby group B’nai Brith Canada I’m most pleased to announce that the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has assumed a positive leadership role in offering its support to both myself and RadicalPress.com in the current sec. 319(2) CCC “Hate Propaganda” charge which was laid against my person and RadicalPress.com back on May 16th, 2012.

I would like to publicly thank Joseph Hickey, Executive Director for the OCLA for his supportive endorsement of this very important case, one that will ultimately determine the fate of free expression on the internet in Canada and affect all other bloggers, writers, artists and publishers who would, in all likelihood, suffer the same fate as myself for expressing political commentary and viewpoints which are deemed as “hate” by the Jewish lobbyists who consistently monitor Canada’s alternative and mainstream media in search of websites and blogs that host contrary perspectives on the issues of political Zionism and the motives and actions of the state of Israel.

As well as issuing the following public statement the OCLA has also posted an on-line Petition which I, and hopefully many others, will be spreading around cyberspace in order to gather additional support for their initiative. See the Petition here: Please sign it.

Further efforts are also planned which will be posted as they unfold.

Please take the time to read this short pdf file containing the OCLA’s statement on R v Arthur Topham and feel free to comment.

The time to commence a concerted effort in order to bring this case to the attention of more Canadians is now. Please share this post as widely as humanly possible.

 

Sincerely,

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

 

CLICK ON PDF URL BELOW TO READ OCLA STATEMENT:

http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OCLA-statement-re-Arthur-Topham.pdf

Kourosh Ziabari Interview with Canadian Professor Denis Rancourt – Fars News Agency

KouroshInterviewRancourtHdr

RPEdNew400 copy

Editor’s Note: The following interview with Professor Rancourt is undoubtedly one of the finest contributions toward a greater understanding of how the West has been slowly taken over by the Zionist agenda. Whether we wish to view it (as Professor Rancourt appears to), as the American Empire using Israel for its own greater hegemonic agenda or whether we tend to see it as World Jewry’s take-over of the American government via stealth in order to commandeer its resources and exploit them for Zionism’s global conquest, Rancourt’s analysis of how this process has unfolded to the ongoing detriment of the Palestinian people is superlative.
 
The interview also succinctly explains the depth and degree of collusion which the various Zionist forces and their sycophants here in Canada went to in order to illegally remove Professor Rancourt from his academic position at the University of Ottawa and then to further exacerbate his unjust treatment by pursuing him with a defamation suit that basically bankrupt the man. Such extremely vexatious acts on the part of Allan Rock and the University of Ottawa, aided and abetted by Canada’s Zionist-controlled media, border on sadism and are a vivid reminder of just how cruel and criminal the Zionist cartel can be when it comes to protecting its own racket of death and destruction at any cost should Canadians have the audacity to exhibit their lawful constitutional right to freedom of expression. In this case Professor Rancourt’s only “crime” was to question the right of Israel’s ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.
 
I suppose Denis Rancourt might be expected to consider himself lucky that he wasn’t also slapped with a sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada “Hate Propaganda” charge on top of all the other woes he’s been subjected to by the Zionist-controlled judiciary here in Canada. I’m sure that they would love to send him to jail for a couple of years just as they are trying to do to me in order to reinforce their intimidation and threats to all of Canada’s academia never to question their authority or their evil designs.
 
Professor Rancourt has taken a courageous stand and like myself he needs your help in order to defend himself against all of these spurious charges that have resulted from his expressing his opinions on matters relevant to Canada’s democratic principles. For further information and contact please see:
Email contact: denis.rancourt@gmail.com

Funding campaign

Bio

————

KouroshPortrait copy 2

Kourosh Ziabari – Fars News Agency: A Canadian scholar and academic, who was fired from the university where he was teaching because of his pro-Palestinian viewpoints, believes the US government is funding and supporting Israel for its continued bloodletting in the Middle East.

According to Prof. Denis Rancourt, Israel’s plan in the Middle East is ethnic cleansing and the total obliteration of Palestine and its citizens in order to realize a colonial, imperial agenda backed by the US military, economic and finance empire.

“Israel’s program is to eradicate or neutralize all Palestinians who make claim to a home in Palestine. This is exactly what Israel has been doing since before its artificial creation,” said Prof. Rancourt in an exclusive interview with Fars News Agency.

“Israel’s program is planned incremental dispossession and an ongoing attempted genocide. This has been repeatedly and explicitly expressed by the Zionist architects and executioners,” he noted.

Prof. Denis Rancourt has also praised the resistance movement in the Gaza Strip for its steadfastness against the Israeli aggression during the past two months, maintaining that it was awe-inspiring that Hamas could kill some 70 invading Israeli soldiers.

Denis Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. In the fall of 2008, he was removed from all teaching duties under the pretext that he had granted A+ grades to 23 students in one course during the winter 2008 semester; however, it’s quite clear to everybody that his outspoken criticism of Israel and his pro-Palestinian activism had triggered his dismissal from the university. Prof. Rancourt’s classes were always attended by tens of students and he was considered as one of the popular university professors at the Faculty of Science.

Rancourt has published more than 100 academic papers. He was a member of Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Physics and the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre. He is the author of the book “Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism.”

During the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip that just ended on August 26 following the victory of Hamas and the declaration of ceasefire between the Israeli regime and the resistance movement, FNA did an interview with Prof. Denis Rancourt on the influence of the Israeli lobby over the media, politicians and universities in the West, the history of Israel-Canada relations and the international reactions to the recent Israeli war on Gaza. The following is the text of this in-depth interview.

Q: What’s your viewpoint regarding the influence of the Israeli lobby on the universities and academic unions in the West, especially in the North America? The case of your dismissal from your position as a professor at the University of Ottawa was simply one of numerous instances showing that the Israeli lobby can easily manipulate the university officials in the West into making illegal decisions and expelling the disobedient academicians, just like the Prof. Steven Salaita who has been recently fired from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for his comments criticizing the Israeli massacre in the Gaza Strip. How has Israel gained such an influence over the academic institutions in the West?

A: The Israel Lobby has the role of chief-whip for the US military-economic-finance empire; Empire, for short. That is, the Lobby ensures doctrinal discipline among Western, that is, US-aligned politicians, intellectuals, and the media, regarding the Empire’s Middle East policy. I mean “intellectual” in the broad sense of any professional who has influence, and “media” in the broad sense of anyone who communicates to others.

The Empire’s main geopolitical focus presently is the Middle East, where the Empire is dedicated to actively and continuously prevent liberation and coalescence of Arab nations, so as to keep control of the territory and the energy resources. To achieve this, the Empire’s main policy in the Middle East is Israel, which is charged with continual war and sabotage against all Middle Eastern entities that would vie for independence from the Empire.

Thus, the Empire, via Israel, is embarked on a vicious and murderous project without an end in the Middle East, and this unsavory project must be sold to the Empire’s home populations, including both managers and ordinary citizens. That is the role of the Israel Lobby; to sell Israel and the continuous and deliberate carnage as acceptable and unavoidable.

That is why the Israel Lobby is actively engaged is creating Islamophobia, in exaggerating anti-Semitism, in constructing Nazi-holocaust remembrance, in suppressing academic freedom, in suppressing freedom of the press, in “finding” and pursuing alleged “terrorists”, in developing anti-speech [or] “anti-hate” laws, in promoting cultural ties with Israel, in attacking Muslim associations, and so on.

As such, the work of the Israel Lobby includes hundreds of ongoing campaigns to intimidate, discipline, fire, and vilify academics who dare to be critical of Israel or of US Middle East policy. The list of shut-out and targeted academics is a long one and includes the well-known cases of Joel Kovel, Ward Churchill, Norman Finkelstein, James Petras, Terri Ginsberg, William Robinson, David F. Noble, Steven Salaita, Iymen Chehade, and many others. The more an academic is threatening to the Lobby, the more aggressively that academic is attacked.

My own case is also an example. I was a tenured Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada’s capital city. I am an internationally recognized researcher and I taught in both the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Arts. I was publicly critical of the university president’s paid trip to Israel. I invited Palestinian speakers into my classrooms to talk about Gaza, and geopolitical analysts who were critical of Israel. These moves led to condemnation of me in the Zionist mainstream media, and to discipline, which was overturned. In 2008, a new university president – Allan Rock – who is a staunch and unconditional supporter of Israel and who had been Canada’s Zionist ambassador to the UN, became immediately motivated to fire me, tenure or not, and irrespective of my popular courses and my large science research funding.

A.RockMug

With the help of an entire team using specially-hired union-busting lawyers, after contriving for years including intensive covert surveillance of me using a hired-student spy to monitor my every spoken and written word and my every activity on campus and at other university campuses, the university finally settled on the false pretext for dismissal of alleging that I had improperly assigned high grades to all 23 students in an advanced physics course. They needed a “clean” pretext that they hoped would be supported by public opinion and that would not bring out all of their dirt. When public opinion and some mainstream media sided with me instead, a high-profile Zionist columnist at the New York Times suddenly wrote not-one but two articles to discredit me, and was invited to Canada to falsely defame me, regarding my teaching, on a trend-setting Canadian TV talk show whose producers are Zionists.

Even after I was fired, as I continued to be publicly critical of the institution, the university funded a large defamation lawsuit against me which, after almost four years, has entirely washed-out my personal savings, and over which I was ordered to pay a total of legal costs and damages in excess of one million dollars, that I can never pay. I am presently struggling to generate the funds to pay the costs of court-transcripts for the appeal that has been filed. My funding campaign is endorsed by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, which also has a campaign that condemns the university’s unlimited funding of the lawsuit against me using public money.

Although the university had many and mixed unstated and illegitimate reasons for wanting to fire me – such as my defiance and outspokenness in several areas, my popular courses and public events, and my support of student and community activism, I have no doubt that I was fired because the new Zionist university president Allan Rock – former Ambassador to the UN, and former Canadian federal government minister – wanted me out and silenced at any cost, and knew that he could count on support from the Zionist establishment. Under cross-examination, the dean testified that the pre-dismissal lockout of my graduate students and I from our laboratory was directed from above by Allan Rock. This president knew my firing would be seen as a good deed by the powerful Zionist establishment that he is part of. Years before I was ultimately fired, it had already been pronounced in the media that my firing was necessary and was desirable because of the “anti-Semitic” nature of my courses, to the great dismay and protests of many of my students.

After I was escorted off campus in handcuffs by police and charged with “trespassing” while I was still a tenured professor, and since my firing in 2009, Allan Rock has been systematically transforming the University of Ottawa into an institutional instrument at the service of Canada’s accelerating “globalist” agenda, and at the service of legitimizing Israel’s role in that agenda — rather than actually prioritizing the learning environment for students in Ottawa, an environment that is in dire need of an overhaul.

Allan Rock needed me out of the way. The Empire needs critics of the Empire out of the way. And the Israel Lobby needs anyone who threatens the acceptance of Israel’s crimes out of the way.

Q: Why has the criticism of Israel become so costly in the West? Why are the academicians, media personalities and other public figures who dare to question the policies and practices of Israel being immediately vilified and denigrated as anti-Semitist? Moreover, why don’t the mainstream media in the West ever give coverage to the viewpoints critical of Israel or exposing its violations of international law?

A: The mainstream media is a highly perfected arm of the Empire’s propaganda apparatus, as are Hollywood, the music industry, video games, and so on. The barely-maintained illusions of freedom of the press and of artistic freedom only make the propaganda more effective.

The propaganda apparatus is an integral part of the Empire’s military structure. The Israel Lobby is an added structure for direct and forceful control of politicians and intellectuals concerning the role of Israel as the Empire’s main thug in the Middle East.

The Empire’s Israel-based violent control in the Middle East, in turn, gives control over energy and wealth, via both the energy itself and energy transportation routes, and helps to ensure that the US-dollar remains the petro-dollar and, thus, the World currency, which the US prints at will.

In this way, the Empire both maintains its main instrument of global exploitation, namely finance-extortion based on the US-dollar and enforced with military might, and suppresses the development of its main competitors by strategically controlling the energy market via sanctions, pricing, and directed profits. That is the Empire’s working theory, which is realistically achievable thanks to absolute military dominance.

Within this scheme, the Israel Lobby at home is in a symbiotic relation with the Empire. The two are inseparable as long as the Empire’s main geopolitical focus is the Middle East, and as long as the Empire’s main policy in the Middle East is Israel. This is why one finds a strong and visible Israel Lobby satellite in every Western nation that is aligned with the Empire: Canada, France, Australia, and so on.

The two elements that give the Israel Lobby its raison d’etre – namely, the Empire’s main geopolitical focus on the Middle East, and Israel as the Empire’s main policy in the Middle East – are not necessarily good for the Empire. But the Israel Lobby has gotten too powerful; to the point of being able to largely dictate the Empire’s geopolitical priorities, and the Empire’s goals.

Thus, the Israel Lobby has to a large extent overrun the US democracy. It is not presently possible for US politicians to objectively and freely discuss Israel’s role and the Empire’s foreign policy. Virtually no US politician has the backbone to do so. US critics of Israel who are sufficiently threatening are crushed, and the US establishment fully participates in these mobbings.

When the stakes are so high, it is impossible for the Israel Lobby to relax its aggressive stance against all ideological threats. The Lobby considers its intimidation campaigns to be necessary for its own survival. It uses bribery, extortion, and propaganda at every level to discipline all who need to be reminded of which peoples most need to be killed on the planet.

Q: Canada has usually been one of the major advocates and supporters of the Tel Aviv regime since its establishment in 1948, either financially, politically or militarily and has always justified its racist policies in the Occupied Territories publicly. Somewhere in a 2011 article, you noted that Canada does not have much significant trade ties with Israel, and is a net exporter of oil and gas itself. So, why do you think the Canadian politicians continue to offer their “unwavering support” to Israel and rationalize its atrocities against the besieged people of Gaza? Why does Canada always lobby to dissuade world countries from voting against Israel in the UN resolutions? In what ways does Canada benefit from backing Israel?

A: Interestingly, it was Allan Rock – the same man who engineered my firing from the University of Ottawa – who, in 2004, under Paul Martin’s Liberal government and as Canada’s Ambassador to the UN, changed Canada’s longstanding position on Israel from abstaining on human rights resolutions for Palestine to being one of the few countries in the World that vote with the US and Israel against UN human rights resolutions for Palestine.

The complete selling of Canada to the US started prior to Martin, notably at the hands of Conservative Prime Minister Brian “free trade” Mulroney who thereby destroyed the Conservative party for more than a decade. Martin continued the job of selling Canada. Paul Martin engineered a takeover of the Liberal Party of Canada from the last Prime Minister Jean Chrétien who was moderately independent, or wanted to appear to be, and Martin proceeded to wreck that party into oblivion, with the help of other Zionists such as Rock and Harvard-based import Michael Ignatieff who also wrote academic arguments to legitimize torture “in an age of terror”, and others. At present, all three major parties [of] Conservative, NDP, and Liberal are led by ultra-Zionists, which is no accident. Harper, in particular, vehemently demonizes Iran, in what can only be understood as a criminally irresponsible call for a war of aggression, in line with a well-known Israeli desire.

The reason that Canada gives unconditional diplomatic support to Israel is the same as with all states aligned with the Empire. There is no choice on that issue because Israel is a major component of the Empire’s World-domination apparatus. The Israel Lobby is existentially committed to keeping things that way. The widespread tolerance and political adoration of the anti-democratic Israel Lobby in the US suggests that it is now not unreasonable to entertain an analysis of the Empire as a US-Israel Empire, as though the elite-bosses that run the global military-finance exploitation enterprise had effectively merged across US-Israel lines.

The other main Western states vie to align themselves in order to be on the receiving side of the Empire’s global exploitation project. This alignment is the most disgusting and vicious enactment of global racism in human history – largely surpassing its immediate predecessor that was the British Empire – that directly targets indigenous populations in the developing and emerging world, whether or not these populations support resistance movements. In this regard, a color-coded world map of diplomatic stance regarding Israel is identical to a world map of the global exploitation by the states aligned with the Empire.

Canada, in particular, is more than aligned. Canada is truly a vassal state of the US, with virtually complete integration in the political, corporate, security, military, cultural, and intelligentsia spheres. It is not uncommon for high-ranking “Canadian” politicos to have been trained at Harvard. The entertainment and sports enterprises are seamlessly the same, except for Quebec to some degree. This deepening integration has been accompanied by a loss of Canadian nationalism, a dramatically increased Israel Lobby presence, a dumbing down of the provincial education systems, an abandonment of natural-resources ownership, a near-total loss of resistance to foreign corporate ownership, frightening mimicry in the cultural, political, statutory, military, police, etc., fields, and so on.

Years ago, as one personal anecdote, I was shocked to find that the airport security in Ottawa, for an internal flight in Canada, was being managed by a US firm, that the security employees were US citizens, spoke with heavy US accents, and did not speak French – Canada is bilingual, and Ottawa is its capital. I was on stolen Canadian soil being processed by US security personnel. That is now the norm. Canadian citizens have a lot of work to do if they want to effectively oppose US and Israeli crimes against humanity.

Of course the local Canadian establishment needs to benefit from Canada being a vassal state of the Empire. So your question of how does Canada benefit is a fair one. The first answer is that Canada is allowed to share in the plunder practiced by the Empire, to a limited and controlled degree. In addition, Canada is given a share of the Empire’s military economy, in terms of military manufacturing contracts, and is temporarily allowed to have a First World standard of living, even though it must permit its natural resources to be plundered.

Also, Canada is a major producer of oil from tar sands that are relatively expensive to exploit. Wars and imposed sanctions in the Middle East increase the price of oil, which serves the Canadian energy sector well, in terms of political benefits. The price of gas is also increased, which inadvertently serves Russia. Thus, Russia must be sanctioned and cut off from the European market. Enter Ukraine, etc. Energy is geopolitics and Canada, as a major energy producer, “chooses” to be on the side of the big guns.

Q: What do the ordinary Canadian citizens, and the young generation of Canadian people think about Israel and its ongoing campaign of carnage and genocide in the besieged Gaza Strip? Do they sympathize with the major Canadian parties, including the Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP in their unwarranted support for Israel?

A: Political participation in Canada is a farce. By statute – thanks to former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau – all local political candidates must be approved and certified by the party leader. Therefore, unlike in the UK where local party members can choose their representatives and where parliamentary rule actually means something, there is no representative democracy whatsoever in Canada. It does not take a PhD in political science to understand this. The employment and career of each Member of Parliament depends on obeying party discipline, and the party bosses are selected and positioned by powerful private interests predominantly represented by the Israel Lobby.

Ordinary Canadians, young and old, understand that politics does not include them. Consequently, political participation is low. The smaller the citizen’s possible influence, the less [they] participate, logically. In Canada – like in most places where citizens do not feel overly threatened by their governments or by foreign influences or by war – effective political allegiance is hired directly using widespread partisan employment, by the government, the public institutions, the private corporations, the hired lobbies, and the non-government organizations. In addition, superficial popular acceptance of fake agendas is bought via disguised propaganda projected by the “educational” system, the media, and the hired “experts” from all sectors. This works brilliantly because most professional workers are fully indoctrinated into the system.

Among aware Canadians, however, there is great concern about Israel’s crimes in Gaza. This concern and resulting outrage are significant, as is evident from the massive media and public-relations counter campaigns to legitimize Israel’s war crimes.

Canadian civil society is recognizing and organizing against the Israel genocide that continues to unfold. There has been a significant backlash against the public positions of the leaders of the three major parties, and this backlash has caused the NDP in particular to do some damage-control. A Member of Parliament even resigned from the NDP over the issue, which is a first in Canada. Furthermore, in reporting the carnage in Gaza, the mainstream media was feeling the pressure to not completely follow the most absurd dictates of the Israel Lobby regarding media strategy.

The recent public demonstrations in support of Gaza, held in every major Canadian city, were massive, by Canadian standards. The pro-Palestine demonstrations that I attended in Ottawa had hundreds and thousands of participants and were among the largest that I have ever witnessed. More importantly, the demonstrators were from across Canadian society and were profoundly moved and committed, more than I have ever seen for any broad Canadian foreign policy matter. Consequently, the mainstream media was forced to report these demonstrations in a somewhat balanced fashion, under the threat of losing credibility.

Thus, there is a significant enough gap, between the extreme Zionism of the political party leaders and public opinion on Gaza, that it is possible that there could be a large and lasting popular backlash that would change the public political discourse and force the Lobby to be less overt. I more than hope that this backlash will be of formidable magnitude and that it will occur at an accelerated pace, in order to create and recover the dignity of Canadians, to bring Canadians into the World, and to bring maximum support to the Palestinian resistance.

Q: During its more than 50 days of incursion into the Gaza Strip, Israel continually bombed the civilian areas, hospitals, mosques and schools. The deliberate targeting of the civilians is a crime under international law. Why is Israel persistent on violating international law while its leaders know what they’re doing is not humane and defendable? Is it because Israel has been enjoying immunity from accountability thanks to the public diplomatic, political and financial support it receives from the United States?

A: It is criminally and morally disgusting that Israel continued to bomb Gaza during the negotiations for the agreement that led to a halt to further Israeli attacks for an “unlimited period”. It is utterly disgusting that Israel murdered the wife and a daughter and a son of the Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif during negotiations. Israel continued to murder Hamas opponents during negotiations. This is abominable. It is difficult to comprehend this degree of disregard by Israel for basic human decency, not to mention international law. This tells us that Israel never negotiated in good faith, and that the “negotiated” agreement cannot possibly represent any measure of interim justice.

The Palestinian resistance in Gaza is awe-inspiring, having killed some 70 invading soldiers that were part of one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the World, and Gazans having sustained unspeakable civilian death, displacement, and destruction. However, Israel is in fact mainly contained by the global political and popular reactions to its crimes. The US cannot afford to convince the World that it is a genocidal-maniac nation, whether it is or not. This would seriously impair the Empire, domestically, with allies, and in its arenas of exploitation.

This is why the Empire funds and supports Israel for the constant bloodletting in the Middle East, and covertly trains and funds proxy thugs wherever it cannot sell a direct intervention, such as in Syria. Make no mistake, the US runs a global empire, with over 1,000 military bases spread in every corner of the globe, but it cannot be perceived in Western circles as an outright purveyor of ruthless and unlimited terror. Just don’t ask Latin Americans what they know from lived experience.

In this regard, a reality that protects the world from US-Israeli ravages is the fact that, more and more, there are Muslim, Latin American, etc., populations in the US and in the aligned countries, such as the Muslim citizens of the UK, and the Latin Americans in the US. This, in turn, explains the growing government fixations on preventing immigration and systemically targeting profiled refugees for deportation. It also explains the police-state occupation and incarceration in the US of the Black and Hispanic less-integrated social classes.

Basically, all the survival, self-defense, and liberation struggles against and from-within the Empire share a common oppressor. These struggles can greatly benefit from Western middle class allies, and from Western middle class indignation. The elite management class has connections to the professional class, which is largely from the middle class, and so on. In this way, “public opinion”, beyond simply most members of the public having some superficial opinion, can pressure towards rejecting the most egregious abuses of the Empire.

Q: In response to Israel’s deadly military operation against the Gaza Strip, the United States simply said that Israel has a right to defend itself, and a right to exist. Are these rights, including a right to exist, contingent upon the destruction of the entire civilian infrastructure in a coastal territory that has been under siege for some 7 years, and the blowing up of its unarmed citizens? Do the US politicians really think this way or are pretending that they’re not aware of the realities of Gaza on the ground?

A: The “right to exist” and “right to defend itself” postures of Israel are ridiculous sophistries that a child can recognize as such. Israelis have a right to not be displaced arbitrarily without a just process. That process must weigh all the facts related to Israel’s long-term genocidal policies and actions of population cleansing and annexing of territory. It must also respect international law, and respect unrescinded UN resolutions. And, it cannot reward continued violations by Israel of the said UN resolutions regarding territorial lines.

The Israeli spin concocted to justify Israel’s gruesome crimes of war is so insulting to the intellect that in itself it could be considered a crime, a crime of language, if it made any sense to have such a category of crimes. Indeed, if it were advisable to condone the development of a criminal law for “hate speech”, then Israel’s spin, uttered in the context of its massacres in Gaza, should certainly qualify as “hate speech”.

As usual, Israel turns everything on its head. The Israel Lobby seeks “hate speech” laws to be enacted in all the aligned states, to prevent criticism of Israel, as being “anti-Semitic” speech of course. This explicitly exists in France, and persists in Canada, where one elderly Canadian citizen was sent to jail in Germany for years for printed publications denying “the” holocaust. Here, the Lobby finds allies in well-meaning middle-class advocates of purified language who wrongly and self-servingly believe that racism can and should be reduced by strict language and social behaviour codes.

If it were serious about discussing rights, Israel would admit the Palestinian rights of return and of self-determination. It would respect the right to life and liberty enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It would respect the Geneva Conventions on military occupation. It would release all of its Palestinian prisoners. It would stop using its mass-killing machine against civilians, and so on. After that, it would also agree to be judged independently in making substantial reparations to all Palestinians, especially those occupied and the refugees.

Q: The United Nations has just appointed a fact-finding committee to probe into Israel’s possible war crimes during its recent military operation against the Gaza Strip. Do you see the political will and determination in the United Nations to really hold Israel accountable and investigate its criminal conduct in an impartial and fair way?

A: We’ll see. The more interesting question is whether citizens will provide a significant backlash if the commissioners do not properly do what must be done. And, will Israel and the Empire succeed in derailing this UN commission of inquiry into Israel’s war crimes?

Will this commission allow the UN to salvage some credibility? Will the Lobby succeed in its personal attacks against the commission’s chairman? Will anything significant on the ground come from the legalistic exercise?

Nothing significant has come from the UN in the past. This Gaza massacre was as criminal and as evil as the previous one. The only evolution has been the development of the remarkable Gazan military resistance, from killing three invading soldiers in the previous land incursion, to some 70 Israeli soldiers this time. We can only hope that this progression will continue, enough to deter Israel.

Q: What do you think is the reason for Israel’s obduracy in keeping the blockade of Gaza Strip in place and its continued refusal to lift it? Is the siege going to serve certain purposes, such as the demonization of Hamas and turning the residents of Gaza against it?

A: Israel’s program is to eradicate or neutralize all Palestinians who make claim to a home in Palestine. This is exactly what Israel has been doing since before its artificial creation. Israel’s program is planned incremental dispossession and an ongoing attempted genocide. This has been repeatedly and explicitly expressed by the Zionist architects and executioners.

Over 300 Nazi Holocaust survivors and their descendants recently signed an open letter, published as an advertisement in the New York Times, calling what Israel is doing what it is, genocide. Israel’s attempted genocide of Palestinians is also expressly cheered-on by many Israeli citizens and by members of the Zionist diaspora of all religions.

Therefore, the Israeli apartheid is not meant as a sustained apartheid. It is an increment in the attempted genocide that accompanies the racist pillaging of land and resources. The massacres in Gaza and the collective punishments against Gazans can be understood only in this context.

As such, Israel will continue the gruesome intimidations of all sorts, which are Israel’s history, and which are intended to cause Palestinians to flee from Palestine. Israel wants Gaza. And, Israel wants all Palestinians out of the greater Israel that it is creating.

The US accepts Israel’s crimes against Palestinians because the US “accepts” Israel’s conviction that this is necessary for Israel’s “security”. The US acceptance of the Zionist genocide is part of the negotiated understanding between the Empire and Israel. The US propaganda about seeking restraint is purely deflection and risk management for the Empire.

Furthermore, Israel knows that a real impediment to its greater design, its final solution, is Palestinian armed resistance, presently limited to Gaza. Israel, therefore, has an illegitimate military objective to strangle the armed resistance and to murder its leaders and closest enablers, and the Zionists willfully disregard international law to pursue this aim. It is a classic dirty war of extermination of popular armed resistance. If Israel cannot kill the armed resistance, then it plans to expel and kill the population that supports the resistance. In any case, it wants Gaza.

Within this criminal mentality, there is no way that Israel will voluntarily relax the blockade. The fight to dissolve the blockade, and even just to have Israel respect the general language of the ceasefire agreement to ease restrictions at the Gaza border crossings, will be continuous and arduous.

This is what Israel does. It strangles Palestinians. Only real pressures can slow Israel and, one day soon, turn it around. Things can happen. Populations can enforce democratic rule. Leaders can side with popular movements. Anything is possible when resisters everywhere become committed and determined. It happened in the recent past with liberation struggles everywhere when the British Empire was forced to retract, and with civil rights and democratized institutions in the 1960s. It’s happening in Latin America now. It’s happening on the streets. It can happen again and everywhere.

This interview was originally published on Fars News Agency.

——-

WAKE UP CANADA! By Arthur Topham

WAKEUPCANADA!

WAKE UP CANADA!

By Arthur Topham

The current global crisis in Gaza, Palestine, where the Israeli military is once again slaughtering the entrapped Palestinian people with willful intent and destroying the region’s infrastructure, has forced Canada’s major political parties – the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada – to reveal their hand in terms of where they stand with respect to the carnage being perpetrated against the Palestinian people.

Not surprisingly, for those who have been observing the persistent, aggressive, war (otherwise known as “ethnic cleansing”) against Palestine over the past sixty-six years, all three parties have opted to “STAND WITH ISRAEL”. This revelation has astounded and angered many decent Canadians who still clung to the old belief that Canada ought to remain either in a neutral position or take a more pro-active stance and speak out against the illegal and immoral actions of the state of Israel.

What the latest round of unwarranted attacks upon Gaza has resulted in for Canada as a nation is the irrefutable and unequivocal realization that all of our major political parties and their leaders are firmly in the grasp of the Zionist-Jew controlled forces working through what is euphemistically referred to as the “New World Order” (aka NWO) and their words and deeds are but the reflective mouthings of three Zionist-controlled Puppets suspended in conscience and dangling haplessly from the covert, occult hidden hand of a tyrannical and blood-thirsty power structure that is driving the world into a state of madness, confusion and soon-to-be, endless chaos and civil strife.

We Canadians have always been told that as a nation we tend to lag about a decade behind the USA in terms of our political policies and the present example of these three zio-stooges basically confirms this assertion.

In the October, 2001 edition of my former monthly tabloid The Radical (shown in the image below) I used the same bold header as I’ve done for the present article. Only the names have been changed. That edition (13 years past) was the first reaction to the events of September 11, 2001 when this same criminal NWO cartel pulled off what was, without a doubt, the greatest false flag operation since their 1917 coup in the former Republic of Russia when the Zionist/Communist/Marxist forces were able to mastermind the absolute take-over of one of the world’s largest and diverse nations. The world we’re now living in is but an extension and magnification on a global scale of what transpired 97 years ago.

WakeUpAmEdFulPgLrg copy 3

If Canadians had any illusions as to their sovereignty as an independent nation those cherished dreams have now been shattered forever. All that’s left for Canadians who still desire peace and respect for the democratic principles that have fostered our growth and freedom as an independent nations up to the present is to accept the fact that we are no longer in control of our individual and national destinies and begin to take steps in the direction of redressing what’s happened to us a country since 911 and the advent of present global tyrannical situation that’s affecting the people and the planet as a whole.

The dilemma, for us as a nation, is having to accept the obvious fact that all of our major political parties are now controlled by the Zionist NWO. With a federal election coming up in 2015 this presents voters with a major conundrum in terms of who to vote for. Not voting is not an option but there’s still time for people to redefine their prerogatives and choose to support a party that WILL STAND FOR CANADA! It might be the Canadian Action Party or some newly formed party. The chances of the Green Party of Canada opting for pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist policies that directly conflict with those of Israel are next to impossible yet, even there, miracles do happen.

So the final questions must be: Are we going to allow the overly preponderant power of the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada to dictate our domestic and foreign policy? Are we going to stand by submissively and submit to decisions emanating forth from Ottawa that conform, not to the wishes of the majority of Canadians, but to the Zionist-Jewish power elite that run our banking institutions, our economy, our media and our academic infrastructure? Are we expected just to give up hope that Canada will ever regain its former status as a respected member of the world community merely because of the subterfuge and deception that has allowed for the electorate to be bamboozled by the Zionist media into believing that the Conservative Party of Canada and its leader Stephen Harper would somehow STAND FOR CANADA instead of a foreign, apartheid country that treats its arab population as second-class citizens and is, in itself, the only racist, Jews-only nation on the face of the planet? Are we, in other words, willing to give up our collective rights and freedoms and bow down slavishly to the dictates of this dark and sinister New World Order or are we going to regroup, rise up and resist?

The choice for Canada is there still. If we don’t act soon though it may be too late.

God bless Canada. God bless Palestine. And God bless all who strive for freedom, love, peace and dignity.

—-