ANOTHER HOLOCOST DENIER (ERIC HUNT) BITES THE DUST By Jim Rizoli & Diane King

ANOTHER HOLOCOST DENIER (Eric Hunt) BITES THE DUST

By Jim Rizoli & Diane King

FIRST EMAIL:

From: Diane King <dianekayking@hotmail.com>
Subject: ANOTHER HOLOCOST DENIER (Eric Hunt) BITES THE DUST
Date: February 15, 2017 at 10:41:59 AM PST

Jim and I have received a response from Eric Hunt about my inquiry: “Did Eric Hunt Write This” and we responded to it. (These letters are in a separate email.) Below are OUR responses to the news of Eric Hunt’s capitulation. Diane

“ERIC HUNT: For over a decade I have devoted a great deal of my life to investigating what is known as “The Holocaust.” I’ve endured 18 months imprisonment, overwhelming hardships, and live life as an outcast due to my activism as a Holocaust skeptic. All along, I claimed I was looking for the truth and out to tell the truth. I have determined I have reached “the end of the line” in the extent relevant research in the central issue of the “Holocaust denial” debate is able to go.”

JIM RIZOLI: Another HoloHoax truther bites the dust….Why are these people retreating from the revisionist camp? Are they being threatened? No matter…..I still will stick to my hardcore revisionist views until I can be proven wrong with FACTS and not just what ifs, and maybes. I notice that this article supposedly by Eric Hunt seems like it came off the skeptics site….maybe they are his new friends.

DIANE KING: I would like to thank Joe Rizoli for finding and sharing this ‘reversal’ and Germar Rudolf for confirming this unexpected issue. (My letter response to Germar Rudolf):

HISTORICAL REVISIONISM

WE ARE A FACT-BASED not a FAITH-BASED movement. Now, I’m a dyed-in-the-wool, 100%, BORN AGAIN BELIEVER – Christian. I wouldn’t say my belief system is based exclusively on faith … OR facts. I believe there are plenty of FACTS to support my faith. There are so many things we CAN’T PROVE in our ‘faith,’ but having come to understand the Lord’s character, I have no problem with my inability to prove everything about GOD.

Having said that, THAT isn’t the way it is in the revisionist world. We springboard FROM the facts and nearly EVERYTHING can be proven. So, I’m appalled at this “bailing” mindset. How can you turn your back on the facts!!!!

It’s like NO ONE has suffered but him. (Not to minimize what he’s been through). MANY soldiers of truth – Germar, Leuchter, Faurisson, Fredrick, Deckert, Fromm – a number of us in lesser AND greater degrees — have suffered too. We haven’t ‘bailed’ on the truth. But bottom line is the facts addressing the specific points concerning the claims of the holohoax are nearly indisputable. So because of this, isn’t this PC-incorrect issue worth fighting for????!!! It’s like he’s been tortured (as it seemed were David Cole and David Irving) until he RECANTED. So once he does, instead of the peace he seeks, he will continue to be hounded to keep him in line.

So what’s he going to do now? More articles denouncing what HE KNOWS is the truth??? Go on the road and try to ingratiate himself back into his tormentor’s good graces? If nothing else, what is going on with Ingrid and Ernst Zundel should prove THERE IS NOT ENOUGH GROVELING you can do – when you resist them, YOU ARE MARKED FOR LIFE.

Jim and I will be pursuing this further (stay tuned for further correspondence).

Eric Hunt’s Kapitulation

Jim and Diane’s Response to Eric Hunt

Dear Eric:

Diane and I collaborated with our response, as this was a big discussion point with us, to make sure the wording and sentiment were precise. This may be long, but we took the time to read yours. You can do us the courtesy of reading ours.

I appreciate your response but you still haven’t proven anything … you sound like you’re coming from the Skeptics (forum) crowd who continue to uphold the Holohoax theories 100?, where not only do they just emote on certain points, but they ridicule and punish counter arguments by censorship. I’m not saying that the National Socialist Germans were angels. I don’t maintain that – it was wartime – but had they wanted to exterminate ANYONE, you KNOW they’d have come up with extremely MORE EFFICIENT means than drafty/questionable facilities using a less than effective agent — Zyklon B. or whatever silly method they say. (By the way, your using the term ‘gassing’ for the means of extermination suggests you’ve bailed on scientific proof.) Have you even considered the other ridiculous methods that were said to have been used? Have you heard about these? Eric do you really believe this below? Have you even read revisionist literature?

Killing methods
Holocaust or Hoax book Jurgen Graf. 55

If we trace the evolution of the Holocaust yarn over the years since 1942, we stumble across one surprise after the other. In particular, innumerable methods of mass killing of which there is not the slightest mention in the later literature, are described in the most graphic detail, particularly:

a) Pneumatic hammers
This method is described as follows in a report of the Polish resistance movement on Auschwitz (23): “When the Kommandos went to work, they led them into the courtyard in the penal company where the executions took place by means of a ‘pneumatic hammer’. They bound the prisoners’ hands together behind their backs and brought them in, one after the other, naked, into the courtyard. They placed them in front of the barrel of an air gun, which was discharged without a sound. The hammer crushed the skull, and the compressed air destroyed the entire brain.”

b) Electric baths
As reported by the Polish resistance movement, the following method was also commonly used in Auschwitz (24): “According to the report of an SS officer, the number of victims in the electrical chambers amounted, unofficially, to 2,500 per night. The executions took place in electrical baths…”

c) Electrical assembly line killing
Another variant was described by Pravda on 2 February, five days after the liberation of Auschwitz: “They (the Germans) opened up the so-called ‘old graves’ in the eastern part of the camp, removed the bodies, and wiped out the trace of the assembly linekilling installation where hundreds of people were killed simultaneously with electrical current.”

d) Atomic bombs
At the Nuremberg Trial, US prosecutor Robert Jackson made the following accusation (25): “A village, a small village was provisionally erected, with temporary structures, and in it approximately 20,000 Jews were put. By means of this newly invented weapon of destruction, these 20,000 people were eradicated almost instantaneously, and in such a way that there was no trace left of them; the explosive used developing temperatures of from four to five hundred degrees Centigrade.”

e) Burning alive
Elie Wiesel, honored with the Nobel Peace Prize in 1986, was interned at Auschwitz from the spring of 1944 until January 1945. In his memoirs of the camp, La Nuit, published in 1958, he never mentions the gas chambers — not once, not with one single word — even though 400,000 Hungarian Jews, among others, are said to have been gassed during his period of internment. (In the German translation, which appeared under the title of Die Nacht zu begraben, Elischa, the gas chambers nevertheless make a miraculous appearance, for the simple reason that, whenever the word “crématoire” appears in the original, the translator has mistranslated it as “Gaskammer”). According to Wiesel, the Jews were exterminated in the following manner (26): “Not far from us blazed flames from a pit, gigantic flames. They were burning something. A lorry drove up to the pit and dumped its load into the pit. They were small children. Babies! Yes, I had seen it, with my own eyes…Children in the flames (is it any wonder, that sleep shuns my eyes since that time?). We went there, too. Somewhat further along, was another, bigger pit, for adults. ‘Father’, I said, ‘if that is so, I wish to wait no longer. I shall throw myself against the electrified barbed wire fence. That is better than lying around in the flames for hours’.” How little Elie survived lying around in the flames for hours, by some miracle, will be revealed below.

f) Steam chambers
In December 1945, at the Nuremberg Trial the following accusation was made regarding the mass killings at Treblinka (27): “All victims had to strip off their clothes and shoes, which were collected afterwards, whereupon all victims, women and children first, were driven into the death chambers… After being filled to capacity, the chambers were hermetically closed and steam was let in. In a few minutes all was over… From reports received may be assumed that several hundred thousands of Jews have been exterminated in Treblinka.”

g) Suffocation by pumping all the air out of the death chambers
This method was described by the Soviet-Jewish writer Vassily Grossman at Treblinka.

h) Quicklime trains
At Belzec the Jews were killed according to eyewitness Jan Karski as follows (29): “The floors of the car had been covered with a thick, white powder. It was quicklime. Quicklime is simply unslaked lime or calcium oxide that has been dehydrated. Anyone who has seen cement being mixed knows what occurs when water is poured on lime. The mixture bubbles and steams as the powder combines with the water, generating a large amount of heat. Here the lime served a double purpose in the Nazi economy of brutality. The moist flesh coming in contact with the lime is rapidly dehydrated and burned. The occupants of the cars would be literally burned to death before long, the flesh eaten from their bones. Thus, the Jews would ‘die in agony'”, fulfilling the promise Himmler had issued “in accord with the will of the Fuehrer”, in Warsaw, in 1942. Secondly, the lime would prevent decomposing bodies from spreading disease. It was efficient and inexpensive – a perfectly chosen agent for their purposes.

It took three hours to fill up the entire train by repetitions of this procedure. It was twilight when the forty six (I counted them) cars were packed. From one end to the other, the train, with its quivering cargo of flesh, seemed to throb, vibrate, rock, and jump as if bewitched. There would be a strangely uniform momentary lull and then, again, the train would begin to moan and sob, wail, and how. Inside the camp a few score dead bodies remained and a few in the final throes of death. German policemen walked around at leisure with smoking guns, pumping bullets into anything that by single motion betrayed an excess of vitality. Soon, not a single one was left alive. In the now quiet camp the only sounds were the inhuman screams that were echoes from the moving train. Then these, too, ceased. All that was now left was the stench of excrement and rotting straw and a queer, sickening, acidulous odour which, I thought, may have come from the quantities of blood that had been let, and with which the ground was stained. As I listened to the dwindling outcries from the train, I thought of the destination toward which it was speeding. My informants had minutes described the entire journey. The train would travel about eighty miles and finally come to a halt in an empty, barren field. Then nothing at all would happen. The train would stand stock-still, patiently waiting until death had penetrated into every corner of its interior. This would take from two to four days.” This Jan Karski was, by the way, appointed to chair a committee for “Scientific Research on the Holocaust” along with Elie Wiesel.

i) Chambers with submergible, electrified flooring. Stefan Szende, a Doctor of Philosophy, describes the extermination of the Jews at Belzec quite differently: “The death factory comprises an area approximately 7 km in diameter… The trains filled with Jews entered a tunnel into the underground rooms of the execution factory… The naked Jews were brought into gigantic halls. Several thousand people at one time could fit into these halls. The halls had no floor. The floor was of metal and was submergible. The floors of these halls, with their thousands of Jews, sank into a basin of water which lay beneath — but only far enough so that the people on the metal plate were not entirely under water. When all the Jews on the metal plate were in the water up to over their hips, electrical current was sent through the water. After a few moments, all the Jews, thousands at once, were dead. Then they raised the metal plate out of the water. On it lay the corpses of the murder victims. Another shock of electrical current was sent through, and the metal plate became a crematory oven, white hot, until all the bodies were burnt to ashes… Each individual train brought three to five thousand, sometimes more, Jews. There were days on which the lines to Belzec supplied twenty or more trains. Modern technology triumphed in the Nazi system. The problem of how to execute millions of people, was solved.”

j) Blood poisoning
This method, described on 7 February 1943 in the New York Times (“… gas chambers and blood poisoning stations which were erected in the rural regions…”), appears to have gone into oblivion as soon as it was invented.

k) Drowning
According to the Israeli Holocaust specialist Yehuda Bauer, the Romanians in Odessa murdered 144,000 Soviet Jews, mostly by drowning (31). The same method of extermination was testified to by the underground press agent for the Warsaw ghetto, as well as for Babi Yar (32): “Not a single Jew remains in Kiev, since the Germans have thrown the entire Jewish population of Kiev into the Dnieper.”

l) Chlorine gas, assembly-line shootings, boiling water, acids
Mass murders with chlorine gas, as well as assembly line shootings were reported for Treblinka (33). Reports of massacres with acids and boiling water round make a complete assortment of killing methods (34).

The exterminationists no longer wish to be reminded of all these stories today. At that time, however, they were considered to be “proven fact” — “proven” by the testimonies of “eyewitnesses” — just like the gas chambers, which have been placed a under legal protection order in several “free democracies”. Not to mention, that as the revisionists assert certain facts, the hoax changes to attempt to address the ‘new’ findings, not the least of which is the diesel to gas discussion (following) again, from Jurgen Graf:

Diesel or gas?

A marvelous metamorphosis is already taking place in the holocaust story. Several leading Holocaust proponents are now taking great pains to drop the Diesel claim and replace it with the view that the engines were not Diesels but conventional gasoline engines which simply burned Diesel fuel, presumably to make the engines more deadly than if they had only burned regular gasoline. This amazing transformation has appeared in a recent book in Germany entitled Nationalsozialistiche Massentötungen durch Giftgas. (fn. 34) The book was a joint project of 24 of the most eminent scholars on the subject, including such notables as Eugen Kogon, Hermann Langbein, Adalbert Rueckerl, Gideon Hausner, Germaine Tillion and Georges Wellers. The book represents the current state of the art of holocaust mythomania and has already been recommended by the World Jewish Congress in London. (fn. 35) The new, “revised” version of the holocaust says, in effect, that Gerstein and others were mistaken when they had claimed that Diesels were used to kill Jews at reblinka, Belzec and Sobibor. The claim now is that gasoline engines were used.

The clumsy juggling of evidence which characterizes this book is exemplified by the fact that although the Gerstein statement refers to Diesel engines four times, the portion of the Gerstein statement which is quoted in this supposedly definitive rebuttal of the revisionists does not mention Diesels at all, nor does it even describe the alleged killing process. (fn. 36) For a description of the killing process that Gerstein supposedly witnessed, the book gives a piece of postwar testimony by Dr. Pfannenstiel in which there is also no mention of the use of Diesels, but only of the use of Diesel fuel in the engine. How one could possibly have operated a gasoline engine with Diesel fuel is, of course, left to the imagination. The fact is that any gasoline engine simply would not operate with Diesel fuel (and vice-versa).

A fatal flaw in the new, non-Diesel, version is the retention of the recurrent claim that the corpses were “blue.” Although any possible death from Diesel exhaust would have been due to lack of oxygen, which would in turn have caused a bluish appearance of the corpse, death from gasoline engine exhaust would “only” have been due to carbon monoxide and could “only” have caused a distinctive “cherry red” or “pink” appearance. Although Pfannenstiel’s postwar testimony is generally less wild than the Gerstein statement, nonetheless he and other “eyewitnesses” also repeated the claim that the corpses were “blue.” (fn. 37)

That the Gerstein statement, although in a severely abbreviated form, is included at all in such a scholarly work, despite the problems for the “revised” version of the holocaust story which should be obvious to anyone looking at the complete text of that statement, only shows how desperate the holocaust scholars are to scrape together everything they have in support of their monstrous fantasy. They have precious little, and the Gerstein statement is still the best evidence they can present.

The new “revised” version of the holocaust story is actually more absurd than the old version. Although it might be remotely possible for an engineer to have mistaken a gasoline engine for a Diesel engine, how could anyone possibly have mistaken “red” for “blue”? Perhaps they were all color blind-we will just have to wait and see. No doubt, we will see many more attempts by desperate men to hold together a crumbling patchwork of lies.

The Diesel gas chamber claim is rubbish-apparently some of the exterminationists themselves recognize that now. However, the alternate claim that gasoline engine exhaust was used instead is rubbish also.

Holohoax museum
https://www.ushmm.org/wlc/mobile/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005220

Snippet…
Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka

In 1942, systematic mass killing in stationary gas chambers (with carbon monoxide gas generated by diesel engines) began at Belzec, Sobibor, and Treblinka, all in Poland. As victims were “unloaded” from cattle cars, they were told that they had to be disinfected in “showers.” The Nazi and Ukrainian guards sometimes shouted at and beat the victims, who were ordered to enter the “showers” with raised arms to allow as many people as possible to fit into the gas chambers. The tighter the gas chambers were packed, the faster the victims suffocated.

I hope all that was educational for you for future discussions.

Lets get back to the gassings.

FRED LEUCHTER: Not withstanding the evidence that Irving and Weber, have relative to “Limited Gassings”, The fact remains that Mass Gas Executions are impossible from a hardware standpoint. The evidence cited by both Weber and Irving is circumstantial. I have great respect for circumstantial evidence. It indicates an need for further investigation. This evidence will convince some and not others, and I can respect everyone’s opinion. However, the fact that is impossible from an engineering standpoint to effect Mass Executions with gas is not circumstantial. It is Scientific/Engineering Fact. This should override any doubts created in anyone’s mind about the matter. If anyone is willing to believe “Leuchter” and “Rudolf” some of the time, they should believe all the time. There is not middle ground in Science (Rudolf) and Leuchter (Engineering) …. I have left no room for doubt nor has Germar. (Fred Leuchter).

In complete agreement, the claimed mass extermination could NOT have occurred in ANY venue – because the facts for such are just not there like the solid facts of mass killings in the Reinhardt camps like Treblinka. (On this topic, Both Jim and Diane on separate occasions asked Mark Weber, “How did they do it, how were the killings done in the Reinhardt camps?” To which he responded, “I don’t know.” We learned that David Irving was asked the same thing and he answered, “I don’t know and I don’t care!”) THAT’S A PROBLEM! What kind of answer is “I don’t know?” How about “results are pending” (.LOL) Even some Jews admit there are some issues here.

“Most of the memoirs and reports of Holocaust survivors are full of preposterous verbosity, graphomanic exaggeration, dramatic effects, overestimated self-inflation, dilettante philosophizing, would-be lyricism, unchecked rumors, bias, partisan attacks…” –Samuel Gringauz, “Jewish Social Studies” (New York), January 1950, Vol. 12, p6.

Now, I’m all for open debate but honestly, the stupidity or believing things that are just totally impossible to have occurred, which you seem to now believe …. !!!! You’re a smart guy. But sadly You seem to just parrot the mainstream, PC-driven, mind-numbing, brain dead drivel who make statements without any facts to back up the claims: Saying “it” happened because (all hinging on the trumped-up question) “Where did these people go?” Really now we have to prove that to make our points valid? We don’t have to prove ANYTHING (the accuser must make his case) We just have to show that the official narrative is wrong which I think I’ve done with above comments.

What this is really about?

The Holohoax narrative is operated and controlled by a high-powered CULT, one that wants to USE the Holohoax narrative to control and suppress ALL thought and expression. THEY will decide what WE are to think and express. THEY will determine the parameters of what is acceptable to speak about – their game, their terms – typical CULT behavior and if you question ANY of their tenets, YOU will be dealt with as an apostate, as you have been, as Germar has, Leuchter, Deckart, Faurisson, Toben, Zundel have, to name a few of the many high-profile targets of this cult. And then there are also the low-profile ‘deviants’ (in their mind) like ourselves. So if you think you’re going to get on the fast track and be welcomed again by these people that hate you and what you believe, you better think again.

You think that by taking on this new PC-version of truth, you’re going to be accepted in the Holohoax community? That by ingratiating yourself to THEIR narrative (at least partially) that they will welcome you with open arms or leave you alone? Do you really honestly think that the Holohucksters are going to appreciate you in your back pedaling when you don’t subscribe 100% to THEIR version of the narrative, that you don’t believe in the Six Million!!!??? They still will look at you as a HOLOCAUST DENIER largely because you KNOW that 6 million did NOT die (even with those deaths you claim at Treblinka).

Sorry Eric – ain’t gonna happen. You’re a marked man now just like David Cole, Mark Weber and David Irving? You have joined THEIR dishonorable and even cowardly ranks? The only problem now is people are going to look at you as a sell-out – someone who couldn’t “take the heat,” who sold his soul to the PC devil, if you will. The only good news is your videos have been state of the art and MOST desired and respected and largely, THAT’s how you will be remembered. It’s easy to give in. It’s difficult to HANG TOUGH, which you have done for quite some time. Know this, though, that by caving, whatever you do from now on will be tainted and discounted. We draw the line on your work up to this date, as we have with Weber, Cole and Irving. Are you now going to recant what you have already done and call it wrong, misguided, and not in harmony with the facts?

I just think you’ve been sold a bill of goods and cannot accept the truth that the entire narrative of the Holohoax is a farse because it has cost you to maintain that stance. Why would you capitulate after so many years of ‘hanging tough’!!!! They wear you down? You waved the WHITE FLAG OF SURRENDER/CAPITULATION. You didn’t have to. You now have the option to hang tough or place yourself as a doormat where the HoloHoax Cultmasters can wipe their feet on and claim victory. Is that what you want? Because that is exactly what you will get from them.

I guess there is not much more to say to you….As a final note, and hopefully you will entertain this invitation we’d like to interview you so you can say exactly what your thoughts are so you won’t be misquoted… I’ve interviewed nearly all of the high-profile revisionists and many ‘unsung revisionist heroes’ who have consented to such an interview. We’ll give you your voice, your say and we’ll have a lively debate. Also note, I’m NOT like Ray Dawson, who would hang up on you if he doesn’t like what you say. We look forward to hearing from you about the interview.

ELISABETH CARTO: Eric H’s story can be totally disproved by Walter N. Sanning’s book “The Dissolution of Eastern European Jewry”. The breakdown of individual countries by their Jewish populations, who had a low birthrate in any case, shows that the disabled and children were absorbed into the nearby Jewish Ghettos as in Hungary. They certainly were not killed in gas chambers that did not exist. In 1990/91 Auschwitz had to remove the 6 mil figure from it’s stone monument and changed to 4 mill deaths. There was not ever any word of children being killed there. Actually, there were registered births of babies at the camp hospital. If the book is still in print, readers should buy it. Good luck, Elisabeth Carto

Keine Kapitulation (No Surrender),
(Capitulation is more than surrender, which may suggest ‘mere ceasing hostilities’. Capitulation is GOING OVER TO THEIR SIDE – a worse betrayal).

Jim Rizoli and Diane King
508-872-7292

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 by Arthur Topham

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

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

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

Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

URGENT!! You must STAND up for Anthony Hall against B’nai B’rith!!! By Trevor Labonte for TUT

https://theuglytruth.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/urgent-you-must-stand-up-for-anthony-hall-against-bnai-brith/

URGENT!! You must STAND up for Anthony Hall against B’nai B’rith!!!
By Trevor Labonte
 

holocxt?

Letter to Lethbridge University, written by Trevor LaBonte

Mr. Mahon,

I know that you have recently been a victim of strong-arming by the infamous jewish secret society/hate-cult known as B’nai B’rith.

I know their tactics, they left you no choice but to fire the good Dr. Hall. All of the jewish organizations threatened to withhold funding for Lethbridge unless demands were met. This is standard operating procedure for these gangsters.

I have been featured on Iranian national news and many other shows and I am just telling you the facts that millions or maybe billions of people already know. Anyone who has made any serious inquiry into 9/11 has been met with an enormous array of extremely damning evidence that 9/11 was a zionist operation designed to draw America and other countries into a series of genocidal wars for expansionist Israel.

“Apartheid” does not BEGIN to describe the atrocities the zionist entity commits against the innocent Palestinian people, who only want to live on their own land which has belonged to them for thousands of years.

This paradigm of zionist propaganda will not last much longer. We are in the midst of a great awakening.

I highly encourage you, brother, to reinstate Dr. Hall, and you will be met with cheers and support from all over the world. Let’s chalk up a victory for truth and justice. Don’t make an innocent, heroic man homeless and destitute. This is a crime against humanity that you are being forced to commit at the childish behest of the Jewish lobby, who marches your children into genocidal, illegal wars that nobody but said lobby wants.

Also it may shock you to learn that the holocaust story we have all been taught is fraught with fantastical, physically impossible claims that are 100% without real evidence. The entire source of the story is the Nuremberg trials, which were nothing but a show trial ginned up by the victorious “Allies,” hardly a fair or impartial affair. It was nothing but a farce and a big kangaroo court which only further proved the Allies’ criminality after they firebombed hundreds of thousands of innocent people, dropped nuclear bombs on Japan, and killed millions of defenseless German prisoners AFTER the war was supposedly over. It was hardly a “good war” and is definitely nothing of which to be proud.

Interestingly, in the charter for the trial, in articles 19 and 20, it states that “the trial will not be bound by the rules of technical evidence.” Translated from legalese to English, this means they took the rules and threw them into the trash can. All this talk, for all these years, and all these articles, movies, etc…and here there has never been a single shred of evidence that a single jew was ever “gassed.” There was no “exermination” program, period. The emaciated bodies we see in Allied propaganda photographs are actually proof of Allied atrocities, namely the Allied bombings of supply lines that led directly to mass starvation and typhus outbreak. Yes, the jews that died in Germany’s camps were actually victims of Allied bombings.

 ?no-proof

These are all things that true intellectuals and researchers have known for certain for at least 40 years. It is so very sad that our educational institutions are being forced to peddle such a fraudulent narrative, deceiving, misleading, indoctrinating, and defrauding students of a true education based on facts and evidence. Students going into lifelong debt, just so they can be brainwashed and manipulated. What an epic catastrophe. And here you had ONE good professor, with the courage to investigate the truth, and you let yourself be bullied into throwing him onto the streets for the benefit of the world’s most dangerous gangsters.

This is your chance to be a hero. You will never find a finer example of a human than Dr. Hall. His work is famous around the world for its accurate revelations.

Do the right thing. Don’t martyr Dr. Hall. His blood will be on your hands for the rest of your life, and people around the world already bitterly resent this setback you have just dealt to the global truth community.

Our numbers are massive and we are growing exponentially everyday. We would love you forever if you can help us win this battle instead of capitulating to the tyrannical demands of Jews who believe they are the “Chosen people of God,” and who think they can do no wrong and are above the law. They are an ideological collective of moral relativists who believe that non-Jewish life has no sanctity or importance, and as such, they are hell-bound as well as dead wrong. Don’t do anything to support their racist, anti-gentile agenda.

This world is just a test. Your only job in this place is to do the right thing. Always remember that. Also it is only a matter of time until the truth emerges victorious, so NEVER lose faith, and NEVER be caught on the wrong side of truth.

Sincerely,

Trevor Labonte


trevor-labonte-copy

Jazz artist and peace/truth activist/journalist/blogger/international political commentator Trevor LaBonte

Enough Already! HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

EnjoughAlready!

HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

Holocaust deprogramming course

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

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

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

Escape From The Holocaust Lie by Arthur Topham

EscapeHoloHdr

Escape From The Holocaust Lie

By
Arthur Topham

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

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

DouglasHChristiecopy_zps43b1b5c0

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

tazebook_dees-1-copy

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

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

ZundelTrialFreeSpeechDC800 copy

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

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

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

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

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

As Doug Christie put it in his summation:

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

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

RaulHilbergPic

And the Beat(ing) Goes On

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

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

MonikaSchaeferSorryMomHdr copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5

What to do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RepealHateLaws-1000 copy 2

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

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

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

______

The Trials and Tribulations of Freedom of Speech in Canada by Arthur Topham

DCImage2

Remembrance Day has come and gone but the trial of Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com continues on.

The jury retired once again Wednesday evening at 9:00 p.m. and will reconvene again this morning (Thursday) around 10:00 a.m. to carry on with their deliberations.

Given the vast amount of documentation that Crown entered into evidence and the fact that over the course of the 11 day trial the jury only got to catch snippets of articles and quotes from here and there, when the time came for them to retire and ponder over this vast array of materials they were undoubtedly faced with a monumental task, one that in all likelihood has taxed their minds.

On top of that Justice Butler handed them a 62-page Charge document that they were instructed to follow as a guideline in their deliberations and it also recommended that they take into consideration all of the materials submitted by Crown prior to coming to their decision.

When I reflect on the assortment of articles that have been published on my website and contemplate the task now set before these twelve individuals I can have but sympathy and respect for their efforts. It’s a daunting challenge and one that will have repercussions felt around the world. In some ways those twelve women and men will be holding  in their hands the fundamental right to freedom of speech and deciding whether or not Canadians will be able to retain and exercise that right.

God grant them the strength and discernment necessary to make the right decision.

I would ask that those who love their freedoms to continue thinking and sending good thoughts and prayers to these individuals and to keep their own spirits strong.

There is a war taking place on this planet between the forces of darkness who are trying to impose censorship on nations around the world. My case is but one of many battles now taking place. Should we be victorious the cause of freedom will move forward but if we should lose this battle it won’t signal the end of the global conflict that now looms before us.

Be strong and courageous. We WILL win this war eventually and the Light of freedom WILL continue to guide humanity into a bright and loving and peaceful future.

Arthur Topham – Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com

—-

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM

ATEditorPic185

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

by
Arthur Topham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NetfirmsWilsonLet

Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner

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

Len Rudner copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

BCHCTFILE 2007-23814

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

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

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

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

Defence Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon

GILAD&BARCLAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crown’s Cross Examination of Gilad Atzmon

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

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

Gilad Atzmon: No.

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

Defence’s Summation to the Jury

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final observations on Crown’s handling of evidence

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.13.33 PM

Still to come

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

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

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

Zion’s Zombie Army: Neo-Zionist zealots attack RadicalPress.com by Arthur Topham

ZION'SZOMBIES 700

Zion’s Zombie Army: Neo-Zionist zealots attack RadicalPress.com

By
Arthur Topham

“The problem is, The Radical, like D&D, has connections and it has influence.”
– Will Offley, DRY ROT: The Far Right Targets the Left,
Canadian Dimension magazine, Jan/Feb/2001

“It’s the same old story
Everywhere I go,
I get slandered, libelled
I hear words I never heard in the Bible”
Paul Simon, “Keep The Customer Satisfied

Intro

Being a longstanding member of the alternative new media one expects to be subjected to an endless array of vituperation, slander, hate, maligning, slurs, false accusations, etc. It comes with the territory; that being the vast, uncharted landscape known as Truth-revealing.

In the case of RadicalPress.com the assaults upon my then hard copy, bimonthly tabloid known as The Radical (June 1998 to June 2002) began in earnest around the turn of the century approximately two years after I began publishing. By that point in time I had established myself as a rather unique specimen in the then fledgling alternative press.

Here in Canada, as elsewhere within the world’s democracies, the yin/yang nature of the present system of governance inevitably affords the Canadian citizen, taxpayer and voter a “choice” between either a left wing or a right wing style government with either of these variations taking on additional names and identities. The “left”, historically, has been the Liberal Party of Canada and the “right” has operated under the guise of the Conservative Party of Canada throughout its history.

Following the general pattern set around the Western world, by the beginning of the 20th century a new kid suddenly appeared on the political block whose outward appearance and purpose was aimed at garnering the support of the great unwashed masses, the “Proletariat”, many of whom had only recently achieved suffrage. As they became known within the literature of the day this new kid’s schtick was basically the political ideology we understand today as “socialism” although throughout much of its genesis it quickly became co-oped by the Marxist strain that preferred to be known as “communism”.

Those socialist/communist ideals and precepts then became firmly embodied in Canadian politics during the 1930’s when the Western world was being held in thrall to a devastating economic “depression” euphemistically known as the “Dirty Thirties”; a deliberate event brought on by the machinations of the private money lenders (all Jews) who, in 1913, had successfully pulled off the greatest financial coup in world history when they were given a license by the United States government to manufacture fiat currency out of thin air and then lend it out at usurious cost to borrowers.

Concomitant with the surreptitiously gained, carte blanche freedom to create untold wealth (embodied under the false flag tag of the “U.S. Federal Reserve” and later aptly referred to as the Creature from Jekyll Island by the American writer G. Edward Griffin), the “fed” was able to use its ill-gained power to manipulate the stock markets and influence the overall wealth of the nation for good or bad, all dependent upon agenda which this Rothschild cartel clandestinely conspired to author for their own benefit and that of their tribe.

And so out of all this financial intrigue-wreaking economic havoc around the Western world emerged a new “Made in Canada” “left” political party known as the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation (CCF), led by a man who justifiably may be called the nation’s most truthful, honest and honourable Statesman, Thomas “Tommy” Clement Douglas.

First elected to office in Saskatchewan in 1935 as a CCF member of the House of Commons Tommy then resigned to run for the leadership of the provincial CCF and in 1944 they won an overwhelming majority and his party became the first-ever socialist government in North America. In 1961, the CCF formed the New Democratic Party (NDP) of Canada under Tommy’s leadership and, as they say, the rest is history.

It must be borne in mind though that the Tommy Douglas version of socialism was fundamentally different from that of Canada’s Communist Party which never was able to align its own Marxist-Leninist (Zionist) policies with those of the democratic socialism of either the CCF or, later, the NDP. Douglas had little use for any form of socialism involving people who did little else but sit around talking about Marx or Lenin or Trotsky waited patiently for the next “revolution” to start that would usher in the type of totalitarian Bolshevik government that formed the former Soviet system. Tommy’s socialism was based on Christian principles of brotherhood and helping others less fortunate than oneself rather than following a rigid, dogmatic Marxist/Leninist doctrine.

TommyDouglasPoster1Red

As a result Canada has never had to endure any serious growth of Marxist-style politics (although shades of things to come can be seen in the behaviour of the current Zionist-controlled Harper Conservatives) and what little did develop tended to be isolated pockets of communist ideologues located within fringe areas of cities across the country.

As the interest in The Radical grew, so did the concern of the minority section of the “left” who, up until that point had basically held a monopoly over the type of information being disseminated to the alternative community around the province and the nation. The group fretting over the information being disseminated via The Radical (and believe me it was as broad in scope as humanly possible, covering as many topics as I could squeeze into 24 pages) turned out to be the Marxist-Leninist-Trotskyist-Zionist section of Vancouver’s East Side, an anomalous collective of atheistic, diehard doctrinaire, commissar throwbacks heavily influenced by all the Jewish writers and activists of the past century.

It was this shadowy, serpentine sub-group of Canada’s socialist “left” who were not impressed at all with the new upstart from Quesnel, B.C. who was suddenly cutting a swath, like anarchist Nestor Mahkno’s raiders did through Lenin’s Bolshevik forces after 1917, through their formerly held media territory. The Radical was covering so many different topics that their Leninized heads began spinning with each new edition that hit the streets giving the term “revolution” a whole new meaning; one that was plainly undermining their traditionally calcified, narcissistic and nihilistic world of Marxist mediocrity.

By the end of the year 2000 things came to a head with the zio-Marxists launching their first full-scale attack upon my newspaper and that of a sister publication from out in Nova Scotia known as Discourse and Disclosure run by Sue Potvin and hosting an array of writers and activists who were then aligning themselves with either of our newspapers.

The vehicle for launching their hostile assault was Canadian Dimension (CD) magazine, also a bimonthly “Left” publication that had been in business for around 6 years and displayed strong ties to the old Marxist-Leninist/Zionist left as well as trade unions. From what I could tell it was heavily influenced by Jewish/Zionist writers and staff.

Screen Shot 2015-03-05 at 6.57.36 PM

Their trigger man for the first volley was a Vancouver-based “researcher and writer” by the name of Will Offley who penned an all-encompassing screed called “DRY ROT: The Far Right Targets the Left”. Its appearance in the January/February 2001 edition of CD set the tone for the future in terms of this Marxist group’s attitude toward Radical Press and their ongoing efforts to marginalize my publication by the use of standard Zionist Jew smear tactics. The article itself is no longer available on the Canadian Dimension website but it is available on RadicalPress.com here.

DryRotOffleyHdr-546x600

As one will note Radical Press is still operating fourteen years later regardless of the relentless attacks by the Zionist forces who continue doing their utmost to control all the political discourse, be on the net or in hard copy alternative publications. Their mask is Zion and their game is always censorship of any anti-Zionist opposing perspectives by any foul means deemed expedient..

HATE IN THE NORTH: Gaily bedight, a not so Gallant knight

Okay, now let’s fast forward to the year 2012. The zionist brainwashed lefties who I’ve coined “neo-Zionists” basically went off my radar screen (with the occasional exception of the Anti-RacistCanada blogsite) after their taskmaster and benefactor, the Jewish masonic B’nai Brith Canada, figured it would be a lot easier to use legislation (contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act which they played a major role in creating after the end of WW2 using the holocaust lie as pretext) to charge me with a sec. 13 “Hate crime”. This allow them to download the responsibility and cost on to the state (and the Canadian taxpayer) who would subsequently take over the harassment and persecution just as they did in all other cases where they didn’t have the courage or integrity to enter into any formal debate on the issues but would rather just label all opposing viewpoints as “hate speech” and have the courts do the dirty work for them. The classic example of this was the Canada’s Jewish lobby’s vile, despicable, traitorous and vicious attacks upon truth revealer Ernst Zundel. One can view his case here to find out the real story about how these hordes of Zion’s Zombies behave when programmed to act as attack dogs for the truth-hating Jews.

GallantFaceofHope 801

Bringing it all down to a local focus, on December 1, 2012 a young man by the name of Daniel Gallant, then completing his Master’s degree in Social Work at the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC) in Prince George, B.C. (a city about 100 km north of the Quesnel area where I reside), published a short 5-Part series of articles on his website entitled “Hate in the North”. In Part I Gallant introduced himself with the following short statement:

“I am an example of hope, diversity and compassion that can be seen through my work as an anti-racist activist, and a re-formed violent right wing extremist. As a right-wing-skinhead who has committed hundreds of assaults during my time in the white supremacist movement, I believe that my experiences can benefit society by offering insight into hate crimes, and the patterns that surround these violent acts. Over ten years ago I was awakened to a path of redemption and social change through epiphanies at the height of my extremist action.”

Gallant, as he goes to great (one might even say “extreme”) lengths to outline in his autobiographical writings on his websites, tells his readers that he was born into a very dysfunctional family setting and grew up under excruciatingly painful circumstances that resulted in his having to endure all sorts of horrific physical, mental, emotional and spiritual abuse and trauma. The end result of it all landed him in Vancouver, B.C. at the young age of 14 in the very same neighbourhood populated by the fringe lefties who now play a role in this article.

After joining his “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist” “violent right wing extremist” groups and beating and torturing hundreds of victims this flawed piece of human machinery, either through the grace of God or possibly some other force, finally was able to break free from his bondage to human despair and violence around the time that Israel was destroying the Twin Towers in New York City on September 11th, 2001.

Upon escaping his former fate his road to recovery brought him into contact with a number of remedial groups and agencies and individuals who all had varying degrees of influence on his healing. Foremost was his family connection with First Nations culture stemming from his early childhood out in Alberta. But, as is the case in so many instances of individuals who have suffered extreme trauma in their lives, Daniel Gallant’s road to recovery was fraught with new obstacles and challenges which, as one can see from reviewing his path to the present day, have led him into a new world paradigm that poses as great a challenge as his former incarnation as a “violent right wing extremist neo-Nazi skinhead white supremacist”.

Today Daniel Gallant is on a crusade to make amends for all of his past sins and in doing so he is now being encouraged and supported by yet another group of even more dangerous, fanatical zealots than his former associates, these being the Zionist criminal cartel itself, the world’s foremost problem and threat to global peace and security and the front organization for the Devil himself.

Following his heartfelt confessions (somewhat reminiscent, for those familiar with the Bible, of St. Paul himself), the remainder of Part I focusses on his connections to and interpretations of supposed “violent right wing extremists” and the “white supremacist movement”, both of which are the focus of “a unique and powerful new global force” called the “Against Violent Extremism (AVE) Network” which, as Gallant states, “is managed by the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD) and is a unique private sector partnership between ISD, Google Ideas, the Gen Next Foundation and Rehab Studio.”and which he is now associated with as well. [all emphasis throughout this article is mine. A.T.]

There is an old saying that one can usually find out a lot about a person by the company they keep so, with that in mind, let’s have a look at some of Daniel Gallant’s new-found “friends” who have been so helpful in supporting and promoting his current mission in life as the new Simon Wiesenthal “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist”, “violent right wing extremist”, “hate” hunter.

For starters the “Against Violent Extremism Network” offers readers some revealing glimpses into those who are organizing and financing the initiatives that the young Daniel Gallant is involved with.

WeisenfeldPhoto

In the above photo (from Bloomberg) we sees the “rebel” oligarch Lord Arthur George Weidenfeld, President of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue and head of the brain trust that’s designing and financing “philanthropic” organizations like the “Against Violent Extremism Network”. As Bloomberg states, “Lord Arthur George Weidenfeld, also known as Lord Weidenfeld of Chelsea, is the Founder and serves as Chairman of Weidenfeld & Nicolson Ltd., a book publisher, since 1948 [subsidiary of The Orion Publishing Group, Ltd. A.T.]. Lord Weidenfeld is the President of the Institute for Strategic Dialogue. Lord Weidenfeld serves as Director of Hollinger International Publishing Inc. He serves as director of Jerusalem Post. Lord Weidenfeld is also the Member of Advisory Board of the Telegraph Group Limited and Member of European Advisory Board at Investcorp Bank BSC, Private Equity. He served as a director of Hollinger Inc. from September 1993 to 1995.”

Plainly folks there’s obviously no hidden agenda here. No conspiracy. Just a man of the people dedicating his resources to the endless struggle for truth and social justice; a veritable Gandhi of the Rothschild International banking consortium.

Weidenfeld&Merkel&Kissinger copy

This photo also reveals many more of Daniel Gallant’s benefactors. Unfortunately the picture wasn’t accompanied by a caption so I was unable to identify most of them but as one can see we do have German Chancellor Angela Merkel, former Stasi agent from communist east Berlin, standing with a number of apparently highly influential personages including Lord Weidenfeld (behind her) and the infamous war criminal Henry Kissinger to the right of Weidenfeld. Again, just another group of everyday Joes and a Jane deeply concerned about the state of the world and giving of themselves to improve the plight of humanity.

[Editor’s Note: Since publication of this article I have been furnished with the names of the rest of the people in the photo above. This is a picture taken when Kissinger celebrated his 90th birthday. They are, from left to right, the following German politicians and media bosses: former Minister for Economics and Technology and former Vice-chancellor Philipp Roesler, former Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle, former Foreign Minister Hans Dietrich Genscher, Merkel, Weinfeld, in wheelchair former chancellor Helmut Schmidt, former President von Weizsaecker, Kissinger, former Minister of Finance Peer Steinbrueck, wheelchair Minister of Finance Wolfgang Schaeuble, Chief Executive Officer of German media group Axel Springer SE Mathias Döpfner and Chairman of the supervisory board German media group Axel Springer SE Giuseppe Vita]

Next on Daniel Gallant’s friends list we find Google Ideas. Now everyone knows of course that Google is the most powerful Jewish-owned outfit on the cyber block when it comes to the control and dispensation of information and spyware and, being the overlord of the world’s ability to access truthful information, is also vital to the availability of much of the content now processable on the Internet.

Again, nothing unusual here to be concerned with when it comes to open access and freedom of speech and so on. This fact is easily discerned just from viewing the graphic headers on the Google Ideas website and knowing that Google Ideas “explores how technology can enable people to confront threats in the face of conflict, instability and repression. We connect users, experts and engineers to conduct research and seed new technology-driven initiatives.” Most reassuring indeed for individuals and organizations who may wish to avail themselves of such powerful tools in order to search out all those nasty “neo-Nazis” and “white supremacists” and “violent right wing extremists” who are causing so much “conflict, instability and repression” within Google’s domain.

GoogleIdeas2

GoogleIdeas3

Another “unique and powerful new global” friend of Daniel Gallant’s is Gen Next Foundation. Now here’s a group of rebel anarchists if you ever saw one! All smiles and clean-cut, one can rest assured that they would have only the best of philanthropic intentions for the great unwashed masses.

As their Mission states, “The Gen Next Foundation works to create opportunities and confront challenges that face future generations in the areas of education, economic opportunity, and global security.  We aspire to solve the greatest generational challenges of our time using a unique hybrid of private sector and non-profit business models – called a venture philanthropy model.”

GenNextFoundation1 copy

GenNext2

Here, pictured in the photo above, is yet another radical group of bad-assed, Gen Next Generation “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist” bounty hunters ready to rock ‘n roll and provide all the necessary backup for young, born-again neo-Zionist “hate” detectives like Daniel Gallant and company. I mean a little Saudi (Jew) money doesn’t hurt the cause now does it? As they state on their site, “When private sector and thought leaders turn their attention, time, and revenue towards supporting game-changing, socially impactful projects, the results can shape the future for millions around the world.

In terms of Gen Next Foundation’s issues they focus on the three that “drive prosperity for future generations: Education, Economic Opportunity, and Global Security.” Get it? “Global Security”. . . “Global Security”. . . “Global Security”. . . “Global Security”. And, speaking of Global Security, the Gen Next Foundation has this to say: “Without a stable, safe environment to grow up in, future generations have far less of a chance to achieve their dreams. Overcoming 21st century challenges demand that our nation’s defense apparatus is the most funded, versatile, well trained, respected, and effective in the world.

We must prioritize diplomacy, and present a positive image of the US in the world. By observing trends in instability, violence, and extremism, both in our own neighborhoods and around the globe, we can better understand the roots of these problems, and develop solutions to solve them through community, technology, and other innovative methods.”

And where do we find the sources for their grand ideas? Let’s see. The World Economic Forum, 2014, the Council on Foreign Relations, 2012, and the Pew Research Center, three outstanding, revolutionary organizations all designed to enhance the quality of life for freedom-living working folks everywhere.

GenNext3

 GenNext4

GenNext5

In terms of their Ventures “Gen Next Foundation incubates and grows ventures that are often high risk, forward looking, and high impact ideas. Our network guides and effectuates each venture with action groups capable of creative ideation, McKinsey style consulting, and world class execution [no doubt along the lines of Israel’s Mossad. A.T.]. We align private sector leaders, government officials, and NGOs in a Venture Philanthropy model to ensure our ventures have the greatest impact.”

Wikipedia tells us, “McKinsey & Company is a multinational management consulting firm with 108 global offices headquartered in New York City in the United States. It conducts qualitative and quantitative analysis in order to evaluate management decisions. Eighty percent of the world’s largest corporations are consulted by the firm and it is considered the most prestigious management consultancy. McKinsey publishes the McKinsey Quarterly, funds the McKinsey Global Institute research organization, publishes reports on management topics and has authored many influential books on management. Its practices of confidentiality, influence on business practices and corporate culture have experienced a polarizing reception.”

Pretty high-falutin language and projects we’re seeing here coming from all of these international orgs and “management consulting firms”who intend to “engineer” our lives for our own good regardless of what we might think. Why it just send shivers of excitement up one’s spine contemplating all the possibilities in store for the lumpen Proles in the days ahead.

GenNext6 PM

And finally, to conclude this brief look at Daniel Gallant’s allies in the hate-hunting, neo-Nazi, white supremacist business, we best take a quick peek at Rehab Studeo.

RehabStudeo

This is yet another “creative technology company” that provides “digital brand experiences that live online, mobile and in the real world, employing a unique creative process based on the principles of hacking to help clients solve business and communication problems using creativity and technology.” Oi veh! Such a deal for all the Daniel’s of the world who just might want to “hack” into all those “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist” websites or anyone else who they decide is a threat to their global security interests.

Anyway, so much for some of Daniel Gallant’s benefactors. Now let’s take a look at what he’s saying about yours truly and other truth revealers who have dedicated their lives to outing the ongoing machinations of the globalist elites and see what we might find. Then, I’ll try and summarize my thoughts on why this “example of hope, diversity and compassion” behaves as he does and also analyze why his efforts are both misplaced and detrimental to a truthful understanding of how the world operates and ultimately just a cover up and another false flag designed solely to protect the people that are now manufacturing the “reality” which is leading us all further and further into the realm of a one world global dictatorship so lucidly outlined in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion over a century ago.

Following Part I of Gallant’s general comments on “Hate in the North” he zeroes in on me in Parts II to V by writing the following piece of pro-Zionist propaganda and titling it “Wells, BC, A Home for Hate: Arthur Topham’s Hate and Fear“. Why he chose to include the words “Wells, BC” is open to speculation as I haven’t lived in the town of Wells for forty years and anyone living in the Cariboo who knows me knows that I live in the community of Cottonwood where I’ve resided full time since 1978. The fact that he did use that title came back eventually to bite him in the ass on Facebook and when it did he changed it to Hate in the North (Part II): Arthur Topham.

As well as screwing up on the title he also did the same thing with the url to my website. That, I believe, was intentional on Gallant’s part as he likely didn’t want to give my website any attention other than to provide a pretext for his slander and vilification that it provides to his readership (assuming of course that he has readers. Judging from the number of comments at the end of each of these 5-Part diatribes it doesn’t appear to be many). The addition of “/blog/” to the url to radicalpress.com was an easy way to throw readers off.

Also, it ought to be noted that I had to remove the urls to the three news articles that Gallant posts on his site. Why? Because there is a court order prohibiting me from publishing anything that contains the names of the two traitorous Zionist sycophant sayanim who filed the complaints against me and this included even links to other publications that reveal their names. It’s all justified of course by saying that they are being somehow put “in danger” if I should mention them. It could be misconstrued as a “threat” even. Heaven forbid! Doesn’t matter that all the court documents display their names and either of these entities are known across the country for all their other devious deeds over the past decade and longer and if anyone was to google my name and the charges brought against me that they could easily find out who they are. It’s called Zionese and is a perverse form of legalese.

Here, then, is Gallant’s assessment of myself:

Hate in the North (Part II): Arthur Topham

ATPub+

Quesnel BC’s own white supremacist Arthur Topham:
http://www.radicalpress.com/blog/ real link is: http://www.radicalpress.com/

News articles relating to Arthur Topham:

http://news.nationalpost.com/.… [court order prohibiting publication]
http://www.torontosun.com/.… [court order prohibiting publication]
http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.ca/.… [court order prohibiting publication]

This local arrest is a very important event. It provides the north with the opportunity to say that we will not tolerate violent extremism in northern BC. No assaults, whether verbal or physical should be encouraged or even permitted. Since I have moved to Prince George four years ago, I have linked the promotion of hate, youth recruitment into hate groups, racist vandalism, and violent extremism that includes explosives/bombs. This is an opportunity for Prince George and the northern region to state the claim that violent extremism is not welcome in our communities.

The online white supremacist chatter is currently running wild. Quesnel, BC, is now on the map as a white supremacist location. Arthur Topham is reported to have been arrested and his house searched by RCMP while hate crimes charges have reportedly been laid. White supremacist websites and discussion forums are expressing support and outrage about Topham’s arrest. Already the defense of free speech is being advocated by Paul Fromm and of course lawyer Doug Christie. This is not the first time Arthur Topham has been the center of online white supremacist discourse. In 2009, Human Rights complaints were lodged against him. The complaints were dismissed due to complex legal issues. However, Topham has now been caught with his ‘cyber-pants down’. It is claimed by Paul Fromm that Doug Christie will be representing Arthur Topham.

If asked, most people would not think that violent extremism is present in the northern part of British Columbia. However, with the actions of several racist-right-wing skinheads and white supremacists the north is seemingly becoming plagued by extremists, just like anywhere else in Canada.

————

So, apart from his first two faux pas, our “example of hope, diversity and compassion” Mr. Daniel Gallant then violates the very foundation of justice as it exists in both natural law and the laws of Canada by automatically assuming I am somehow guilty of the alleged crime of “promoting hate” and goes off on his own ramblings about all the hateful things he’s discovered in the north after living here for the past four years. In Daniel’s guilt-ridden fantasy world where demons run rampant, suddenly the “online white supremacist chatter is currently running wild. Quesnel (formerly Wells), BC, is now on the map as a white supremacist location . . . White supremacist websites and discussion forums are expressing support and outrage about Topham’s arrest” (although none of them are referenced in the article). Paul Fromm and Doug Christie are immediately highlighted and, by association, linked to the alleged “White supremacist websites and discussion forums.”

Next, Gallant, missing his target by only three years, tells readers that I had already been “caught with [my] ‘cyber-pants down’” back in 2009 when a Human Rights complaint was filed against me but that it had been “dismissed due to complex legal issues.” The truth of course is that the Section 13 complaint was filed back in 2007 and wasn’t stayed until June 26th, 2014 when Section 13 was officially repealed by the federal government a year and a half after Gallant wrote his little hate propaganda piece. So much for referencing his work with factual information.

Part III of Gallant’s pentagon of pathetic Zionist propaganda, titled “Ideological Glance” is another feeble and fruitless attempt to vilify the likes of former columnist for the North Shore News in Vancouver, B.C. Doug Collins; to refute the truth found in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion; to malign James Keegstra and and Ernst Zundel; and to defend the greatest hoax of the 20th century, i.e., the lie that 6 million Jews were gassed and fried in ovens in German work camps during WWII.

DOUG COLLINS PATRIOT

Part IV of Gallant’s mini-series on Machiavellian methods for maligning the enemies of Zion titled “Perversion of Rights” consists of another five paragraphs of slurs, half-truths, outright lies and defamation of both Paul Fromm and Douglas Christie that culminate in accusations of pre-meditated intent on the part of these two Canadian patriots to promote “genocide, atrocity and harm to those who are implicated in the ‘Zionist conspiracy’; which includes ‘race-mixers’, ‘race-traitors’ and most citizens.”

Part V titled “White Lies” is, like all of the other parts, a scrambled, incoherent, convoluted and pathetic attempt to present a hodge podge of lies, assumptions and worn-out Zionist cliches as an intelligent appraisal of Gallant’s misguided belief that anyone who disagrees with the Jewish interpretation of history must, automatically, be labeled either a “neo-Nazi” or a “white supremacist” and a “hater”. I will quote in full the two paragraphs that comprise this final segment of Gallant’s smear campaign against myself and my associates so that readers can see for themselves how transparent, ridiculous, puerile and psychotic this individual’s reasoning truly is. Pay particular attention to the sentence in bold where the writer attempts to wax eloquent on the subject of eugenics.

“In addition to the conspiracy oriented backbone of the white supremacist worldview there is another likewise problematic misconception. This is the notion of racial purity and the links biology has to culture. Eugenics based science/theory, which is archaic in its development, and the belief that biological determinism is one of the crux of white supremacist idealism speaks to the lens of these pseudo-intellectual lenses. We as a collective society now understand that race and biology do not determine socialization. Socio-cultural dynamics which include intelligence, deviance and criminality are referenced throughout much of the right-wing doctrine as being linked directly to physiology and biology. This biologically determined belief structure is not only archaic, but de-bunked as a science. As indicated by UNBC professor and scholar Michelle Bouchard race is a social construct and what people typically refer to as ‘race’ does not actually exist genetically in a solidified and quantitative manner.

Loose connections are the root of white supremacist doctrine and propaganda. Extremists from the right wing agenda, like Arthur Topham, regurgitate distasteful, hurtful and violent messages, which are rooted in half-baked pseudo-intellectualism. These individuals are not tucked away into the corners of society and hidden away. They work in your schools, courtrooms, universities and construction sites. It is my goal to include, in this blog, insight into who some of these people are; and what they are up to. It is my hope to inform those from the extreme-far-right, that there is a way out of the misconceptions of their indoctrination; all while promoting compassion and solidarity amongst our collective human experience in order to decrease the amount of abuse and oppression that occurs in our country, our cities, our streets, our institutions, our homes and most importantly in our minds.”

Okay. That more or less summarizes my comments on Gallant’s little 5-pack attack piece on myself, RadicalPress.com and friends and associates of freedom. It’s so redundant and oh so reminiscent for truth revealers everywhere of the stereotypical, nauseating ADL hit pieces that gush forth incessantly from the dark and dank underground recesses of B’nai Brith’s cesspool of slander and calumny, the Anti-Defamation League.

What my research of Gallant’s sites tells me (coupled with a few written exchanges on Facebook back in 2013) is that his behaviour, in light of his past trauma, explains to a great degree how the outcome of such a life provides the perfect breeding ground for New World Order psychopaths like the Zionist Jews who are always vigilant when it comes to seeking out traumatized individuals who can then be mind-controlled into performing the type of tasks that Daniel Gallant is now undertaking and who can then provide the necessary feigned sympathy and empathy followed by encouragement and training and public exposure and positive attention in order to gain a recruit who will then serve their interests and be a willing, goyim spokesperson for their NWO agenda.

Enter Joey Only – rebel anarchist and purveyor of Zionist Jew myths

Ignorance copy 2

Now like many minds shaped by trauma and pain Daniel Gallant is persistent in his efforts to expose those who his “demons” tell him are “neo-Nazis” and “white supremacists” and through such persistence he eventually was able to capture the attention of another young and foolish lad and a newcomer to the small town of Wells which has been an integral part of the local Cariboo social and cultural network for decades.

Wells,BC

Joey Only might properly be called a reluctant musician and singer/songwriter if one was to take to heart his autobiographical writings found at https://joeyonly.wordpress.com/. An easterner who eventually migrated out west in the fall of 2002 Joey, like his newly acquired friend and protege Daniel Gallant, also spend time in East Vancouver, Daniel beating up drunks and people of colour and Joey playing gigs in and around Vancouver’s “Left” music scene trying to build up a reputation as a ‘the radical folk singer’.

Eventually, after a number of years working with the Marxist-Leninist crowd in Vancouver, Joey became disenchanted and decided to head north to the Yukon where he set up shop in the local bars of Whitehorse there forming his “Outlaw Band” in the spring of 2006. Joey and his band worked hard to establish a reputation and earn a living and in the process he eventually morphed into a more western-style, frontier-type, back to the country (punk?) image. After a few years on the road Joey quit the music scene and in 2009, as he says, “due to personal disillusionment, moved to Wells took it easy, started a family and soon got a brand new ass kicking band together.”

Screen Shot 2015-03-20 at 6.12.19 PM

Like his newly acquired side-kick Daniel Gallant, Joey appears to be a rather introspective type; a poet and songwriter; one of the common folk and, professedly, a fierce opponent of any and all forms of injustice. Politically he espouses what he believes to be an anarchist perspective. In his younger years it appears he was also active in the Christian church. All fine and good.

Now around the end of February, Joey began suffering from a northern malady that we in the area refer to as “cabin fever blues”which is common throughout the Cariboo and other wintery type regions of the world where the short days and minimal sunlight tend to bring a person down. It was around this same period of darkness and depression that Daniel Gallant’s serpentine efforts on behalf of his Zionist taskmasters to work his venom into Joey’s mind finally had the desired effect. The result was Joey Only decided that he too had to do something about that “neo-Nazi”, “white supremacist” Arthur Topham, the “racist, hate-mongering anti-Semitic Jew-hater” who was giving Joey’s new town of Wells, a bad reputation as “A Home for Hate” and so on February 24th, 2015 he posted the following hit piece on his Facebook page:

Joey Onley
February 24 at 3:03pm

“So I gotta open up this can of worms…a friend of mine told me today they were scared to come to Wells because they read this article posted below some time ago and then shared it with me. I have to say I love this town so much that I can’t stand to see something like this. So I appreciate what Daniel Gallant, the author, is trying to do in exposing a neo-Nazi peice[sic] of alcoholic trash like Arthur Topham but I can’t approve of it as it’s unfactual and unfair. I want the article removed!
Arthur Topham doesn’t live in Wells and I don’t think anyone in this town would have any use for the pro-Hitler crap that spews from his rotten head. He lives the better part of an hour west of us and most people here have never heard of his name. I love this town and I believe we are a very progressive artistic, sensible and inclusive community, probably the shining light in the north. It hurts me to think that someone I care about would be afraid to visit me because they got the impression we are some kind of neo-nazi flag waving town.
If you feel so moved to help defend our towns reputation against such spurious accusations please do two things. Read this article and post a comment to Daniel explaining why you don’t believe it’s fair to muddy our little mountain towns name…and secondly when you see Arthur Topham in the liqour store remind him he’s a peice[sic] of shit nazi scumbag who our grandfathers would have shot…so not to bother visiting Wells. When insane neo-nazi rantings from someone we don’t even know come back to shame our town I get a different kind of angry as we are nothing like this. I never met this Arthur guy but if I recognize him in town I promise I won’t mence[sic] words in expressing my dissaproval[sic]!
Now let me post in the comments some of Arthur Tophams horrific works. This stuff makes me want to puke.”

Apart from the sudden realization that I was an “alcoholic” the rest of Joey’s gush of slanderous disparagement was typical of the anti-racist, brain-dead zombies who the Zionists manage to sway in one way or another to perform their malicious smear campaigns for them.

OnlyAccuser

Three days later, he posted the following:

Joey Onley
February 27 at 5:22pm

“Receiving threats and harrassment from Arthur Tophams camp this afternoon. It is to be expected. I’m aware my physical safety is at risk for speaking out against local white supremacists.”

More lies. Having thus made his initial false accusations Only then proceeded to cried wolf about me making threats to him in order to give the impression to his friends (many of whom were my “friends” and my wife’s “friends” as well) that on top of being all those terrible things that Daniel Gallant had stated about me I was also a dangerous man who was now threatening him (he didn’t elaborate on what type of threat it was) with some form of violence in retaliation for Only having “outed” me.

The immediate effect of course was that my family was deeply incensed by his slanderous actions and crude, foul-mouthed insults and that he would have the chutzpah to pull off such a cheap stunt before people in our own local community who we had known and respected for decades.

As for all of our Facebook “friends” who were privy to Only’s remarks none of them (to my knowledge) displayed the courage or strength of character to speak up on my behalf or my wife’s behalf in the comment section below his post and chastise him for his callous and uncalled for behaviour. In that sense, I suppose, Joey’s outburst of lies about me was a good thing in that it exposed to the Facebook world of make-believe “friends” the depth of sincerity of those who had previously feigned a cordial countenance toward us in the past and once again reconfirmed the old adage “with friends like that who needs enemies”.

Summary

Thus one sees how the effect of the Daniel Gallants of the world serve the power elite who depend upon their Zionized zombies to do their dirty work for them by spreading lies and gossip that in turn facilitate greater and greater dissension among those who are already mentally taxed by the volume and magnitude of deception that has permeated the mindset of the younger generations.

The Daniel Gallants and the Joey Onlys of the world are, in many ways, caught between two worlds. Having been subjected all their lives to endless Zionist propaganda promulgated by the Jew-controlled media since 1933 their mental hard drive or database has been so thoroughly infected by the duplicitous virus of Zionist “Left” chicanery that it becomes virtually impossible (or inconceivable) for them to understand how their cultural and intellectual mindset has been so saturated with meme after meme of Germanophobic hate-mongering that by the time they’ve reached adulthood their minds are already captive making them ripe for further mind-control and manipulation as soon as they dare venture into that great arena for social change – politics and political activism.

The case of Daniel Gallant is rather unique in some respects. His early life of trauma is a classic example of the type of MK-Ultra tactics that former victim of the CIA’s “Project Monarch” mind-control operation, Kathy O’Brien describes in her 1995 book TRANCE FORMATION of AMERICA. Gallant, now that he’s fallen into the hands of the same manipulators his work becomes all the more relevant in terms of its planned objectives which are to dispense deception for the greater good of Israel and the Zionist agenda.

TranceformO'brienFinal 2

As I was finishing off this article I revisited Joey Only’s Facebook page to see if anything had changed and while scrolling down his page realized that he had deleted his February 24 post. Fortunately I had copied and saved all the relevant information. Was it remorse that moved him to take it down? Was it the fact that others had approached him off Facebook and told him that he was way off track in making such outlandish statements about someone they had know for years? Was it because Only actually took the time to investigate further who I really was? Or was it for some other unknown reason? Possibly he realized what a fool he’d made of himself and didn’t want the post to stand as reminder. Only Only knows why and thus far he hasn’t had the honesty or integrity to speak about it. It needs to be noted though that he still has the post up where he accuses me of harassing and threatening him so whatever his motives were in removing the post they remain suspect.

In a second article related to Daniel Gallant I will focus more directly on his accusations that I’m a “neo-Nazi” and a “white supremacist”. There I hope to be able to provide sufficient evidence to show that his deliberate smear campaign has no substance whatsoever and all he is doing is the acting as a sayan for the state of Israel and the Rothschild Zionist criminal cartel.

——

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

 

ZundelTrial&FreeSpeechDC800

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

dchristie2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DOUG CHRISTIE’S SUMMATION TO THE JURY IN 1985

ErnstZVictim

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

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

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

 

tazebook_dees-1 copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

bloodyfourisson

Prof. Fourisson – beaten
by Zionist thugs in 1989
__________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Orwell1984BKCv

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

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

Doug Collins

DOUG COLLINS – JOURNALIST, FREE SPEECH ADVOCATE
____________________________________________

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

AliceinWonderland

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

BBCanlogo

CANADA’S OPPONENTS OF FREE SPEECH
_____________________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

QuesnelCaribooObserver: Topham grateful for legal ally by Autumn MacDonald, Observer Reporter

 CaribObserverTophamGrateful

Topham grateful for legal ally

By

Autumn MacDonald

Observer Reporter

 

He says if controversial speech is prohibited then no speech is safe.

Jeremy Maddock is studying law at UVIC and is currently helping Arthur Topham, charged with “promotion of hatred” navigate the judicial system.

And after the death of his lawyer Doug Christie in March of 2013, Topham said he’s even more grateful.

“He’s been so dedicated since Doug passed away,” Topham said.

“I’m so grateful, otherwise I’m sure I’d be hooped.”

Maddock, who was working under Christie for three years, said Topham’s case and the issue of freedom of expression are his motivating factors for offering his time and expertise.

“If you’re having a political discussion – I would hope you would have the right to agree or disagree with foreign government,” he said.

Topham was arrested and his house searched in May 16 of 2012 after it was determined there were “reasonable grounds the offence of promotion of hatred was committed.”

At the time a number of items were seized, including:

• Computer, laptop, smartphone, or device that accesses the Internet and is capable of uploading and downloading information, and all their peripheral equipment, computer discs, drives or storage devices which could be used to store information; and

• Billing records, receipts and correspondence with ABC Communications and Netfirms and correspondence in the form of mail or physical documents directed to Radical Press.

The alleged offence falls under section 319(2) of the Criminal Code: willful promotion of hatred. The search warrant and arrest were executed by the New Westminster Police Services, British Columbia Hate Crime Team.

At the time Topham was prohibited from accessing the Internet and operating his websites, including the Radical Press, but those restrictions were reinstated in early November of 2012.

Anyone wishing to contribute to Topham’s “freedom of expression fund” check out, http://gogetfunding.com/project/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings

——

Canada: Hypocrite Nation Ruled by Zionist Deception & anti-Free Speech Laws by Arthur Topham

CanFlag1

Canada: Hypocrite Nation Ruled by Zionist Deception & anti-Free Speech Laws

Deconstructing the Zionist media’s hypocrisy surrounding Charlie Hebdo and the notion of “Freedom of Speech”

By

Arthur Topham

January 19th, 2015

 

“The National Post, perhaps Canada’s foremost advocate and practitioner of censorship, is the least qualified to condemn the alleged revenge massacre of 11 Charlie Hebdo workers, yet devoted several consecutive front pages and endless verbiage to the incident – far greater coverage than that allotted to the brutal massacre of 3000 innocent Palestinians several months earlier in Gaza, although the massacre was the more reprehensible for having been committed by a racist, occupier government already condemned by the United Nations for its barbarism.”

~ Ian V. Macdonald, letter to the National Post, Jan. 10, 2015

 

The latest Zionist false flag event in Paris, France on January 7th, 2015 that wiped out the staff of the pro-zionist, anti-Muslim, anti-Christian Charlie Hebdo hate propaganda rag, immediately unleashed a massively orchestrated outcry of cacophonous proportions from the Beast’s Big Brother Zionist msm media calling for greater protection of people’s right to “Freedom of Speech”.

Apart from the aftermath of 9/11, never has this writer witnessed such a unified show of chimerical bigotry and deception, all of it wrapped in the gilded glitter of falsely misplaced emotional rhetoric, blatant lies and contrived television imagery specifically designed and pre-packaged to elicit a world-wide response from an unconscious audience of somnambulant innocents still too blurry-eyed and bewitched to recognize the reality of the Rothschild New World Order and its modus operandi.

Reacting with predictable clockwork precision to their own fabricated murderous crime; one bearing all the standard hallmarks of yet another Israeli Mossad covert operation designed to appear as a deliberate “terrorist act” by a fanatical group of “radical” Muslims, the Canada-wide Zionist-controlled media immediately cranked up its Islamophobic sirens to a deafening roar with broadcasts blaring forth from talking heads accompanied by what W. H. Auden once aptly styled, “the hum of the printing presses, turning forests into lies” with their broadsheets whirling like buzz saws 24/7, flashing out nonstop, monotonous anti-Islam hate messages to Canadians across the country.

This relentless verbal/visual assault by the Talmudic inspired Israeli/Rothschild media upon the abused psyche of Western civilization – ongoing since their hugely successful 9/11 coup of September 11th, 2001 – has now reached the stage where every facet of their global crime syndicate is being utilized to increase hatred and fear of Islam to a climactic point of no return, thus providing their needed justification for whatever pre-emptive mode of violent attack the Zionist Jew killing machine might wish to adopt in the near future.

No better example exists of this hypocritical, bigoted vilification of Islam by the Zionist-controlled media than that found in their premier flag ship hate generator the National Post, Tel Aviv’s direct propaganda line for funnelling into the unwary, dumbed down minds of Canadians, Israel’s racist, supremacist, apartheid mindset; one that constitutes the foundational basis of its twisted, psychopathic political ideology known as Zionism.

NatZJPost copy 7

Completely disregarding Canada’s horrific record of outright censorship, harassment, fines, jailings and ongoing suppression of its own citizens’ fundamental right to freedom of speech, the Zionist media now has the unmitigated chutzpah to sermonize to Canadians about how important it is to protect “FREE SPEECH” for the likes of Charlie Hebdo and co. all the while overlooking the stinking mess of free speech violations in Canada’s own backyard.

Canada’s Disgraceful “Free Speech” Record

The National Post, of all Canada’s zio-rags, is a veteran of the infamous and controversial Section 13 “hate speech” legislation wars that suddenly gained prominence across the nation around 2007 when the Canadian Islamic Congress (CIC) filing a Section 13 “hate speech” complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) against Rogers Media Inc. (Macleans Magazine), based upon the reproduction of perceived anti-Islam writings by one of their pro-Zionist Jewish writers Mark Steyn.

Coinciding with Steyn’s case was also that of Ezra Levant, then owner of the Western Standard, an Alberta based tabloid that callously published the infamous Jyllands-Posten cartoons of the  Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAWW) back in February of 2006. As a result of Levant’s insolent disregard for Islam’s holy Prophet both the Islamic Supreme Council of Canada and the Edmonton Council of Muslim Communities filed complaints against Levant and his magazine with the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission that resulted in a hearing in January of 2008.

 MarcLemireFreedomsite

Marc Lemire, one of Canada’s most distinguished Section 13 victims and staunch resister to this nasty piece of Zionist/Bolshevik-motivated legislation, gives us a compete, well documented history of the rise and fall of Section 13 which can be found on his website, FreedomSite Blog As well, for those interested in delving into the specifics surrounding this specious piece of draconian “hate speech” legislation that initially slithered its way into Canadian jurisprudence via the untiring efforts of Canada’s Jewish lobby organizations (predominantly the former Canadian Jewish Congress and B’nai Brith Canada) beginning as far back as the 1950’s, I suggest reading the following article, Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” Laws.

In Part 3 of Lemire’s history, under sub-heading “Section 13: The Shit hits the fan”, he writes: “Keep in mind that the primary intent of Section 13 was to quietly keep it behind closed doors and censor individuals in a manner which “would not be attended by great publicity”.  While this was true with most Section 13 cases, it certainly was not true with Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine. The proverbial ‘hate speech earthquake’ hit the media, once it was revealed that one of Canada’s most respected magazines and the “one-man global content provider” Mark Steyn were under investigation for hate speech.  Editorials against censorship went viral from coast to coast in Canada and spread across the globe via the Internet.”

The war to silence Canadians and stymie any public speech that the Jewish lobby felt might negatively impact them or Israel in any way (either on or off the internet), gained its foothold back in 1977 when the federal government first implemented the so-called Canadian Human Rights Act and created its attendant enforcement agencies, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT). Both the commission and the tribunal were quasi-judicial, i.e. “crazy” judicial in that they basically set their own rules and guidelines and consistently changed the “legal” goal posts depending upon whatever case they were dealing with, in order to ensure a conviction. If fact, of the hundreds of Canadians dragged before these Stalinist style “Show Trial” tribunals, EVERYONE was found guilty for the simple reason that all it took was for someone to register a complain against them and that, in itself, sealed their fate. When I describe Section 13 as a “Bolshevik” type law I do so with the full knowledge that under the former Soviet system, Lenin, in one of the regime’s very first acts upon gaining absolute power, was to make “anti-Semitism” a crime punishable by death. Death, that is, without so much as a trial even. All it would take, (just as with the Section 13 “complaints”) was for someone to accuse another of said crime and the Cheka (soviet secret police) had the excuse to execute the victim.

In the case of Canada and its Section 13 “hate crime” laws, which invariably include the same accusation of “anti-Semitism”, the punishment wasn’t quite as severe or immediate but metaphorically speaking, in term of survival, the victims stood no greater chance of gaining their freedom once accused.  Many, if not most of the victims, were unable to afford to hire counsel and even if they were able to the fact that Truth was not considered a viable defence against whatever they had written or spoken, it was virtually impossible to argue against the charge. As such the defendants were at the mercy of the tribunals and the commission’s commissars were able to maintain a 100% conviction rate right up until 2007 when, Allah be praised!, the Canadian Islamic Congress and other Muslim organizations finally decided to file similar Section 13 complaints against the two self-chosen writers mentioned above who were, by their Judaic birthmarks, both members of the same conniving covenant that initially bore responsibility for creating these very censorship laws in the first place. Not only that, they were the only two Jews in Canada ever to be charged with “hate speech” under Section 13 and, surprise! surprise! the only two individuals ever to escape the snares and traps that CHRC and the CHRT had used on hundreds of non-Jewish Canadians for decades prior to then.

SteynLevantJNOMouthpieces800

It has always been this writer’s contention, based upon my last eight years of personal experience in dealing with these Orwellian censors, that had the Canadian Islamic Congress not filed a complaint against Mark Steyn and Macleans Magazine and had Ezra Levant also not been charged by a Muslim complainant over his publication of the infamous Prophet Muhammad (SAWW) cartoons, this Zionist-inspired legislation known as Section 13 that clung like a barnacle to the dark underside of Canada’s legal system for the past thirty years without the Zionist media challenging it, would, in all likelihood, have continued on unabated and still not have been repealed. It was only the final realization by the Jewish lobby that Section 13 was, in fact, a double-edged sword capable of being used against their own kind as well that spurred the Zionist media on to make a major issue out of an Orwellian, Zionist-driven law that had for decades been used against non-Jews with hardly a murmur of protest. Now that the perpetrators themselves were being held to account for the same crimes the whole dynamic changed and the war to rid the nation of Section 13 began in earnest.

It was around the same period (2007) when Steyn and Levant received their just deserts that I and my website RadicalPress.com were also caught up in the legally sticky Section 13 “hate speech” web and I suddenly found myself forcefully initiated into that elite, Zionist-created group of alleged “hate-mongers”,”anti-Semites”, “racists” and “neo-Nazis” who had come before me throughout the late 70’s, 80’s and 90’s. In my own case it was the secret, Jews-only Masonic society, B’nai Brith Canada who had filed a Section 13 complaint against me with the Canadian Human Rights Commission; one premised on the “contention that Arthur Topham of Quesnel, British Columbia, Canada and his internet publication known as Radicalpress.com contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.” Please note the “citizens of Israel” portion. It was the first time in Canadian jurisprudence that the Jews, via their back-room manipulation of the CHRC, had arbitrarily introduced this novel addition to the Section 13 complaint; one which now included people of a foreign nation! [There are reasons why they attempted this but a thorough analysis of that particular subterfuge is beyond the scope of this article. A.T.]

While the Zionist news media, throughout its campaign to hasten the demise of Section 13, magnified its two pet Jewish “free speech” advocates to heroic proportions, the remaining hundreds of victims, once they had been tried and convicted, inevitably sank back into Zion’s media pit of silence and anonymity their identities liquidated and their unjust sufferings lost forever. Their names though are important, more important to the struggle for real freedom of speech than the media’s manufactured heroes, Steyn and Levant, for the nameless ones were the truly courageous Canadian heroes, those resisters whose who, on their own and motivated by their strong convictions, had stood up to Canada’s Marxist/Bolshevik commissars with little or no money and next to nil support from the general public while the Zio-media used all of its ill-gained media power to malign, vilify and crucify them in the public eye, just as they always do to anyone who stands in the way of their hate-filled agenda.  And so here I present the names of some of victims that I was able to find. God forgive me for the ones I’ve left off (if readers can provide me with additional names I’ll add them to my website as they emerge).

The list began with John Ross Taylor back in the late 70’s and carried on with Terry Long, Randy Johnston, William James Harcus, Wolfgang Droege, Kevin Lew, Derek J. Peterson, Tony McAleer, Charles Scott, Ernst Zundel, John Micka, Fred Kyburz, Eldon Warman, Alexan Kulbashian, James Scott Richardson, Tomasz Winnicki, Craig Harrison, Peter Kouba, Glen Bahr, Terry Tremaine, Alex Di Civita, Liz Lampman, Lubomyr Prytulak, Bobby Wilkinson, Jessica Beaumont, Melissa Guille, Ciaran Paul Donnelly, Jason Ouwendyk, Heather Fleming, Ronald Fleming, Jim Keegstra, Malcolm Ross, Doug Collins, Marc Lemire, Arthur Topham, David Ahenakew, Bill Whatcott, Mark Merek, Dean Clifford….

It must also be mentioned here that those pictured below, as well as Bill Whatcott, were all assisted in great measure by Canada’s foremost defender of true freedom of speech, the late Douglas Christie, who acted in varying capacities for all of the accused, including myself, right up to the point of his tragic passing in March of 2013.

DouglasHChristieFreedomFighter copy 3

SomeCanadianFreeSpeechVictims

In previous writings I’ve delved further into the creation of Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws and in every case of ongoing persecution and prosecution it was always the Jewish lobby groups in Canada who were clambering and crying for the use and retention of these anti-democratic, unconstitutional “laws” that for some strange reason, in practically 99% of all cases, involved non-Jewish individuals who were being critical of the ideology of political Zionism or the illegal, terrorist actions of the state of Israel toward the Palestinian people or else exposing the mendacious Jewish Rothschild central banking cartel that controls much of the world’s monetary system or the Jewish media cartel that controls the vast proportion of the Western world’s media and source of information. Those who were publishing critical articles were doing so because they firmly believed that their country, its government, jurisprudence, culture and social mores were under direct attack by the foreign influences of these Zionist organizations plus the choke hold that the state of Israel was gaining over Canada’s federal leaders and their parties. In other words their criticisms in many cases were based upon their personal belief and knowledge that Canada was under attack from foreign agents and that it was their constitutional right and duty to express their views on this vital matter of national security.

Charlie Hebdo and the ongoing Lies of the Jews

Juxtaposed against this background gestalt of brutal, repressive anti-Free Speech legislation (easily traced back to and premised upon the foundational lie of the 20th Century by World Jewry that “6 Million Jews” had been “holocausted” by gas and ovens in the work camps of National Socialist Germany during the latter half of WWII, a deception now proven to have been a fabricated event of mythical and universal proportions perpetrated upon humanity), Canada’s anti-Free Speech laws tended, in practically every case, to always benefit only one small minority  – the nation’s Jewish community – who amount to less that 2% of the country’s population. Thus all the present hoopla emanating from the Jewish-controlled media about “Freedom of Speech”, “free expression” and the West’s longstanding “liberal” tradition of justifiable satire for the likes of Islamophobic and Christianophobic writers, artists and publishers like Charlie Hebdo, the repulsively loathsome Jew ‘comedian’ Sarah Silverman, et al, resonates with even greater magnitude the same hollow sounds of bigotry and deception here in Canada today.

When the news began to break via Twitter on June 26th, 2013 that the Canada’s Senate had finally given third and final reading to Bill C-304, an Act to repeal the censorship provision – Section 13 – contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act this didn’t automatically signal the end of ALL of Canada’s repressive “Free Speech” legislation. Far from it. All the repeal accomplished was to removed the provisions within the Act that formerly gave non-Jews the same legal right to point a fierce and accusing finger at those of “Jewish ethnicity” who were out to destroy Canada’s socio-cultural and democratic way of life and demand that they also be held accountable for their traitorous actions against the nation in this regard. The demise, therefore, of Section 13, as far as the Zionist media was concerned, was the end of their coverage on the issue of “Freedom of Speech”. Their job was done and their own media was now far less restricted in its ability to carry on with their Islamophobic agenda of vilifying Muslims everywhere. As for the even more threatening, draconian legislation still contained within Canada’s Criminal Code under Section 318 to 320, “Hate Propaganda”, those heinous laws are still very much alive and currently being used to the max to take down my website RadicalPress.com and myself and thus set a new precedent that will undoubtedly be used to coerce any other Canadian citizen who might think they still have the right of “Freedom of Speech” to self-censor their opinions and beliefs and whatever historic research they may have uncovered that might support their viewpoint.

When you are immersed in the thick of a battle, be it to retain your constitutional right to freedom of expression or your fundamental right to stay alive physically, you quickly learn who the enemy is and what type of tactics they employ to overpower you. After eight long years of being in the trenches of what metaphorically (and some say realistically) might appropriately be called World War III and witnessing the stratagems used by the Zionist forces, it becomes clear how their modus operandi works. In actual physical warfare the Zionist forces, be they Israel attacking Gaza with their superior military firepower or the USA attacking Iraq with its superior firepower, they always resort to what they coined their “Shock and Awe” bombing power on their perceived enemy. This same strategy though is also, first and foremost, used pre-emptively when it comes to their disinformation “bombing campaign”campaigns that always precede any actual on the ground operations. In esoteric terms it exhibits the old adage, “As above, so below”.

At this stage of writing, the Charlie Hebdo narrative, for those whose minds haven’t already succumbed to the current “Shock and Awe” propaganda ordinance emanating forth from Zion’s big media guns, more than sufficient evidence now exists to prove that we’ve being subjected once again to another Israeli Mossad false flag operation; one deliberately orchestrated in order to provide the necessary media grist to carry out their latest “Free Speech” disinfo blitzkrieg designed to fool the traumatized masses into believing their lie that the massacre was carried out by “Muslim Jihadists” incensed over the magazine’s ongoing slander and mockery of Islam’s Holy Prophet Muhammad (SAWW). Nothing could be further from the truth.

As many writers have already revealed, including the American writer Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: “The Charlie Hebdo Story Simply Doesn’t Wash“. There’s just too many similarities to all the previous false flag events, including the greatest of all thus far in the 21st Century – 9/11– all of which were carried out with precisely the same global mind-control objective – the obfuscation, via dissimulation and outright LIES projected through Zion’s global media cartel, of the true motives and actions of the state of Israel, first by transforming, then transposing their wilful and ongoing acts of terrorism against the Muslim people of the Middle East into a completely opposite, inverted and deceptive narrative; one that portrays Israel (again and again) as the woefully misunderstood victim of the former “Nazi-insprired Holocaust of 6 Million Jews”  plus interminable Islamic ill-will, anti-Semitic chicanery and racist hatred, all of which is presently being focalized in the Charlie Hebdo incident in order to then justify their ultimate purpose in pulling off this latest cabalistic caper; one intended to be a “shock and awe” strike against the very foundations of freedom itself, that is, the fundamental, God-given right and necessity for every single human being on the face of this planet to be allowed to speak their mind and criticize whomever they feel may be attempting to stand in the way of this core human characteristic and all it entails in terms of keeping the principles of truth, honesty and moral rectitude alive.

By their past fruits we are able to recognize the Zionist’s present plot to disenfranchise the West of its basic human right to free expression via their entrenched “Hate Speech” laws which they themselves were instrumental in setting in place over the decades following WWII and have steadfastly refused to abolish in Canada and France and Germany and Australia and numerous other EU nations. It also explains the Zionist media’s refusal to deal with Section 318 to 320 during the many years that Section 13 was a hot topic across the Zionist news wires. The big question remains though, why are they waxing so eloquent about “Freedom of Speech” for the likes of Charlie Hebdo yet refusing to face the reality of these current, draconian “Hate Propaganda”laws; ones that fly in the face of the very principles and liberties that they are now espousing with such zealous vigour and haughtiness?

Dieudonne, Moi, Satire and Big Brother double standards

Je suis Dieudonne!! 1000 NEW

The most inescapable act of hypocrisy regarding the Zionist media’s trumpeting of “Freedom of Speech” is France’s disingenuous and despicable treatment of that nation’s famed comedian Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala, without a doubt one of the finest and incisive minds, popular comedians and satirists alive today. The French officials’ two-faced approach of promoting Charlie Hebdo and the concept of “Freedom of Speech” and the right to satire anything satireable while at the same time going on a “Hate Speech” rampage around the country arresting anyone who so much as made a contrary peep about the manifestly obvious suspicious murders or didn’t append their “Je suis” to the proper name, not only showed the world what a bunch of hypocritical and dangerous clowns they were but also reinforced the fact that France’s government is totally under the control of seditious Zionist Jew forces.

Just recently, in a radio interview with Kevin Barrett where we were discussing the whole Dieudonne debacle, it was pointed out that what is happening to Dieudonne in France and myself here in Canada over the past eight years of ongoing harassment, arrests, libel suit threats and so on is indicative of a world-wide conspiracy to stop the flow of truthful information concerning the miserable machinations of World Jewry’s Zionist juggernaut whether it issues forth from writings on a blogsite or from out of the mouths of satirical comedians such as Dieudonne.

While it’s just fine for Charlie Hebdo to “satirize” whomever they like (but please don’t criticize Zionism or Israel) when I penned a satire on a hate-filled screed against the German people originally written by a Jewish writer, Theodore n. Kaufman, back in 1941 in his now infamous book, Germany Must Perish! and called it Israel Must Perish! the immediate reaction from the Jew lobby in Canada was to file a Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” complaint against me and my website alleging that I was calling for the genocide of the whole Jewish population! Did the satire aspect of the article elude their intellectual acumen or were they just grasping at straws in order to somehow get me arrested? Only time will tell.

Here in Canada it’s B’nai Brith International, one of Rothschild’s 19th century secret masonic brainchilds, who man Big Brother’s “hate speech” ghetto towers, sweeping the Cyberian landscape 24/7 with their search lights in an ongoing effort to spot a Truth Revealer lurking somewhere in the digital underbrush that they can then literally hunt down by simply filing a Section 319(2) “hate speech” complaint against them with whatever local “Hate Crime Team” may be available depending upon the province the patriot resides in.

BBDieuTop1000

In France they likely hide behind a different mask but regardless of the name their purpose is to spy on a nation’s citizens and rat out anyone who they think may be a danger to Zion’s ongoing subterfuge and then use that nation’s “Hate Speech” laws to prosecute the alleged “anti-Semitic” victim.

The notion of satire has to be the biggest joke of all when viewed within the context of the current feigned fuss over free expression and the Charlie Hebdo false flag. For the Zionist Jew media the right to be able to publish endless lies, hatred, pornography, Islamophobia, Christianophobia – all of which mock everything that humanity has held sacred for millennia – is foremost and nothing illustrates this fact more than the government/media’s full-scale promotion of the latest edition of Charlie Hebdo that came out within practically a week following the demise of its former staff. Touting this deliberate act of further promoting a magazine whose contents supposedly were responsible for the deaths of around a dozen or more people as “Freedom of Speech” has to be one of the more provocative examples of Jewish chutzpah ever witnessed, yet, thanks to such sinister machinations this jaded, derelict crime syndicate comprised of interminable moral reprobates and serial killers were then able to utilize their widespread media sorcery to cast their evil spell over millions of French citizens thus manipulating them into believing their absurd lies while at the same time dashing about the country arresting others who were theoretically exercising these same, supposed “freedoms”.

As a Christian I’ve observed the artistic, literary and mimetic actions of the Jews when it comes to “satirizing” non-Jewish religions, their churches, their leaders or their saints and I’ve seen with my own eyes too many examples of what they consider to be “free expression” and “satire” disguised as “modern art” or “satire” yet, upon closer examination reveal themselves to be nothing more than lurid, depraved exhibitions of pornographic, scatological/sexual perversion and deviancy, reprehensible to the eye and an affront to one’s spiritual and moral sense of propriety. And when I witness such moral obscenity associated with their “artistic” creations I can only conclude and agree with those who state that the ideology of political Zionism is, at its root, immoral, atheistic and demonic in nature and cannot be connected to anything truly spiritual or holy in the traditional sense of those terms.

That said it behooves me to further add that, given all of the revulsion, disrespect, contempt and derision that much of what Zion vainly attempts to portray as “art” and “satire” entails, what is even more insulting, outrageous and unjust, is the fact that, after appointing themselves the arbiters of all things permissible, including the right to insult and denigrate anyone that they so wish to (for whatever purposes), they then turn around and create, promulgate and rigidly uphold so-called “Hate Speech” laws that exist only to prohibit, by the force of the state, anyone else from exercising these same identical freedoms which they sell to the gullible public as universal rights and freedoms!  Put in layman’s language there can never be such a thing as a level playing field when it comes to “Freedom of Speech” if, as in Orwell’s Animal Farm, some people are more free to say what they want than others.

Allow me to present some examples. As a Christian I’ll use two ‘cartoons’ from Charlie Hebdo that relate to spreading Christianophobia or anti-Christian, anti-God hate propaganda rather than adding to the already existing plethora of specious, Zionist hate-motivated Islamophobic “art”. To wit:

 

CharHebGod

The Babylonian Talmud, the “bible” of the Rabbinical cult we associate with “Judaism”, consists of massive tomes of Jewish “Law” purported (by the priesthood) to have been handed down orally to Moses by the Jewish “g-d” Jehovah in the self-chosen people’s hoary past. Then, with the addition of greater masses of written commentary on said law, finally set in print around the 5th century A.D. The Talmud considered to be the ultimate authority and reference when it comes to any and all questions dealing with the religious life of an orthodox Jew supersedes the Torah in all aspects of authority.

Hidden for centuries from the prying eyes of non-Jews the Talmud was eventually translated into English in the early part of the 20th Century. Not long afterward an American author and researcher, Elizabeth Dilling, began a comprehensive study of the Talmud after returning from a visit to the Soviet Union in 1931 where she had gone to observe what the Zio-Communists were then touting as their great “humanitarian experiment”. Being able to go behind the scenes Dilling was, “shocked at the forced labor, the squalid living quarters, and deplorable living conditions, and the atmosphere of fear created by the Soviet dictatorship.” But even more so was she shocked by the “virulent anti-Christianity of the atheist Communist regime.”

Had Dilling been able, at the time, to penetrate further into the vast reaches of the Soviet wastelands she would have witnessed what, thanks to the heroic efforts of Russia’s Nobel Prize winning author and dissident Alexandr Solzhenitsyn, he described as the greatest mass genocide of Gentile Russian Christians ever undertaken in the history of the world. According to Solzhenitsyn somewhere in the neighbourhood of sixty-six million souls vanished into that frozen nightmare of terror and fear now known as the Gulag Archipelago.

SolzhenitsynGulagZioHatredquote 800

Dillings book, THE JEWISH RELIGION: Its Influence Today is a wealth of factual information on the hidden side of Pharisiac Judaism. Chapter 3 in particular, “The Talmud and Bible Believers” examines in detail how the Rabbinical priesthood views the likes of Jesus Christ and Mother Mary; both of whom are treated with the utmost contempt and disrespect. When one realizes just how vile and hateful the passages are describing Jesus and his Mother it’s not too difficult to connect the dots when it comes to understanding why this book, which is posted on my website RadicalPress.com in digital format (and numerous other websites around the world), was one of the principal documents submitted by the “complainants” in my present case as “proof” that I am willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group”. Still, as the old saying goes, “The proof is in the pudding” and in the case of the Gulag Archipelago that pudding is stuffed to overflowing with the bloated and starved carcasses of countless millions of innocent people.

As such it beggars the mind to think that BC’s Attorney General, the Honourable Suzanne Anton, would have attached her name to such a sleazy and ill-conceived accusation; one that eventually led the thought police to proceed with their stalking and final arrest and jailing that then allowed them to illegally enter my home and steal all of my computers and electronic files and subsequently subject me to years of ongoing litigation in order to prove my innocence. This “law” we call Section 319(2) is a purely Bolshevik-inspired piece of Zionist double-talk and deception that allows the state to accuse me (or any other Canadian) of willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group” for simply re-posting historical facts gleaned from the annals of the former Zionist Jew dominated Soviet dictatorship.

ChHebJesus

Upon reading what the Talmud has to say about Jesus Christ and Mother Mary it won’t take a whole lot of extrapolating to see why the Talmud-driven Zionist media commissars are still going out of their way to defend the likes of images such as these. Just like the New York Times, Charlie Hebdo’s messages appear to be  exactly what the Zionist media cartel deems content “fit to print”. I will leave it to viewers to decide whether they see these ‘cartoons’ as satire, humour or otherwise. They certainly aren’t the ones though that the Zionist media has been flashing about since the Charlie Hebdo incident.

One of the National Post’s well known Jewish writers, Andrew Coyne, in the comment section of its January 15, 2015 edition, penned an article entitled, “Humour busts taboos” (currently changed online to read: “Coyne: Everything can be laughed about, because everything can be discussed”) wherein he labours to intellectually justify the “humour” associated with Charlie Hebdo and Jewish ‘comedians’ such as Sarah Silverman (Coyne finds her humour “indefensibly funny”) who get their jollies out of telling anti-Christian jokes such as the example below:

 

Screen Shot 2015-01-17 at 11.45.31 PM

British Internet writer and contributor to Veteran’s Today, Lasha Darkmoon, also has a few pertinent things to say about Silverman in her recent and popular article, “The Paris Massacre: they had it coming” where she writes,  “The Jewish comedienne Sarah Silverman, the nice young lady who likes humping dogs and licking their anuses in various video skits—see here—and who gets many a cheap laugh by insulting Christianity in America, would have been a great hit with these satirical French journalists. They would have loved her for saying, “I hope the Jews DID kill Christ! I’d fucking do it again—in a second!”.

Coyne on the other hand, quoting François Cavanna, founder of Charlie Hebdo, who once stated, “Nothing is sacred” goes on to say, “I have been turning over those words in my mind ever since I saw them, shortly after the massacre. Can he really have meant it? Nothing is sacred? Why? Why was he so insistent, so absolute? …But I think it is more than that. I think it stems from an understanding that “offensive” humour is not an aberration, a warped version of the real thing, but rather that offensiveness of one kind or another is an intrinsic part of humour. Virtually all humour is offensive to someone; most humour is hurtful to some sensibility; much humour is rooted in pain and fear and the ugly reality of things.”

In his analysis of why people laugh, he tells us, “Nobody really knows why people laugh. They just do.” … “What one can say, however, is that it [laughter] emerges from some fundamentally healthy part of us.”

So I ask myself, why didn’t I laugh when I looked at the Charlie Hebdo image of God the Father being bum-phucked by my Lord Jesus Christ who, in turn, is having his own derriere desecrated by what is supposed to be a symbolic image of the Holy Spirit? The standard interpretation for Jews like Coyne would be that it’s apparently just a pun (satire) on the Catholic church’s opposition to gay marriage. No problem. Get over it guys. It’s all just “a joke”. Remember, “Nothing is sacred” and the laughter produced by such “satire” obviously “emerges from some fundamentally healthy part of us.”

But if you don’t find it funny at all and rather offensive then according to Coyne’s reasoning “…that’s also the moral answer. The first thing to ask about a joke is not, is it offensive, but: is it funny? If it is, if we laugh at it in spite of ourselves, chances are it is because there is something else to it than mere insult or grotesquerie: some larger truth, some point we resist acknowledging, because to do so would make us uncomfortable.” [Note: all emphasis throughout this article is by the author. A.T.]

Really now Andrew? Oi vey! I should truly like to know just what it is, what “larger truth” is hidden there that we, who don’t laugh at supposed ‘cartoons’ such as this, “resist acknowledging” because it would “make us uncomfortable”? How about the “larger truth” that the atheistic Zionist mindset could care less about what Christians or Muslims hold to be sacred? Is this not their standard operating procedure today just as it was after the overthrow of Czar Nicholas of Russia in 1917 when the Jew-led Bolsheviks systematically went about raping and murdering and torturing the Christian priests and nuns and destroying their houses of worship on a scale that, were it fully disclosed to the masses today on the Zionist media, would turn the stomachs of whole nations to the point where their present belief in your endless lies would suddenly cease to exist?

Commenting on Sarah Silverman’s career Coyne says, “If her routine were only about shock value, I don’t imagine she would have lasted as long as she has. Rather, she has thought long and hard about what makes us anxious — what we’re least willing to talk about.”

So, according to the atheistic Zionist mind-set of Jewish writers like Coyne, if someone has expended a lot of mental energy trying to figure out how to make Christians “anxious” about homos marrying homos by forcing them to talk about it through portraying their Saviour screwing God the Father up the ass, then this is a good thing. A funny thing. A laughter producing mechanism that gets the desired result “by turning our anxieties and discomforts in on themselves, forcing us to confront them rather than bury them.” Sigmund, I’m certain, would have been proud of Andrew Coyne’s deeply analytical diagnosis of Sarah Silverman’s perverted, sick mind.

Then of course, as Coyne goes on to say, “There’s a world of meaning in this. When an “offensive” comic says nothing is unsayable, they mean that we do not have to be afraid of words. They are not our master: we are theirs. Everything can be laughed about, because everything can be discussed.”

Now this is all fine and dandy for Andrew Coyne and his Jewish comedians and the National Post and its readership who subscribe to this type of psycho-babble purporting to be wisdom but, like all babble that arises in the Zionist media, it only caters to the self-chosen mindset, be it ethnic Jews or culturally and socially indoctrinated “mentally-cloned” chabez goy “Jews” who, because of their own life experiences growing up in a culture saturated with endless Zionist propaganda, have come to think and react and behave just like their Zionist counterparts.

But of course for all of Coyne’s sophisticated rhetoric and sophistry, specifically designed to make an ugly pile of dog shit look like a fruit cake, his arguments in favour of justifying what is nothing more than pure pornography, an “art” and an industry which the the Jews have developed to the point of perfection and now reap countless millions from its exploitation via their mass media, don’t impress me one iota.

But, and believe me when I say this is a BIG BUT (no pun or typo intended), there are the rest of us great unwashed goyim who amount to not millions but billions, who for numerous reasons don’t think at all like the Zionists would have us think. We have our own codes of moral conduct and our own spiritual views and perspectives on what we believe to be the holy and sacred side of life here on planet Earth. And yes, we also value justice and freedom of speech just like the Zionists purport to value it. Nonetheless, there is a vast and fundamental separation between the Zionist version of freedom of speech and that of the non-Zionist; a difference based upon the elemental fact that non-Zionists believe in freedom of speech for EVERYONE, not just for the Zionist Jews and their fawning sycophants who, for whatever reason, feel that Zion’s version of TRUTH and FREEDOM is somehow the only version permissible for the whole of humanity. Therein lies the rub and therein lies the one single factor that historically has made the “Jewish Question” one of continuing paramount importance for all of mankind and, as far back as a century ago, prompted the late Henry Ford, Sr. to describe this amazing occurrence with the Jews as “The world’s Foremost Problem”.

HenryQuotesTemplate 600

Given a level playing field in all the critical sectors of a nation that comprise government, banking, economics, industry, education, social and religious institutions and most important of all, openness and diversity within the most crucial area – its media/news/entertainment/communication systems – the majority of citizens in any democratic nation would have the wherewithal to manage their country for the good of all rather than be held hostage to a tiny deviant minority that now rules over us with greater and greater disregard for the essential values that do make life both sacred and worthwhile. This is a lesson that the Zionists and their obeisant sycophants are still in denial about. For the majority it’s but a matter of ignorance due to their brainwashing and were they to be told the whole truth would likely change their ways but for those in power who manage the levers of deception it’s not so much a matter of denial but one of cold, calculated, wilful, heartless premeditated criminal intent to perpetrate and perpetuate their execrable program to enslave the vast majority of humanity via the ongoing misuse of their media cartel and other control mechanisms.

Some final thoughts on Canada’s PM Stephen Harper and “Freedom of Speech”

Saving the worst for last and not wishing to subject readers to more obnoxious imagery I will forgo posting a photo of Canada’s No. 1 Zionist lackey and current Prime Minister of Canada, the Dishonourable Stephen Harper.

Before commenting on his recent reaction to the Charlie Hebdo affair I want to reiterate a fact that needs to be born in mind with respect to my legal proceedings now before the court. On April 27th, 2011, about one week prior to the last federal election, being fully conscious of the imminent threat that Harper posed to my country should his Conservative party gain a majority vote and be given the opportunity to exercise h/is-rael’s agenda via their controlled puppet, I penned an article titled, Hating Harper and posted it to my website. There you will find an image of the traitor who is now attempting to tell Canadians what a wonderful, free and democratic nation they live in; one that, were it not for those insanely envious ‘Mooslim’ terrorist Jihadists who hate our way of life, would have us all living just happy as a clam. When I wrote the article I knew full well what Canada would be facing should Stephen Harper and his Con-servative Party gain a majority of votes necessary to rule the country for next four years.

The very next day, Canada’s former No. 1 serial complainant in the vast majority of the now repealed Sec. 13 “Human Rights” cases (please note that I am under a court order NOT to publish his name anywhere on the net), filed a Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” complaint with the BC Hate Crime Team under the supervision of Det. Cst. Terry Wilson pictured below along with his partner in crime Cst. Normandie Levas. That was the first step taken in a long drawn-out clandestine process that eventually culminated in my arrest and incarceration on May 16th, 2012.

The BC Hate Crime Team’s website tells us that it “has two full-time police officers trained to recognize the specialized and multi-jurisdictional nature of hate propaganda offences.”  It was one of those “trained” police officers, Cst. Levas, who filed a report with BC Attorney General, Hon. Suzanne Anton, outlining her reasons why she felt I had committed the unforgivable crime of “willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group” by, (quoting Det. Cst. Wilson’s words to me while I was in jail), “calling for the total genocide of the Jewish population”. Based on this “trained” police officer’s  “evidence” the Attorney General then gave their consent to have me formally charged. Later on, during the preliminary inquiry when I cross examined Cst. Levas in court about her “training” and what it was that qualified her to make such presumptive and false accusations about me, she revealed to the court that prior to joining the “Hate Crime Team” she had worked as a . . . dental assistant!

NewWilsonPhoto

Returning to the Charlie Hebdo hoax and that other hoax, the Zionist National Post, I want to make further reference to an article that appeared on the front page of the January 9, 2015 edition titled, “THIS IS WAR ON US ALL, HARPER SAYS: PM says terror law to be tabled soon.” (My apologies to readers but I’ve been unable to find a link to the article online)

Before the blood had dried on the two young Muslim brothers alleged to have carried out the shootings at the office of Charlie Hebdo then subsequently murdered by the French security forces in order to ensure that they would never have the opportunity to tell their side of the story, Canada’s Zionist-controlled puppet, Prime Minister Stephen Harper, was already blabbering on in the media about how the “jihadists are at war with anyone who values openness and tolerance” and further stating that his government was already busy formulating new proposed legislation that would introduce “new arrest powers aimed at thwarting terrorist threats” in an upcoming bill destined to be tabled at the end of January when Parliament resumes.

He then went on to say, “They have declared war and are already executing it on a massive scale on a whole range of countries with which they are in contact, and they have declared war on any country, like ourselves(sic), that values freedom, openness and tolerance. We may not like this and wish it would go away, but it is not going to go away.

Yes, Stephen Harper, you can be damn sure that these false flag events such as we’ve just witnessed in Paris, France won’t “go away” so long as the wars which your government has plunged Canada into at the behest of Israel are slated to carry on and the necessity to manufacture greater and greater levels of fear remain a prerequisite to gaining approval for your heinous acts of genocide against defenceless people like the Palestinians of Gaza and the West Bank, the Afghans and those still surviving in other Middle East nations where the Zionist forces are constantly committing their war crimes.

Making these hypocritically absurd pronouncements given the fact that there was still no definite proof as to who had committed the murders merely shows the insidiousness and transparent bigotry of those in power who, because they are puppets dangling on Zionist strings, will mouth their aggressive lies and threats to the world regardless of whatever the people may think to the contrary. This process of accusing either an individual or a nation of crimes yet unproven applies not only to the Islamic community as a whole but to my own “Freedom of Speech” case here at home in Canada and now before the Supreme court of British Columbia. The fact that I have yet to be tried for the alleged “crime” of “willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group” certainly didn’t deter the Zionist media in Canada from making all sorts of false and defamatory accusations and slanderous remarks against my person when the Indictment was first handed down November 5, 2012. The same Zionist big mouth, Ezra Levant, was only too happy to interview my former counsel, Douglas Christie on his SunNews show “The Source” where he then proceeded to accuse me of all sorts of falsehoods just like Harper does when it comes to discussing issues to do with Islam and Israel’s false flag events all of which are designed to further enhance just such vitriolic rhetoric.

Within the short span of about six minutes good ol’ free speech advocate Ezra Levant managed to slander, defame and libel me as many times as possible, punctuating every comment or question to lawyer Doug Christie with at least one or more ad hominem slur,  in order to show the world just how grand and liberal the Zionist mainstream media truly is when it comes to freedom of expression.

Screen Shot 2014-02-22 at 4.55.45 PM

Yes, said Ezra, that Topham is an “anti-Semite.” He’s “offensive” and an “anti-Zionist [which is] code for anti-Semitic.” His website is “gross” and his comments “repulsive” and everything that he does is “motivated by a form of malice.” And on top of that Levant also shared freely his opinion that I was a “nobody” and an “anti-Semitic idiot and a right wing wacko” ending his “freedom of speech” soliloquy by emphatically pronouncing to all of Canada that when it came right down to it “I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM!”

When I finished watched the interview I said to myself, oi vey! with “free speech” friends like this who needs enemies? Here he is, one of Canada’s most vocal advocates for “freedom of speech” on the Internet and he’s sitting there abusing me left, right and center telling the world blatant lies about me and making me out to be some sort of crazed Jew-hating anti-Semite! That folks is how “Freedom of Speech” works for those holding the mechanisms of mind-control in their nefarious little hands.

Getting back to Harper and his disingenuous statements to the media he goes on to say, “At the same time, we also encourage people to go about their lives and to exercise our rights and freedoms and our openness as a society as loudly and as clear as we can because that is the best way of defeating what is ultimately a movement of hatred and intolerance.” “No shit Batman” as a friend of mine used to say when confronted with such transparent posturing. That is precisely what I and many other Canadians have been doing for decades. And were we able to “exercise our rights and freedoms” without the Jewish lobbyists using their “Hate Propaganda” laws to attack and imprison us? No. Just more hypocritical smoke and mirrors and sententious sophistry that’s all.

Commenting on the Paris demonstrations that followed in the wake of the shootings Harper, monotonously mouthing the Zionist agenda rather than taking into consideration ALL Canadians, displayed his now usual chutzpah by stating, “Today, I know all Canadians…stand together with [Israel? A.T.] the people of France…our great friends and allies” culminating his bigoted remarks with his final fatuous remark that, “When a trio of [alleged. A.T.] hooded men struck at some of our most cherished democratic principles – freedom of expression,  freedom of the press – they assaulted democracy everywhere.”

Talk is obviously cheap and meaningless when a nation’s leader can make such blatantly deceptive statements to the press and the so-called “independent” media stands by unquestioningly allowing it to go on.

Conclusion

So what are we to make of this latest false flag event that occurred in Paris, France? Will the world fall for it like most people fell for the 9/11 false flag and continue on supporting those who are the perpetrators of the majority of mankind’s problems? How long will the pretense last before the mask of Zion finally falls from the face of evil, revealing forever the primary source of mankind’s collective woes and allowing for the final liberation of the millions of people still suffering from the ignorance that’s ultimately a result of having lived their lives in a trauma-induced trance of fear and insecurity; products of deliberate mind-control by a globally elite force of psychopaths who truly believe that they were given the right by their G_d to wield unlimited power and control over the majority of humanity? How long before the majority of Jews themselves will be healed of this devastating ghetto consciousness that’s plagued the world for over two millennia?

For most people today the realization that they are going about their lives unaware of the fact that there’s a war going on around them designed to eventually enslave them is beyond belief. They simply remain transfixed by Big Brother’s media, struggle on a daily basis to pay their credit card debts and keep food on the table and a roof over their heads all the while faithfully watching the sitcoms and television news and sports and a myriad number of channels all designed with the intent of diverting their attention away from the psycho/spiritual battles that are going on behind the scenes both in Cyberspace (the Internet) where the final battle is now well underway as well as in the courtrooms of the nation where the Zionist forces are surreptitiously at work both enacting new legislation and protecting old legislation like Section 318 to 320 of Canada’s Criminal Code, laws overtly and covertly designed to  criminalize the Truth Revealers who are on to their scams and are doing their utmost with scant resources to strike the chimes of truth and freedom and connect the dots so that the majority of those still asleep might one day awaken.

Make no mistake about it. The Zionists KNOW their days are numbered and that time is fast running out for them to pull off their global coup. The fact that they know though is not something that will automatically tempt them to change their evil ways. That’s not how psychopaths operate. The stronger the resistance to their plotting and scheming the more they dig their heels in and resort to greater and greater subterfuges to prevent the tide of truth from rising. They understand better than anyone the power of their media and the power of their purse and they will not stop using either of these devices to achieve the end they’ve worked for so long and with such single-minded, albeit, malicious  intent.

It may be pointless at this juncture in the battle to remind people that this war has been going on since Lucifer first broke rank with the heavenly hosts and decided that he would rather be God and do his own thing instead of remaining a willing and loving participant in the grand scheme of Creation. God of course, having endowed all of his Creation, from the heavenly realms down to us mundane time-space mortal creatures of flesh and blood with free will wasn’t about to interfere with his design and so left his somewhat recalcitrant and sentient family to work it out on their own.

The debate over who the Zionists really are and why they’re motivated to act as they do would fill a thousand Alexandrian libraries. The origins of such primal urges to control others cannot help but lead serious thinkers to an eventual realization that such questions ultimately cannot be answered without delving into speculative philosophical, occult and spiritual realms that go far beyond the scope of this article.

The Internet at this early juncture in its nascent beginnings is already expanding at quantum speeds. The information age is gaining ground with every millisecond, exploding our preconceived notions of time and space and taking us on a transcendental journey that at this point in time is akin in terms of progress to our little toe projecting out upon the threshold of a dream that undoubtedly will continue to unfold throughout the remainder of the present Aquarian cycle, leading us onward and inward to greater and greater understanding, peace, harmony, and love.

Together humanity now faces the supreme trial of all ages past. We stand as a vast human species with one foot embedded in yesterday  and the other foot jutting forth into a future that all too often appears shrouded in grey, chemtrail-like clouds of self doubt brought forth daily through the interminable Big Brother’s flak of fear and loathing which constitute the hallmarks of the Zionist Information Media now permanently acting in collusion with its counterparts in every other phase of global involvement who are intent on breaking the will of the people to the point where they eventually give up and bow their heads to accept their chains of slavery and subservience to the satanic power  that now rules the world by default.

Bob_Dylan_-_The_Times_They_Are_A-Changin'

Bob Dylan, one of the leading American Jewish poets, songwriters and musicians of the 1960’s prophetically expressed best our current existential dilemma when, in 1964 he wrote his immortal song, “The Times They Are A-Changing”. I publish it here for readers to consider.

Come gather ’round people
Wherever you roam
And admit that the waters
Around you have grown
And accept it that soon
You’ll be drenched to the bone
If your time to you is worth savin’
Then you better start swimmin’ or you’ll sink like a stone
For the times they are a-changin’

Come writers and critics
Who prophesize with your pen
And keep your eyes wide
The chance won’t come again
And don’t speak too soon
For the wheel’s still in spin
And there’s no tellin’ who that it’s namin’
For the loser now will be later to win
For the times they are a-changin’

Come senators, congressmen
Please heed the call
Don’t stand in the doorway
Don’t block up the hall
For he that gets hurt
Will be he who has stalled
There’s a battle outside and it is ragin’
It’ll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls
For the times they are a-changin’

Come mothers and fathers
Throughout the land
And don’t criticize
What you can’t understand
Your sons and your daughters
Are beyond your command
Your old road is rapidly agin’
Please get out of the new one if you can’t lend your hand
For the times they are a-changin’

The line it is drawn
The curse it is cast
The slow one now
Will later be fast
As the present now
Will later be past
The order is rapidly fadin’
And the first one now will later be last
For the times they are a-changin’

The glorious sun of Truth and Justice is now rising upon an otherwise outwardly bleak, forlorn, terror-stricken Cyberian landscape according to divine plan, casting great shadows across the wreckage of thousands of years of endless war and strife and suffering. Its radiant rays of life-giving hope are bursting forth with new and brighter intensity than ever before, defying with the full intensity of its love-driven will and determination all of the Evil and Darkness emanating forth from the present Zio-Talmudic tyranny now so frantic with fear and desperately attempting to pull off its age-long plan for absolute control of planet Earth.

In the end Truth and Love and Peace WILL prevail.

—–

 

KARMA: Ezra Levant, Zionism & the Politics of Deception by Arthur Topham

KarmaEzra 1000 copy

KARMA: Ezra Levant, Zionism & the Politics of Deception

by

Arthur Topham

“What goes around comes around”

~ modern-day English expression to describe the Buddhist Law of Karma

The recent November 27, 2014 guilty ruling by Justice Wendy Matheson in the defamation lawsuit against Sun News Network’s Zionist Jew propagandist Ezra Levant by Khurrum Awan a Muslim Canadian lawyer came for many as a surprise and a grave disappointment.

What this reflects for those caught up in the deceptive rhetoric of Ezra Levant and his background support network of international Jewry (and those not), is that there are within that sector of people paying attention to Canadian and global politics, two schools of thought when it comes to the issue of freedom of speech or expression; one that sees Levant as the leading spokesperson for freedom of speech and another which views his actions or behaviour as that of the proverbial Trojan Horse – interposed within the Jew media monopoly in order to serve the needs, not of Canada, but of the Israeli agenda which, ultimately, means the ideology of Zionism.

EzraLrg copy 5

One aspect of the case which emerged and that played a crucial role in determining to what extent Levant had defamed Khurrum Awan, was the perennial ploy of the Jews and their monopoly media cartel to fling the accusation “anti-Semitic” at anyone who so much as brushes up against their holy of holiest shrines, the state of Israel and its atheistic Zionist ideology. Anything that could possibly relate to that issue, no matter how tangential in nature, should it be deemed critical in any way of the assumed supremacist and racist nature of the Jews-only state, automatically ensures that the author of said critique will be subjected to this self-chosen epithet in order to demean and vilify the writer or speaker and thus render him or her persona non grata in the eyes of the general public and unworthy of further respect or attention.

This method of dealing with Zion’s critics has a long and infamous history; one that for the most part has worked extremely well over the past century and longer to silence and discredit opponents of the Jewish conspiracy for global hegemony. This is why the ruling in Awan/Levant libel case has suddenly and so succinctly delineated the possibility that such success may be on the wain, a very real, shocking and threatening thought for those who have been so adept at flashing that card and automatically expecting to trump any argument presented by the non-Jewish or gentile critic no matter how legitimate, logical or truthful.

This same reaction to Justice Matheson’s ruling could easily be compared with the former controversial sec. 13 Canadian Human Rights Code legislation that was the subject of heated debate for many years until it was finally repealed by the Harper government in 2012 when his handlers (the Jewish lobbyists) realized that such a specious law was in fact a double-edged sword that could be, and was being used against not only the gentile population of critics of Zion but also the Jews themselves.

That said, in the case of myself, another longstanding victim of Levant’s similar bellicose and libellous accusations of being “anti-Semitic”, the ruling came more as a pleasant surprise and along with that sense of satisfaction the hope for a possible turnaround of a decades-long systemic pattern of legal misfeasance on the part of Canada’s judiciary when it comes to finding anyone of Zionist Jew persuasion guilty of a crime (other than that of child porn which is fairly common).

Screen Shot 2013-01-27 at 3.38.53 PM copy

The reaction by the Zionist media was expected and throughout their news networks and affiliated blogs the feigned cries of outrage were heard resounding across the msm and over the internet. Why this should come as such a shock to Canadians merely illustrates the power of the Zionist press and its tv media to instil their version of “political reality” into the minds of unwary readers and viewers.

Why decent, thoughtful people should be overly upset by the fact that Levant was found guilty of defamation is, in itself, disconcerting given his years of promoting the Zionist agenda of spreading lies and hatred about the Muslim people at the behest of his Zionist controllers who continually feed his fragmented ego and fill his purse with scheckles; an agenda designed to build up a much greater and lethal game plan of inciting the whole of Western nations into a frenzied, unfounded and pathologic hatred of Muslim nations as the pretext for endless, imperialist wars against the people of the Middle East.

For those who haven’t figured out what Zionism is yet (other than the Zionist’s version), coming to terms with Judge Matheson’s decision will be difficult to understand and accept and it’s only through a greater understanding of who Ezra Levant really is that one can begin to fathom the depth of deception that the Canadian public has been subjected to over the past seventy years of media and judicial transgression that has left our nation bereft of any reliable and truthful reference point from which to reasonably and intellectually access what’s going on in our world of politics and law.

EzraLevant 1 copy 8

I’ve been following Levant’s meteoric rise to fame and misfortune ever since 2007 when I became embroiled in the sec. 13 drama after B’nai Brith Canada (a Jews-only secret masonic organization) filed a complaint against myself and my website  in November of 2007 with the Canadian Human Rights Commission seeking relief for discriminatory publication under prohibited grounds caught by  Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act claiming that, to wit: The premise of this complaint is a contention that Arthur Topham of Quesnel, British Columbia, Canada and his internet publication known as  Radicalpress.com  contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.

It would be advisable for readers to take special note of the last three words in that complaint as they illustrate in no uncertain terms what the Jewish lobby here in Canada wants to establish as law – NO CRITICISM OF ISRAEL! Their same modus operandi is now in play in my current Sec. 319(2) criminal charge of promoting “Hate Propaganda” toward “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin“.

EzraFF1000 copy

There is so much more to be said about Ezra Levant and the reasons why he’s been elevated to the status that he now holds in Canada’s media and how it ties in with the Harper government, the racist state of Israel and the global pursuits of Zionist juggernaut that wants control of everything from our personal data to the final say in every law and decision ranging from the local to highest branches of international governance on the planet.

I will leave readers with a list of my own critiques of this Zionist stooge who the msm has employed for years to voice the agenda of Israel under the guise of freedom of speech in Canada. Maybe after reading further those still in awe of this Zionist double agent for Israel will come to see him for what he truly is, a traitor to Canada just like his co-conspirator Stephen Harper.

~*~

Further articles on Ezra Levant by Arthur Topham:

Zion’s New Crusaders: Ezra Levant – Muslim Hunting Jew – Rallies Canada’s Zionist Christians in Support of Israel by Arthur Topham July 28, 2014

THE PROFIT EZRA LEVANT: Saviour of the Christians. By Arthur Topham June 20th, 2014

Fighting for Zion and the Freedom to Brainwash Canadians with Ezra Levant by the Radical Press Parody Dept. February 22, 2014

Why I Ought to Sue Ezra Levant November 11, 2012

I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM! – Ezra Levant on The Source Nov. 8, 2012 November 9, 2012

B’nai Brith Canada: Still Beating the ‘anti-Semitic’, ‘Hate’ Drum November 9, 2012

Zionist Jew Media Campaign to Smear Radical Press November 7, 2012

National(Zionist)Post:Preemptive Hit Smear on Radical Press November 12, 2012

Ezra Levant: Zionist Word-butcher & German Hater By Arthur Topham April 27th, 2009

SMEAR JOB!!! : The Zionist Media’s Mendacious Battle to Control Canada’s Election Agenda By Arthur Topham Sept 29, 2008

The Biggest Threat to Canadian Jewry is Zionism By Arthur Topham August 25, 2008

Free Speech for Jews: A Critique of Ezra Levant’s “Jews for free speech” article By Arthur Topham July 4, 2008

Free Speech in Canada: A Review of the ongoing Lemire, Levant & Steyn cases By Arthur Topham May 18, 2008

How the Canadian Human Rights Commission violates the rule of law by Ezra Levant Commentary by Arthur Topham March 13, 2008

Comments on Ezra Levant’s article “What can be done?” By Arthur Topham January 18, 2008

RED ICE RADIO: INTERVIEW WITH ARTHUR TOPHAM – Hour 1 – “Hate Propaganda” Legislation in Canada

REDICERPHDR2

CLICK URL BELOW TO LISTEN:

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2014/11/RIR-141112.php

Arthur Topham, Editor of The Radical Press, on ITEL Radio – 11.8.14

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 8.07.14 PM copy

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 8.07.14 PM copy 2

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 11.05.10 PM

ATEditorRP300 copy

Arthur Topham, the editor and publisher of “The Radical Press“, was interviewed on Inside the Eye – Live! on Saturday, November 8, 2014. Arthur appeared in the second hour of the show, or 11am Eastern. Topham, 67, has gained somewhat of a “dissident status” as he has been hounded by Canada’s B’nai B’rith and the Harper government in Ottawa due to Arthur’s honest and open discussion of Israel and Canada’s unequivocal support for Jewish genocide in Palestine.

Bolshevik Laws in Canada to Penalize Speaking out against Jews

COMMIE-JEW-NKVD-e1415565931817

Arthur Topham is currently in the docket in Canada for a rather Orwellian and nebulous charge of “spreading hatred towards Jews”. The very act of someone being charges with such a crime is itself a damning tact to be taking, because how can you not have hatred for Jews when Jews are eagerly seeking to prosecute another adult simply for writing, speaking, or publishing works in a manner that would be quite acceptable in Israel, and yet is a criminal act if done by a “lowly goy” outside of Israel?

The obvious to anyone not living in this Orwellian macabre world that Jews are seeking to create for Canada and Canadians is that Jews have become something like the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union: there can be no criticism of the “The Comrade”, nor can there be criticism of anything that “The Comrade” deems to be materially important.

anti-semitism-7-e1415566239164

For instance, why should any mature adult be forced to accept unequivocal support for a terrorist nation as Israel? To demand such is to be absurd to the point of tyrannical, yet that is precisely what Jews are demanding in Canada!

From the article “The Jewish Takeover of America“,

Here is what B’nai B’rith Canada would like to see incorporated into Canadian law:

“We must repeat again and again these basic facts — TO BE ‘anti-Israel’ IS TO BE ANTI-SEMITIC. TO BOYCOTT ISRAEL, ISRAELI PROFESSORS and ISRAELI business, these are not political acts, these are acts of hate, acts of anti-Semitism! Anti-Israel hysteria is anti-Semitic hysteria. They are one and the same.”

The above statement was made in 2009 by Yuli Edelstein, Israeli Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, The capital letters are his.

Of course, one has to to take a step back and think. “Spreading hatred towards Jews?” is somehow a criminal charge? And then B’nai B’rith is seeking to enshrine into Canadian law points and opinions which are being made by an Israeli ultra-nationalist?

Isn’t this exceptionally anti-democratic at the face of it and treason at a wholly ideological level? And what of the emotion of “hate”? It is, after all, a human emotion.

Should people not hate the fact that B’nai B’rith is seeking to operate as a foreign agent for Israel and impose Jewish ideology onto the whole of Canadian society?

UnbrokenCovenant500x230-e1415566413172

So does that not make B’nai B’rith guilty of spreading hate – I know I would hate that if I saw such brazen acts of treason in the United States – consequently, should not B’nai B’rith be disbanded for “spreading hatred towards Jews” by their very actions and efforts?

When Jews are allowed to go down such a slippery slope, when will it end and should it end with Jews themselves as the ultimate victims of the very laws they sought to tyrannize the host countries with?

An Ideological War

jewish-racism31-e1415566722470

It is absurd for any mature political society in the West to ever stoop down to the Bolshevik mindset where “thought and words” are “crimes”. The very idea of a “hate crime” has purely one purpose: to preclude people from criticizing the body politic which “just happens” to be largely dominated by and run for and on the behalf of Jewish interests.

It is so brazenly obvious the tactics being employed by Jewish political groups.

What is at stake is an ideological war being waged by organized Jewish political and social organs against all the citizenry of “the West”.

After having been thrown out of so many countries in their history as vagabonds and usurpers, apparently they believe that they can create legal strangleholds on the indigenous populations that are so tyrannical that no people will ever consider “tossing them out” again”.

To clearly demonstrate the hypocrisy of Jewish thinking, we can simply show how Jews openly call for genocide of others even to this day, and yet when the target ethnicity for which Jews call for genocide is simply replaced back with the word “Jew”, using, in other words, Jewish words to describe Jewish thinking, but projecting Jewish thinking back onto Jews themselves, Jews somehow are befuddled and confused as to how someone could call for genocide of Jews!

The total moral and intellectual insanity of the Jewish legal and rational position be damned in the eyes of Jews who shamelessly twist reality and facts to paint realities that simply did not nor do exist.

Take for example the book “Germany Must Perish”. Written in 1941 by a scion of Jewish society (he is insane to most of us but quite normal and lucid in Jewish intellectual and social circles), the book called for the total genocide of the German people – in 1941 – a date LONG BEFORE the supposed “gas chambers” and the mythical 6 million figure.

GermanyPerishFBCovers-copy-3-e1415566765892

What Arthur Topham did was simply to replace the word “German” with the word “Jews”, and so forth.

From the article “The Jewish Takeover of America”,

In order to highlight the enormity of what this psychotic Jew was actually suggesting, Arthur employed the ingenious device of republishing the book on his website with a few significant alterations. First, he changed the title to Israel Must Perish! Then he substituted the word “Israel” for “Germany”, “Jew for “German”, and “Netanyahu” for “Hitler”. This at once transformed Kaufman’s hateful book into a Swiftian satire.

The point Arthur Topham was making was unmistakable. If it is permissible to call for the mass extermination of the GERMAN people by enforced sterilization of every single GERMAN MALE, then it was equally permissible to call for the extermination of the JEWISH people by the enforced sterilization of every single JEWISH male. The logic was impeccable.

Such perfect logic, however, was displeasing to B’nai B’rith Canada, Driven to desperation, this Jewish organization then resorted to dirty tricks. First it alleged, falsely, that Arthur had actually published a real, hard copy book called Israel Must Perish! He had done no such thing.

Yet, even to this day, we can find comment after comment of Jews in all corners of the world calling for the genocide of others.

In a post written by someone who appears Jewish and supports Kaufmann’s position of genocide against all Germans, we find this comment:

Seymour Zak
October 4, 2014 at 11:42 am

As for Kaufman’s book “Germany Must Perish”, I can’t see what all the fuss is about. Sure, this Kaufman guy wanted to castrate every single German male in the world. I don’t see anything wrong with that. The Germans killed 6 million Jews, don’t forget, so what’s the big deal if you cut off all their balls to teach them a good lesson? Anyway, the New York Times wouldn’t have given the book such a good review if it had thought cutting off all the German’s people’s balls was the wrong thing to do. – source

So you see, it is ideological. Jews clearly have no qualms about murdering others, even if these “qualms” are based on lies, distortions, or pure mythology. Jews have no problems “spreading hatred” for others, so long as they are able to achieve their ideological and very real geopolitical goals without these goals being drawn into the light.

In a body politic where the citizens are mature, intelligent, and schooled in Reason and Logic, the farce of the campaign against Arthur Topham would never see the light of day, and the perpetrators of this attempted tyranny would find themselves in deep legal and political trouble.

Why would courts and the people stand for such obnoxious idiocy of “censoring” another adult when it is clear that such forms of censorship are merely tools of political repression? Such repression shows a clear ideological warfare by Jews against The West.

Arthur-Topham-Fundraising

Arthur Topham on ITEL Radio – 11.8.14

Click on link below to listen in:

http://k007.kiwi6.com/hotlink/urmba5tinu/ITEL_Radio_Interview_-_Arthur_Topham_-_11.8.14.mp3

————-

Section 13 is Officially Repealed: The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 2] by Marc Lemire

Section 13 is Officially Repealed:

The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 2]

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/the-obituary-of-chrc-censorship-part-2.html

Section13OfficRepealLemireHdr

Modus Operandi of the CHRC: “simple forced deletion of the message”

MarcLemireFreedomsite

You can read part 1 here: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/section-13-is-officially-repealed.html

[June 29, 2014] Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act was a monstrosity since it’s inception in 1977.  It was a piece of targeted legislation to silence one man and his telephone answering machine.  But why on earth was it ever put into the Canadian Human Rights Act in the first place?  The rest of the Act; is about employment, accommodation, services, etc. And the “Human Rights” Act, was remedial; Unlike the Criminal Code of Canada, it was not meant “to assign or to punish moral blameworthiness” to the people involved.

Why would the censors choose a remedial piece of legislation to target people, when Canada has criminal speech prohibitions, which could actually imprison people?  The answer is simple, they didn’t want a Section 13 case to generate any publicity, the way a criminal charge would.  They wanted to quietly censor people, in the back room; without anyone seeing what they were really up to.

In a letter dated November 13, 1975, Ontario’s Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan outlined some of the problems they faced when trying to “get” a man named John Ross Taylor. In reference to Taylor’s taped telephone answering machine, Callaghan stated:

“The messages usually are topical and political and focus on a wide variety of subjects.  However, the emphasis always is racial and federal immigration policies frequently are criticized.”

Callaghan continued in his letter: “The messages discuss such matters as immigration, integration and urban crime, all of which clearly are matters of public interest.”

The real intent of Section 13 was to silence legitimate non-violent criticism of immigration, crime, multiculturalism and integration.  Ontario’s Deputy AG Callaghan summed up the true motivation behind silencing Taylor using the Human Rights Act:

The simple forced deletion of the message which I have proposed could have a major advantage over a criminal prosecution in that, presumably, it would not be attended by great publicity whereas a criminal prosecution, through publicity and polarization, might promote the mischief which it sought to suppress.”

In other words, Ontario’s Deputy AG wanted silence the messenger behind closed doors, “simple forced deletion” as he calls it; and hoped that no one would pay any attention to the gross infringements to freedom of speech that was occurring.  And sadly for many years that was the case; marginalized people were crushed under the weight of the repressive state apparatus, without anyone standing up for them.

There was some public interest in the John Ross Taylor case, because Mr. Taylor was the perfect media “villain”.   He was totally unrepentant and steadfastly believed that what he was doing was proper and fair; some have claimed that in a criminal court, Mr. Taylor’s charge would be thrown out because he did not have the mental faculties to stand trial.  Mr. Taylor put a notation in the phone book which read “White Power Message–967-7777”.  Certainly most people might have an idea what that message was about prior to calling.

In fact, when Mr. Taylor first appeared before the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, he was totally overwhelmed.  Part of the Taylor decisions reads “It would appear from Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination of witnesses and his argument that he was attempting to establish the truth of what he said about Jews in his tape recorded statements. Strange as it may sound, the establishment of truth is not in issue in this case.”  Yes, strange indeed; this is Canada after all, not North Korea.  Was Kim Jong Un presiding at the Hearing; no worse, it was Francis Leddy!

With Truth is no defence; it is not surprising that the Tribunal ordered Mr. Taylor to stop putting messages on his answering machine and slapped a lifetime speech ban on him.  Mr. Taylor, not one to be pushed around by what some have called a Kangaroo court, left the Tribunal hearing, and immediately recorded a new message on his answering machine.  That led to a Contempt of Court charge, for which Mr. Taylor was imprisoned for a year.  As soon as Mr. Taylor got out, he said a big F.U. to censorship, and recorded another message on his answering machine.  This led to yet another Contempt of Court charge and a one year sentence.  In an odd twist of circumstances, the prison officials actually just let Mr. Taylor out after a few days of his second year-long jail sentence.

DougC copy 3

By this time, word of Mr. Taylors exploits reached Western Canada, where lawyer Douglas Christie heard about the treatment of Mr. Taylor and was disgusted.  He immediately got involved and represented Mr. Taylor all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada.  The ‘Supremes’ narrowly upheld Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3.  Writing for the dissenters on the Supreme Court, Madame Justice McLachlin found that “Section 13(1) of the Act infringes the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Charter.  Where, as in this case, an activity conveys or attempts to convey a meaning or message through a non-violent form of expression, this activity falls within the sphere of the conduct protected by s. 2(b).”

Ontario’s Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan did not completely get his wish.  Not all Section 13 cases “would not be attended by great publicity” but in fact, most were.  In the years after Taylor, numerous marginalized people and organizations were crushed by the censors.  Terry Long, Bill Harcus, Kevin Lew, Tony MacLeer, Canadian Liberty Net, Charles Scott, Church of Christ in Israel, Randy Johnson, Micka and Machiavelli Emprise Inc., Ernst Zundel, Fred Kyburz, Eldon Warman, Craig Harrison, etc, etc, etc.

Hate laws only exist in Canada because very few Canadians even know about them.  Canadians are perfectly capable of handling the back and forth of debate and do not need the nanny state watching over their shoulders looking for anything that might be “offensive”.  Hate laws are political tools to silence certain people.  That’s why almost 100% of cases are against marginalized White Canadians, of a certain political stripe, which they categorize as “nazi” or “anti-Semitic”.

In the case of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, 100% of the cases they have prosecuted are against White Canadians.  It is ironic, that the CHRC goes around to various employers and harasses them about the percentage of minorities they hire, but are blind to the fact they are in fact the biggest racists of all, and only accept complaints against one race.  For the CHRC, the only haters in Canada have white skin. It really calls out to file a CHRC complaint!  Over the years, to show the hypocrisy of the CHRC, some people have filed complaints against Muslim haters.  Surprise surprise…. The CHRC did not accept those complaints.

Trifecta against Censorship

While Section 13 was happily censoring marginalized Canadians, three cases bubbled to the surface and changed the entire game.  Firstly, was my case, which started in 2003 and was the definitive Constitutional Challenge which Section 13 had ever seen.  Secondly,   was the case(s) against Ezra Levant.  These were “hate speech” cases filed in Alberta and at the Federal level.  And thirdly were the complaints against Macleans Magazine and Mark Steyn, filed at both the provincial (Ontario and British Columbia) and Federal level.

While there were different complainants in the three cases, the end result was the same.  All three of us were not about to shut up and go away; Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn were journalists who wrote for major publications in Canada and I was a webmaster and writer who published the most critical information on the Internet about the CHRC and their corrupt and abusive methods.

Along with me posting as much source material and documentation on the Internet as I could get my hands on, was my super talented lawyer and Section 13 expert – Barbara Kulaszka.  Barbara is a dedicated warrior for freedom and it was mostly due to her that all the evidence about the corruption, spying, lying and conniving of the CHRC came to light.

Over the next few days I am going to go into detail about the three main CHRC / “Human Rights” cases, which brought an end to Section 13.  Each case was so important in the overall battle; they deserve a detailed look as part of the CHRC’s censorship obituary.

  1. The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 1]: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/section-13-is-officially-repealed.html
  2. The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 2]: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/the-obituary-of-chrc-censorship-part-2.html

-Marc Lemire

Webmaster; Freedomsite.org

Webmaster; StopSection13.com

 

[1]  Heading picture from Radical Press

 

A Tribute to Jim Keegstra – Canadian Patriot and Truth Teller by Arthur Topham

A Tribute to Jim Keegstra – Canadian Patriot and Truth Teller
 
by
Arthur Topham
 
June 16th, 2014
 
Jim Keegsra
March 30, 1934 – June 2, 2014
 
    Rest in Peace
 
No, I never knew Jim Keegstra personally nor did I have any verbal or written communications with him during his lifetime. Nor did I personally know Ernst Zundel or have any contact with him either. But regardless of that we still share a common bond that unites us in the spirit of Truth and Justice and that connection is permanently and indelibly burnt into our souls and no amount of brainwashing propaganda and calumny and hate-filled screeds from the Jew media will ever alter the fact. 
 
We all have stood up to and faced the enemy and revealed him for who and what he was and is – the consummate epitome of lies and eternal infamy and the historic instrument of endless destruction, war, torture, rape, murder, bestial abominations, terror and fear. And for those reasons we have been attacked and vilified and called every conceivable epithet known to man and Jew.
 
One other thing that I and Jim and Ernst (and many other victims of the Jewish criminal cartel) share in common is that we all were blessed to have been the fortunate beneficiaries of the spiritual and legal largesse of the world’s foremost counsel and freedom of speech fighter, the late and great Mr. Douglas Christie, who, up until his untimely demise in March of 2013, worked tirelessly to prevent the courts of Canada from being overrun by the Jews with their insidious conniving and legal scheming designed to twist and pervert Canadian jurisprudence into a deviant variant of the former Soviet Communist Bolshevik “Show Trial” courts wherein “Hate Propaganda” (please read this as any negative criticism of the Jews or their diabolical agenda against the rest of the humanity embodied in their politically psychopathic doctrine know as “Zionism”) has superseded Truth and Fact and sound Common Sense.
 
 
D.Christie BattlingBarrister
 
It’s a fact of life in 2014 just as it was a fact of life back in 1914 that the vast majority of the media (what many today call the “mainstream media”) is, in reality, a Jew monopoly Media and they own it lock, stock and barrel with the exception of (Praise God!) the Internet. For this reason and this reason alone no individual will ever be allowed the freedom to criticize a Jew or their crimes in any fashion without incurring the rage and hatred and lies which their media outlets will call upon en masse in order to prevent “the people” from knowing what really is going on behind their digital curtain of deception.
 
Jim Keegstra was a Christian and a school teacher and a man of integrity dedicated to teaching truth and that is what he did when it came to revealing to his students what is undoubtedly the greatest lie of the 20th century and, in all likelihood, of recorded history itself – the infamous LIE of the “6 Million Holocaust” – a deluded and macabre fantasy of the Judaic priesthood which humanity has been unwittingly forced to endure since 1945; a falsehood the Jews concocted in order to threaten, brow-beat, intimidate, cajole and bewitch the world into believing via their media cartel in order to buttress unchallenged support for their surreptitious designs for global hegemony.
 
 
HoloTorture copy
 
For that one reason and that reason alone the full weight of the Jew media and the state came down upon Jim Keegstra just as it did for Ernst Zundel when he attempted to educate Canadians about the very same LIE. 
 
A Google search of Jim Keegstra quickly reveals a gaggle of Jew media outlets that all lead off their stories with the catch-phrase “Jim Keegstra, Holocaust denier”. Over and over and over ad nauseum these disseminators of deception predictably punctuate, perpetuate and puke up their obscene, immoral “holocaust” perjury bile in voluminous amounts in order to keep brainwashed Canadians believing their gargantuan “6 Million” LIE; one that American writer Arthur R. Butz permanently demolished back in 1976 in his classic book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.
KeegstraGoogle1KeegstraGoogle2PM
Like voyeuristic opportunists the Jew media waits with lurid impatience for any opportunity to exploit their former victims in order to shore up the faltering foundations supporting their infrastructure of tyranny, better known to the world today as the New World Order. The “holocaust LIE” is the cornerstone of their temple of terrorism, deception and destruction and any chance they get to exploit it will create a media feast.
 
Jim Keegstra is now dead and his spirit is with all the other Truth seekers who, in the past, have stood up to and exposed the unconscionable atrocities that have been foisted upon humanity by this cult of evil Satanic vipers.  No less a Truth teller than Jesus Christ himself once said, “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan.”
 
At the present moment I am the only remaining Canadian who is now before the Canadian courts charged with a sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” crime against the Jews and facing a lengthy and costly trial in the B.C. Supreme Court. The section I was charged under was created and inserted into the Canadian law books by so-called “Canadian” Jews in order to stop people like Jim Keegstra, Ernst Zundel, John Ross Taylor, Malcolm Ross, myself and many others from challenging their outlandish and glaringly heinous legacy of lies that has turned the world into a living hell. 
 
I’ll conclude this short tribute with a few lines from a friend of Jim Keegstra’s who send them to me via email. They basically convey the sentiments that I’ve been trying to cover in this short essay.
 
“Kanadian patriot and school teacher Jim Keegsta was prosecuted in 1983 under Kanada’s then existing Hate statute for claiming the so-called “Holocaust” was “Exaggerated”. He subsequently became the first nationally vilified martyr for Kanadian freedom of speech in Kanada. That claim was subsequently substantiated when the world Jewish Congress in conjunction with the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland lowered the number of gassing victims at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million in 1990. So for any apologist who says the numbers don’t matter, it did to patriot Jim Keegstra who lost his job as a teacher and mayor of the town he lived in and was continuously vilified and slandered by the national media ever since. As a result, he was defunctionalized socially, politically and economically. Like heretics in the middle ages who denied that the earth was the center of the universe, you don’t deny the state religion of the west and get away with it. The only difference between then and now is that they’ve found a more civilized way of burning people at the stake.
 
There were other Kanadian martyrs before Jim, people like my good friend and mentor John Ross Taylor from Toronto who spent a year in jail in the late 1970s for a telephone message talking about the Jews and their machinations, but Jim Keegstra was the first to really go national in a big way. I guess THEY figured at the time that Kanadians had been dumbed down enough that it didn’t really matter what kind of outrage was perpetrated against traditional freedoms, notwithstanding that those freedoms went all the way back to the Magna Carta, and they were right. In fact the Keegstra case was the first one to my knowledge where a Kanadian judge in his final address to the jury stated, “The truth is not an issue in this case”. If the truth is not an issue in a court of Law, then what the hell is? I still haven’t figured that one out and obviously Jim Keegstra hadn’t either.
 
The RCMP even stationed armed snipers on the roof of the Red Deer, Alberta, court house when Jim was being tried. Kanada it seems must be protected against heretics at all cost.
 
Jim Keegstra was a friend and patriot who went out like a man. He will be sadly missed.”  T.L.
—–
  
 

Wyatt Christie: Frontier Lawyer. In Memory of Douglas H. Christie

WyattChristieFrontierLawyer800

Doug Christie’s name and work must and will go down in true, recorded history as the paramount voice that spoke out for our fundamental right to freedom of speech.

The following graphic is one that I put together some time ago when Doug was still alive and working on my Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” case. Please share it with all who you feel loved and respected Doug’s efforts.

Arthur Topham – Editor

The Radical Press

Douglas Christie quotation on Freedom

DCSkyBlueTemplate copy

Douglas Christie on Liberty and Freedom of Speech

DCTemplate 1-A

Harper Zionists seek to boost Canada thought crime law by Brandon Martinez

 http://www.presstv.ir/detail/2014/04/11/358120/zionists-to-boost-thought-crime-law/

Screen Shot 2014-04-11 at 10.38.06 AM

Screen Shot 2014-04-11 at 10.37.51 AM

Harper Zionists seek to boost Canada thought crime law

 By
Brandon Martinez
April 11th, 2014

 

The Zionist ruling clique of Canada, through their front-man Stephen Harper, is seeking to beef up the already-existing Orwellian “hate propaganda” law which has been primarily used to curtail criticism of Zionists and Israel.

The conspicuous change is buried in the Harper government’s proposed cyberbullying law, Bill C-13.

The existing law in Canada’s criminal code makes it illegal to “promote hatred” (whatever that means) of people “distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation,” explained The Chronicle Herald, but Bill C-13 intends to expand that category to include age, sex, mental or physical disability, and most disturbingly, “national origin.” In other words, you cannot criticize anyone for any reason at all!

This means, say, if you condemn Israelis for their inhumane treatment of Palestinians, you could find yourself in court facing down the self-appointed thought police and commissars of political correctness.

The … law against “hate speech” is illegitimate and ridiculous to begin with. The idea of allowing a government to legislate against opinions and feelings is patently absurd – it is pulled right out of George Orwell’s dystopian classic 1984.

British Columbia native Arthur Topham has felt the wrath of Canada’s censorious establishment. In November 2012, at the instigation of the Zionist society of B’nai B’rith, Topham was charged with a ‘hate crime’ for publishing anti-Zionist articles on his website RadicalPress.com.

One of the items on Topham’s site that made the Zionists convulse and contort with unrestrained anger and rage was a satire called Israel Must Perish. The text was nothing more than a spoof of a 1941 book authored by a Zionist … named Theodore Kaufman entitled Germany Must Perish! In that text Kaufman called for “a final solution” of German extinction. Topham merely substituted the words “German,” “Germany” and “Nazi” with “Israel,” “Jew” and “Zionist” throughout the text. Despite writing a clearly-worded preface explaining the satirical nature of the text, Topham was arrested by the RCMP and now faces the possibility of spending up to two years behind bars for violating Zionist sensibilities.

Many will recall the sad saga of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zundel. In the mid-1980s Zundel was charged with “spreading false news” after he published a book, Did Six Million Really Die?, which questioned some aspects of the official “holocaust” story. In the ensuing show trial, Zundel and his team of revisionist historians as well as his indefatigable defence lawyer Douglas Christie brought the holocaust lobby to its knees with facts and information refuting many claims made by Zionists about Germany’s WW2 concentration camps.

Over the span of three decades, Zundel was dragged from courtroom to courtroom, from jail cell to jail cell, merely for expressing a viewpoint deemed verboten by the … Zionist establishment – the self-appointed architects of public discourse, the self-declared arbiters of truth and morality, the self-proclaimed “chosen people” whose faults are unseen and whose character is unimpeachable.

Zundel, a self-described pacifist with no criminal record, was physically assaulted on numerous occasions by Jewish Defence League thugs. His Toronto home, which also housed his publishing and graphic arts businesses, was bombed and torched by Zionist terrorists. He received death threats on a daily basis from members of the “chosen race of God,” but the Toronto Police did almost nothing to prevent any of it and was entirely uninterested in pursuing the criminals and thugs responsible for the campaign of terror against Zundel and his associates.

Zundel’s story is a testament to the power and control of Jewish extremists in Canada, whose agenda is anything but altruistic and whose disposition is more racist than the Klan.

In the “New World Order” being imposed on us by self-interested, ethnocentric megalomaniacs, no man has the right to explore, investigate and come to his own conclusions about history — that is the sole responsibility of the tyrannical monarchs of the NWO, who tell us what and how to think; free thought be damned.

BM/AB

Screen Shot 2014-04-11 at 10.41.06 AM

Brandon Martinez is a freelance writer and journalist from Canada whose area of expertise is foreign policy, international affairs and 20th and 21st century history. His writing is focused on issues such as Zionism, Israel-Palestine, American and Canadian foreign policy, war, terrorism and deception in media and politics. Readers can contact him at martinezperspective@hotmail.com. More articles by Brandon Martinez

 

Fighting for Zion and the Freedom to Brainwash Canadians with Ezra Levant by the Radical Press Parody Dept.

RadPressEditorNew1 150

[Editor’s Note:

The first thing that comes to mind when I think of Ezra Levant is the word hypocrite. A self-chosen champion of “freedom of speech” this big mouthed bigot loves telling his dumbed down goy followers how he’s fighting for their right to free expression while all the while he’s suckering them in for donations to cover his court costs incurred by his own vicious acts against Canada’s Muslim community that have gotten him in the legal hot water he’s now stewing in.

Just like his Zionist cohorts in the Zionist controlled news media Levant has spent years spewing forth his hatred toward the Muslims following the old, worn-out agenda of Israel to get the Christian nations of the west battling with the Arab nations of the Middle East so the Jews themselves can sit back and rake in the money spent on armaments and military loans and watch the stupid goy murder each other out of ignorance.

This is the same bigot who, when the Crown finally laid charges against me for “promoting hatred against people of the Jewish faith” back in November of 2012, rather than defend my freedom to express my opinions on political issues here in Canada, chose instead to vilify my name and my work on the Sun News Network by libelling and defaming my person and spouting off all sorts of blatant lies about me on a media reaching around the globe.

Now that he’s been caught up in his own web of lies and deception and he finds himself in the legal hot seat he’s crying the blues and asking Canadians to stand by him and support him and pay his bills so that he’ll be able to continue shooting his yap off on tv and calling down the Muslims and the Indians and the rest of Canadians who happen to stand in the way of these psychopaths getting their way in whatever criminal action they choose.

Here is a prime example of his bigoted brain at work. On his please help poor me blogsite Levant posts the following notice about the person who’s taking him to court, accusing him of practising “the soft jihad of ‘lawfare’, which he defines as “the abusive practice where lawsuits are filed against critics of radical Islam just to harass them and silence them….”

Screen Shot 2014-02-23 at 12.05.15 AM

Just stop for a moment and think about that. This is precisely what the Zionist Jew lobby groups here in Canada have been doing against their fellow Canadians for the past sixty years now. It’s been lawsuit after lawsuit laid against Canadians who’ve been critical of the racist, apartheid, criminal actions of the supremacist state of Israel and never once did we see Levant or any of his fellow Jew bigots ever stand up for these people. Never. In fact the Jew lobby groups like B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress and now the newly formed treasonous organization the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs are the major antagonists involved in trying to shut up the whole goddam country so that only they will be able to lie and cheat and deceive the country into doing whatever they decide we, the people, ought to do for them.

Then this brash psycho bigot attempts to convince the gullible people of Canada that he’s being “targeted” because of his last seven years fighting for “freedom of speech” and now he needs their help when in truth, he’s spent the last seven years and longer calling down and abusing and slandering the real freedom fighters here in Canada like the late Doug Christie and Ernst Zundel and Doug Collins and the many other non-Jew individual bloggers and publishers and writers who’ve been abused and jailed by the likes of these two-faced duel-citizen Jew lobbyists who only have their home and native land of Israel in mind whenever they attempt to take away the rights of normal Canadians such as myself. It’s these very same Jew organizations that have been on my ass for the past seven years and when did we ever see or hear the bigot Levant take a stand on my behalf? Never. Whenever my case did come up it was always Levant who was the first to sling the old bullshit epithets of the Zionists my way, calling me an “anti-Semite” and a “Jew-hater”, etc. Now he acts like he’s been the advocate of everyone here in Canada and fighting for all our rights.

Screen Shot 2014-02-23 at 12.06.39 AM

The big mouthed bigot has now come out with a newsletter that he’s sending out to all of those who he’s duped into believing that he’s going to be Canada’s shining knight and save us all from the censors. He’s calling it, “Fighting for Freedom”. Below you’ll see what I’m calling it in my parody of his first edition.]

Red spacer copy

EzraFF800 copy

Screen Shot 2014-02-22 at 5.27.14 PM

Welcome to the first edition of “Fighting for Zion” — my weekly newsletter! I’m using the e-mail address that someone said you once typed into a website similar to mine requesting to be signed up for just such a newsletter. If you don’t want to be on the list too bad, it won’t hurt my feelings as I’m used to blurting out all sorts of bullshit spam propaganda on the Sun News Network and on my own anti-Muslim/First Nations/Goyim hate show, “The Source” where I get to open my gaping flap-trap and call anyone and everyone down who may happen to be standing in the way of the Rothschild-controlled Zionist agenda for global take-over.

Of course that means ANYTHING that one of the cattle (i.e. “goyim” or non-Jew), happens to say which we can then use our Zionist controlled mainstream media to begin a smear campaign against so the rest of the herd of gullible Canadian goyim will start to see them them as either a “terrorist” or a “racist” or a “hate monger” or a “wing-nut” or an “anti-Semite” or a “neo-Nazi” or a “white supremacist” or “Jew-baiter” or…Jehovah forbid… a “holocaust denier” and a blatant committer of “hate crimes” and cringe in fear lest they also be accused!

But I hope you do stay subscribed because if you click “unsubscribe” on the link at the bottom it won’t work anyway and actually just adds your email to our list in Tel Aviv that my Mossad Jew controllers keep so they know precisely who it is that doesn’t wish to be a part of our glorious Jew World Order that we’ve been working so hard on now for the past couple of thousand years to achieve.

Once a week I’ll send you my favourite Sun newspaper pro-Zionist, praise Israel, praise Harper and bomb and kill the Palestinian kids columns plus a few of the most interesting videos from my TV show on the Scum News Network!

Speaking of my TV show I’m particularly proud of the one where I interviewed the late neo-Nazi, Zundel-loving, “Free Speech” lawyer Doug Christie just four months prior to his timely demise in March of 2013. I got to bad-mouth, lie, libel and slander that anti-Semite and Jew hating holocaust denier Arthur Topham who lives out in British Columbia and runs a “hate propaganda” site called www.RadicalPress.com. Of course he’s not alone out there as I know there are millions of other Jew-haters and Anarchists and neo-Nazis and Indian lovers and rednecks living out there who would just love to get their hands on God’s chosen ones and cram us all back into the ovens again but he was one of the more difficult to catch.

Screen Shot 2014-02-22 at 4.55.45 PM

We first tried back in 2007 when another of my fat, loud-mouthed friends from Victoria, B.C. (who works for the occult masonic covenant false front Jew lobby B’nai Brith Canada), used the now repealed Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” legislation that we’d slipped in to the Canadian Human Rights Code to get the Canadian Human Rights Commission to find him guilty and take down his website. But before it was able to all play out we found that Sec. 13(1) wasn’t all it was deviously made out to be and the Muslim terrorists here in Canada finally figured out a way to use it against us! Can you imagine that? Such chutzpah on their part to think that one of our very own specially created “hate crime” laws that we’d spent decades designing in order to censor and control the bleating of the sheep on the Internet here in Canada could be used agains US. That’s why we told Harper to get rid of it because then we’d be able to have the media all to ourselves (as we already do) and we could carry on brainwashing the dumbed down Canucks into believing whatever lies we decided to tell them just like we’ve always done.

Now of course all we have left in our arsenal of lies and dirty tricks is Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada which deals with “Hate Propaganda”. That was another law that we were able to pressure the gullible goyim politicians into putting in federal legislation. The only problem is it takes a lot more work to get a conviction because the cattle actually have recourse to certain self-defences which are built into the legislation and the pesky matter of “Truth” is still actually a defence yet, unlike what we had with the Sec. 13(1) weapon.

Our only real hope now is to use our Zionist controlled courts and judges and lawyers who have all sworn allegiance to our Rothschild-created “Crown” in the City of London, England aka Regina (Queen Elizabeth II) to carry on a protracted, expensive, onerous process of endless court appearances and phoney bail conditions that will tend to wear down our victims to the point where they either go broke and give up, flee the country or freak out and do something that we can then use to justify sending our mercenary RCMP forces to liquidating them with a bullet in the back of the head. That, of course, is our preferred method of controlling the goyim. It worked so well for us during our reign of terror in Russia but nowadays we have to be a bit more careful about using those old tried and true techniques and we only do so in dire circumstances like in the case of Greg Matters up in central B.C. where we had to stop him from exposing our links to pedophilia and murder and the crimes we committed in Bosnia.

Occasionally, I’ll also send you updates on other fights — like my upcoming Zionist Hate speech trial, that starts in Toronto on March 3rd. You can read about that at www.LieWithEzra.ca and while you’re there send me some big bucks so I don’t have to borrow the money from my fellow Zionists or spend any of my own earnings. The goyim are traditionally our cash cow (no pun intended of course) so let’s not break with these long standing customs. Why just ask the Germans how it works. They’ve been paying us billions of dollars in reparations for the past eighty years for a crime that never happened so I’m sure you Canadians can cough up a few shekels too in order to help out a poor, downtrodden Jew lawyer who’s being threatened with an economic pogrom by a raving Arab infidel who wants me to stop spreading lies about him and his faith.

Enjoy the newsletter — and keep watching the Zionist controlled Big Brother TV!

Yours for a Greater Israel and Internet Censorship for all Goyim,

Ezra Levant
Fighting For Zion
———————-

To unsubscribe click here (if you dare).

Regina v RadicalPress.com LEGAL UPDATE #17

NewLegalUpdateLogo-700

notice4RP

Regina v RadicalPress.com LEGAL UPDATE #17

January 27th, 2014

 

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

Due to the nature of this particular Legal Update, i.e., it being recent events connected to my Preliminary Inquiry, the necessity arose for editorial commentary throughout the report wherever I felt it was warranted. It also meant that it would be a rather long article as well. The need to present a general overview of my case now that it’s finally reached this stage is the reason for its inordinate length.

January 22nd, 2014 marked the 616th day since my arrest on May 16th, 2012 for the alleged crime of “communicating statements, other than in private conversation, [that] willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.” The actual section of the Criminal Code of Canada reads:

Wilful promotion of hatred


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

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

In the Legal Rights section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under “Proceedings in criminal and penal matters”, 11(b) it states:

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;

According to the stated legal rights of all Canadian citizens (as denoted in the above Section 11(b) of the Charter), one must assume that a wait of 616 days or 20 months plus should be construed as being a “reasonable time” in which to expect one’s case to be heard in a Canadian court of law. But of course 616 days is only the beginning of the arduous process of seeking justice within the Canadian court system. January 22nd, 2014 was not the day when my trial on these specious charges was set to commence; it was but the date set for the Preliminary Inquiry which is basically an opportunity afforded the accused wherein they are given an opportunity to dispute the actual evidence which precipitated the laying of charges based on the Crown’s allegations.

I will get to the actual proceedings but first I’d like to say a few words about this section of the Canadian Criminal Code (CCC) which is placed under the heading “Hate Propaganda” and exists as Sections 318(1) through to Section 320.1(1) of the Code itself. This vile, undemocratic section of the Criminal Code was inserted into law by Zionist forces operating within the Cohen Commission back in 1970 and remains the one critical section of Canada’s criminal code where the pro-Zionist elements within Canada – specifically the Jewish lobby organizations such as B’nai Brith Canada (BBC), the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), the Simon Wiesenthal Centre (SWC) and the most recently formed Jewish umbrella organization, the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs (CIJA) – are now focusing their combined effort in a last ditch, desperate legal campaign designed to censor and silence Canada’s Internet and prevent Freedom of Speech from occurring without fear of legal reprisals.

When the Zionist’s previous weapon of mass deception/censorship, i.e., Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, was repealed by the Parliament of Canada back on June 25th, 2012 there was already a frantic movement afoot to find some new legal avenue with which to threaten and intimidate Canadian citizens into fearing to publish and express on the Internet their opinions or ideas or the opinions and ideas of others on any matter pertaining to this particular element within Canadian society (the Jews comprising less that 2% of Canada’s total population). Having their tentacles firmly entwined throughout the federal judiciary the Jewish lobbyists, led by the likes of former Liberal Attorney General of Canada and staunch Zionist Irwin Cotler, were working overtime behind the scenes in order to formulate new policies within the Harper Conservative government; measures that would ensure that their Number One weapon – HATE – would continue to find a place of honour and litigation within Canada’s legal system and be available to this minority group to use in their ongoing promotion and defence of the Apartheid, Racist, Supremacist State of Israel and the promulgation of its contemptible political ideology known as Zionism.

Until Canada is free of all this Zionist Jew created “HATE” legislation we will never be able to say that we’re a democratic nation that values the one fundamental God-given right that must remain sacrosanct in order to retain all of our other inherent rights, that being the right to free and unfettered expression. All of it must be eliminated so that a level playing field will exist for every Canadian.

EndHateCrimeLegislation 2

The Preliminary Inquiry – Day One

Back in November of 2013 the date, January 22nd, 2014, was set for a full day to hold a preliminary inquiry into my Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” case involving the two complainants – B’nai Brith Canada (represented by Agent Z) and Ricardo Warmouse, a lawyer involved in numerous former Sec. 13 cases prior to the law’s repeal in June of 2012. My former lawyer, Doug Christie, had requested that at least one week of time be set aside for the preliminary inquiry in order to challenge all the specious evidence that Crown had used in order to gain its illegal search warrant then used to invade my residence and steal all my computers and electronic files plus other hard copy materials which weren’t covered in the warrant. Crown at that time agreed to four days.

After the passing of Mr. Christie in March of 2013 Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston changed that time period to one day, telling the judge that in her estimation a single day was all the time necessary for Crown to – as Crown and Judge Morgan have been wont to say repeatedly, – “pass the Shepherd test” and move the case on to the trial stage. The “Shephard Test“, for those not versed in court legalese involved an extradition case back in the 1970’s out of which emerged a number of test arguments as to the degree of evidence required in order for a judge to determine whether or not to move the case forward.

Being self-represented and unaware of the machinations of Crown I ended up with one day in order to address all the issues including the sworn information of Cst. Normandie Levas provided to a Justice of the Peace in order to have the search warrant approved; information that contained numerous allegations which appeared to have been written by a Zionist script writer rather than by someone who was at the time relatively new to the controversial BC HATE CRIME TEAM and not versed in the whole array of research necessary to make expert commentary on issues dealing with what may or may not be alleged to be “hate” literature. All these allegations initially sworn in the Information regarding postings on the RadicalPress.com website were basically the same evidence that Crown was now introducing at the preliminary inquiry in order to convince Judge Morgan that there was sufficient evidence to commit my case to trial.

Initially Crown was planning to call a number of witnesses for the preliminary inquiry, the bulk of them being RCMP officers involved in the surveillance and later plunder of my home and theft of my computers and electronic files and firearms. The others were Barry Salt an expert in the field of forensic examination of computers and data and, of course, Det.Cst. Terry Wilson, the Lead Investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM located in Surrey, B.C. I had made application to the court to have the judge order Crown to subpoena the other crucial witnesses – the two complainants who had filed the vexatious complaints in the first place and Cst. Normandie Levas, the second member of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM who, as the Affiant swearing the Information, was responsible for the act that led to the granting of the illegal search warrant used to enter my home and steal all of my computer equipment and firearms. Judge Morgan did eventually direct Crown to have Cst. Levas appear but as she was on “holidays” at the time of the scheduled inquiry a later date of March 13th, 2014 was set for cross-examination.

NewWilsonPhoto

During an earlier focus hearing on January 3rd, 2014 Judge Morgan mediated some concessions between Crown and myself, which I agreed to, regarding some of the witnesses being called in order to prove where I lived and what firearms I had in my possessions and so on; items that would cut down the time which would otherwise have been wasted giving evidence for incidental aspects of the case that I wasn’t intending to challenge. As a concession to this Crown agreed to reconsider the second firearms count involving unsafe storage.At the time, I informed Judge Morgan that I recently had taken the PAL firearms safety course and received 100% of the written test and 90% on the practical test and was now in the process of sending my application off. I also informed Judge Morgan that I was planning to purchase a certified gun storage locker in which to store my firearms properly. Crown then stated that if these preconditions were achieved that they would consider staying the firearms charge.

What was scheduled to be a one day inquiry, like all great plans of mice and men, turned out to be a horse of another colour. I had made arrangements with my two witnesses, Mr. Frank Frost and Mr. Lonnie Landrud, to be at the courthouse at 9:30 a.m. on the morning of Wednesday, January 22nd. When my wife and I arrived around 9:15 a.m. it was evident that my case was not going to be the only one scheduled for the morning. Now this is not an uncommon occurrence in the Quesnel Courthouse (or in many other smaller communities throughout B.C.) and it all stems from government ineptitude (or design?) that there are never enough judges and prosecutors and courtrooms available to handle the volume of cases awaiting address. Nonetheless, I did expect that for a formal preliminary inquiry time would have been arranged so that it could occur without needless interruption.

After approximately twenty minutes of lawyers and Crown attempting to reschedule times, etc. my case began and Crown called their first witness, Det. Cst. Terry Wilson, lead investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM. Det. Wilson informed the court as to his name and position within the RCMP and when Crown asked him about his involvement with RadicalPress.com he told the court that he been monitoring the RadicalPress.com website since April 28th, 2011. It was on that date he first received an email from Ricardo Warmouse who registered a Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” complaint against the site. I thought it was rather amusing given that it was right around the time of the last federal election (May 2nd, 2011) and I had just posted a long article on Harper only the day before on April 27th which I had titled “Hating Harper“. It’s possible that Warmouse didn’t appreciate the graphic header for the piece in question that caused him to lay the charge or it may have been my advice at the time to the Canadian electorate warning them of dire days ahead should Canadians hand Stephen Harper a mandate to govern the nation. Whatever it was, given the current controversy over Harper and his entourage of Zionist sycophant ministers and pro-Israeli band of Chabad Lubavicher controllers traveling at great taxpayer expense to the apartheid state of Israel and soiling Canada’s image as a sovereign nation with their unabashed grovelling and overt support for this criminal state, it was rather apropos that Warmouse would suddenly file a complaint against RadicalPress.com at that particular point in time.

Det. Wilson then went on to describe to the court how his unit has been investigating the website since that time (a period of approximately 32 months thus far) and in the process confirming to the judge that the articles and online books and links, etc. were available to the general public and that anybody could just go there and click on a link and read whatever they wanted without having to enter any passwords or penetrate any firewalls. I thought to myself as he was going on, “My goodness, an acknowledged alternative news site and all you have to do is click on the url to it and the home page or whatever document hyperlink you may have clicked on in the sidebar or the menu bar above just suddenly appears and you can actually view it and read it! What a genius that Arthur Topham must be!”

Det. Wilson also told the court that the website has been running and posting new materials on a regular basis ever since the original conditions of my bail were changed with the exception of a few days in November of 2012 when the site was transferred to a new host server.

It was at this point that Det. Wilson then set up his laptop and introduced the courtroom to a special computer software program that allowed him to show the judge, myself and Crown what appeared to be interactive video footage of my website that they had copied to the program. We all had our own individual monitor screens and sat there while Det. Wilson took us on a virtual journey around the RadicalPress.com home page explaining to the judge and Crown how the site operates. Given the fact that it operates as any normal WordPress program would it was like sitting through an introductory lesson on basic computer skills that one might offer a Grade 2 or 3 class of children. This went on for some time and we all observed with great interest as Det. Wilson clicked on a hyperlink in the Pages section on the side bar and lo and behold the article or book would suddenly appear right there on the screen! All of this was, ostensibly, being done to show that any person in Canada could easily access all the “hate” and “anti-Semitism” and “racism” toward the Jewish population that the Crown alleges is present on the RadicalPress.com website.

Having endured this little media sideshow the judge then called for a break at 10:15 a.m. after which court resumed and other cases once again intruded into the schedule. My inquiry ceased at that point. The lunch hour eventually came and when court reconvened at 1:30 p.m.for the afternoon session more cases consumed the time. It wasn’t until around 3:45 p.m. that the preliminary inquiry resumed. It was at this stage that Crown finally got down to the meat and potatoes of its argument. Det. Wilson was presented with a massive black binder that eventually was entered as Exhibit A in the proceedings. I had been given the same binder a couple of days prior to the inquiry as well and had time to peruse its contents beforehand so it wasn’t a surprise to me. What it contained was hard copy pages of four online books that are present on RadicalPress.com plus two articles of my own that were also on the site. Each was given a tab number and they appeared in the following order:

Tab 1: Germany Must Perish
Tab 2: Israel Must Perish
Tab 3: Protocols of Zion
Tab 4: The Biological [sic]
Tab 5: The Jewish Religion
Tab 6: Karen Selick: Just Another Hate-mongering Germanophobe Jew by Arthur Topham

Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston then proceeded to ask Det. Wilson questions regarding the 6 items posted on RadicalPress.com.

With respect to Tab 1 which was the online version of Theodore N. Kaufman’s book Germany Must Perish!  Wilson went on to describe the book and what it was about. He gave a reasonable outline of its aim and purpose which was to spread anti-German propaganda against the National Socialist government of Germany and the German nation.

When it came to Tab 2 Wilson presented his views in a somewhat modified form than his original statements wherein he was very emphatic about the fact that I had actually written a “real” book bearing the title, Israel Must Perish! Now he was admitting that it was a reproduction of segments of Kaufmann’s book and that I had only changed certain words like “Germany” and “German” and “Hitler” to “Israel” and “Jew” and “Netanyahu” and the rest of the text was actually Kaufman’s. Crown then asked Wilson if he had read the Preface to this “book” which was written my myself. Wilson responded in the affirmative and said that he had read it. At no time though did he broach the issue of my assertion (contained in the Preface) that it was actually a satirical article based on Kaufman’s original hard copy book.

Tab 3 was, of course, the infamous book that the Jews have been attempting to erase from the screen of world history ever since it first appeared back at the turn of the 20th century. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion has been attacked as an “anti-Semitic” book from day one and as the writer/journalist Douglas Reed, author of the classic study of Zionism, The Controversy of Zion, wrote, more money has been spent on trying to prove this particular book to be a fraud than any other book in history. And for good reason.

Again, Det. Wilson’s assessment of the book was that it was a fraudulent attempt to promote anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jewish population and added that those who promote it see the book as a “roadmap” of the Zionist Jews’ attempt to “take over the world” and create a Jewish one world government. Crown asked Det. Wilson whether the book existed on other websites as well and he confirmed that it could be found on many websites besides RadicalPress.com.

Tab 4 was the online version of a book written by Eustice Mullins called The Biological Jew. Wilson then went on to describe the book as an anti-Semitic book that describes the Jews as “societal parasites”. It was also admitted that this book could also be found on other websites as well as on RadicalPress.com.

Tab 5 referred to the book titled, The Jewish Religion: It’s Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling. Crown asked Det. Wilson to describe the book and he testified that it was in his estimation “anti-Semitic” and then went on to describe how bad it was and how the author accuses the Jewish rabbis of terrible things like having sex with very young children and so on. Crown then asked Wilson whether or not the author of the book, Elizabeth Dilling, was a “real person”. Wilson’s response was, “I have no idea if the author is a real person”.

Tab 6 was a reference to an article that I had published on RadicalPress.com back on August 13, 2013 entitled, Karen Selick: Just Another Hate-mongering Germanophobe Jew . Finally, I thought to myself, we’re getting to something that I, personally, had penned and I was waiting for Det. Wilson’s assessment of how he felt my writing was such an example of “hate” that it warranted inclusion in the Crown’s arsenal of classic cases of such literature. Det. Wilson then went on to explain to the court that it was a graphic image which I had included in my article that he perceived to be proof that it was yet another anti-Semitic, “hate” piece. I enclose that example directly below for the reader’s consideration.

Screen Shot 2014-01-25 at 9.43.15 AM 2

Following Wilson’s comments regarding Tab 6 Crown then asked him if all of these online books were still up on the website and Wilson replied that all of the books that he found on the website were still there and to his knowledge none had been removed since I was arrested back on May 16th, 2012. It was at this point that Det. Wilson stated, “This is a massive website.”

Crown asked a few other related questions about Det. Wilson’s role in the arrest and he explained that he wasn’t present at my home during the search and seizure of my computers and firearms but that Cst. Gill, the “Exhibit officer” has provided him with my property afterwards. It was then that Det. Wilson sent the computers and firearms for “forensic” analysis so that the RCMP could show the court that I was the actual owner of these stolen devices.

It was at this point that the day’s testimony concluded and we left the courthouse.

The Preliminary Inquiry – Day Two

Day two proved to be much more productive in terms of time and purpose although it got off to a bit of a rough start. One of my witnesses that I had subpoenaed to appear on my behalf, Mr. Frank Frost, had traveled down to Quesnel at his own expense to attend the Preliminary Inquiry. Given that I had been told I would get my full day in court I was not that impressed when I only had approximately an hour and a half thus far allotted for the process.

When we arrived at the courthouse on Thursday, January 23rd, at 9:30 a.m. the court list showed a number of other case listed for the morning. At that point I decided to challenge the court on the matter and when the judge entered the court room and began discussing the scheduling with Crown and other lawyers present I stood up indicating that I had something to say and the judge told me to take a seat momentarily and he would get right to me. I sat down and within a few minutes he called my name and I stood up and said to him, “Your honour, I notice again today the list is getting longer than even yesterday and I’m not getting my day in court. I see this as an attempt by the Crown to prevent my witnesses from testifying. My wife, who is Jewish, is greatly offended by these charges brought against me therefore, in the interest of fundamental justice I ask that the charges be dismissed with prejudice.”

Judge Morgan responded by saying that he was not about to dismiss the case and also stated that there was no design on the part of Crown to prevent my witnesses from testifying. He followed those comments with a short dissertation on the problems and challenges that small communities face where they don’t have enough time and resources to deal with the ongoing case loads and therefore have to juggle and schedule them in order to do the best they can. He assured me that my situation was no different than any of the others. I had made my point and didn’t pursue the issue any further. From then on matters began to unfold as they should and within a very short period of time I was able to begin my cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson.

Being self-represented since the passing of my former counsel Mr. Doug Christie I was now faced with the task of cross-examining the testimony the arresting officer, Det. Wilson, had given to the court yesterday. I had prepared a series of questions that I planned to ask Wilson plus also a number of other court cases which related to the inquiry process which I intended to use if Crown began to object to any of the questions I had for Det. Wilson. Due to the length of all the questions, many of them not relevant at this point to the update itself, I will focus on only those that I feel are important to a general understanding of the case as a whole. As well, readers should bear in mind that Det. Wilson (and most likely B’nai Brith Canada’s agent Agent Z) monitor the RadicalPress.com website on a daily basis and I don’t wish to divulge certain matters which I intend to use later should the case go to trial.

Cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson

[Editor’s Note: Please bear in mind that all of the exchanges between myself and Det. Wilson during my cross-examination are taken from my notes which I made at the time I was questioning him and they may not be 100% accurate. Once I obtain a written transcript of the inquiry I’ll know if I erred on any of the minor details but for the most part I’m only quoting the things that I wrote down immediately upon Wilson’s stating them. Readers should also bear in mind that during the questioning I asked Det. Terry Wilson to inform the court as to his level of education and he answered by stating that he had received an Honours Degree in History from the University of Guelph, Ontario.]

I began cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson by first reading out the following:

“Det. Wilson, I’m going to begin by taking you to the Criminal Code section under which I am charged. Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

‘(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of … an indictable offence … or an offence punishable by summary conviction.'”

I then asked Wilson the following question: “I believe you stated yesterday in your testimony that the BC HATE CRIME TEAM was formed in 2009 and that it consists of two people, yourself and your partner/assistant Cst. Normandie Levas. Is this correct? Could you please tell the court how many actual convictions your unit has successfully prosecuted under Sec. 319(2) of the CCC since the formation of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM.” Wilson’s reply was that to date his “Hate Crime Team” had not convicted a single solitary soul! He did say though that there were two cases pending, my own plus another investigation that’s still underway.

Given all the media hype about there being so much “hate” on the Internet it begs the question as to just how much this propaganda about hatred that’s being emphasize by Jewish lobby groups like B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs is merely Zionist PR designed to justify the spending of vast amounts of taxpayer money in order to create these provincial “HATE CRIME UNITS” across Canada that ultimately only serve the interests of the foreign lobbyists who exploit them in order to monitor, harass, intimidate and punish critics of the Zionist ideology, their global mechanisms and the criminal state of Israel.

Considering Det. Wilson’s concerted effort to show the court that RadicalPress.com was wide open to the general public and that anyone in Canada could easily access the website plus all its accompanying links to a vast assortment of online books and articles, I asked Det. Wilson if he had any evidence that the material on the website was actually viewed and read by anyone. His reply was “Yes”. Then he stated that both of the two complainants, Agent Z and Ricardo Warmouse plus himself had accessed the site. That was the sum total of his evidence. No shit! That was it!

So it was manifestly obvious that no one else in all of Canada had gone on to the RadicalPress.com website, found it to be “anti-“Semitic” and then registered a complaint against it with the BC HATE CRIME TEAM claiming the site was promoting “hatred” contrary to  Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. Yet, because two pro-Zionist agents of the Zionist Jew lobby group B’nai Brith Canada (one of them an ethnic, duel-citizen Zionist Jew and the other a gentile lawyer who made it his business to lay “hate crime” complaints and in many cases profit monetarily from Sec. 13(1) convictions) had filed complaints, that, in the Crown’s view, were reason enough to monitor my website; the RCMP did helicopter and ground surveillance of my home and property; stalked both my wife and myself in the days prior to my arrest; flew the “BC HATE CRIME TEAM” up from Surrey, B.C. (a distance of approximately 600 km) at great expense to the taxpayers of the province; conscripted a number of local police officers as well; stopped me on my way to Prince George on business; arrested me; handcuffed me; terrorized my wife; hauled me off to jail, leaving my wife on the highway in the middle of nowhere; then waited for some justice of the peace on the lower mainland to sign a phoney, illegal search warrant so the police could eventually enter my home, scavenge and steal what they could of my computers and electronic files, and make off with all of my firearms.

Does this sound like the “free and democratic society” called Canada that we see enshrined in the Charter of Rights or Freedoms or is it more in keeping with the Marxist Communist Bolshevik dictatorship under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin where all it took was a single accusation from an enemy and you suddenly found yourself dragged before a tribunal of crooked, conspiring commissars where all your legal rights suddenly vanished, truth was no defence and you’re then subjected to humiliation and the abject opprobrium of the state and either sent off to spend your remaining years in some northern gulag wasteland or else escorted down into a dark dungeon to receive a bullet in the back of the head?

Two Gulags
For those readers who’ve yet to experience such tactics by the state this may all sound a bit fantastic but let me assure you that if it’s happening to me and my family and has happened to other Canadians in the recent past it doesn’t bode well for any of you either as this form of systemic covert repression on the part of the state continues to grow more bold and audacious by the day, aided and abetted by the Jewish lobbyists who now so blatantly advertise their power and influence over Canada’s elected Harper government.

As I thought about the two individuals who’s actions had precipitated all the endless angst of the police and the court against myself and my family I pondered what percentage of the Canadian population this would be when we consider that 2 out of 34.88 million people accessed RadicalPress.com and alleged that the site contained “anti-Semitic” articles and books that wilfully promoted hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin. A quick calculation indicated that it amounted to 0.00000573394495 % of the total population of Canada.

103,000 Missing Emails

Another area of contention was the matter of all of my private email communications contained in the two computers that the police had taken from my residence. I had only recently received a thumb drive from the BC HATE CRIME TEAM containing what is purported to be all of my stolen emails just days before the Preliminary Hearing and to date I’ve not had the time to check to determine how many are stored on the 32 Gigabit memory stick. Crown was supposed to have returned these emails back in 2012 and it was only recently that Judge Morgan finally requested that CC Johnston contact Det. Wilson and ask him to return them. I had indicated to the judge that there was a large volume of relevant data contained in the emails which I needed for my defence and given that email communications are considered to be “private communications” and not admissible as evidence in Section 319(2) offences they should be returned to me.

It has always been my contention that Det. Wilson took my computers in order to access the information contained in the private communications between myself and my many associates and friends. When questioned on this matter Wilson stated that the police have the right to take an accused’s computer in order to search for evidence that would prove in a court of law that the accused was in fact the person posting to the website. When asked whether or not he or anyone else accessed and read the emails or shared them with anyone else Wilson did his best to deny having done so although he did concede that he saw some of them in the course of investigating the various articles and online books that were now being used to convince Judge Morgan there was sufficient evidence to warrant trying the case but that his main object was to verify the material now being presented to the court as Exhibit “A”. I should add that when I later cross-examined Cpl. Barry Salt he confirmed that when he did his initial analysis of my computers that he found 103,000 emails and 5,500 documents. As well, he stated that the number was closer to 107,500 by now. Unfortunately it didn’t cross my mind at the moment to ask him how he would be aware of any increase in numbers but that’s an issue to be investigated later.

There are very good reasons for me to suspect that Det. Wilson did in fact go through the private emails contained on my iMac computer. This came out when I questioned Wilson on the following:

Det. Wilson, I’d like to ask you a few questions about your own history with regard to these kinds of investigations.

Q:    I understand that you once worked with the London Police Service. Am I correct in that regard?

[Wilson replied by stating that he had joined the police force in Ontario back in 1989 and the hate crime unit in 1995 and that he had moved out to B.C. in 2003 and eventually joined the BC Hate Crime Team in 2009. A.T.]

I also understand from the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Warmouse v. Kulbashian, 2006 CHRT 11, that while employed by the London Police Service, you executed a search warrant at the residence of James Scott Richardson, an individual suspected of uttering threats.

“[78] Mr. Wilson obtained a search warrant for the apartment in question, and executed it on September 28, 2001. Mr. Richardson was found in the apartment when the police entered and was arrested. He was charged with uttering threats against property and persons, and counselling the indictable offences of murder and of property damage…

[80] A police crime analyst specializing in electronic evidence was involved in the search operation. He seized a computer found in the apartment, and once back at the police station, made a mirror image of its hard drive and examined its content. Amongst the directories on the drive was one that contained the logs of Internet relay chats in which the user of the computer had participated…”

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

According to that same Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, you also executed an arrest warrant for Mr. Alexan Kulbashian, and a search warrant at the residence of Mr. Kulbashian’s parents:

[97] Mr. Wilson’s investigation eventually led him to conclude that “Totenkopf” and “Alex Krause” were pseudonyms for Mr. Kulbashian, and that he had also been involved in the publication of the September 14, 2001, Vinland Voice articles. Mr. Wilson therefore sought and obtained warrants for the arrest of Mr. Kulbashian (on charges similar to those filed against Mr. Richardson) and for the search of his residence at his parents’ home in North York. The warrants were executed on January 30, 2002…”

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Again Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

And according to that same Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, the criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian were later withdrawn:

“[105] In the end, the Crown prosecutor apparently decided to withdraw the criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian before going to trial. According to Mr. Wilson, the Crown concluded that there was no reasonable expectation of conviction on the charges laid against them.”

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Again Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

But despite the withdrawal of criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian, the evidence that you collected in the course of Criminal Code search warrants was later disclosed to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Wilson’s reply was that the evidence was disclosed to the CHRC but that it was divulged to them only after the commission had subpoena’d Wilson in order to get it. A.T.]

And that same evidence, collected by you in the course of executing Criminal Code search warrants was also disclosed to Ricardo Warmouse, an individual who pursued a complaint against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian.

Q:    Is that correct to the best of your recollection?

[Wilson replied that the evidence had been disclosed to the commission itself and not specifically to Warmouse. A.T.]

Q:    When you disclosed this evidence to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, did you know Mr. Warmouse?

[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

The Wilson/Warmouse Connection

Having established that Det. Wilson was involved with alleging and arresting and removing other individual’s computers from their homes over a decade ago I continued questioning Wilson as to his relationship with Ricardo Warmouse, the person who had first laid the Sec. 319(2) complaint against me back in 2011.

I asked Det. Wilson the following questions:

Q:    When did you first establish contact with Mr. Warmouse?

[Wilson replied that he first connected with Ricardo Warmouse a year or two after he had joined the Ontario hate crime unit back in 1995 and that it was likely due to Warmouse having contacted the unit with a complaint. A.T.]

Q:    Did you and Mr. Warmouse ever discuss the Section 13(1) complaint against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian?

[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    When did you first establish contact with Agent Z?

[Wilson replied that he first heard from Agent Z back in April of 2011. A.T.]

Q:    Did you initially make contact with Agent Z or did he make contact with you?

[Wilson testified that it was Agent Z who first contacted him. A.T.]

Q:    Were you aware, at the time you executed the search of my residence, that I was subject to a proceeding under Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act?

[Again Wilson affirmed that he was aware of my previous Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaint that Agent Z had filed against me back in 2007 but he attempted to downplay it by suggesting that his investigation focused on doing a whole new investigation separate from what was done (and still remains current) by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. A.T.]

Q:    Were you aware that Agent Z was the complainant in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Were you aware of any involvement on the part of Ricardo Warmouse in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding?

[Here Det. Wilson states, “Yes, Warmouse was also a complainant in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding.” Of course, officially, Ricardo Warmouse was not a complainant in the CHRC complaint brought against myself and RadicalPress.com in 2007 although Wilson’s reply now ties in with evidence which I have suggested all along confirms the fact that he was involved but only in a clandestine manner. A.T.]

Q:    Did you ever discuss the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me with Mr. Warmouse?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Did you ever discuss the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me with Agent Z?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Did Agent Z ever express to you that he was concerned that the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me might not be successful?

[Wilson’s reply was that during his investigation he had interviewed Agent Z and Agent Z had in fact mentioned his Sec. 13(1) complaint against me but that it was only in reference to Agent Z’s “fear” that this section of the Canadian Human Rights Act was likely going to be repealed. A.T.]

Q:    Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with Ricardo Warmouse?

[Wilson says “No”. A.T.]

Q:    Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with Agent Z?

[Again, Wilson says “No” but he then qualified that by adding it has been “just updated”, whatever that means. A.T.]

Q:    Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with the Canadian Human Rights Commission?

[Wilson says “No”. A.T.]

Q:    Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with anybody? If so, who?

[Here Wilson stated that only those directly authorized to be involved in the investigation have been privy to the evidence collected. A.T.]

Tabs 1 & 2 – Germany Must Perish! and Israel Must Perish!

At this point in my cross-examination I focussed on the first two tabs mentioned in Crown’s Exhibit “A”, those being the online book, Germany Must Perish! written by Theodore N. Kaufmann and my satirical article Israel Must Perish!.

I began my questioning by asking Det. Wilson if he was familiar with the term “satire” and, if so, could he define for the court its meaning. His response was that it more or less meant “poking fun at something”. I then went on:

Q:    Did Agent Z ever suggest to you that the article Israel Must Perish! was a form of satire?

[Wilson’s response was that Agent Z hadn’t told him anything that would lead him (Agent Z) to believe it (Israel Must Perish! ) was satire. A.T.]

Q:    Have you read the article Israel Must Perish!?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Are you familiar with the book Germany Must Perish!?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Were you, at the time you began investigating my website, familiar with the book Germany Must Perish!?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q: Throughout the course of these proceedings you and the Crown have consistently referred to the article Israel Must Perish! as a “book”.  Could you please explain to the court why you have done so?

[Wilson basically dodged the direct question by saying that it was “sections of a book” meaning sections of Germany Must Perish! A.T.]

Q: Are you familiar with the acronym ISBN regarding book publishing? It stands for International Standard Book Number. Every book published has an ISBN that is unique to that particular publication. Do any of your records show an ISBN number for the purported book Israel Must Perish! ?

[Wilson’s response to the first question was “No” he wasn’t familiar with the acronym “ISBN”. As for the second part of the question Wilson looked again at the images of the article that were in the Exhibit “A” binder and then stated, “I don’t recall one.” A.T.]

Q:    Did it ever occur to you that the article Israel Must Perish! might be a satirical reference to the book Germany Must Perish!?

[Wilson’s response to this question was very telling indeed. He simply stated, “No sir.” A.T.]

Q: When you were reading the article Israel Must Perish! on the RadicalPress.com website HYPERLINK http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1313 did you also read the Preface to it which was posted along with the article?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Are you familiar with the defence contained in Section 319(3)(d) of the Criminal Code, namely that “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.”?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Q:    Do you accept that certain satirical material might fall within the protection of Section 319(3)(d) of the Criminal Code?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Tab 5: The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling

Screen Shot 2014-01-26 at 6.49.19 PM
Q: In your testimony yesterday, regarding Tab 5: of the Exhibit Index File 25166 which dealt with the book The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today, Crown Counsel Johnston asked you whether or not the author, Elizabeth Dilling, was a “real person.” You responded by saying, “I have no idea if the author is a real person.” Given the fact that you claim to be the lead “hate crime” investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM Mr. Wilson did it not occur to you that you might take the time to investigate and find out whether Elizabeth Dilling was or was not a “real person?” I did a simple Google search of Elizabeth Dilling’s name last night after returning home from court and found a total of 211,000 results in less than 30 seconds listing the various works of the author plus biographical documentation from the Jewish-owned Wikipedia site, the free online encyclopedia, which verifies that Elizabeth Dilling was in fact a real person. Given the fact that in your professional opinion you have determined this book to be “anti-Semitic” and worthy of proof, in your estimation, that it constitutes “hate propaganda” or “anti-Semitic hate literature” could you please tell the court why you would not have taken 30 seconds of your time to check into this matter?

Before I was able to read out the whole question to Det. Wilson he interjected by grinning and saying that after yesterday’s court session he had checked and now was cognizant of the fact that Elizabeth Dilling was an actual author of the aforesaid book. He obviously had been caught off guard by CC Johnston’s question regarding the author. His reply to my question about why he didn’t take the time to check the authenticity of the author was that he was “more concerned with the content of the book than with authenticating whether the author was real or not.

Q:    Are you familiar with the defence contained in Section 319(3)(c) of the Criminal Code, namely that “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true.”?

[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]

Question Regarding the Search Warrant

Q: On Page 8 of the BC Hate Crime Team pdf  it gives an explanation for Sections 320 and 320.1 Warrants of Seizure. These warrant of seizure sections pertain to the removal of hate propaganda written material. This includes hate propaganda that is stored on computer systems and made available to the public, including through the Internet. A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication or electronic material—copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises or on a computer system within the jurisdiction of the court—is hate propaganda, may issue a warrant authorizing seizure of the copies or order the custodian of the computer system to provide an electronic copy of the material to the court.

Now I was charged under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. That section of the criminal code does not allow for warrants of seizure. Could you please tell the court how you were able to gain a search warrant for the removal of all of my computers and electronic files when I wasn’t charged under an offence that permitted such actions?

[Wilson responded by stating “Our search warrant was executed under Section 487 of the Criminal Code of Canada not under Section 319(2).”A.T.]

Q:    Do you accept that certain political commentary, even commentary which is extremely critical of an identifiable group of people, may fall within the protection of Section 319(3)(c) of the Criminal Code?

[Wilson replied “Yes”, he did accept that certain political commentary may fall within the protection of Sec. 319(3) of the Criminal Code “but not in the case of RadicalPress.com”.A.T.]

Q:    Could you briefly explain your expertise in identifying speech which is prohibited by Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code and not saved by one or more of the defences listed in Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code?

[Wilson replied by stating that he had graduated from Guelph University in Ontario with an Honours Degree in History and that he had been working with “hate crime” units both in Ontario and in B.C. for the past 18 years. A.T.]

Q: Could you define for the court the term “hate”?

[Wilson responded by stating that his “HATE CRIME TEAM” uses the definition of hate that was originally used in the R v Keegstra case. A.T.]

Q:    Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code includes an intent requirement. The promoted hatred must be wilful, meaning that the words must be intended to cause hatred. What causes you to believe that this is the case here?

[Without the actual transcripts I can’t state exactly what his reply was other than he started talking about Elizabeth Dillings book, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today and her descriptions of what the Talmud states regarding children, Christians and non-Jews, aka “goyim” or cattle, and how this is intended to cause “hatred” toward those of Jewish ethnicity. A.T.]

Q:    Do you have any expertise in psychology which would qualify you to accurately assess my intent? [Wilson: “No.” A.T.]

Q:    I put it to you that the evidence you have given with regard to the material on my website is not expert evidence. Would you agree?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    I put it to you that all of the evidence you have given is, in fact, unqualified opinion evidence. Would you agree?

[Here Wilson launched into the issue and began telling the court of his many years of investigative experience in the field of “hate propaganda” and “hate crimes” but rather than stating that he was an “expert” he preferred to refer to his work as “investigative knowledge”. A.T.]

Q:    What makes your opinion on the material on my website more valid than that of myself, the author and publisher of the material in
question?

[Wilson’s reply to this question was that his opinion was “no more valid than anyone else’s.” A.T.]

Hatred on SunNewsNetwork by Ezra Levant

Screen Shot 2014-01-26 at 6.19.54 PM
This is just a screen shot. Please click on the url below to view.
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/11/doug-christie-on-suntv-authur-topham.html

Q:  On November 11, 2012 I sent a private email to you and Cst. Normandie Levas and Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston titled, A Personal Appeal. In my letter I spoke about the then recent television interview between my former counsel Douglas Christie and SunTV News Network employee Ezra Levant, host of the show The Source. I explained to you that in the course of the interview, which was approximately six minutes in length, Ezra Levant, who is Jewish and a strong supporter of the state of Israel and the political ideology of that state known as Zionism, stated publicly the following about me:

“I call him an anti-Semite”
“I call Arthur Topham offensive”
“I don’t care much for Arthur Topham. He’s anti-Zionist. I think that’s code for anti-Semitic.”
“We’re showing you some screen shots from his website. I disagree with them. I find them gross. I find some of his comments repulsive.”
“I’m sure that Arthur Topham is motivated by a form of malice.”
“I see hate everywhere in Canada, especially in B.C.” [where I, Arthur Topham just happen to reside. A.T.]
“He’s a nobody”
“I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM”
“I think he’s an idiot. An anti-Semitic idiot”
“…right wing wackos like Topham”

Is this not inciting and spreading hatred toward myself in a manner far beyond that which the Crown is alleging RadicalPress.com is doing?

[Wilson’s response to this was that Ezra Levant didn’t break any law in stating what he did on national tv because he wasn’t communicating statements that wilfully promoted hatred against an “identifiable group”. In other words he was free to malign and smear and tell the whole world that he “hated Arthur Topham” but that didn’t count because I wasn’t a member of an “identifiable group”. I then said to Det. Wilson, “But I am a Christian and so I am a member of an identifiable religious group.” He had no further comment on that. A.T.]

Following this question to Wilson I then read out my letter to the court. Judge Morgan cautioned me that the letter did state that it was written “without prejudice” and that if I entered it into the record it could be used against me. When I told him that I never received a reply from any of the recipients that it was sent to he said okay, go ahead.

A Personal Appeal

Sunday, November 11th, 2012
Cottonwood, B.C.

Dear Jennifer, Normandie and Terry,

Without Prejudice

Yes, this is most likely very unusual for all three of you that someone whom you are determined to convict of a “hate crime” and strip of their constitutional rights would have the audacity to write to you directly but given the circumstances under which I am now placed, I would ask that you open your hearts and your minds, if just for a few brief moments, and take approximate 6 minutes of your time (if you haven’t already done so) to view this video of the television interview that my lawyer Doug Christie did with Ezra Levant on the SunTV News Network’s show, The Source, out of Toronto only a few short hours after our (yours Jennifer and mine) appearance in court on Thursday the 8th of November.

Whether or not you are aware of it that television show is broadcast across the nation and the world and the number of viewers who watched it exceed, by far, the number of readers who frequent my (as one of the mainstream media’s writers recently stated), “nasty little blog called Radical Press.”

Within the span of those six short minutes, Ezra Levant, who is Jewish and who also supports Zionism, publicly made the following disparaging statements about me and my website:

“I call him an anti-Semite”
“I call Arthur Topham offensive”
“I don’t care much for Arthur Topham. He’s anti-Zionist. I think that’s code for anti-Semitic”
“We’re showing you some screen shots from his website. I disagree with them. I find them gross. I find some of his comments repulsive.”
“I’m sure that Arthur Topham is motivated by a form of malice.”
“I see hate everywhere in Canada, especially in B.C.” [where Arthur Topham just happens to reside. A.T.]
“He’s a nobody”
“I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM”
“I think he’s an idiot. An anti-Semitic idiot”
“…right wing wackos like Topham”

If this is the sort of ‘impartial, objective and unbiased’ coverage that I can expect from Canada’s mainstream media throughout the upcoming trial do you find it that strange or unusual or unreasonable that I would want to hold on to my fundamental Charter right to be able to continue operating my website and posting my side of the story in my own defence for those who wish to have an alternative perspective to the one that the msm is now so blatantly broadcasting the minute that an Indictment has come down?

Do you not see the obvious slander, libel and defamation of my person and my motives and my work in these public statements? Do you not see how it already is prejudicing my chances for a fair and just trial? Does it mean nothing to you?

Is this what you, as professionals in the field of law and order and justice, condone and are striving to support in your apparent effort to take away my one means of defending myself from such open and mean spirited vituperation?

All I can say is that, in the stillness and quiet of your own inner mind and soul, you try to see and understand the injustice of what you are doing.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
RadicalPress.com
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
———–

Q:    Det. Wilson, are you familiar with Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Q:    Section 11(d) of the Charter protects the presumption of innocence. I put it to you that this includes the idea that an accused person should not be punished for a crime unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you agree?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    Are you familiar with Section 11(e) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Q:    Section 11(e) of the Charter provides that no accused person should be denied reasonable bail without just cause. I suggest to you that this means the state should not unreasonably interfere with the liberty of an accused person unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you agree?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    As of October 9, 2012, and to this day, there is no bail order preventing me from publishing content to RadicalPress.com pending trial. Is that correct?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    And in January 2013, this court specifically determined that it would not be appropriate to impose a bail condition prohibiting me from publishing on RadicalPress.com pending trial. Do you recognize this as a decision of this court?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q: On November 21, 2012 I received an email from my then web hosting company  Netfirms.com which contained an email letter which you had sent to Zach P of the legal department sometime between November 5th when the Indictment was handed down and November 21, 2012. In your letter you informed Zach P that I had been charged with a Section 319(2) Canadian Criminal Code offence, alleging that I had been distributing hateful speech and that you felt that the contents of my website (quote) “may in fact contravene” and be in breach of their policy. Is that correct?

[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]

Q:    What was your objective in writing to NetFirms.com?

[Wilson then explained that he had written to my web host server “To notify them of a potential breach of their policy.” A.T.]

Q:    By alleging that I had been distributing hateful speech and suggesting to Netfirms.com that you felt that the contents of my website “may in fact contravene” and be in breach of their policy were you not in effect asking NetFirms.com to do what this Honourable Court has been unwilling to do, namely shut down RadicalPress.com in advance of my trial?

[Wilson basically repeated what he’d just said about simply notifying them of a “potential breach of their policy.” A.T.]

Q:    Do you think you allegations contained in your letter to Netfirms.com were appropriate in view of the presumption of innocence?

Q:    Do you think your allegations were appropriate in view of the right to reasonable bail on just terms?

[Again Wilson basically repeated what he’d previously stated. A.T.]

Q: Your allegations, as stated in your email to Netfirms.com, resulted in my web hosting company giving me a 48 hour notice to remove all of the alleged “hateful speech” or else face having my website removed and losing seven years of publishing content. This sudden 48-hour ultimatum was impossible for me to rectify as Netfirms.com had no idea what the alleged offending articles were and as a further result of your allegations they were unwilling to even negotiate with me. I was faced with having to move the site to another host server in an extremely short period of time and in the process of doing so all the content on the website was damaged and hundreds upon hundreds of articles are now in need of editing to restore them to their original condition. Were you at all concerned that your allegations to NetFirms.com might result in the destruction of important evidence?

[Ditto. A.T.]

Testimony of Frank Frost and Lonnie Landrud

Lonnie&Frank700Final

The final lap in the Preliminary Inquiry was the calling of two witnesses in my defence. Both Frank Frost and Lonnie Landrud are two of many individuals who have come to realize that the mainstream media no longer serves the general public when it comes to issues of social justice. Both these people have been through the wringer and the stories of the injustices that they’ve witnesses and been subjected to are nothing short of incredible.

The Lonnie Landrud story, should it ever receive the attention that it deserves, will undoubtedly go down in B.C. history as one of the most extraordinary and horrific examples of police corruption and government cover up ever to have occurred in this province. Mr. Landrud had the unfortunate fate in 1999 of witnessing the murder of a young woman by the name of Deena Lynn Braem in Quesnel by two RCMP officers, Cst. Paul Collister and Cst. Bev Hosker. When he called 911 and reported the incident it was the beginning of what is now 15 years of hell on earth for Mr. Landrud. He has had eleven attempts on his life since he first sought justice and at present the police have placed a $100,000 bounty on his head. Mr. Landrud has done everything conceivable to have his case investigated by an independent body and to date has had all of his honest and earnest efforts rebuffed by every level of government from the Prime Ministers office through to the RCMP Complaints Commission and the office of the Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark. During one attempt on his life by the RCMP Lonnie Landrud, in self-defence, shot his attacker Cst. Paul Collister with a 12-gauge shotgun, severely damaging the police officers left arm to the point where ample DNA evidence was left at the scene of the shooting to verify the fact that the officer had been wounded. The whole incident was covered up and denied by the investigating agencies and to date no one is willing to investigate and verify the evidence that still exists which will prove all of the allegations which Mr. Landrud has been desperately attempting to have examined.

When I finally heard about Mr. Landrud’s story and watched the videos where he had been interviewed back in 2007 I ran his story on RadicalPress.com in order to assist him in getting the truth out about what he had witnessed and suffered since the night he stumbled on the murder scene. Lonnie Landrud’s story is best told in his own words and writings and for this reason I’ve placed the url to his videos below and also the url to (yet another) letter which Mr. Landrud wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, NDP Opposition Leader, Thomas Mulcair, Federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, Federal Solicitor General, Rob Nicholson, Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia and Adrian Dix, NDP Leader of the Opposition Party on April 24th, 2013.

Mr. Landrud testified at the Preliminary Inquiry and told the court about his case and the urgent need for alternative media sites like RadicalPress.com that are willing to carry his story where no none of the mainstream media would do the job.

LonnieVidHrClick on the url below to view
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1362

 

Mr. Frank Frost also testified before the court regarding the importance of the social media and alternative news networks like RadicalPress.com. Mr. Frost is another individual who has been the victim of RCMP corruption and judicial misfeasance. Again, like Lonnie Landrud, Mr. Frost followed all the customary channels in an effort to expose the murder of a young child in Victoria, B.C. and was met with police and judicial cover-up every which way he turned. Framed and incarcerated for four months in the Prince George Regional Correction Centre where he was refused even a single phone call for FOUR MONTHS, Frank Frost has continued to take a pro-active position with respect to demands that the corruption that he’s exposing within the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the RCMP and the Courts be investigated and rectified. For further information on Mr. Frost’s case please watch his videos located here.

We have not heard the last from either of these two valiant, courageous individuals nor have we heard the last from RadicalPress.com with respect to the pervasive corruption within every level of Canadian government, the mainstream media and all levels of Canada’s judiciary.

This wraps up Legal Update #17 for January 27th, 2014.

—–

Topham applies for Rowbotham by Quesnel Cariboo Observer

QuesCariSent Editor:Pub

Dear Free Speech Supporters,

The June 7, 2013 weekend edition of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer featured another update on my legal battle with B’ai Brith Canada and the Queen of England.

I’m always thankful for whatever unbiased msm coverage that I do get as generally, beyond Black Press (not Conrad) which is an independent chain located here in B.C., the vast majority of the media is owned or controlled by the Jews and inevitably all that I receive from that viperous venue is more pro-Zionist, hate-filled venom.

I’ve posted the Front Page cover and a screen shot of the actual article for easier reading. Because of the nature of many online publications one cannot just go to the article in question and read and/or copy it to a text format. In the case of the QC Observer one must first buy a yearly subscription to the paper before being able to access the online digital edition. Seems pretty weird to me but that’s how they set it up.

 photo CaribooObsRowbotham_zps2223ba7f.png

RowbothamArticle photo ScreenShot2013-06-09at95814AM_zps08a1ae0a.png