Paul Fromm on the Demise of Free Speech in Canada by Prof. Kevin MacDonald

http://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2013/04/paul-fromm-on-the-demise-of-free-speech-in-canada/
Paul Fromm on the Demise of Free Speech in Canada

Paul Fromm CAFE copy

By Kevin MacDonald
April 13, 2013

Paul Fromm, a pro-White activist who writes for his CAFE (Canadian Association for Free Expression) website, has an article on a recent ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that once again indicates the power of the cultural left at the highest reaches of Western societies “The Whatcott Decision – A Grim Day for Christians and Freedom of Speech“). The case involves a $15000 fine (plus court costs likely to be north of $150,000) imposed on an evangelical Christian who distributed leaflets containing criticism of homosexuality based on Biblical teachings.

WhatcottImage1

Some excerpts and comments:

The decision is pure cultural Marxism. It reflects the triumph of *Frankfurt School* social science which has captured most Western universities. While economic communism collapsed and was defeated, cultural communism was spread by the *Frankfurt School*. Basically, it sees the world divided up into two classes: oppressors – those would be White Christians, and especially sexually healthy White males – and the oppressed – those would be women, homosexuals, Jews, and certain other racial minorities. To overthrow the “oppressors” and to establish universal equality – not of opportunity but results – the *Frankfurt School* targeted loyalty to family, country and religion. There began a concerted campaign of “deconstruction” whereby political heroes, cultural heroes – the dismissal of traditional English literature as the writing of dead, White males – and traditional Christianity were mocked and attacked. These ideas have captured the upper echelons of Canada’s judiciary and bode poorly for freedom of speech.

The Whatcott decision holds that in human rights cases:

· Truth is no defence;?

· Intent is no defence;?

· No harm needs to be proven to have been caused to a “vulnerable” minority;

· A minority is designated as “vulnerable” not because of any evidence – the court admits concrete evidence is often lacking, but on the mere say-so of a human rights commission or court;

· Christians are not protected from hatred as they are not a “vulnerable minority.”

The Court depicts Mr. Whatcott as having the power to intimidate homosexuals. The reality is far different:

Well, where’s the evidence that in the decade since Mr. Whatcott handed out his flyers critical of homosexuals, that “dialogue” was shut down and homosexuals were unable to respond? For nearly 20 years, the powerful homosexual lobby has been pushing for same sex marriage – a revolutionary anti-family retreat from tradition. In 2001, Parliament overwhelmingly voted to endorse the traditional definition of marriage – one man and one woman. The lobby continued its pressure, apparently not intimidated or silenced by the lonely Mr. Whatcott’s leafleting. A cowardly Jean Chretien referred the “question” as to whether the traditional definition of marriage, accepted by almost all but the fringiest elements of Christianity, and by Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, was “discriminatory” to the judicial revolutionaries on the Supreme Court. They collapsed and gave the homosexual lobby what it wanted. Canada has same-sex marriage.

Despite being a Catholic, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario forced even Catholic schools to promote the homosexual agenda in the schools and have Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs, even though the practice of homosexuality violates Catholic teaching. (So much for religious freedom!) The homosexual agenda has triumphed in almost every battle. It successfully pressured to have “sexual orientation” added to the privileged groups protected by Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law.” In fact, there’s no evidence  that Mr. Whatcott’s pathetic little leafleting operation ever intimidated any homosexual from promoting his cause. The only one excluded from the debate is Mr. Whatcott! Mr. Whatcott and strong critics of the homosexual agenda are all but excluded from the mainstream media. Pro-homosexual commentators bray their views from the CBC and the Globe and Mail is virtually a mouthpiece for the homosexual lobby. The only voices marginalized are critics of the homosexual agenda.

Fromm targets the Frankfurt School, a Jewish intellectual movement discussed in Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique:

Despite calling themselves a “School of Social research,” the Frankfurt School feared any objective research that might challenge their ideology. Like the Supreme Court, they defined the world ideologically, and facts would not be allowed to get in the way:

The Frankfurt School never set out to find out the truth about human behavior and institutions. Instead, its members viewed empirically oriented social science as an aspect of domination and oppression. Horkheimer wrote in 1937 that “if science as a whole follows the lead of empiricism and the intellect renounces its insistent and confident probing of the tangled brush of observations in order to unearth more about the world than even our well-meaning daily press, it will be participating passively in the maintenance of  universal injustice.” Rather than find out how society works, the social scientist must be a critic of culture and adopt an attitude of resistance toward contemporary societies.

The unscientific nature of the enterprise can also be seen in its handling of dissent within the ranks of the Institute—a trend that is a common feature of Jewish intellectual and political movements Erich Fromm was excised from the movement in the 1930s because his leftist humanism opposed the authoritarian nature of the psychoanalyst-patient relationship. This was not compatible with the pro-Bolshevik stance championed at the time by the Horkheimer-Adorno line: Fromm “takes the easy way out with the concept of authority,without which, after all, neither Lenin’s avant-garde nor dictatorship can be conceived of. I would strongly advise him to read Lenin…I must tell you that I see a real threat in this article to the line which the journal takes. (See Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique.)

One of the most shocking revolutionary conclusions of the Court is that truth should not be a defence, at least in human rights cases: “The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the provision. Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. …

Fromm emphasizes the Jewish role in this decision:

Finally, and this is a delicate topic in oppressive, minority-ruled Canada, let’s look at the makeup of the six judge panel who heard this crucial case about the rights of Christians. Three, yes three, or fully one half of the panel were Jews. Under the regime of employment equity, a Canadian version of anti-White “affirmative action”, invented by, guess who? Madame Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, who was on the panel, “systemic discrimination” is evidenced by an over-representation or under-representation of a group. It must be remembered that Jews, at about 310,000, constitute less than one per cent of Canada’s population, but made up half of panel in Whatcott! Did their personal views interfere? Ironically, had Justice Abella applied her own “employment equity” she’d have removed herself from the panel in Whatcott as her minority was already heftily over-represented.

abellaFlag_zpsbf55ffb4

The author of this freedom trashing opinion was Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein of Manitoba. His biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “He served as an adjudicator under the Manitoba Human Rights Act from 1978 to 1983 and as a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from 1986 to 1992.” In other words, he was, for more than a decade, part of the whole repressive “human rights” industry he was now being invited to critique. In his case, there was more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” Perhaps, no surprise he found state censorship and strong criticism of privileged minorities perfectly justified in a “free” [do words mean nothing!] and “democratic society.”

RothsteinHater
At least two Liberal senators, Robina Jaffer and Jim Munson (a former journalist happily at ease with state censorship), in speaking against Bill C-304, which would repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act quoted Justice Abella and her emphasis on“vulnerable minorities”: to wit: “In a 2009 speech entitled Human Rights and History’s Judgment, Justice Rosalie Abella said: We were supposed to have learned three indelible lessons from the concentration camps of Europe. First, indifference is injustice’s incubator. Second, it’s not just what you stand for, it’s is what you stand up for. And third, we must never forget how the world looks to those who are vulnerable.’” Justice Abella was also part of the human rights industry having served on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Her biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “She married Canadian historian Irving M. Abella on December 8, 1968.” Irving Abella is a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, a pro-censorship intervener in Whatcott. The CJC has been a long-time and strident supporter of anti-free speech “hate laws”. Again, one might wonder why Justice Abella did not recuse herself from this case is there is more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”

It is certainly true that the organized Jewish community has been a strong  voice supporting laws curtailing free speech, not just in Canada, but throughout the Western world (see “The Hate Crimes Prevention Bill: Why Do Jewish Organizations Support It?“). Irving Abella’s book was cited in my chapter on the Jewish role in promoting immigration. Although the chapter emphasizes the Jewish role in altering U.S. immigration policy in favor of non-Whites, the Jewish community played a similar role throughout the West, including Canada:

In the case of Canada, Abella (A Coat of Many Colors: Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada; 1990, 234–235) notes the important contribution of Jews in bringing about a multicultural Canada and, in particular, in lobbying for more liberal immigration policies. Reflecting this attitude, Arthur Roebuck, attorney general of Ontario, was greeted “with thunderous applause” at a 1935 convention for the Zionist Organization of Canada [dedicated to a  Jewish ethnostate] when he stated that he looked “forward to the time when our economic conditions will be less severe than they are today and when we may open wide the gates, throw down the restrictions and make of Canada a Mecca for all the oppressed peoples of the world” (in M. Brown 1987, 256).

Abella also co-authored a book, None Is Too Many that was critical of Canada for not admitting Jewish refugees in the World War II era. The title comes from a statement of a senior Canadian immigration official that summed up Canadian policy.

Thus we have Jewish activists involved in academic research on Jewish issues. And perhaps more importantly, Jewish activists are involved in court decisions that reflect consensus views within the Jewish community on issues related to free speech, multiculturalism, and immigration. The hostile elite in action.

—–

Honoring Doug Christie by James Holbeyfield, Counter-Currents Publishing

 photo Counter-CurrentsLogo_zps74edbf7b.png

http://www.counter-currents.com/2013/03/honoring-doug-christie/

DouglasHChristie

Honoring Doug Christie

James Holbeyfield

Douglas Hewson Christie died on March 11th, 2013 at the age of 66. He was among the greatest defense lawyers of his generation, in Canada or any other country, and his greatness was founded on two piers: courage and honor.

In his eulogy for his father, Doug’s son Cadeyrn has said that his father was meant for the battlefield, and in another age would have fought with sword and shield, but in our age, his battlefield was the courtroom.

This identification of warriors with the best lawyers helps us to understand a major lesson of the way Doug Christie lived his life. It is this: the courage to speak freely and publicly against the powerful, the courage to defend those the powerful deem indefensible, and the courage to face threats to career, home, and family from the tolerated minions of the powerful for the sake of principle; all these are first founded on physical courage.

Doug retained tremendous physical courage right up to the end. Incredibly, less than three weeks before he died, his liver riddled with metastatic cancer and refusing pain-killers, so that his brain and his examinations, would be as famously sharp and focused as ever, he had been in court arguing on behalf of a client. There, he collapsed and was brought to hospital. Even then, his chief desire was to be released so that he could finish that case and get back to another, his ongoing defense of Arthur Topham, who has been charged with promoting hate on the internet.

Sadly, that could not be, and Doug’s final regret was that he was unable to carry on for Mr. Topham, just as his greatest concern since he was diagnosed with cancer in 2011 was that once he was gone, there would be no Canadian lawyer to take his place of prominence in battling the endless attacks on freedom of speech in that fallen dominion. Canada is an Anglosphere country that’s particularly vulnerable to the bizarre new ‘tyranny of tolerance’ because it was founded as a nation, not of rebels so much as of men self-selected for conformity, because those men faced a subsequent requirement for an endless, uneasy truce with the pre-existing French population, and because breakdowns in that truce eventually led, under Pierre Trudeau, to a method for reducing its importance by transforming British Canada into multicultural Canada. Unfortunately, Canada shows every sign of needing more lawyers like Doug Christie going forward. Instead, it has lost the only one it had.

If a successor to Doug is waiting in Canada’s future, he will have large shoes to fill. “Very large shoes indeed,” Father Lucien Larré reminded hundreds of mourners at St. Andrew’s Cathedral in Victoria in officiating at Doug’s funeral, “but we must never stop trying to fill them anyway.”

The reason for the magnitude of the task is straightforward: working as a solo lawyer with a staff of one or two assistants, over the course of three decades Doug Christie defined the legal defense of free speech in Canada. When Doug took on his first free speech case in 1983, that of Alberta high-school teacher James Keegstra when he was fired from his job and charged with willfully promoting hatred by discussing Jewish conspiracies with his students, Canada had had criminal hate laws on the books since the 1960s, but they were dormant. “It was a novel proposition to prosecute people for what they said,” Doug reminded the world. But since Keegstra, it has been used scores of times, and Doug Christie was the backbone of the defense in every landmark case. He argued more free speech cases before the Supreme Court of Canada than anyone. All of this from a tiny, sole proprietorship law practice of a type that has now virtually disappeared.

Doug’s widow, Keltie Zubko, has said that his proudest case, which they worked on so hard together, she as legal assistant, was that of Imre Finta. It remains Canada’s only war crimes trial. Following a two-year investigation, the trial took place in three countries, Canada, Hungary. and Israel, over the course of nine months. The prosecution spent millions. It all resulted in Mr. Finta’s acquittal, without needing to call evidence, principally on the basis of Doug’s cross-examination. The prosecution appealed the case to the Supreme Court of Canada, where Doug argued against it so effectively that Canada has never attempted to prosecute a war crimes case since.

But the enemies of our race and of our heritage of freedom are legion; in hyperborean Canada, perhaps white enemies especially. They have power, and they have time. They are hydra-headed, and when one begins to tire, thoughts turning to sinecure, he is easily replaced by many more, as the unquestioning graduates of the academies multiply. Even the youngest have none of the fire in Doug Christie’s soul, but the whole corpus can afford to watch as the tiny band of defenders withers. Worse, a single hydra increasingly sprawls across many countries, in the form of international law.

This is underlined by the fate of Doug’s best-known client, Ernst Zündel. Doug had guided him through the ups and downs of a welter of trials, tribunals and appeals in the 1980s, leading to eventual success in R. v. Zundel before the Supreme Court of Canada in 1992.  But the global enemies of freedom were not to give up. In 2003, the twisted arm of international law reached in among the tens of millions of illegal immigrants in America and plucked Mr. Zündel out of Tennessee for overstaying his legal visa, tore him from his American wife, and brought him back to Canada for two years in solitary confinement while it bided its time. Eventually, Ernst Zündel was deported to Germany, where he was ultimately convicted of holocaust denial in a trial filled with legal misadventures that smacked of the inevitability of religious ritual far more than it resembled anything within the Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. Mr. Zündel spent five more years in prison in Germany, despite everything Doug had tried to do for him in the Canadian phase of this horror.

In such ways as this, the truly heroic war of our time, the war of a tiny number of outcasts to awaken a dispossessed majority, has been transformed. Doug Christie was too busy fighting the battles he could see all around him, one after another in a seemingly endless procession, to devote his great mental incisiveness and physical energy to strategy alone. That is necessarily the way of the hero, of the man who acts. Doug’s great role was in law, not in politics. That was not for lack of trying, and Doug struggled hard within the shrinking opportunities of electoral politics. He never overtly gave up on the political project as a potential solution, but the diminution of his efforts in that direction tells us a lot about the metapolitical nature of our fight today. Actions like his legal battles, and the cultural battle reflected here at Counter-Currents, are the ones we need now.

There is another side to Cadeyrn Christie’s metaphorical tribute to his father as warrior. Doug Christie was a man of principles and a man of honor. That was the yardstick by which he measured every proposal that came to him, whether from others or from within his own creative mind. His whole life was a duel over honor, but not the ferocious intensity of single combat on the Trojan plain; rather tireless, patient resistance.

But the principles are the same. Some men cannot be bought off into slavery, and Doug Christie was the most obvious such man in all the Canada of his generation. All who knew Doug knew he was a man who could have attained early what is considered great success in our world. He was tall, he was good-looking, and he had the manners and blue-eyed charisma of the born leaders of the old American and Canadian West. He was gregarious. People liked him right away and were motivated by him. He had a great legal mind, an appetite and flair for courtroom drama, and the courage to stick out every courtroom battle.

Instead Doug gave of himself unstintingly over many decades to the downtrodden and outcast. He did pro bono work. His friends struggled endlessly to raise money for his cases. He ran his tiny law office on a shoestring.

He lived his whole life the way he had been raised: “we always had enough to eat, but there was never anything left on the table.” He was proud of his Scottish roots in that regard. He drove an old pick-up truck, wore a cowboy hat, and throughout his whole legal career, he earned considerably less each year than can readily be made by skilled tradesmen throughout Western Canada, so long as it remains the prosperous corner of Western civilization that it now is.

Today, the pursuit of money, political approval, and comfort are indeed the chief ways in which a man throws his sword and shield down into the dust. It all happens so gradually that it is vastly more difficult for us to recognize our enslavement than it was for our ancestors. Most men never do, and die with the conceit of freedom.

But even today, some men seem to grasp the real message of our ancestors, almost from earliest youth. Doug Christie was such a man, a true man of honor.

——–

 

Ashkenazi European Zionist Jews don’t speak for ALL Jews – Shazer Everquar

Photobucket

http://shazereverquar.wordpress.com/antisemitic/antisemitism-card/

[EDITOR'S NOTE:  I received a copy of the following email from Shazer Everquar of Harrison, Arkansas USA yesterday. In his letter to Netfirm.com's corporate axeman Zach P he not only tears a strip off 'Det' Terry Wilson of the 'BC HATE CRIME TEAM' but also includes a very interesting short video that highlights another aspect of the racist, supremacist mindset of those Zionist Jews who control not only Israel but the majority of Western governments via their behind-the-scenes 'advisers' and lobbyists like B'nai Brith Canada.

In further communications with Shazer Everquar I learned a bit more about his side of the story when it comes to America's Zionist attack dog, the ADL or Anti-Defamation League, which is but one more tentacle protruding forth from the main body known as B'nai Brith International which is the creation of the Rothschild criminal cartel now attacking freedom of speech globally through their implanted "hate laws".
Do take the time to watch this video as it illustrates a good point; one that most of us have never contemplated.]
———————-
Dear NetFirms (Zach P),

I am a former customer and once had the site, thinkmasa.org which was hosted by you.

As an African-American, I am particularly outraged at the racist tactics of the bigot known as Det-Cst Terry Wilson.  It is a FACT that White Jews are responsible for the Atlantic SLAVE trade and are SO racist that they even call BLACK JEWS “anti-semites!”??

The fact that this so-called “detective” is supporting a PROVEN RACIST PROVOCATION ORGANIZATION reveals that such an “investigation” is highly suspect.

Click the above link and watch for yourself the video which PROVES these guys are quite corrupt.

If White Jews are allowed to attack Black Jews in the name of “anti-semitism” then where will it end ????  Surely a Gentile doesn’t stand a chance under those conditions.??Please be fair and take a good look at ALL the facts.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Shazer Everquar

Harrison, Arkansas USA
——————————
Further comments from a subsequent communication with Shazer Everquar:

Dear Editor:

I had to write because, as you noticed, that video was tailor-made for your case.

About NetFirms.com:  I went with them because I wanted to be hosted outside of the US.  But as my email suggests, eventually I moved my blog to another company (Blue Host).  Suddenly, I was getting all sorts of tech help that I never got from NetFirms.com.  I didn’t realize how lousy they were until I left them.

So what you’re saying about them not responding is just a continuation of the fact that they don’t respond to ANYTHING.  They just collect your money.

If you’re not required to host in Canada, consider moving your blog to another country such as the Netherlands or better yet, the Isle of Man.  Then the Canadian ADL won’t be able to touch you.

I’m sympathetic to your cause.  January 13th, 2012 I was released from over 16 months of incarceration without a trial by Zionist Jews.  When I was set free they went through my wallet and took my social security card and my driver’s license.

While I was incarcerated all of my belongings were stolen.  I mean ALL.  Car, clothes, everything.  My best and only friend has been supporting me out of his own pocket for nearly a year because one cannot get a job without ID.

While I was incarcerated, a Zionist judge wrote an order that I was not to have access to the internet “for any purpose”!

I know from personal experience how the Jews terrorize those who oppose their quest for world domination.

I’m writing this to you at a library, which is my only source to the internet.  My last blog, “thinkmasa.org” went down while I was incarcerated.

The Zionists taught me that what they hated the most was my blog.  So until I’m able to get an ID and raise money, I’m hosted on wordpress.com.  If I’m arrested and jailed, the blog stays up.

The Jews blacklisted me and no lawyer would represent me.  It was actually a blessing in disguise.  I would help you but I don’t know how Canada works.  However you can find out and it will be well worth it.

My new blog is not very developed since it’s only been around since June of this year and I’m only able to work on it from libraries, (I.E. a max of 7 hours a day).

I’m amazed to see that most of the so-called anti-zionist websites are actually run by the Zionists.  The blatant anti-zionist sites are either run by Jews or racists bankrolled by Jews.  It’s very clever actually.  You gotta give these monsters credit.

The conscious and unconscious Christian Zionists are the lynchpin.  Unseat the Zionist hold on the Christian mentality and the whole house of cards will come tumbling down.

Keep Fighting, we’re winning!

Shazer Everquar

Letters sent to Netfirms.com in Support of RadicalPress.com

Objection!

Dear Reader,

Enclosed below are letters sent to Zach P at Netfirms.com requesting that they do not remove my website in 48 hours as they have threatened to do.

These letters are well written and heartfelt and I’m absolutely humbled by them.

Whether or not Zach P of Netfirms.com will get an opportunity to read them before they pull the pin on RadicalPress is anyone’s guess.

What a sorry state of affairs as gutless and weak-willed traitors to this nation like Det-Cst Terry Wilson begin to reveal their true colours.

Thanks again to ALL those fine and decent people who have committed to supporting my work.

Bless you one and all!

Sincerely,

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

——————————————————–

LETTERS TO ZACH P REGARDING NETFIRMS.COM ULTIMATUM TO TERMINATE RADICALPRESS.COM WITHIN 48 HOURS

Dear Zach P:

I do not feel RadicalPress.com is promoting any “hatred propaganda,” at all.  What Arthur Topham is doing in his online newsletter is providing a rare news service, one you’re not likely to find on the usual TV programs available in Canada due to the fact Canada’s news programs are controlled by B’nai Brith and other Jewish interests.

I do want to see the RadicalPress.com website remain on the Internet since what it contains is verifiable and factual news.

Please do not listen to the vicious and biased propagandists who are seeking to destroy businesses, livelihoods, news, and political awareness for the sake of — nothing worthwhile, that is for damned sure.  Liberty to all Canadians and Americans!

Best regards,

Charles Steiner

————–

Dear Zach,

This short note is to let you know that I am a regular reader of Arthur Topham’s blog website radicalpress.com hosted by your company Netfirms, and link to it from my own blog mysteryworshipers.wordpress.com .

I do not consider for a moment that radicalpress.com promotes “hate propaganda”. At no time has radicalpress.com encouraged its readers to kill, maim, or destroy other peoples or countries, things governments do fairly frequently (Libya and Gaza come to mind).

I would ask that you continue to promote freedom of speech in Canada by allowing radicalpress.com to continue with its blog. I feel that pulling radicalpress.com off the internet would be no different than the actions taken by authoritarian countries such as Saudi Arabia. And Canada claims to be a bastion of freedom of speech. Let’s keep free speech alive with your help! Thanks for your time.

Sincerely,

David Morgan

——————-

November 21, 2012

Dear Zach P,

For several years now I have been a regular reader at Arthur Topham’s site, Radical Press. Never did I find anything promoting hate. Indeed I found it to be a site full of interesting and educational material. Certainly there was never a word to promote violence or hatred in any way, shape, or form. Not even by innuendo!

While Arthur was away from his blog for the past months I found my reading to be missing something ~ the stimulation of Mr. Topham’s erudite and witty perspective which is about as peaceful as any I have come across over the years.

I certainly will not be impressed with Netfirms.com if they started censoring and pulling down legitimate websites merely on the accusations of special interest groups here in Canada in conjunction with the RCMP.

Consider the ramifications, Mr. P., and please do the right thing. Stand for freedom of speech in our great country.

Sincerely,

B. Lee

—————

Dear Zach P,

In your letter to Arthur Topham, you state:

“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.”

The key word in this sentence is ‘alleged.’  In other words, according to your next two sentences, “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,” you would do harm to someone on an allegation.  How would you like to be treated as such?  I would guess you wouldn’t like it at all.

Please reconsider your ultimatum.  Fairness demands it.

Sincerely,

Steve Campbell

———————-

November 21, 2012

Att: Zach or whom it may concern

I am writing to express support for Arthur Topham and his website radicalpress.com

I have been informed that you have considered shutting down his site on mere accusations of material that. according to Det-Cst Terry Wilson is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature. May I ask what evidence he has given you in this matter? Is his “opinion” all you would need to even consider such an action? Do you always act on such “allegations” without any facts of matter? I am confident that I could surely find some or more of the websites that you host offensive to me; would that be all you need to shut them down? “Controversial in nature”? Please, gimme a break! Whose “opinion” is not controversial?

In that case, please provide me with a list of Netfirms hosted websites so that I may peruse them to find what I might deem controversial or  offensive so that I can immediately let you know what should be acceptable or not and I trust that you will take the necessary actions to give notice to each of them and shut them all down in due course. Or would I need to be a Det-Cst to have such a priveledge? Maybe I am.  Maybe I am a lawyer. Maybe I am a judge.

You state that you are not responsible for content or links posted by your customers. Then I fail to see how you can now deem yourself in such a position to ask Mr. Topham to “remove such content within 48 hours of this notice”. Are you now going to rely on “your opinion” on what is deemed acceptable? Would that allegedly put you in an unlawful position and a possible lawsuit against Netfirms Inc?

In closing, I feel that radicalpress.com is providing a service that is beneficial to freedom and I appreciate that you host his site. I harbor no hatred nor do I support any “hate-sites” but I DO support free speech in Canada and I will support Arthur’s free speech as well. Even yours. If I do not like the material on Arthur’s site I am free to not go to it. Please do not take that freedom away from open minded people like myself by judging what should or should not be available on the internet as a whole, unless it clearly is unlawful content such as advocating violence or provides unlawful information in order to cause harm to others. I see none of that in radicalpress.com.

Sincerely,

Mike Gould

—————-

Dear Zach P.

In regard to the letter you received from Terry Wilson it might interest you to know that propaganda is a neutral term… it merely means ‘to propagate’. Your RCMP ‘friend’ claims that Arthur is printing material Terry Wilson claims is hate. I hate (ooops) to tell you this but Terry Wilson is a paid agent of the crown which propagates more falsehoods than the Fraser River spawns salmon.  But be that as it may, to defend oneself from ‘hate’ when what one feels or thinks is personal, private and harms no one is not a position any man or woman should be put in, in a free society. It absolutely negates the freedom we supposedly enjoy in this nation. It certainly is not criminal regardless of how lawyers define it. You might do better to investigate the legal implications of Terry Wilson’s assertions as well as your instant compliance. Stultifying freedom of speech is a crime against the freedom of the people, especially if in so doing it causes damage by way of material and hours lost. It makes you and your associates complicit in slander and libel.

The very fact that such statutes exist in a free nation belies the assertion of all the politicians who wax eloquent about freedom and justice. This is especially hypocritical following as soon as it does after the recent memorial day commemoration. Did those men die for a lie? For your company to simply comply with a paid agent of the Crown in light of an assertion based on such dubious and dangerous legislation makes you culpable in this overt action of repression.

There are reams and reams of articles written in every newspaper and website in the land, and even more so on every television set in every home and much of it is lies, more lies and damn lies. Only fools with weak minds fall victim to such propaganda. Only fools who claim they have been hurt by words would confess to such a weakness of mind. Perhaps you might ask Terry Wilson to explain what authority he draws on to make the claims he does and furthermore, show cause for using his office to intimidate you and your associates? After all he does state: ‘If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me at the above email or at 604-543-4903.’ Have you no questions to ask of him then?

Regards,

Rudi Weyrich
w/o prejudice

——————

[Read more...]

Traitors in our Midst by Arthur Topham

BBTRAITORS

Traitors in our Midst

by Arthur Topham
Publisher
RadicalPress.com

November 22, 2012

“Thoughts are free and are subject to no rule. On them rests the freedom of man and they tower above the light of nature.  ~ Paracelsus, Selected Writings

When I learned yesterday that the cop who was instrumental in spying on my website RadicalPress.com for over a year on behalf of the Zionist Jew lobbyist group B’nai Brith Canada had sent a letter of complaint to my web hosting company Netfirms.com whining and crying that I have been charged with a section 319(2) Criminal Code “Hate Crime” offence that he felt might “contravene” Netfirms.com’s policy (specifically section 4(b)(i)), I was not only disgusted beyond belief but angered that the RCMP would stoop so low in order to do the bidding of these foreign interest groups who set themselves up in Canada behind their phoney false masks of respectability only to then proceed to work behind  the scenes to undermine the democratic freedoms and rights that so many of our fore bearers fought and died to achieve.

Knowing full well that this case is now before the Supreme Court of Canada and that the contents on my website are a vital component of my defence in this trumped up charge, Det-Cst Terry Wilson still couldn’t resist his ongoing urge to do whatever possible in the dark to try and destroy not only years of my work but to also destroy evidence that he knows damn well will make the Crown’s attempt to find me guilty of this spurious charge virtually impossible to accomplish.

Now I could understand the two sleaze buckets Harry Abrams and Richard Warman,  both Zionist agents for B’nai Brith Canada who laid the complaint against me initially, pulling off a stunt like this. As a matter of fact the whole sordid, pathetic affair first began on Valentine’s Day, Feb. 14, 2007 when I received my first hate letter from a “Brian Esker” who later turned out to none other than Harry Abrams of B’nai Brith Canada masking himself in digital drag so he could safely threaten me and my website.

Abrams pulled this precise same thing back in 2007 prior to laying a formal complaint against me and my website using Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act in order to accuse me of promoting, “ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.”

At that time I had a web hosting server by the name of Alentus.com. Abrams, who  screams bloody murder that he had nothing at all to do with it, sent what appears to be the exact same complaint to the server and bingo! they too gave me 48 hours to find another server or else my website would be liquidated like some counter-revolutionary Zak imprisoned in the wastelands of the Soviet gulag during the 1930s.

I had no time to get help and all of my letters to Alentus might as well have been addressed to Atlantis because they obviously didn’t reach anyone of intelligence and as a result I lost my former RadicalPress forum and an abundance of historic, priceless data when a last ditch attempt was made to salvage the site.

This second attempt on B’nai Brith’s part to destroy RadicalPress.com obviously was planned to include a Gentile dupe so that they could cover up their bloody tracks and what better dupe than the duplicitous Detective Terry Wilson, a self-serving, slithering snake in the grass who sold his soul to the Zionist devil decades ago and has since been serving Zion in their relentless quest to gain absolute control over the one means of free expression still left on this planet – the Internet.

So I immediately replied to “Zach P” the “Corporate Support” goof who sent out the Ultimatum. I asked him to let me know what content it was that I was being asked to “remove” within 48 hours. I then wrote back two more times as Zach P had ended his threatening letter with the statement, “Should you have further questions, please contact us.” Yah sure Zach.

I then sent out an APB release asking supporters to write to Zach P and tell him that RadicalPress.com wasn’t a “hate propaganda” site and that they wanted it left up. Letters are still coming in that were sent to Netfirms.com.

This morning I spoke to a webmaster friend of mine who thought the email address for Netfirms.com looked a bit weird and so I phoned their office in Toronto and spoke to a support representative. He did his best to figure out what was going on and did confirm that the email address wasn’t a scam but eventually he had to transfer me over to a supervisor located in Arizona.

I spoke to this woman for quite some time trying to reason with her on a number of things but all to no avail. She would say, “Well, if you would just remove any content ‘that is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature’ then there shouldn’t be a problem.” In turn I would reply, “Well, madam, if I KNEW what content that Det Wilson was referring to then I might possibly be able to remove it.”

And she went on to say that it was most unfortunate that all the Corporate people were away on holidays today and I would reply, “Oh I’m certain that Zach P was fully aware when he sent me this 48 hour email that he wouldn’t be returning to his office until the last minute.” And she would repeat…..the same old line all over.

Finally she advised me to just “park” the site before the 48 hours were up or else there was a good chance that Netfirms.com would delete it and everything would be lost. Parking it of course would mean that no one would then be able to access it.

I tried in vain to tell her that the website was the subject of a Supreme Court case here in Canada and that it was impossibly for me to remove any content or else I could face additional criminal charges. That wasn’t a concern for  her. I added that Netfirms.com itself could possibly face litigation for destroying evidence if they deleted my site. Then she would begin again with the “…if you remove the content (she was always implying that I must know what the content is) before the 48 hours…..etc.”

Finally before hanging up she had the audacity to say that if and when I was found innocent of said allegations that  all I had to do was let Netfirms.com know and they would be “happy” to place the site online once again!

I told her quite frankly that no, that would never happen and that for the rest of my days I would do whatever I could to tell other Canadians what a phoney, hypocritical web hosting site Netfirms.com truly is and that it was just one more tool for censorship like all the other Zionist media.

NetfirmsCensors

But getting back to these traitors, Wilson and Levas. To think that this supreme sell-out has been working around the clock to destroy my site behind closed doors instead of allowing the courts to come a decision is one of the most low-down, nauseating moves anyone could make let alone someone who professes to be a “Peace Officer” and a protector of all that is honourable, Canadian, honest and decent.

No matter how one looks at it these two deluded, mind-controlled zio-zombies are TRAITORS to their country! They ought to be shipped off to Israel where their true sentiments and crooked, deceitful ways would be most appreciated. It’s high time we filled a boat load or two of these Zionist 5th columnists, along with Abrams and Warman and all the rest of the traitorous executive of B’nai Brith Canada and sent them back to their “spiritual homeland” where they belong. Why they are here in Canada doing their utmost to destroy our way of life is something each and every Canadian should seriously begin to think about before we all lose our freedom to speak our minds.
————-

RadicalPress.com UPDATE

Dear Reader,

The site is currently undergoing changes due to Det. Terry Wilson having intimidated Netfirms.com into terminating my account. We are working on restoring all aspects of it but for now only text messages will appear. My apologies to all supporters of freedom of speech and Internet Freedom.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham

Editor – RadicalPress.com

Please direct all inquiries to me at the following email address: editor@quesnelcariboosentinel.com

Police Seize Terry Tremaine’s Computer in “Hate Law” Raid

From: cafe@canadafirst.net
Reply-To: paul@paulfromm.com
Date: Sat, 9 June 2007

Police Seize Terry Tremaine’s Computer in “Hate Law” Raid

REGINA, June 8, 2007. Another Canadian dissident was raided this morning and had his computer and books seized. Terry Tremaine (Mathdoktor99 on Stormfront), a former university lecturer in math and computer studies, had his computer, books,. cds, dvds, and software seized by police executing a warrant to search for material that might violate Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law.”

Mr. Tremaine had just returned from his night job. At 8:00 this morning, six Regina Police plainclothes officers, led by Sgt. Lance Davis, pounded on his door and gave him five seconds to open it.

Although the warrant specified computers and related electronic devices and software, the police still carted off most of Mr. Tremaine’s books, including copies of Mein Kampf, Michael Collins Piper’s Final Judgment, a magnum opus that argues that Mossad killed President Kennedy because he opposed Israel’s acquisition of nuclear weapons and Prof. Kevin MacDonald’s The Culture of Critique. All these books are legal in Canada and can be imported into the country.

Mr. Tremaine was taken into custody and questioned for about two hours. He was released and was not charged. The police investigation continues.

Last year, Mr. Tremaine formed the National Socialist Party of Canada. Late last year, a Canadian Jewish group called for Mr. Tremaine’s arrest.
[Read more...]

Canadian Human Rights Commission Legal Branch in Turmoil

From: cafe@canadafirst.net
Reply-To: paul@paulfromm.com
Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 03:55:13 -0400

Canadian Human Rights Commission Legal Branch in Turmoil

What’s happening over at the Canadian Human Rights Commission? Their legal branch seems to be in total disarray. Giacomo Vigna, their chief prosecutor in Internet free speech cases, is nowhere to be found.

He was last heard from May 11 saying he needed an adjournment: “I don’t feel in a serene state of mind. I have a lot of things worrying me. I don’t feel at liberty to elaborate. I’m not mentally capable of proceeding.” Tribunal Member (judge) Athanasios Hadjis was skeptical and insisted that Vigna and Philiipe Dufresne, his sidekick who said he had the flu and also could not proceed, should present medical certificates by Monday, May 14.

They did, but insisted that they be private and not shared with the defence. [Read more...]