Freedom of Speech

Statement of Roy Arthur Topham regarding his Arrest on May 16th, 2012 on the charge of “Willful promotion of hatred CC 319(2)”

May 16, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

ARREST STATEMENT OF ROY ARTHUR TOPHAM
REGARDING HIS ARREST AND INCARCERATION BY THE RCMP ON
WEDNESDAY, MAY 16TH, 2012 IN QUESNEL, B.C. ON THE CHARGE OF:

“Willful Promotion of Hatred CC 319(2)”

Posted May 16th, 2013 on 1st Anniversary of this Event

Arthur Topham

[Editor's Note: In the interests of freedom of speech and freedom of the Internet I am posting my "Arrest Statement" which my former lawyer Mr. Douglas Christie advised me to write soon after my arrest on May 16th, 2012. His wise counsel was that this case would likely drag on in the courts for years and by the time it came to trial (should such an event arise) that many of the details of my recollection of that fateful day would by then be hazy and doubtful. Acting on Mr. Christie's advice I wrote out a detailed description of what took place that May morning last year. It's an interesting picture of what can happen to you here in Canada should the Jewish lobby decide they don't like being criticized. Read. Heed. And please pass it on to your friends and associates. ~Arthur Topham]

On Wednesday, May 16th, 2012 I started out my work day travelling out to my mining property on the 2400 Rd off the Barkerville Hwy to meet up with the Petro Canada fuel truck at 9:30 a.m. I was having the company fuel truck filled with 1200 gallons of diesel fuel for use during the upcoming placer mining operations for this season. When that was completed I returned home to my residence at 4633 Barkerville Hwy and prepared for a trip up to Prince George where I had to go to the Richie Bros. Auctioneers site to pick up some mining equipment that my business associate had recently purchased at an auction on May 10th. My business partner and wife, Shastah Topham, came along with me and we left our home at approximately 11:00 a.m. heading west toward Quesnel.

Plans had also been made ahead of time to meet another mining associate at Princess Auto in Prince George at 1 p.m. and between the two of us we would haul equipment back to my placer claims on the 2400 Road.

Due to the fact that the Petro Canada fuel truck was a bit late in arriving at the site plus the additional time necessary to fuel the 1200 gallon truck I was running behind schedule by about half an hour.

We were travelling in a 2009 Chev pickup owned by my mining associate with whom I am presently in a Joint Venture Agreement.

When one leaves my property at 4633 Barkerville Hwy you must turn right on to the Barkerville Hwy in order to travel toward Quesnel and Hwy 97 the route necessary to travel in order to get to Prince George. The section of Hwy 26 (Barkerville Hwy) that runs past my residence stretches in a straight line for approximately 1 km. As soon as I pulled out on to the road I immediately saw that there was a white pickup truck sitting adjacent to the eastbound lane of highway just before the road descended down a small dip and passes Cottonwood Historic Site.

As we drove toward it I remarked to my wife, “There’s the cops sitting there. Looks like they’re either waiting to catch Willie again or maybe they’re doing surveillance on Don Carter’s property. Don Carter has been experiencing ongoing harassment by the Canadian Revenue Agency over the past few years and has also had numerous encounters with the RCMP in conjunction with the CRA.

As we approached the white pickup we could see two men in dark clothing sitting in it trying to look as unobtrusive as possible. Again I said to my wife, “If we weren’t running so damn late I’d stop and asked them if they were lost or needed any assistance.”

As we crested the dip and passed Cottonwood Historic Site I noted that within a minute or so the white pickup was now following us. I asked my wife is she was buckled up (she was) and then I set my vehicle on cruise control at about 95 cpm. The limit was 90 kph so I knew that at least if the cops were going to stop me they wouldn’t have the excuse that I was speeding.

As we proceeded on toward Quesnel Shastah was spoon-feeding me my breakfast as I drove because we were too late for me to sit down at home and eat before leaving. I remarked to my wife that the cops were likely watching us through their binoculars and wondering what she was doing. We also were discussing the vehicle that was now so obviously tailing us. It’s always a joke for the locals around Cottonwood when the police come and try to set up either a surveillance vehicle or radar to catch unwary speeders. The cops never seem to understand that when you live in a very small, tight-knit community that everyone in the area is very aware of who drives what type of vehicle and when they see a vehicle parked on the side of the highway with people sitting in it they know right away that they’re either broke down or else cops.

We continued along the highway talking about cops and related issues until we reached the top of 11 Mile Hill. When one begins to descend you are overlooking the Fraser Valley viewshed and can see westward for over a hundred kilometres. About half way down I noted that a regular white coloured RCMP van with the usual bells and whistles was now directly behind the white pickup. At the same time, due to the steep grade of the hill, I was also watching my own speedometer to make sure I didn’t begin coasting beyond the 100 km speed limit. As we neared the bottom of the hill the RCMP van’s lights came on. I told Shastah and proceeded to slow down and pull over on the right hand side of the highway just where the road levelled off.

Who are the original creators of “Hate Crimes” and Hate Crime laws? by Arthur Topham

May 15, 2013 by admin 3 Comments

Dear Readers and Free Speech Advocates,

I’m writing on the eve of the first anniversary of my arrest and incarceration last May 16th, 2012 by the B.C. “Hate Crime Team” when I was charged under sec. 319(2) of the criminal code of Canada with the crime of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.’”

The two complaints that led to my being charged under this specious act were laid against me by Harry Abrams of B’nai Brith Canada and Richard Warman, the serial complainant in numerous other cases involving “hate crimes” and the sycophantic toadie of the Jewish lobby here in Canada

Since that time I’ve been immersed in a legal battle with the B.C. courts because of this trumped-up charge.

On May 16th I must again appear in court to deal with more matters related to my current attempts to find myself a new legal counsel to assist me in having this spurious charge tossed out and the case dismissed. I will be providing a further legal update following tomorrow’s events but for now I wish to remind readers once again of just who the real purveyors of so-called “hate” truly are and how long they’ve been carrying on this charade in order to cover up their own actions over the past century and longer.

One of the biggest beefs that both these two charlatans had with my website, which subsequently became perfectly clear to me when the arresting officer Det. Cpl. Terry Wilson was talking to me while I was in jail, (and which I subsequently noted in my Arrest Statement to my former lawyer, Doug Christie) was the issue of an article that I had posted on my site dealing with the 1941 book Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann.

I had written a satirical parody of Kaufmann’s book back in May of 2011 and titled it “Israel Must Perish!” and took some of the more juicy, hate-filled quotations out of it and substituted the words “Nazi” and “Germany” and “Hitler” and a few other German words with synonymous Jewish words like “Jews” and “Israel” and “Netanyahu”, etc. in order to highlight the hypocrisy of the Jews in daring to accuse the western world of being eternal haters of the poor, downtrodden Jews throughout history.

Somewhere, in the shallowness of their conniving, degenerate minds, they figured that this parody/satire would somehow stand up in a court of law and prove to the world that I, rather than them, was the real disseminator of so-called “hatred” and ought to be treated like a common criminal, found guilty, tossed into jail, and to have my rights and freedoms as a Canadian citizen removed from me.

For the record I want readers to know about this classic of Jewish hate literature and thus I’m republishing here my Introduction to the original article plus the url to the original book of Kaufmann’s so that people can go and look at the abhorrent mind that first created this ugly and obscene proposal for the complete and total annihilation of the German people.

What readers must also realize is what is printed on the back cover of Kaufmann’s book as shown in the graphic below. Three of most revered U.S. publications still operating today, and all Jewish owned, were promoting Kaufmann’s book back in 1941 in order to turn the American public away from decency, justice and truth and twist their perceptions of Germany and Adolf Hitler into the same grotesque mindset that conjured up this classic demonic-inspired book; one openly advocating the total extinction of the German people.

And these are the same folks who are desperately trying to subvert every democratic nation in the world into obeying their “hate crime” legislation that they’ve surreptitiously slipped into the statutes of former free nations via lobbying and pressuring and intimidating politicians of every stripe.

Now that folks is what I call chutzpah.

Please try to pass this article on to every free speech lover that you can. The Canadian public and the world at large needs to know just who the real, originators of these “hate crime” laws are.

Arthur Topham

Publisher/Editor

The Radical Press.

———————-

The Book that Hitler Fears

Germany Must Perish!

by Theodore N. Kaufman

Newark, N.J., Argyle press

RadicalPress Editor’s Introduction [from original post]:

Seventy-two years have now passed since Theodore N. Kaufman published his infamous, hate-infused book, Germany Must Perish! Over the course of these last seven decades the Zionist Jews have been working relentlessly to create in every democratic nation so-called “Human Rights” legislation that would contain special sections dealing with “hate crimes,” the type of which they themselves obviously had perfected back before the USA had even entered WWII.

Here in Canada, in the mid-1970s, the Jewish lobby began in earnest their surreptitious efforts to silence Canadians by working through Ontario’s then Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan. Callaghan, obviously pressured by Jewish groups who wanted to silence one of their critics, John Ross Taylor, began lobbying the Federal Department of Justice demanding the inclusion of speech-restricting legislation that removed the need for “willfulness” or fair comment based on public interest. ( See the following site for the full history of Section 13: http://www.stopsection13.com/history_of_sec13.html )

According to Marc Lemire’s history of Section 13, “In 1976, the Federal Government was looking at a larger Act for employment issues and the provision of federally regulated services.” This Act eventually would end up with the innocuous sounding name: the Canadian Human Rights Act. Although no other section of the Human Rights Act covered speech, it was not a problem for the Federal government to capitulate [to the Jewish lobby. Ed.] and slip in an extra section to satisfy Ontario’s Attorney General’s lust to silence John Ross Taylor and his home-based answering machine.”

In 1977 Bill C-25 or the “Canadian Human Rights Act” was passed by the House of Commons on July 14th. Contained within it under the sub-title of “Hate messages” was Section 13 which read:

13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.

As Lemire goes on to state:

“Only a few years after the law was enacted, Mr. Callaghan finally got his wish and John Ross Taylor became its first victim, with the Canadian Human Rights Commission itself and several professional Jewish groups [Canadian Holocaust Remembrance Association and the Toronto Zionist Council. Ed.] as the complainants.

Since the law was first enacted, two major changes were made to Section 13. These changes fundamentally shifted the original intent of the legislation, and turned Section 13 into an instrument to financially and morally punish those with politically incorrect views.

The first change to the legislation occurred on May 15, 1998, when Royal Accent was given to Bill S-5 (1998), which added a new penalty provision to the Canadian Human Rights Act. Bill S-5 added Section 54 to the Canadian Human Rights Act, and allows the Human Rights Tribunal to impose a financial penalty of up to $10,000. On top of the fines, Section 54 also gave the fanatical Tribunal the ability to impose penalties of up to $20,000 as so-called ‘special compensation.’

According to the background section of Bill S-5, these penalties were added “as a response to the rising incidence of hate crimes around the world. The government believes that stronger measures are needed to deter individuals and organizations from establishing hate lines. It hopes to accomplish this by allowing victims of such lines to apply for compensation and subjecting offenders to financial penalty.”

The second change occurred in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11th 2001. Sadly, this legislation equated non-violent politically incorrect words – which are covered by Section 13 – with terrorism and concerns of national security. Under the guise of Bill C-36 – Canada’s Anti-Terrorism Act, Section 13 was expanded to cover “a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet.” This change, gave the power to Canadian Human Rights Commission to censor the internet and harass Canadians with views that the Rights Fanatics disagree with. [Emphasis added. Ed.]

This change was made according to Preamble of Bill C-36 to allegedly ‘combat terrorism.’”

It is assumed that the reader will already be fully cognizant of the Zionist agenda for global governance that is a given in today’s political reality, especially within the alternative media and on the Internet where Zionist “hate” laws are still not fully in place to restrict the natural flow of ideas and opinions that proceed from historical research and experience.

In 1941 Kaufman’s book was a brilliant piece of Zionist Jew propaganda designed to stir up anti-German hatred in America. Some say that it formed the basis of the infamous “Morgenthau Plan” that was later signed in Quebec, Canada by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill; one designed to dismember Germany after its defeat and reduce it to the status of “a goat pasture.” It probably remains to this day the foremost example of hate literature ever to have been published and dispensed to the general public.

As the reader will surmise from viewing the image of the back page of Kaufman’s book (see above) some of America’s most prestigious newspapers and magazines were in full support of the objectives set down in this classic book of Jewish hate literature.

I firmly believe that all of what the Zionist Jews write about others is actually but a reflection of their own inner, perverse, dislocated self. By projecting outward on to others their innate paranoid and deep-seated hatred for the rest of the world they’re able to meet the requirements of the Israeli state’s motto which reads, “By Way of Deception Though Shalt Cause War” and feel a sense of superiority and self-righteousness in doing so.
—————-

Germany Must Perish! Please take the time to look at this book.

Filed Under: Adolf Hitler, B'nai Brith Canada, B'nai Brith International, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Cst Normandie Levas BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Douglas H. Christie Barrister & Solicitor, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Germany Must Perish!, Harry Abrams, Hate Crime laws, Hate Crimes Bills, Hate laws, HOLODOMOR, Israeli Terrorism, Israeli War Crimes, Jewish Hatred, Jewish Hatred toward Germany, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish Racism, Jewish Terrorists, Political Zionism, RCMP Corruption, Richard Warman, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred", Sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada

Speak your mind! Gandhi

April 29, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Filed Under: Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, FREEDOM, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Freedom to Protest, Gandhi

The Trial of Guenter Deckert by Sylvia Stolz (English translation by Christine B. Miller)

April 26, 2013 by admin 1 Comment

The Trial of Guenter Deckert

By Sylvia Stolz

Translated from the German language
by Christine Miller

“A prison sentence will not force me into believing.”
~ Guenter Deckert

“When I have doubts I demand the right to express them …They talk about tolerance, but mean the inquisition. … The hunt to find incorrect literature pretending to fight crime. For a short time people can be intimidated by the threat of punishment, but the brain continues to reason.”

Thus spoke Guenter Deckert in his final comment at his sentencing February, 2012 in front of the state court Mannheim. The report of his trial follows.

Since January 2, 2013 Guenter has been in prison on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. We accompanied him on his journey to prison and took leave of him at the Mannheim prison gate.

We expressed our thanks for his courage and his commitment to freedom, justice and truth. We will always remember that. The day will come when the Germans and other people will appreciate his zeal.

He is supposed to be released May 2013. We will be there waiting for him starting at nine o’clock.
Address: Herzogenriedstrasse 111, 68169 Mannheim. Whoever wants to be there and greet him is cordially invited.

The Opinion Terror

By Sylvia Stolz

A prison sentence for doubting the “Holocaust.”

No probation for expressing one’s opinion in these times of alleged “right wing terror.”

In these times of the “resurfacing” of right wing extremism which, without question, is due to the criminal deeds of the alleged “NSU”, Holocaust denial constitutes a considerable danger for public peace.

Guenter Deckert, former high school teacher, on February 2, 2012 was sentenced by the state court of Mannheim to a prison sentence of six months without probation on account of aiding and abetting so-called Holocaust denial. As well, because of the “radical” law and in spite of high evaluations he was dismissed from his high school teaching job in November, 1988 in the State of Baden-Wuertenberg and was denied his pension.

He is charged with having cooperated in the translation into German of the book by Carlo Mattogno, Auschwitz – the First Gassings, Rumors and Reality (December, Castle Hill Publishers.)

On July 28, 2010 Guenter Deckert had been sentenced by the lower court of Weinheim to a prison term of 4 months with probation. The charges were: promotion of incitement of the public by means of Holocaust denial and defamation of the memory of the dead. (&&130 III, IV, 189 STGB-BRD. Aktenzeichen: 2Ds 503 Js 14219/08 – AK 579/09).

The prosecutor appealed and on February 2, 2012 the sentence by the state court of Mannheim was increased to six months without probation. Guenter Deckert’s appeal was thrown out (Aktenzeichen: 12Ns 503 Js 14219/08)

Many people in the BRD (Germany), the BRO (Austria), Switzerland, France, Spain, Greece and other countries have been sentenced because they denied or doubted the Holocaust when defined as systematic genocide. At times very high prison sentences have been handed down. For example the sentence against lawyer Horst Mahler.

The Holocaust is not defined

During his appeal Guenter Deckert wanted to know the concrete facts which he, according to the accusations, deliberately ignored and the truth he contested. He received no answer.

It is especially telling that the so-called “Holocaust” is not legally defined (This is against the principal of the penal law). In the first trial no concrete facts as to the place of the crime, the methods of killing or other proofs, directly or indirectly presented in the findings of other trials, were presented.

Concerning his denial the court pointed to &130 section 3StGB , &6 section of the international penal law which defines genocide as being when a member of an ethnic or religious group is killed with the intent to destroy or partially destroy the whole group. According to &130 section 3StGB i.V.m &6 section VStGB people can be punished who deny that under the rule of National Socialism, without knowledge or intent of the German Reichsregierung, a Jew, by someone or another (even by a none German), had been killed with the intent to partially destroy Jewry as an ethnic and religious group.

“Known to the court” to be challenged”

Guenter Deckert at the beginning of his appeal made the following motion:

“I move for the court to discuss point by point the principles on which the court rests its “known to the court” facts which, since the beginning of the Seventies of the Twentieth Century, generally go under the notation “Holocaust.”

The court should establish if and how far the persons who are called to judge have knowledge of these “facts” or only base their judgment on hearsay or secondary literature.”

Before coming to a decision about this motion the court should take into consideration the resolution by the petition caucus of the German Bundestag (upper house) Pet 12-4-07-45-5699 Deutscher Bundestag 12. election period – print 12/2849.

An excerpt: During a main trial the court is duty bound to discuss those facts of which the court has taken judicial notice in order to give the accused the opportunity to contest them. In addition it has to be acknowledged that “known to the court” does need to exist in perpetuity or has to remain unchanged. New information might have been gotten and new events might have happened which will bring about a different conclusion. If the accused presents such circumstances which in the past have not been mentioned or discussed the “known to the court” can be challenged and new proofs concerning these facts have to be considered. In this way the accused and his defender have the possibility to counter “it is known to the court.”

The decision concerning “it is “known to the court” & 244 lies therefore exclusively in the hands of the court in question and is subject to the principle of independence in respect to judges. It is also possible that in individual cases a different judgment may be the result.”

Judgment based on the media

Concerning “it is known to the court” the following decisions have been made: (…)

The county court Bernau presided over by the female judge Kroh rejected the motion to discuss the principles of “known to the court,” stating that the facts and the legal situation were the same. She simply gave judicial notice that during the National Socialist (NS) period, the genocide of the Jews in gas chambers located in the concentration camps happened.

The 3. Senate of the Bavarian state court rejected the motion concerning “the Holocaust is a fact, known to the court” with the pronouncement that it does not have any doubts as to the reality of the Holocaust, referring to the accessible and common information in words, pictures, and sound. (decision 1/14/2011, Bay AGH II – 27/09). The motion of the defense to challenge which material the senate based its certainty of “known to the court” was denied citing material in newspapers, on TV, in reference and history books (decision 2/8/2011).

The judiciary degrades itself to a grotesque caricature if it bases its judgments on the media and TV. Judiciary contains the word justice. It does not deserve its name.

No actual facts

It is worthy of notice that the so-called Holocaust is not legally defined and facts are avoided. In & 130 StGB-BRD which is used to convict “Holocaust deniers” the so-called Holocaust is not defined. It is not even mentioned.

The sentencing of Guenter Deckert in the first instance at the local court in Weinheim contains no determination of the crime of “Holocaust denial”. In other words there is no determination of the Holocaust in regard to the place of the crime, the methods of killing, the number of the dead, the time frame, the perpetrators, the bodies, no deposition taken of the witnesses, no proof of the intent by National Socialism to completely or partially exterminate the Jews. There is no determination about decisions, planes, orders or documents not even in the form of references to other judicial sentences.

In addition there is no determination of the knowledge the accused had, or is supposed to have had, or must have had, or could have had.

As long as the courts do not name the location on which the mass murder was suppose to have happened; as long as the courts do not describe how the killing was done; as long as the courts do not mention any proofs; a judgment that mass murder has occurred is not possible. The same is the case for “it is known to the court.”
Without submitting proof as to actual facts a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not valid.

Without the determination of what knowledge of the so-called Holocaust the accused had or could have had, the charge that he acted against his better knowledge is void.

If the above mentioned points are not addressed a sentencing for the denial of the Holocaust is arbitrary and a corruption of the law.

A defense is not possible

The refusal by the judiciary to bring up for discussion the principle of “it is known to the court that the holocaust happened” makes any defense impossible. Not knowing the concrete facts on which the accusation is based emasculates the defense. The law used to sentence an accused without the defense being able to challenge “it is known to the court” defeats the ends of the law.

“The Holocaust as fact is known to the court.” Which facts however the court knows are not stated.

For example: Dr. Martin Broszart, director for the federal Institute fuer Zeitgeschichte published the following: “Neither in Dachau, nor in Bergen-Belsen, nor in Buchenwald were Jews or other inmates gassed.” (Die Zeit, 8/19/1960, p 16). On the other hand there are publications which talk about the gassings in Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald. Which of the two is, according to the judiciary, “…known to the court?” Is it “known to the court” that inmates were gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald, or is it “… known to the court” that nobody was gassed at Dachau, Bergen-Belsen and Buchenwald? Both cannot be “… known to the court.”

An entire event such as the so-called “Holocaust” can only be undisputed (facts known to the court) when the individual events are undisputed (facts known to the court).

The history Professor Dr. Gerhard Jagschitz of the Institute for Contemporary History at the University of Vienna wrote the following expert opinion: “Substantial doubts about the trials in question have been raised by the presentation of expert opinions to national and international courts. The relentless repetition of judgments using “ facts known to the court,” namely that the Jews were killed by gas in the concentration camp of Auschwitz, will not be enough on which to base sentencing in a democratic nation which is supposed to be founded on justice and right.” (letter to the state court Vienna, 1/10/l991, AZ:26b Vr 14 184/86)

The Ruhr –Nachrichten (Bochum) No. 277 (11/29/2005) printed a citation by the Israeli writer and musician Gilad Atzmon: “The historiography known to us about WWII and the Holocaust is a complete falsification initiated by the Americans and Zionists.”

Is the Holocaust indisputably “a fact known to the court” or is it indisputably “a fact known to the court” that the Holocaust is frequently challenged and therefore can not be “a fact known to the court?”

It is therefore illogical to call a certain alleged historical event which is frequently contested as “a fact known to the court”, a concept which the authorities then use to persecute and penalize the “deniers.”

Abuse of procedural rights

After reading the motion Guenter Deckert wanted to know what he has to accept as “facts known to the court.” The prosecutor, Andreas Grossmann replied (11/14). “That you will find out during sentencing.” During the sentencing however nothing was said.

The chairman, Ross, decreed to postpone the decision concerning the motion. He said: first principles have to be established. Prosecutor Grossmann remarked (January 13, 2012) that the motion only will be dealt with after the pleading. The purpose became obvious when (January 13, 2012) the motion was denied. In the meantime Guenter Deckert took up his case again. In order to show that the “facts are known to the court” must be fully discussed he described in detail circumstances and facts which made him doubt the “Holocaust.” For example he mentioned Dr. Benedikt Kautzky who, for seven years, was in German concentration camps among others, in Auschwitz-Birkenau, and who wrote that in no camp did he ever see a gas chamber.

The chamber denied the motion to discuss “facts are known to the court“ (chairman – Roos, jurors-Wolfgang W. and Helmut M.) using, among other arguments, the reason, “the Holocaust defined as mass killings of Jews especially in the gas chambers of the concentration camps during WWII is “a fact known to the court” (January 13, 2012). The Holocaust as historical event is considering evidence beyond discussion.”

“The facts are known to the court” is not to be discussed because “the facts are known to the court” is a circular argument incompatible with logic and beyond reason and the principles of justice.

The resolution goes on to accuse Guenter Deckert of abusing procedural rights. The need for proofs is not applicable since Guenter Deckert’s demands in that regard, during the main trial, are only designed to involve the court in order to spread his revisionist ideas. This is obvious from his presentation in which he declared that “facts known to the court” needs to be discussed.

According to the court it is an abuse of the justice system when an accused, before being sentenced, tries to move the court to examine the facts of which he is accused.

The resolution furthermore implies that the chamber considers the discussion which forms the basis of the accusation as “court research” to which the accused is not entitled.

The court in this resolution has obviously ignored the laws of reason.

On one hand the court looks at the motion to discuss “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” (contrary to what Guenter Deckert has said) as a move for proof, on the other hand, in contradiction to this, as a motion to obtain “court research”. The motion however implies neither one nor the other.

Historical facts are deliberately ignored

The resolution further states that Guenter Deckert deliberately ignores historical facts and obstinately refuses to accept the truth.

Reacting to the resolution (January 13, 2012) Guenter Deckert moved (February 2, 2012) that the chamber communicate the following:

According to the court’s knowledge “the ‘Holocaust’ is a fact” in which concentration camps and gas chambers existed.

According to the court’s knowledge in what ways did additional killings take place?

According to its knowledge what were the number of victims?

According to the court’s opinion which facts of the so-called Holocaust have I ignored and accepted?

Since the prosecutor and the court have not produced any facts in regard to the accusation I cannot know which facts I supposedly ignore.

I made the motion to discuss the principles of the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court” in order to be able to defend myself against the accusation of Holocaust denial. I stated in detail that the court is duty bound to discuss their determination that the “Holocaust is a fact known to the court.”

In addition I have pointed out that there is no concrete definition of the so-called Holocaust.

Furthermore no determination has been made about which knowledge of the so-called Holocaust I had or was supposed to have had or could have had.

In the resolution of January 13, 2012 the so-called decision does not contain any determination to the circumstances and “it is known to the court,” nor are there any references.

Without defining the deed in question a sentencing for Holocaust denial is not possible.

Without determining which concrete knowledge the accused had about the so called “Holocaust”, or could have had, an accusation to have acted against his better knowledge is void, and therefore a sentencing for denying the truth is not possible.

What is “fact known to the court”

During my argument I presented facts which show that there is a need for a discussion about “fact known to the court.”

“Known to the court” are historical facts which by means of historical research are considered proven and everybody therefore without specific knowledge can inform himself from history books, encyclopedia and similar reference books (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, proof in a trial, 5. edition, Carl Heymanns publishing house, Berlin 1983, p.539.

The acceptance of “the fact is known to the court” rests on the preliminary condition that the fact is not challenged (vglAlsber/Nuesse/meyer, a.a.O., p. 568.

If however in historiography the truth of an event is contested it does not become accepted knowledge just because much has been written about it and disseminated (Alsberg/Nuesse/Meyer, a.a.O.,P. 540).

In my motion to discuss “the Holocaust happened is known to the court” I cited examples of publications, especially non revisionist publications which prove that the Holocaust historiography is not in agreement, does not speak with one voice, is not unchallenged, and contradicts itself. The Holocaust therefore cannot be claimed as “a fact known to the court.”

A sentencing for denying the Holocaust on the basis of “the Holocaust is known to the court” is therefore not possible. I made the motion not in order to spread revisionism, as maintained by the chamber, but for the simple reason that I have been accused of Holocaust denial and that I want to use my right to defend myself.

To dismiss my motion because I intended for the court to deal with “the Holocaust is known to the court” is arbitrary. Before sentencing it is an essential duty and the task of the court to deal with the underlying facts.

It is factually and judicially not understandable why in a trial for Holocaust denial a motion is supposed to be abusive which is meant to bring clarity in regard to “a fact known to the court.”

“Fact known to the court” is in need of discussion

When a French historian, Jacques Baynac, a proponent of the Holocaust writes that for the existence of the Nazi gas chambers only the lack of documents, traces and other material proofs can be confirmed (Le Noveau Quotidien de Lausanne, Switzerland , September 2, l996, p.16 and September 3/l996, p.14) then this means that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Michel de Bouaerd, professor for history and dean of the faculty for the Arts and Sciences at the University of Caen (Normandy) states that the documentation concerning the Holocaust is rotten, that the documentation about the system of the German concentration camps is permeated by a mass of invented stories, relentless repetitions of falsifications, especially in regard to numbers, and confusion and generalizations (Ouest-France v. 2-3 August l986, p. 6). This again proves that there is a need to discuss “the Holocaust is known to the court.”

Historian Professor Ernst Nolte seconds the need for a discussion of “fact known to the court. “The testimony of witnesses rests to a large part on hearsay and mere surmises; the testimony of the few eyewitness are in part contradictory and create doubts in regard to their veracity.”

The director of the Yad Vashem memorial, Shmuel Krakowski, in the same vain states (Jerusalem Post, August 17, l986): “Most of the 20,000 witnesses’ testimony concerning the Holocaust are unbelievable, falsified, cannot be verified, or in other ways are not true.”

On January 13, 2012 during a pause in the proceedings (around 16:30) the chairman Ross directed the following words to me: “You would be surprised at the knowledge of history by the jurors.” But judges have to make an unencumbered decision, based on their conviction which they formed during the proceedings in question (& 261 StPO). In addition “facts known to the court” in order to be useable have to be introduced during the main trial in order to give the participants the opportunity to take a position.

It would therefore be useful if the members of the chamber would reveal their knowledge of history to the accused before they convict him on the basis of this knowledge.

If not it will remain obscure on which facts the members of chamber base their views. It (the Holocaust) is supposed to be a wrong removed from common categories and therefore &130 StGB is an exception to the prohibition of having a special law. (motion of cessation of the trial on account of the special law & 130 which is contrary to the German basic law. The motion was denied January 13, 2012)

Permanent misjudgment

The chamber misrepresents my motion. It considers it a motion for proof which is obvious from their choice of words. “The chamber is supposed to furnish proof,” “makes proof unnecessary.” “proof is also inadmissible,” “a motion for proof is inadmissible (p.2 of the resolution).”

But it is unequivocally clear that the motion was not a motion for proof.

The motion to discuss the principle of “the Holocaust, a fact known to the court” does not mean, that the Holocaust did not happen (p. 2 of the resolution), but was a motion to examine the facts on which “fact known to the court” are based.

The chamber maintains that I contested “facts known to the court.” The chamber is mistaken. I did not contest facts, but demanded the discussion of facts.

What is a circular argument?

A circular argument is to deny the motion for discussion of the principle of “fact known to the court” with the argument that a discussion is not necessary since the Holocaust is “a fact known to the court.” (p.2 of the resolution.)

The chamber misunderstands not only the meaning of a “circular argument,” but also the concept of “an established fact known to the court.” What is frequently contested can’t be “an established fact known to the court” since “an established fact known to the court” is defined as undisputed, unchallenged (see above).

It is a circular argument if I would say “the holocaust is not “a fact known to the court” because “it is not known to the court.” It is, however, not a circular argument if I say: “the Holocaust is not fact known to the court” because “known to the court” is equivalent to conformity and indisputability. The historiography of the Holocaust is not in conformity and is not unchallenged. The resolution stated by the chamber shows a lack of capacity to reason.

It is inconsequential if it happened or not

My motion of January 13, 2012 in which I stated that the incriminating book is scientifically correct was denied. The following reason was given: It does not matter if the book is scientifically correct. I am guilty since I assisted in the formation of the book.

It looks as if the chamber agrees with the view of the Mannheim court who convicted Ernst Zuendel. “It does not matter if the Holocaust did or did not take place.” The “tageszeitung (February 9, 2007, p.6)” writes about the Zuendel trial: “At the end the court denied all the motions with the lapidary reason (a shock to some of the antifascists among the audience): “It does not matter one wit if the Holocaust did or did not take place. Its denial is punishable under German law. Only this is what counts.”

Letter to Chief Judge of British Columbia from Jim Townsend

April 24, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Letter to Chief Judge of British Columbia

Wednesday, April 17th, 2013

Office of the Chief Judge of British Columbia

Mr. Chief Judge,

I am in receipt of the response penned by your boy Gene Jamieson.

He does not appear to have understood my complaint or who I complained about. He mentions ‘the Honourable Judge M. McKimm’. Never met the guy. I am complaining about the black robed dead beat Mayland McKimm who used his position of authority to knowingly and with absolute malice of forethought aid and abet crimes against me with his court.

The fairy tale is that we go to court for Justice. The poster of Justice Blindfolded, deaf and mute as a post in the lobby shows how laughable that contention is.

It is not that everyone in your court conspired to pervert the course of justice. The Right Honourable Judge Klinger put the kybosh on the plans to send me to prison for being the victim of RCMP grow operators committing crimes against me to protect their grow operations out past my mining claim on North Fork Road. But Judges Takahashi and Burdett also happily jumped on the band wagon to try to railroad me and between them and McKimm had me serve a sentence without trial or conviction.

After a protracted harassment campaign to drive me from my mining claim, RCMP Henry Proce had his informant Bruce Prebushewski try to murder my family in a drive by shooting. My wife and I know this because Henry mocked us about it and told us no one would ever do anything about it. He even mocked me as I was lead out of the court in chains and asked how the system was working for me. Bruce’s uncle Arne Gatzke also showed up the next day and told me his nephew Bruce did it.

Bruce Prebushewski has shot through another disabled persons home a few months ago and then a few weeks ago was arrested for being over twice the legal limit with a loaded rifle making death threats to his uncle. Being as how his grandfather is the local alderman who fully supports the grow operations being overseen by Henry Proce, needless to say Brucey is walking around free. Good work fellas. Yeah that’s what we pay you for.

After the attempt to murder us my disability worker cut off my disability cheque saying he was investigating the drive by shooting. I wanted to know how he even knew about it since it hadn’t even made the papers yet at that time. When he instead turned around and made phoney accusations about us, I wrote a letter of complaint about him to the Ombudsman about his suspicious knowledge of the drive by shooting. In short, I wrote a petition to my government for redress. For my pains, Sgt. Wendland had me arrested and charged with uttering threats because he ‘had his panties in a knot’. Seriously, check the transcripts where the arresting officer admits this on the stand in front of the Right Honourable Judge Klinger. The charges were laid to cover up my complaint. The Ombudsman said they would not investigate because the RCMP had charged me. Convenient.

When I then complained to the RCMP Complaints Commission about Wendland and Proce, Wendland and Proce simply turned around and laid more charges of uttering threats against me USING THE SAME EVIDENCE THEY USED IN THE FIRST CHARGE that was supposed to be evidence that I uttered threats to Pat Clemens and was somehow now two years later evidence that I had uttered threats to the police officers that were trying to cover up their informants attempt to murder us. Since that was the second set of charges and I was already charged of course I had to go to jail. The RCMP are well aware of how to manipulate the system to get away with their crimes.

Your Vernon court officers are crooked as Hell and readily aid and abet RCMP crimes and lies about the victims they drag into court. I was arrested the first time in order to prevent me from attending Supreme court to get my mining claims back. Since I was in jail, I sent my wife to represent me but they would not allow her to speak to the case saying it had been adjourned indefinitely by mutual consent. Whose consent? Neither I, nor my wife consented to it. I was not given a bail hearing. Duty Counsel Bill Furman appointed himself my counsel against my wishes and had a private ex parte hearing with JP Dalene Krenz instead. They sent my wife and daughter upstairs to sit and wait in court all day for my hearing and left me in a prison cell. My wife and daughter left at the end of the day wondering why I did not have a hearing.

After nearly a month I finally managed to get a bail hearing. Ever heard of the JIR? Ask Gene about it and he will tell you that I am supposed to have a bail hearing within three days. Unfortunately a friend put up some money for a lawyer who was a dead beat and I believe decided to conspire with the Crown. She grabbed two thousand dollars of my funds for a bail hearing in which she did nothing to defend me or protest the allegations against me. I should never have had to put up any money for bail, should never have been under house arrest and above all, should never had my charter right to freedom of speech limited, especially without the benefit of a trial or conviction. Of such despotism rebellions are made. Judge McKimm simply granted everything the Crown Prosecutor Pontius, who did nothing but lie his face off, asked for.

While I was under house arrest, CRA seized my disability cheque. That is not legal and is outright theft, a criminal code violation against us that left myself and my disabled wife in the high alpine fifty miles from our nearest neighbour without even the basic necessities of life. I believe this attack was initiated by Proce. CRA files obtained under FOIA show that while he had me in jail and court under phoney charges that he was telling CRA lies about us. They did give us our money back when public outrage and many phone calls to them forced them to give it back. But I went to jail for making the video about the crimes being committed against us.

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

April 18, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

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

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.

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.

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.”

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.

—–

Filed Under: "hate speech", "Jewish" holocaust, Abrams/BBC v. Arthur Topham & RadicalPress.com, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), B'nai Brith Canada, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Bill C-304, Bill Whatcott, C.B.C./Canadian Broadcasting Corp., CAFE - Canadian Association for Free Expression, Canada's Queer Community, Canadian Catholic News, Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Jewish Lobby, Canadian Judicial System, Catholic Activists, Catholic Insight magazine, Chabad Lubavich Cult, Conservative Party of Canada, Editor's Zone, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Speech, Globe and Mail, Harry Abrams, Hate Crime laws, Hate laws, Jewish Censorship, Jewish Crime, Jewish Freemasons, Jewish Hatred, Jewish Holocaust Industry, Jewish Lobby Groups, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish Racism, Jews, Justice Marshall Rothstein SCC, Kevin MacDonald, League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, Madame Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, Marxism, Marxist Frankfurt School, Paul Fromm (CAFE), PM Stephen Harper, Political Zionism, Roman Catholics, Sec. 13(1) CHRA, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred", The Controversy of Zion, The Holy Bible, The Occidental Observer, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Ukrainian Holocaust

Honoring Doug Christie by James Holbeyfield, Counter-Currents Publishing

March 28, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

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

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.

——–

Filed Under: B'nai Brith Canada, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Caderyn Christie, Canadian Association for Freedom of Speech (CAFE), Canadian Free Speech League, Canadian Human Rights Act, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Counter-Currents, Doug Christie, Doug Collins, Douglas H. Christie Barrister & Solicitor, Douglas Hewson Christie, Editor's Zone, Ernst Zundel, Father Lucien Larré, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Harry Abrams, Hate Crime laws, Imre Finta, James Holbeyfield, James Keegstra, Jewish Censorship, Jewish Lobby Groups, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish Supremacism, Jim Keegsra, Judaism, Keltie Zubko, League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, Leo M. Frank, Paul Fromm (CAFE), Political Zionism, RCMP Corruption, Richard Warman, Rothschild Zionist Criminal Cartel, Sec. 13(1) CHRA, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred", Supreme Court of Canada, Sylvia Stoltz, The Controversy of Zion, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, The Radical Press, THE ZUNDEL TRIAL & FREE SPEECH, Western Canada Concept, World Zionist Organization

Priest Hails Free Speech Warrior Doug Christie as a “Saint”

March 22, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Priest Hails Free Speech Warrior Doug Christie as a “Saint”

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/03/priest-hails-free-speech-warrior-doug.html

VICTORIA. March 15, 2013. “Today we are laying a saint to rest,” proclaimed Fr. Lucien Larre, who said the funeral Mass this foggy morning for Doug Christie, Canada’s foremost free speech lawyer.” He fought for what was right,” said Order of Canada winner and psychologist Fr. Larre, “no matter the threats to his life or the number of times his office windows were broken. He stood tall.”

Twice in three days, Canadians have buried a taller than life man, known for his cowboy boots and black hat. Folks crowded a Peterborough hockey arena, March 13, to say farewell to Country and Western icon Stompin’ Tom Connors, the boy from Skinner’s Cove, PEI, who gave us songs like Sudbury Saturday Night, Bud the Spud, My Stompin’ Grounds, that celebrated Canada.

Today in Victoria, a Western Canadian who struggled for more than 30 years to uphold another Canadian value, freedom of speech, even for people vilified by the press for their unpopular views, was buried. Doug Christie, a proud Scotsman, would have smiled as a lean piper piped his casket into a crowded St. Andrew’s Cathedral in downtown Victoria. A large bouquet of vivid red roses and Mr. Christie’s black Australian outback hat graced the top of the casket.

Fr. Larre hailed Doug Christie as “a real Westerner, a man with ideals and aspirations as high as the Rockies. He stood for a better Canada, a freer Canada,” the priest told the packed cathedral made up of mourners who had been Mr. Christie’s family, friends, clients, neighbours, and, in several cases, the beneficiaries of his kindness.

The Battling Barrister ” had the ideals our soldiers died for — for freedom — but we do not have certain freedoms, like freedom of speech, in Canada today,” said Fr. Larre, who returned his Order of Canada honour in protest when the same honour was bestowed some years ago on mass abortionist Henry Morgenthaler. “What mattered to Doug Christie is a man’s right to speak. He believed people have the right to go to court whether they can afford it or not,” he added.

In a stirring eulogy to his father, Caderyn Christie, a second year law student, shared memories of a complex man — the battling lawyer so well known to the public, the politician, the devoted father, the private man with a wicked sense of fun and humour.

“A man like my dad was not meant to die in a hospital bed but on a battlefield with a sword and shield,” he said. And Doug Christie very nearly did die in the battle ground of the courtroom. For days during a three week trial in Victoria, Mr. Christie had been in mounting pain, fighting nausea and sleeplessness, but refusing painkillers lest they dull his wits. Finally, on Thursday, February 21, he was too ill to finish his summation and was rushed to hospital and diagnosed with advanced terminal liver cancer.

One of Doug Christie’s heroes was Confederate General Robert E. Lee whose portrait hung in his office. Lee advised: “Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do less.”

Doug Christie took this to heart and was driven by a sense of duty.

Caderyn revealed that Doug often recalled growing up in Winnipeg and that there was always food on the table but just enough. Doug paid his way through the University of Winnipeg working on the railway and as a lifeguard at Banff Hot Springs. For a while he lived in a top floor garret that was scorching in the summer and leaked snow and rain in the frigid Winnipeg winter. Other part-time work paid Doug’s way through law school at the University of British Columbia. Doug’s single-minded goal was to practise law.

He was part way through articling for a Victoria firm when an accidental error in judgement angered a prominent client and the law firm let Doug go. He was in near despair seeing his career stymied before it even began, his son recalled. Then, a single practitioner in Victoria, Barney Russ, gave the Winnipeg law student a break and took him on as an articling student. Nine months later, Doug was called to the bar and began a 42-year career in law.

Years later, Doug Christie visited Barney Russ who was also dying of cancer. Doug asked what he could ever do to thank or repay Mr. Russ for having given him a chance. “Pass it on,” he gasped with laboured breathing.

That had become a driving force in Doug’s life, his son recalled: “He chose to defend people who would otherwise be unrepresented and he paid dearly in his personal and professional life.” Although he had struggled hard to become a lawyer and succeeded, “he was very frugal with himself.”

Caderyn Christie said his father was “profoundly kind to his children. He was also a proud Scotsman and taught us kids how to pull the nails out of a 2′ x 4″ and reuse them.” And, yet, Doug would treat a man who was a regular panhandler at the church doors to a lunch once a month. He didn’t just toss him a looney as he walked by.

Caderyn concluded his eulogy with words that left many an eye wet: “Robert Louis Stevenson said: ‘A leader is one who keeps his fears to himself and shows his courage to others.’ That was my father. He lived fully, he lived freely and laughed every chance he got.”

In his closing remarks, commenting on Doug Christie’s ever present cowboy boots, celebrant priest Fr. Larre quoted a line from Country and Western singer George Jones song Who’s Going to Fill Those Shoes? “We must get together for free speech and try to fill those shoes,” he urged.

– Paul Fromm

Leaders of Canada’s free speech movement at the reception at Doug Christie’s funeral in Victoria, BC., March 15, 2013: Dave “The Unlicensed Man” Lindsay; Paul Fromm, Director Canadian Association for Free Expression; expert witness on Internet and computer technology, Bernard Klatt; and Marc Lemire, webmaster of the Freedomsite, the only victim to win under Canada’s notorious Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship).

Cross-posted to:

· http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/03/priest-hails-free-speech-warrior-doug.html
· http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.ca/2013/03/priest-hails-free-speech-warrior-doug.html

Filed Under: Bernard Klatt, Caderyn Christie, CAFE - Canadian Association for Free Expression, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Human Rights Act, David Lindsay, Douglas H. Christie, Douglas H. Christie Barrister & Solicitor, Fr. Lucien Larre, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Marc Lemire, Paul Fromm

In Praise of Doug Christie by Ian V. Macdonald

March 13, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

In praise of Doug Christie

By Ian V. Macdonald

March 13, 2013

Dear Arthur – your tribute is very moving. There is no doubt that Doug Christie was Divinely inspired and chosen for his gifted role in defending the ideals and high principles that our people have stood for over the centuries. Kipling’s poem “If” also applies. He stood proudly head and shoulders above his contemptible, anti-Christian, anti-Canadian detractors and enemies, and will remain forever a beacon of truth and freedom of expression. I called him BraveHeart since he demonstrated all the traits of character that made the like-minded William Wallace a super-hero. He deserves wide recognition for his patriotism and sacrifice. I asked Peter Milliken, former Speaker of the House of Commons, to nominate him for the Order of Canada (see below) but the award cannot be made posthumously, so we shall have to find some other medium. Little praise can be expected from the Mainline Media, and even less from self-serving politicians, unfortunately.

Having known and admired Doug for many years, I am totally devastated by his sudden departure. We must now redouble our efforts, in his honour.

Ian

—–

March 1, 2013

Hon. Peter Milliken,

Queen’s University,

Kingston, ON

Dear Peter Milliken,

Nomination of Doug Christie for Order of Canada award

We met at the Macdonald Laurier soiree where I boasted that I had graduated from Queen’s (Arts ’49 Econ) before you were born! You said by ’49 you had been around already for 3 years. You were much in demand at the soiree so we had little time to talk. Otherwise, I would have told you that I am the patriarch of a Queen’s family, with 2 daughters (one of whom graduated in Mining Engineering), a son-in-law, one granddaughter (in Aeronautical Engineering with scholarships from Air Canada and National Defence), a second granddaughter pending, and a sister and brother-in-law, Arts and Engineering.

During my years at Queen’s I was Manager of the Brass and Pipe bands and had them fitted out for the first time with authentic Highland uniforms, raising the funds from soft-drink and cloakroom concessions. I also led a Swing Band and played many dates in Grant Hall and the gymnasium, helping to pay my way.

After Queen’s I took an MA from Toronto and joined the Foreign Service, becoming, in rather short order, by far the most successful Trade Commissioner in the history of the Service. Eventually, after six foreign postings I became head of export development policy planning for the Department. I was told if I “played the game”, I could go “right to the top”.

One of my prime policy proposals (1969) was the cultivation of markets in the oil-producing countries of the Middle East, with all of which I was intimately familiar, having spent 2 years there as Commercial Counselor, based in Beirut. The policy paper was not well received. The Deputy Minister told me privately that Arab markets were ”not a popular cause”, that the issue was “politically sensitive”, and that I must never mention the word “Arab” again. When I protested that the immense prospective benefits to Canada could not be ignored, he said if I wrote on the subject again I would “suffer the consequences”. I said I had taken the Oath of Allegiance and would do as my conscience and mandate dictated.

I then produced a second policy paper, more forthright than the first, and included the recommendation that we end the counter-productive preoccupation with Israel in favour of alignment with the Arab countries. Soon thereafter I was summarily dismissed, the specious grounds and legal protection of the Public Service Employment Act notwithstanding. When I threatened to appeal. I was offered “reinstatement within a year when the heat from the Jewish Lobby dies down” - providing that I didn’t appeal nor contact any politician or the media on the subject. I agreed, but a year later found I had been conned, and had nothing in writing. Meanwhile, two Directors of PAFSO, the Foreign Service Officers’ Union, approached the DM on my behalf, only to be told that if they tried to assist Macdonald they would soon ”follow in his footsteps”. I promptly released them from their obligation.

I then took a position in Overseas Project Marketing, another branch of the Department, and was soon back in form, negotiating major contracts with the new Government in Libya with multi-billion dollar potential. One was the reassignment of the former BP concession to a Canadian company. The concession was producing 300,000 bpd, making the acquisition the largest in money terms of any ever achieved by a single Canadian. I visited BP headquarters in London and obtained their blessing, news of which I telexed to the Department. However, when I returned to my Ottawa office I met a furious reception, including curses, accusations of disobeying instructions, etc, the mildest of which was “poor judgment”. i was immediately physically expelled from my office, with instructions not to return, rendered incommunicado and (as I later learned) was once again recommended for dismissal. After several months’ purgatory, I was permitted to return to my office.

The dismissal was shelved at that time, but did take place in 1984 after I had negotiated an agreement in principle in 1983 for construction of a large lamb production project in Saudi Arabia where the client insisted that it be carried out by Canadians. The client (Prince Badr) and his Manager insisted that I be present as mediator at the final contract negotiations in Riyadh between the Saudi client and the Canadian consortium which I had formed for the purpose. A few days before the departure date I was ordered not to attend the meeting on pain of dismissal for “insubordination” if I disobeyed. My sudden, unexplained withdrawal cast a shadow on the negotiations causing them to fail. The project was the largest of its kind with a value of at least $500 million. I asked the Embassy in Jeddah to send someone but they refused!

To contest the 1984 dismissal, I approached all the law firms in Ottawa who advertised competence in “unlawful dismissal” litigation but, after initial enthusiasm, all declined when they ascertained that the Jewish Lobby (which included the Israeli Embassy) was the culprit. In desperation, as the appeal deadline approached, I drew up the appeal myself. I sent a copy to Doug Christie, whom I had heard speak in Ottawa, to vet my handiwork. He replied that he would be glad to represent me, despite the distance from Victoria, if I could find no other.

Since there were no legitimate grounds for dismissal, Mr Christie saw an easy win. As he began his examination, however, he was interrupted by the Judge who told him he should think twice if he intended to mention “Jews” or raise the subject of a “Jewish conspiracy” since to do so would seriously jeopardize his chance of success (it had not been his intention). His presentation seemed more than adequate, especially since the Department of Justice lawyers presented no evidence. Nevertheless, the Appeal failed.

I asked an old friend, who had specialized in Public Service law, how it was possible that I l could lose. He asked the name of the Judge. When I told him, he said the Judge was an “old political party hack who knows how the game is played”. By chance I ran into a former neighbour, the renowned Judge John Matheson, at an Alumni Reunion at Queen’s and put to him the same question. He asked the name of my lawyer. When I replied “Doug Christie” he said “Well, that’s your answer – there’s no way they were going to let him win the case”.

More recently, I retained Doug Christie in a defamation claim I lodged against the CBC for permitting the egregious Warren Kinsella to state on national TV that I was one of the main sources of finance for right-wing terrorism in Canada. The Judge found that the comments were not defamatory even to the slightest degree and, falsely, that in any event I was out of time, giving credibility to Kinsella’s ludicrous story and forcing me to pay the Defendant’s substantial legal fees. The decision was upheld on appeal. A Supreme Court application was denied.

I have followed Doug Christie’s fortunes and misfortunes for many years and recognize him as being without par the epitome of all that is honourable and equitable in the practice of his profession, combined with an empathy for ostracized victims of our Politically Correct society who are shunned, condemned and punished, however worthy and valid their opinions. He is virtually unique in Canada in his self-sacrifice on behalf of his victimized clients and in his willingness share their distress, although it has cost him any esteem he might have earned in law and politics, and an otherwise profitable legal career.

It has also cost him his health, as he has been struck down in his prime by a cancer that doubtless was induced by the stress and frustration of appearing before a hostile judiciary and facing the wrath of venal law society zealots, covering their shamelessness with invective, ad hominems and baseless condemnation of an ultra-respectable man whose Christian rectitude and respect for tradition are beyond their comprehension.

He has many admirers who now seek to memorialize him for all his good works as an outstanding Canadian, selfless Good Samaritan and proud Scot who dedicated his life to the struggle for truth, freedom and justice to a degree equaled by few if any others. He deserves recognition by the people of Canada. At a minimum, this should include the award of the Order of Canada and I ask, if you would be so kind, as a presumed sympathizer, that you nominate him. Your sponsorship would more likely succeed than would mine, since you are widely respected and would have no perceived vested interest.

The nomination forms are available online as is all necessary information on the nominee. I would be glad to prepare the forms for you, if you prefer.

Yours sincerely,

Ian Macdonald

455 Wilbrod Street

Ottawa ON K1N 6M7

613 241 5389

Ex-RCAF, RNFAA

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Filed Under: Doug Collins, Douglas H. Christie, Douglas H. Christie Barrister & Solicitor, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Ian V. Macdonald

The Tyee: Zionist Collaborator and Hate-monger promotes Fear and Smear campaign against Doug Christie

March 13, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

[Editor's Note: I was alerted to this vicious smear of Doug Christie, penned by Tyee contributor Tom Hawthorn, by a good friend and associate only this morning.

In their email regarding the Tyee's hate-filled screed against Doug the writer said, "I am SO TICKED off at the slanderous article in the FUCKING TYEE I could spit right now. OH I am so FURIOUS at the Tyee for printing this crap! It is like the author waited for just the right time to loose his venom.... and his readers all agree. DEAR GOD ARTHUR! sick fucks... pardon me ..."

Sick fucks indeed! Yet does it come as a surprise to me? No, not at all.

I've been monitoring the Tyee since its inception and have been fully cognizant of its editorial position with respect to the machinations of the Jews and their deadly, nefarious ideology known as Zionism. They are but another of the "left", "liberal", "progressive", "yuppie", "pseudo-alternative", "mainstream", "anti-racist", "marxist" media outlets that wouldn't say "shit" about the actions of the Jews even if their mouth was full of it (which it is).

By their actions here in posting this vile, hate-filled diatribe against a man who has given his life to fighting against the very forces that these bigoted bastards now have shown themselves to be a part of, it is but another fine example of how Lady Justice always tends to out those who would deceive the general public, sooner or later. Now we know for sure the true intent and focus of "The Tyee" and who they owe their allegiance to.

As my friend pointed out in their email, even the comments (for the most part) by Tyee readers to the malicious and callous denigrating of the recently dead Mr. Christie tended to reflect the type of online community of Zionist sycophants that congregate around its malignant and odious effusions of hate and calumny. The Tyee, in granting this Zionist grunt their headline space to further the lies of the Jews with respect to the righteous and honorable actions of Douglas Christie, has shown its true colours and they just happen to be blue and white, the same as the flag of the state of Israel.

As previously stated I've always known there was something fishy smelling about this online blog and one can only hope that after three or more days of exposing this article to the sunshine of truth that the whole of the Tyee's reputation for being a disseminator of truth and freedom will stink to high heaven and online readers will approach it with a firm grasp of their nose and the caution it clearly deserves.]

—–

I refuse to adorn my site with this pathetic zio bullshit hit piece and would ask of readers to go to the url provided if they wish to get a good whiff of what truth seekers and lovers of freedom of speech are truly up against.

http://thetyee.ca/Life/2013/03/13/The-Unauthorized-Obituary-of-Doug-Christie/

Filed Under: B'nai Brith Canada, B'nai Brith International, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, BC Justice Minister Shirley Bond, Canadian Association for Freedom of Speech (CAFE), Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), Canadian Free Speech League, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Jewish Lobby, Canadian Judicial System, Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Doug Christie, Douglas H. Christie, Ernst Zundel, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Jewish Censorship, Jewish Hatred, Jewish Holocaust Lie, Jewish Lobby Groups, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish Porn Industry, Jewish Racism, Jewish Ritual Murder, Jewish Supremacism, Jewish Terrorists, Jews, Jews Behind Bolshevik Revolution, Jim Keegsra, Political Zionism, The Tyee, Zionism, Zionist Atrocities, Zionist National Post

Douglas H. Christie Passes Over March 11, 2013 Age 66 Rest In Peace

March 12, 2013 by admin 2 Comments

Douglas H. Christie

April 24, 1946 – March 11, 2013

The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.

He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:

He leadeth me beside the still the waters.

He restoreth my Soul:he leadeth me

in the paths of righteousness for His name’s sake.

Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,

I will fear no evil: for thou art with me;

thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.

Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:

Thou anointest my head with oil;my cup runneth over.

Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life:

And I will dwell in the house of the Lord forever.

~ Psalm 23

God bless you Doug. Your life and your work and your love for humanity

will live on and inspire others to carry on the struggle for freedom of speech

and all the other freedoms that will follow in its wake.

Rest in Peace.

Filed Under: Canadian Free Speech League, Doug Christie, Douglas H. Christie, Douglas H. Christie Barrister & Solicitor, Freedom of Speech

[VIDEO] Keep Fighting for Internet Free Speech – Repeal Section 13!

March 11, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

[VIDEO] Keep Fighting for Internet Free Speech – Repeal Section 13!

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/03/video-keep-fighting-for-internet-free.html

From video: We are not defeated! We can still win the battle for free speech, but we have to send a strong message that we expect our government to repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act!

Filed Under: Abrams/B'nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalP, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, FreeDominion.ca, Freedomsite.org, Internet, Internet Freedom, Israeli Apartheid Week, Jewish Lobby, Marc Lemire, Political Zionism

CANADIAN OUTLAWS: Truth, Christians and Free Speech fall prey to Zionist misfeasance by Arthur Topham

March 6, 2013 by admin 4 Comments

CANADIAN OUTLAWS: Truth, Christians and Charter of Rights fall prey to Zionist misfeasance

By Arthur Topham

March 3, 2013

The recent, decision handed down on Wednesday, February 27, 2013 by six of Canada’s Supreme Court justices, in the Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v Whatcott case, was indeed a ‘supreme’ blow to Christians, to freedom of religion and to every individual’s right to freedom of speech in Canada. At the same time, it also was a remarkably clandestine victory for the foreign Zionist-Jew lobby groups such as B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, and the Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA); all of whom reflect, represent and condone, in unabashed fashion, the principles and policies of the Zionist state of Israel, over and above the traditional rule of law that has been the hallmark of Canadian jurisprudence from its earliest beginnings.

On top of this victorious legal coup that the vast majority of Canadians remain either ignorant of or in denial of, there are the added collaborating players in this long-range agenda to subvert and mould Canada’s judiciary into a type more in keeping with that of the U.S.A’s; one which, in recent years, has become permeated by their Jewish lobby groups to such an extent that they’ve effectively emasculated the US legal system by introducing their own brand of Jewish Noahide laws into American jurisprudence. These Noahide laws are, in fact, ones that stem from the ancient writings of the Jewish Talmud; a horrendously hoary and convoluted compilation of endless sophistry and intellectual meanderings that attempt to cover the full gamut of possible mental masterbation on any conceivable topic capable of debate, all of which boggles the mind and taxes the heart and soul of anyone who is able to locate and delve into the bottomless pit of arcane, abstruse, macabre deliberations found therein.

It is my contention, based upon all recent research and extrapolation, that this same clandestine, Fifth Column Zionist-instigated seditious process is, and has been, occurring here in Canada since the inception of our nation’s “hate speech laws” that, coincidentally, began to gain ascendency in Canada’s house of justice back in the late 1960′s when the major Jewish lobby groups first began to amalgamate and initiate this calculated, step by step, surreptitious program of incremental changes to Canada’s legal system; one that would eventually see the switch over from former Christian democratic principles of freedom of speech to those of the Talmudic Jewish Noahide laws under which Jewry has operated over the past two millennia. It is also my added contention that these subtle changes have been, and are being, spearheaded by those very justices of the Supreme Court of Canada who hold duel citizenship with the state of Israel and whose ultimate allegiance, I strongly allege, is first and foremost to that foreign nation.

Compounding and exacerbating this traitorous intent to corrupt and debase Canada’s legal system via “hate crime legislation” is the growing realization by many Canadians that our so-called “independent” media is, in fact, totally controlled, editorially and otherwise, by this same self-serving Zionist Jew consortium and that these media monopolists, along with their line of sycophantic, sayanim journalists and talking heads, are the major propaganda force behind this plot to subvert the Canadian justice system.

Most Canadians who have not been asleep at the wheel politically are now fully cognizant of the fact that the Harper Conservative government is the key to the success of these Zionist “hate crime” operatives and their eventual triumph in binding the mouths and minds of Canadians so that any and all criticism of their planned take-over of the country will not be openly discussed, either in the print media, television or on the Internet. Their arsenal of epithets stands ready 24/7 to support any smear & fear campaign necessary to belittle and slander and denigrate those who show any indication of not bowing down in obeisance to their treasonous scheme to dismantle and re-create our former legal system so as to have it fit harmoniously with all the other nations that have also been infiltrated by these same self-chosen zealots.

The whole of the homosexual agenda is but one of the ruses that these lobbyists use in order to divide, confuse and conquer their opponents and justify, via their human rights commissions, tribunals and their Supreme Court double-agents, the introduction of more and more repressive anti-democratic “hate speech” laws. These tactics, for those who have studied the Zionist’s modus operandi to any degree, are par for the course. The crucial thing for them is to use others rather than come straight out and say we’re bringing in all these repressive, Orwellian laws because we don’t want Canadians discussing and debating our ideology, our motives or our agenda; one that includes enslaving and punishing anyone who steps out of line and beyond that the total destruction of the Christian religion as we now know it.

There is, on top of all these seemingly inexplicable occurrences, a vital question that needs to asked and addressed with respect to the inordinate number of Zionist, duel-citizenship Jewish justices who have somehow wended their way upwards to the apex of Canada’s judicial system and are now literally in positions of supreme power and control with respect to influencing both our Constitution and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Given that Canada is noted world wide for being a proactive, multicultural nation; one that welcomes immigrants from around the world to its shores and touts itself as being an open, free and culturally diverse society, the blatant imbalance that we are witnessing today in the ethnic composition of our Supreme Court justices is beyond question a problem in dire need of explanation.

Were we, as a nation, to give equal opportunity and consideration to the various visible minorities that make up our country’s population then this ought to be reflected in the composition of those who sit in judgement at the top of our federal judicial system.

Knowing that our First Nations population is the largest minority group in Canada it behooves all Canadians to ask the obvious: why do we not have a First Nations justice sitting in on our supreme court? Given that this nation was formed, literally, from the soil of the original people’s land and also given that the First Nations people constitute the largest group in the Canadian population matrix does it not make sense that when it comes to representing their interests that someone from their ranks ought to be a member of this august group of supreme court justices?

Next in line is our Chinese-Canadian population topping the list as the largest visible minority in Canada and again the obvious question is: why do we not have a Chinese-Canadian justice sitting in the SCC?

Next in line we have a very large South Asian population followed by an equally large black population. Where are the South Asian and the Black supreme court justices?

Finally, getting to the crux of this perplexing situation, as we go down the scale of relative population demographics we come to the ethnic Jewish population in Canada which, according to the Jewish Virtual Library, in 2010 numbered 375,000 in population, ranking somewhere in the neighbourhood of 25th in terms of group size and comprising, out of a total population of 33,890,000 Canadians, 1.1% of Canada’s total population. Yet, for their relatively small numbers in terms of percentages they now hold 4 out of 9 positions on Canada’s Supreme Court. That works out to 44.4% of Canada’s supreme court justices somehow stemming from 1.1 % of the country’s total population. If common sense cannot tell people that there is a glaring discrepancy here then something surely is wrong in the way that Canadians view the make-up of their nation’s highest court. No amount of intellectual verbiage can explain why this is so without getting into the fundamental question of what the real reasons are for this most obvious of imbalances wherein we have a preponderance of duel-citizen Jewish justices sitting and deliberating the vital questions currently being discussed in this brief essay.

Of course the immediate reaction from the Zionist lobbies is to reach up their proverbial sleeve and pull out their “anti-Semitic” and “hate speech” cards and flash them across the nation via their controlled media in typical fashion whenever their power base is questioned or threatened. Then will follow their sophistry and rhetoric emanating from the academics and talking heads arguing that this blatant discrepancy is simply due to the fact that Jewish lawyers are the most intelligent, experienced and therefore qualified of all of Canada’s lawyers and, like the cream atop the cow’s milk, they naturally rise up to those positions of eminence and power.

As the kids would say, “Yah, sure.”

To conclude, it cannot be stressed or repeated enough that we either have free speech or we have controlled speech where Big Brother takes control of our conscience and our mind and leaves us as automatons and slaves to do their bidding and those who now sit in judgement over our collective rights , due to their recent actions in the Whatcott case, must be treated with the utmost suspicion and their motives fully analyzed.

The time to act on these concerns is yesterday. Tomorrow may be too late.

The SCC Puppets

I present below the figures of the three Ashkenazi Zionists who have, along with their controllers in Tel Aviv and elsewhere, and the other three Shabbez Goi justices, perpetrated this seditious act of attempting to twist the truth and our human right to freedom of speech into some form of kosher, Zionist fritter all the better to fragment and confuse the people of Canada so as to lure our nation further astray into the nightmare that awaits the world should Zionism ever gain full control over independent nation states.

It must also be adamantly born in mind as well that the fact that I am presenting and focusing on these three individuals is absolutely not to be misconstrued as having excused the other three protagonists in this deceptive legal drama. The primary purpose here is accent the Jewish lobby in Canad and its unsavory effect upon Canada’s legal system. It goes without saying that the other three justices have, for whatever reasons, also consented to this agenda and ought to be removed from their positions along with the three Zionist duel-citizen justices in question here.

With respect to Canada’s current Madam Chief Justice McLachlin it is also relevant and fitting that the following quote by Jason Moscovitz of the CBC be mentioned here as it is most relevant to an understanding of the mindset of these six judicial side-kicks when it comes to our right to freedom of speech. Jason Moscovitz states: “Of all the attributes she brings to the high court, there is one that sticks out. Many legal experts say she does not consider the Charter of Rights to be necessarily sacred.” [Jason Moscovitz CBC Date: 991103 Time: 22:00:00 ET - 22:26:00 ET]

While still in her twenties SCC Abella was appointed a member of the Human Rights Commission of Ontario. Her husband, Irving Abella, is the J. Richard Shiff Professor of Canadian Jewish Studies at York University in Toronto and a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, one of the leading “hate speech law” lobby groups in Canada.

SCC Justice Abella is on the International Board of the Hebrew University, a member of the United States Holocaust Museum’s Committee on Conscience (again, pushing the 6 million lies of the Zionists that have become since WWII one of the principal pillars supporting all of their criminal actions since that time).

The president (Canadian Section) of the International Commission of Jurists, cited her as one whose “entire life has revolved around the cause of human rights… She has shaped Canadian policy in equality rights, and…has also had a profound impact on human rights law and policy outside Canada.” The precise manner in HOW SCC has “shaped Canadian policy in equality rights” is now fairly apparent given her complicity in this recent and deplorable attack upon Canada’s unquestionable right to freedom of speech.

SCC Justice Abella also served as a commissioner on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Again, those who have been complicit in the actions of the human “rights” commissions here in Canada have revealed their motives clearly enough over the past decade and longer and have lost credibility in the eyes of the rest of the 98% of Canada who do not want to have their rights tampered with to satisfy the spurious and fraudulent false front arguments of special minority groups.

True to his name there’s definitely something “fishy” about this lastest SCC decision.

SCC Justice Rothstein has 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. He has also held many other offices or appointments connected to the Manitoba Human Rights Act and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

So what have people like Marshall Rothstein learned from all of their involvement in harassing and vilifying and criminalizing Canadians for having exercised their God-given right to freedom of expression and speech? By all appearances he’s learned that the manipulation of the law,when it is being supported by a Fifth Column media and a host of complicit, compromised politicians under the sway of the Zionist lobby, is relatively easy to accomplish and virtually a fait accompli.

———

Filed Under: Abrams/BBC v. Arthur Topham & RadicalPress.com, B'nai Brith, B'nai Brith Canada, B'nai Brith International, Canada's Queer Community, Canadian "Just-Us" System, Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE), Canadian Catholic News, Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF), Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy, Canadian Council for Israel and Jewish Advocacy (CIJA), Canadian Federation of Chabad Lubavitch, Canadian Free Speech League, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Jewish Defense League, Canadian Jewish Lobby, Canadian Judicial System, Canadian Rights and Freedom Bulletin, Christianity, Christians, Editor's Zone, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Homosexuals, Political Zionism, Supreme Court of Canada, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, The Radical Press

Radical Press Interview with Mark Glenn on The Ugly Truth BlogRadio Show

February 22, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Here is the Url to the show: http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/4/445/show_4445021.mp3

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech everywhere,

On Thursday, February 21st, 2012 I was privileged to be able to go on Mark Glenn’s BlogRadio show hosted by his site The Ugly Truth.

Mark is an excellent host and speaker and is extremely well versed in the Zionist issues of today and yesterday. As such his preliminary commentary on a number of issues that precedes my actual interview is well worth listening to.

The show lasted for an hour and forty-eight minutes so it will take some time to listen to but I highly recommend that you do.

The one thing that struck me most deeply as I listened to Mark speaking was the fact that in the United States the founding fathers had the forethought to insure that the people of that nation would take their freedoms seriously and therefore guaranteed that the foremost freedom, that of freedom of speech, would be enshrined in their Constitution. Were it so in Canada.

Here we are facing the pernicious machinations of the foreign state of Israel and its B’nai Brith lobbyists, compounded by the fact that these same inimical enemies of freedom also control our country’s media and have gained an extremely critical foothold both within the office of the Prime Minster of Canada Mr. Stephen Harper and within our judiciary. Their dangerous influence upon our government and our democratic institutions, exemplified by the self-created “hate crime” laws which they surreptitiously slipped into our legal system over time, stands as the most clear example of seditious actions aimed at undermining and subverting our government.

Hiding behind their mask of “mainstream” media propaganda they are in full attack mode and out to repress and control Canadian’s right to free expression and freedom of speech on the internet. Without our ability to talk freely about Israel and its sayanim, Fifth column organizations like B’nai Brith and its ideology of Zionism and to offer our perspectives and our criticisms on this most dangerous and diabolic political device ever known to humankind we are severely handicapped in our efforts to educate people as to its true design and motives and thus initiate measures to protect our own Constitutional rights and freedoms.

Thus the need for further and greater education on these matters. Please take the time to listen to this broadcast and remember that feedback to me is always welcome and necessary. I can be reached at radical@radicalpress.com .

Here is the Url to the show: http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/4/445/show_4445021.mp3

Filed Under: "hate speech", Abrams/B'nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalP, America, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Anti-terrorism Act, Arthur Topham, B'nai Brith Canada, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Canadian Judicial System, Conservative Party of Canada, Cst Normandie Levas BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Editor's Zone, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Speech, Gaza, Germany Must Perish!, Harry Abrams, Hasbara, Hate Crime laws, Hate laws, Israeli Terrorism, Israeli War Crimes, Jewish Censorship, Jewish Hatred, Jewish Lobby, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish power, Jewish Racism, Jewish Supremacism, Jews, League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, Mainstream Mindcontrol Media (M3), Mainstream News Media (msm), Marc Lemire, Mark Glenn, National Zionist Jew Post, New World Order, Palestine, PM Stephen Harper, Political Zionism, RCMP Corruption, Richard Warman, Rothschild Zionist Criminal Cartel, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, sayanim, Sec. 13(1) CHRA, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred", The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, The Radical Press, World Zionist Organization

Marc Lemire Sec. 13 “Human Rights” Case Update – Feb, 2013

February 16, 2013 by admin 1 Comment

[Editor's Note: There are currently two pivotal Freedom of Speech cases before the courts in Canada; one a Canadian Human Rights Act Sec. 13 and the other (mine) a Criminal Code of Canada sec. 319(2).

Without a shadow of a doubt the most sublimely ridiculous and asinine is that of Marc Lemire and the Canadian "Human Rights" Commission. It will likely go down in the annals of Canadian jurisprudence as the most heinous, vindictive and spurious case of futile frivolousness ever to have been given a semblance of credibility by Canadian law.

For one piddley-assed post on Marc's website many years past that wasn't even Marc's and when Marc was made aware of it removed it immediately only to be then harassed, hounded and forced to spend years of his life attempting to defend this crass, callous vendetta of hatred toward him and all Canadians by those who would seek to turn Canada into another Soviet Bolshevik gulag of absolute repression and censorship, it beggars the imagination to think that this sort of atrocity could be taking place in a nation that purports to be a "democracy".

I could say the same for my own situation and do consistently even though in my case I have purposely been in the face of these censorious sonsabitches for years knowing what their ultimate agenda is and knowing damn well that to kowtow to their maliciousness and lies and universal deception will only lead to further and further repression for all of us who value and honour our collective right to express our thoughts and ideas in any way, form and manner we so choose.

Any help you can give to Marc please do. First we have to beat these bastards back on the sec. 13 front and then go after them in the normal court of law over their despicable use of sec. 319(2) to keep Canadians dumbed down and ignorant of what's really going on in the world and here at home.]

Marc Lemire Case Update – Feb, 2013
http://blog.freedomsite.org/2013/02/lemire-files-devastating-legal-brief-on.html

Dear Friends of Freedom and Liberty;

Earlier today, I filed with the Federal Court of Appeals a devastating critique of Canada’s Internet censorship laws and the fanatical corruption of the misnamed Canadian “Human Rights” Commission. These are the legal documents which will bring a final end to Canada’s draconian thought control apparatus: Section 13 of the “Human Rights” Act.

The Memorandum of Fact and Law (written by brilliant freedom fighter Barbara Kulaszka) is a concise review of the nine years of persecution the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission has dragged me through for daring to post a single article on my website – which I did not even write. It is a shocking and clinical review of all that goes wrong, when an out of control government agency with a “Nazi fetish” is unleashed. From spying on Canadians with the possibility of entrapment, to threatening Internet Service Providers (ISP) to force deletion of content they don’t like.

The Memorandum of Fact and Law is backed up by a mountain of evidence that would put the OJ Simpson trial to shame! At the Federal Court, we have filed thick stacks of evidence in what the court calls “Appeal Books”. These contain the transcripts and evidence from my massive 3 year hearing before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where I beat down the censors and the Tribunal found that Section 13 was unconstitutional!

The battle is not yet over, but we have the will and the strength to carry on.

George Orwell once said: “During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act”. Human Rights Commissions = DECEIT! And we are the revolutionaries for freedom that will set the Internet free!

-Marc Lemire

February 13, 2013

Can I count on you to support the cause of freedom and rid Canada of this disgusting though control legislation? My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and I have demonstrated what two dedicated freedom fighters can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the “Human Rights” Commission’s racket. Nothing ever comes easy when you are fighting such fanatical censors. This case is a seminal one, where the outcome will have serious implications on our right to think and speak freely in this country for generations to come. All Canadians will benefit when we manage to get this shameful law expunged from our legal books.

I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case.

Please support Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

Marc Lemire is the only person to beat the CHRC in it’s 33 year history!

http://www.stopsection13.com/support.html

Marc Lemire

762 Upper James St

Suite 384

Hamilton, Ontario

L9C 3A2

Email: marc@lemire.com

Web: http://www.freedomsite.org | http://www.StopSection13.com

Twitter: @marc_lemire

Filed Under: Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Speech, Marc Lemire, Sec. 13 CHRA, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred"

Radical Press Legal Update # 9

February 8, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech in Canada,

“There is no absurdity too bizarre for the Mad Hatter Tea Party called the Canadian law.”
- Keltie Zubko, Editor, Friends of Freedom newsletter, Jan/Feb 2013 edition

The long-awaited disclosure material that the Crown has held tighter than a Rothschild’s purse strings since May of 2012 has finally arrived at the office of lawyer Douglas Christie.

In a letter dated January 29, 2013, from Quesnel Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston to Doug Christie, Johnston briefly outlined the Crown’s proposed position with respect to sentencing, pleading and the actual disclosure materials. I wish to touch upon them briefly in this update with my editorial comments.

After nine months of investigation by Constable Terry Wilson and Corporal Normandie Levas of the RCMP “BC Hate Crimes Team” and an amassed volume of 1030 pages of disclosure it appears that the Crown is still not satisfied that it has enough information to convince a Judge and Jury that I am the dangerous, deluded and depraved hate monger identified as such by B’nai Brith Canada. There’s still appears to be insufficient evidence to prove me a racist, anti-Semite who deserves to be locked in a dungeon for a lengthy 3-year prison term and have my rights and privileges as a Canadian citizen stripped from me, all for the benefit of a foreign state called Israel, one that thrives on a supremacist ideology known as Zionism and feels so hard done by due to a long-standing persecution complex spanning centuries.

Nonetheless CC Johnston still feels that a “jail sentence is a likely sentence for Mr. Topham” and to back up this threat she cites the case of R v. Noble 2008 BCSC 216. I thought it rather synchronistic that she should reference this particular case given that in the January/February edition of the Canadian Free Speech League’s Friends of Freedom newsletter, editor Keltie Zubko makes reference to this particular case in a section of the publication that appropriately outlines an initiative Canadian citizens could easily do with regard to the issue of BC’s notorious “Hate Crimes Team” and a justification to taxpayers for their existence. She writes:

Something to Do

As you may know, British Columbia has a government funded “hate crimes team” comprised of three people: Staff Sargent McGowan, Constable Wilson, and Corporal Levas. These three people comprise the entire hate crimes team of the Province of British Columbia. They claim that they are researching and monitoring hate crimes in the province.

Recently, it came to light that in the last three years, the only case they have ever been able to prosecute was the case of Bill Noble up in Fort Saint John. Any one who knew Bill Noble would know that he was not capable of defending himself, which he endeavoured to do. The consequence is that each of us should be writing to the appropriate Minister, the Solicitor General of British Columbia, whose address is:

Policing and Security
Programs Branch
Police Services Division
Ministry of Justice, PO Box 9285
Stn Prov. Govt., Victoria, BC V8W 9J7

Under freedom of information you should be inquiring as to what is the annual budget of the BC Hate Crimes team. Obviously, this three member organization has been spending a huge amount of money every year, monitoring what in effect does not exist without being manufactured. When you get this information, pass it on to us. Keep pursuing all legal channels until you do.

—

As well as a hefty jail sentence Crown Counsel Johnston also suggests that in the event such a proposition didn’t occur “The Crown might consider a conditional sentence for Mr. Topham pending the results of a pre-sentence report and a technical suitability report.” Included in this the Crown would also request “strict curfew terms and electronic monitoring.” As if these punishments weren’t onerous and ridiculous enough CC Johnston hastens to add a couple of additional further afflictions upon my person by stating that the Crown would also require “three years probation on terms” plus “limitations” on my ability “to post on the internet.”

It appears that all of these proposals regarding sentencing are conditional upon whether or not I’m willing to plead guilty to this specious, trumped up charge prior to “April 30, 2012″ [sic]. If I don’t do so, by the stated deadline, then there’s a very strong possibility that the Crown may increase my punishment further. But how? A scourging with a birch rod? A cat-o’-nine-tails? A horse-whip? Stocks? Rubber hose? Thumbscrew? The rack? Drawn and quartered? Waterboarding? Forced exposure to the Zionist controlled TV on a 24-hour basis with endless replays of Ezra Levant’s Sun News Network’s Muslim-hating show “The Source”? When would it all end?!!!

In earlier communication with CC Johnston my lawyer Doug Christie had requested Crown to identify the specific posts and comments which the Crown felt were clear indications of “willful promotion of hatred” but the Crown has chosen not to do so, instead stating that they do not wish to “limit their theory of the case at this juncture.” One can only surmise by such a statement that so long as I continue to post materials on the RadicalPress.com website they will be diligently watching and copying and adding them to their already presumed bloated dossier of damaging declamations which they hope will eventually translate their “theory” into something of actual substance. Like the proverbial parasite who feeds upon its host the BC Hate Crime Team sits by its computers awaiting the next post on RadicalPress.com in order to feed its habit and hopefully find something incriminating and juicy enough that might also justify their own existence and expenditure to BC’s tax paying public.

Such is the sad but sinister state of Canada’s supposed rights and freedoms as we enter upon the year 2013. God willing things will change for the better before more money is wasted and more injustice is committed against Canadian’s fundamental right to freedom of speech.

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
_______________

Ministry of Justice
Criminal Justice Branch
Crown Counsel Office
#408 – 350 Barlow Avenue
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 2C2
Telephone: 250-992-4262
Facsimile: 250-992-4103

January 29, 2013

Douglas H. Christie
Barrister, Solicitor and Notary Public
PO Box 24052
4420 West Saanich Road,
Victoria, B.C. V8Z 7E7

via Courier

Re: Roy Arthur TOPHAM – Court File 25166-5

Please find enclosed a disk containing disclosure in this matter.

Under the heading “exhibits seized” starting at page 986, you will note that a large section has been blocked out. This section was virtually unreadable on my scanned copy. The unreadable portions were juxtaposed with phone numbers that, presumably, were written with a firmer hand. It could well be that these numbers are discloseable but, without context, it is impossible to make that determination. I have asked the RCMP for another copy of these notes. I will then evaluate these notes for potential disclosure. Meanwhile, you will see this section blanked out on your copy.

The Crown requires further information before committing to a sentencing position. A jail sentence is a likely sentence for Mr. Topham. Please see R v. Noble 2008 BCSC 216.

The Crown might consider a conditional sentence for Mr. Topham pending the results of a pre-sentence report and a technical suitability report. The Crown would request strict curfew terms and electronic monitoring.

Page 2

The Crown will also require three years probation on terms. I am willing to discuss the exact terms with you should your client wish to plead. I will require limitations on your client’s ability to post on the internet.

If you wish to discuss a resolution to these matters, the Crown will commit to a length on imprisonment and the exact terms of a CSO pending a positive pre-sentence report and a position technical suitability report. Before we could further our discussions, I would need to know what facts your client agrees to.

The Crown’s comments on a potential Crown position on sentencing are conditional on your client agreeing to a plea prior to April 30, 2012. [sic] After that date, the Crown may or may not consider disposition on the same terms.

I will forward [sic] to hearing from you on a possible resolution.

You have also asked me to specify which of Mr. Topham’s comments the Crown believes to be true and which the Crown considers false. You should be prepared for the Crown to put all of Mr. Topham’s postings and comments, as given to you in disclosure before the court. The Crown declines to limit their theory of the case at this juncture.

Yours truly,

Jennifer Johnston
Administrative Crown Counsel

Filed Under: Crown Council Jennifer Johnston, Cst Normandie Levas BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Douglas H. Christie Barrister & Solicitor, Editor's Zone, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Speech, Radical Press Legal Update

Canada’s Controlled News Media and the Vilification of the Idle No More movement by Arthur Topham

January 28, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Canada’s Controlled News Media and the Vilification of the Idle No More movement

Arthur Topham

January 28, 2013

For those writers, publishers and artists working in the alternative news media in Canada it comes as no surprise that the mainstream media (msm) would eventually begin attacking the grassroots movement known as Idle No More. It was a foregone conclusion.

For decades past this same media has been attacking any and all individuals and movements who dared to espouse or act upon views be they on the ground, in publications or on the Internet. Examples abound but in the case of First Nations and the current Idle No More movement two prime illustrations of this predictable reaction on the part of the msm are the Oka Crisis of 1990 in Quebec and in BC the Gustafsen Lake stand off in 1995. As well are numerous other examples of environmentalists and natives battling with multinational forest and mining companies over clear-cutting and protection of habitat be it air, water or otherwise. In all of these instances it has always been the case that when push came to shove the government of the day could always count on their number one ally, the mainstream media, to come to their defence with their usual phalanx of sycophantic journalist shills and pundits (talking heads) leading the charge all in the name of a prevalent mindset that had already been instilled in the minds of the average Canadian by their very own news media. In term of attitude the msm always presumes that its interpretation of events is the only gospel in town.

I ought to know. Having been on the receiving end of their media smear campaigns for the past fifteen years for publishing articles and opinions related to crimes against First Nations and for having committed the unpardonable sin of criticizing the Zionist Jewish state of Israel for its racist ideology and its supremacist, apartheid terrorist attacks upon the indigenous Arab people of Palestine I’ve been dragged through the Canadian court systems, both quasi and Crown, again and again in a vain effort to silence their planned agenda of global governance and the destruction of all democratically elected nation states.

Most recent of course (in my case), was my May, 2012 arrest and imprisonment while on my way to work where I was charged by the RCMP’s “B.C. HATE CRIME TEAM” for willful promotion of hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.” Using Canada’s sec. 319(2) of the criminal code these same Zionists, hiding within their lobby front groups like B’nai Brith Canada, are now testing out the waters of Canada’s criminal court system to see whether or not it will serve them in their personal vendetta to relentlessly censor free expression on the Internet and thus allow their own mega-corporate media monopoly free rein to vilify whomever they so choose with impunity. Yesterday it was me. Today it’s Canada’s First Nations. New day, same old horse feathers as the saying goes.

Even the msm’s foot soldiers are the same. After six months of being relieved of all of my computers, firearms and my fundamental right to post my writings on the Internet or operate my website, a formal indictment was finally handed down by the assistant deputy minister for BC’s Attorney General on November 5, 2012. When I made my first appearance in court in Quesnel, B.C. on the 8th the Zionist run msm was Johnny on the spot with their smear and fear campaign vilifying my name, my website and my motives for printing the truth about Israel across the country’s news media, both print and television. No sooner was I out of the courtroom than Ezra Levant was beaking off on the Sun News media’s “The Source” with his belittling epithets and lies accusing me of endless misdeeds all of course in the interests of freedom of speech. Finally, unable to restrain himself (again, in the interests of free expression) he blurted out to the world “I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM!”

Years of litigation and battling with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its attendant Canadian Human Rights Tribunal over the issue of freedom of speech on the Internet has only reinforced the fact that Canada’s so-called mainstream media is in truth a cold-blooded, lying, mendacious mechanism of mind control whose sole purpose is to keep the vast sea of Canadian viewers and listeners misinformed and prejudiced against any individual or any group who might at some point attempt to assert their sovereignty, be it over their basic human rights or, as in the case of First Nations, their legally instituted treaty rights, signed, sealed and delivered to them by the federal government of Canada.

Now that First Nations across Canada have finally been backed up against a brick wall of prejudice, deception and endless legal wrangling in the federal courts over their treaty rights (for what appears to be the last time), who but the Custer-style msm mercenaries should come riding to the rescue to reinforce the Harper government’s sleazy, disingenuous political agenda, one that would see their fundamental, inherent human and treaty rights cast aside in favour of a corporate, free-for-all land and resource grab. After all, to allow such open and honest refusal to this “business as usual” approach to First Nations issues by the people thus affected to go beyond their acceptable norm not only poses a direct threat to the Harper government as a tool of the corporate elite but also to their own decades long complicity in colluding with each and every former federal party that has prolonged and perpetuated any final resolution to the age-old treaty problem.

Too many Canadians today still suffer under the misconception that the msm is somehow an independent, unbiased, and as SunNews media would have you believe, a “free enterprise” communications corporation that presents only the facts and both sides of any issue of importance. This sort of myth-information being passed on to Canadians via the msm’s radio, tv and newsprint media is as far from the actual truth as First Nations treaty rights are from being resolved.

Sun News network, with their flagship “CanadianTvFirst.ca” which they are currently pushing like hell to get implanted into every living room across the nation so they can continue to misinform and brainwash Canadians into believing all the Zionist propaganda that comes to them straight from Israel and the Mossad is a prime example of how deliberately deceptive Canada’s msm truly is. More to the point would be the spoof ads below adapted from their own propaganda site which would show their honest agenda if they were in the least truthful to their viewers and listeners.

Fortunately those within the movement were quick to twig on this media approach and are already going on the counter attack. The must. They literally have no choice left if change is come in a peaceful, meaningful way. Like all the other underhanded, surreptitious, slight-of-hand gestures and broken promises that the Harper Conservatives have been meting out to First Nations the time has come when these fabrications and falsehoods need to be exposed and those who are perpetrating them via their media cartel need to be call to task for their glaring, prejudicial approach to resolving First Nations issues.

With the likes of all the Ezra Levants and the National Post and the Sun News media and the CBC talking heads coupled with Zionist lobbyists like B’nai Brith Canada spearheading the “hate crime legislation” that penalizes open and honest debate it doesn’t take too much head scratching to realize that the issue of the controlled mainstream media along with its pro-Harper propaganda campaign of hate against First Nations is one that is bound to grow bigger and longer and hairier legs as the days go by.

What the alternative news media has been attempting to alert mainstream Canadians to for decades has now suddenly, with the advent of the Idle No More movement, been given an incredible boost. Let’s hope that we can all learn to work together for the betterment of the nation as a whole and for our common right to speak our our minds and defend our common ground, common air and water and our common principles, values and rights that will allow us all to live in peace and harmony with each other and the Earth Mother.

——–

Filed Under: Abrams/B'nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalP, Alternative Media, anti-Semitism, Anti-terrorism Act, Anti-Zionist Canada, B'nai Brith Canada, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Bill C-38, Bill C-45, C.B.C./Canadian Broadcasting Corp., Conservative Party of Canada, Delgamuukw decision 1997, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Editor's Zone, Ezra Levant, First Nations, First Nations Issues in Canada, First Nations of Turtle Island, Fish Lake/Teztan Biny, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Speech, Freedom to Protest, Gaza, Gaza Flotilla Massacre, Gitxsan and Wet'suwet'en people, Gustafsen Lake Standoff, Harper Omnibus Bill, Idle No More Movement, Indigenous Nations, Internet Freedom, Jewish Lobby Groups, Mainstream Mindcontrol Media (M3), Mainstream News Media (msm), Mohawk Nation, Mohawk Nation News, National Post, National(Zionist)Post, Native Land Claims, Oka Crisis, Palestine, PM Stephen Harper, Political Prisoners, Political Zionism, Radical Press, RadicalPress.com, RCMP Corruption, Section 13 of CHRA, Section 319(2) CC, Sun Media Corp, Sun News Network, SunTVNews Network

Sylvia Stolz, lawyer for Ernst Zundel, gives powerful lecture on Freedom of Speech after 31/2 prison term

January 21, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Dear Freedom of Speech supporters,

This video/lecture is one the best overall arguments agains censorship ever presented and also a scathing exposure of the corruption of the German courts by Zionist Jews and their sycophants who, like the Canadian law courts and “Human Rights” commissions, fail to recognize evidence and set their own rules against logic and reason.

Please watch this important lecture and pass it around to everyone you can.

Here is a courageous and dignified lady who has ultimately done a great service to not only her country but to freedom of speech around the world.

God bless her for her sacrifices and her strong heart.

Arthur Topham

Pub/Ed

The Radical Press

———————-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JrAJdpubTjo&feature=youtu.be&bpctr=1358741252&bpctr=1358824891

CLICK HERE TO WATCH THE VIDEO.

Filed Under: Ernst Zundel, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, FREEDOM, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Freedom to Protest, Germany, Sylvia Stolz

Radical Press Legal Update #8

January 4, 2013 by admin 1 Comment

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech,

January 3, 2013 was a good day in B.C. and across the nation for those who have taken up metaphorical arms in defence of Canada’s fundamental right to freedom of speech on the Internet.

Here in B.C. and out in Ontario those battling against the forces of media censorship and repression were, in both cases, successful in their efforts and thus, for once, I have only positive news to report.

I should preface this update with a short apology to some readers who were sent an alert yesterday indicating that I had unexpectedly been called to court. That was an error on my part due to some confusion arising from the previous bail hearing that took place on December 19, 2012 wherein I got the date for my next appearance mixed up. Call it a senior moment if you will.

During the last court appearance in December presiding Judge Church, after hearing arguments from both the Crown and Defence regarding the Crown’s rather strident and persistent effort to reimpose the original bail conditions that were placed on me by Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM back on May 16, 2012, reserved her judgement on the issue until January 3, 2013.

My lawyer Doug Christie attended by telephone from Victoria, B.C. and I and my wife were in the Quesnel Court room at 1:30 p.m. to hear Judge Church’s decision.

The Judge first gave an overview of the Crown’s arguments and those of Defence lawyer Mr. Christie before presenting her own position on the issue. According to Judge Church the Crown’s basic argument was that while I had legally resumed publishing on RadicalPress.com on November 2, 2012 I was still publishing material that the Crown felt was of the same calibre as that originally complained of by Harry Abrams and Richard Warman. To back up Crown’s argument Crown Council Jennifer Johnston had submitted to Judge Church on December 19, 2012 a couple of screen shots taken from the radicalpress.com website that had supposed controversial headings which CC Johnston felt were significant enough that they warranted reinstating the original draconian restrictions that Cst Terry Wilson had unilaterally saddled me with on the day of my arrest in May.

Having considered these apparently pithy examples of willful promotion of hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group” Judge Church went on to say that while the screen shots may have (as Crown was alleging), indicated an “undertone” of hatred toward those of the Jewish faith, Crown had not gone so far as to state that the captured text was in fact hateful. Furthermore, Crown had not disclosed to Judge Church any additional corroborating information pertaining to the screen shots in question which Crown was alleging were displaying such sentiments and so, according to the Judge, she had no way of determining whether or not the screen shots or the accompanying articles were, in fact, contravening sec. 319(2) of the CC of Canada.

Judge Church then went on to review Defence council Doug Christie’s arguments which basically stated Crown was attempting to pre-judge the published materials before a trial was held to determine whether or not they were in truth a contravention of sec. 319(2). It was also established that I am, in fact, a publisher and that under Canada’s constitution I have the right to publish articles deemed to be of interest to the general public and until such time that said articles are proven in a court of law to have contravened Canada’s hate crime legislation that my right to publish should not be pre-emptively prohibited simply because of allegations of wrong doing by those who feel particular materials are wilfully promoting hatred toward an ethnic minority. Throughout the course of her comments the Judge referred to the cases cited by both Crown and Defence during the previous hearing on December 19, 2012.

Another issue that had come up on December 19, 2012 was that of Disclosure. The Crown had then argued that they were withholding disclosure from my attorney because of a breach of protocol that had occurred back in the summer when a confidential document released to Doug Christie was later found to have been posted on a third party website (FreeDominion.ca). The Judge went on to describe the event which had to do with what is called a “Warned Statement” which was a digitally recorded conversation between myself and the arresting officer Cst Terry Wilson on the day of my arrest. The Crown alleged that the breach (committed by me due to ignorance of the nature of the document) posed a serious threat to the safety of the two complainants in the case Warman and Abrams and for that reason Crown had filed a further application demanding that my lawyer not provide me with any further disclosure because I might intentionally publish it or give it to someone else who might publish it and in the process endanger the complainants. CC Johnston had cited the case of the Basi-Virk Trial involving the BC Rail/BC Liberal government scandal as reasoning for her allegations.

The Judge then went on to state that the case law cited by Crown in fact dealt with examples where secondary parties who were testifying may have been at risk but that in my case it was information which I personally had given to Cst. Terry Wilson and was, as my lawyer had stated, not of the same nature and certainly did not pose any direct threat to either of the two individuals who had complained to the RCMP. As such the Judge did not feel that the Crown’s argument that Mr. Christie be restricted in sharing disclosure with me was valid.

Judge Church also considered Doug Christie’s counter argument that it would be an unreasonable and onerous position to be placed in were he not allowed to share the information in any disclosure with his client unless I was under his direct supervision given the fact that he was in Victoria and I was 700 km away in Quesnel. Mr. Christie had indicated on December 19, 2012 that he and his client would be more than willing to sign an undertaking prohibiting me from disclosing any further confidential information in order to insure that no such breach occurred a second time. The Judge was able to see the logic of Mr. Christie’s arguments while at the same time dismissing Crown’s position that the breach in question could have endangered the two complainants and went on to say that while she would not be imposing the two original conditions that prohibited me from publishing on radicalpress.com or writing articles for publication wherever I so chose she would be issuing an order that would make it illegal for me republish any further disclosure. At this point she also stating she would not impose upon Mr. Christie the condition that he be in attendance whenever disclosing confidential documents to me.

Having read out her decision regarding the matters at hand the Judge reinstated the new bail conditions and asked me if I understood them. I acknowledged that I did. As such here are the new bail conditions under which I am now to legally abide by:

CONDITION ONE: You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour.

CONDITION TWO: You shall have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Richard Warman or Harry Abrams except as follows: (a) while in attendance at court; (b) through legal counsel.

CONDITION THREE: You shall not possess any weapon as defined in Section 2 of the criminal Code except for purposes directly related to your employment.

CONDITION FOUR: You shall not distribute, circulate or share all or any part of the Crown disclosure material with any person or organization.

CONDITION FIVE: You shall not publish or post all or any part of the Crown disclosure material on any internet site that can be read by the general public.

Having listened to the conditions of the new undertaking and given my consent to obey them the Judge then concluded the hearing. My wife and I then went for coffee and returned later to the Court Registry office where the undertaking was waiting for my signature. After signing it and obtaining a copy we left the building.

Included in the new undertaking was a notice stating that I would appear in court on April 2, 2013 at 1:30 pm PT in Quesnel for the preliminary hearing.

For some unknown reason Crown Council Jennifer Johnston was absent from the court room and another assistant Crown Council was sitting in for her.

So by all indications it looks like I will finally have some temporary respite from all the legal machinations that have been occurring over the past three months and I can focus on raising funds and adding further information to radicalpress.com that will assist others in understanding both the importance of this case and why it is that Canadians must sit up and pay much more attention to what these foreign lobbyists are doing to wreck our inherent right to freedom of expression and censor any and debate that focuses on the criminal and racist actions of the state of Israel and its dangerous and supremacist ideology known as Zionism.

Sincerely

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

Filed Under: B'nai Brith Canada, B'nai Brith International, B.C. Supreme Court, Basi-Virk Trial, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Canadian Judicial System, Crown Council Jennifer Johnston, Cst Normandie Levas BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Douglas H. Christie, Editor's Zone, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Harry Abrams, Honourable Judge Church, Judaism, Political Zionism, Quesnel BC, Quesnel Court House, Quesnel RCMP, Radical Press, Radical Press Legal Update, RadicalPress.com, RCMP Corruption, Richard Warman

Richard Warman’s ‘Maximum Disruption’ Attacks upon Freedom of Speech in Canada from Marc Lemire at freedomsite.org

January 1, 2013 by admin Leave a Comment

Dear Free Speech supporters,

First I wish to thank Marc Lemire for sending along the information contained below. His valiant and courageous efforts over many years are worthy of our deepest appreciation.

The actions of the entity known as Richard Warman are definitely ones that Canadians should be more aware of. Given his propensity for decades of ongoing attacks against freedom of expression here in Canada I feel it behooves all Canadians to take a closer look at his conduct. In doing so people ought to ask themselves how in God’s name our legal system could permit someone like this to go on year after year running amok and getting away with his endless attempts at exploiting Canadian laws for the benefit of his own selfish gain, not to mention the tacit support given to those foreign Jewish lobby groups such as B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress; Zionist organizations hell-bent on silencing any and all legitimate criticism of their and Israel’s historic wrongs against humanity.

Warman of course is one of the two B’nai Brith Canada operatives who has been on my ass since 2007, doing his damnedest to shut down www.radicalpress.com and drive me into the hole financially. He’s not alone though for no man is an island unto himself when it comes to the “Jewish hate speech” racket that the Zionist and their lobbyist organizations have created and exploited throughout all the nations of the West since WWII in their ongoing efforts to cover up Zion’s endless crimes.

Back in 2007 when I was first charged with a sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaint by Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada Warman wasn’t named on any of the documents. Had it not been for the fact that I was able to obtain a leaked email I would not have been aware of his surreptitious involvement in my case.

When word got out that I had received this Bolshevik/Zionist “show trial” accusative “complaint” document in my mailbox on November 20, 2007 my local newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo Observer was interested in doing an interview with me on the subject. Having been a regular contributor to its Letters to the Editor section in the local community paper for over 35 years, plus a bi-weekly columnist, the locals in the community were obviously curious about this sudden complaint from the world’s largest Jewish lobby group.

On January 13, 2008 the Observer ran an article entitled, “TOPHAM VIEWS UNDER ATTACK: B’nai Brith claims anti-Jewish writings“. In the article was expressed my viewpoint and why I felt that B’nai Brith Canada was acting the way it was.

As soon as that story hit the streets Harry Abrams of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada was on the telephone from Victoria, B.C. doing his utmost to browbeat and intimidate the journalist who had interviewed me for the article. It’s not the first time that ol’ Harry was found to be extremely abusive when dealing with those who he felt were not behaving as good goyim ought to behave when it comes to the questionable machinations of the Jewish state of Israel. Of course the journalist was not impressed one iota with Abrams’ manner of communication.

Soon afterwards Abrams wrote a response to the Letters section of the Observer wherein he did his best to bring up the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and use that document as some sort of proof that I was posting hate literature against those of the Jewish faith. At the same time he basically demanded that I should remove all posts that he felt were unacceptable and if I did so then that would be the end of the matter. Of course his wishes never came true and beside, given the way that his co-conspirator Richard Warman operates, it’s highly doubtful that had I kowtowed to Abrams’ request that the matter would have ended. As we know from Warman’s relentless attacks upon Marc Lemire, AFTER MARC WILLINGLY REMOVED WHATEVER OFFENDING POSTS WERE ON A WEBSITE RAN BY HIM, complying with their Orwellian demands only makes these censorship control freaks that much more inclined to sink their fangs deeper into their perceived victims.

Following Abrams’ letter to the Editor which was published on January 27, 2008 the newspaper was flooded with letters of support for me that came from around the world. This was just too much for the cheeky Cheka twins, Abrams & Warman, and soon thereafter the owner and publisher of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer, David Black of Black Press (not associated with Conrad Black) received a letter from these two Zionist agents threatening his company with a law suit should it continue to publish any more articles related to the sec. 13 complaint that Abrams had laid against me via the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). Warman’s and Abrams’ argument was that the sec. 13(1) complaint was before the CHRC and no decision had yet been made so it was illegal for the Quesnel Cariboo Observer to be publishing anything pertaining to the matter. Of course, like all things that the Zionists say and do, it was pure bullshit.

There are NO legal restrictions in reporting on matters related to the machinations of the Zionist-controlled Canadian Human Rights Commission nor its accessory in crime, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. Both these Zionist infested orgs are considered to be quasi-judicial in nature and not subject to the same restrictions as the official Canadian Judicial System (even though it too is just as infested as the others with pro-Zionist sycophants).

And so the upshot of all of this was that Black Press decided it wouldn’t stand up for freedom of speech or to the Jewish lobby and ended up bending to the pressure of these two snivelling censorship snakes and from then on until June of this year a veil of silence hung over my six year long battle with these haters of free expression. That is why you will not be able to find the articles noted above except on my website where I was able to post them prior to their censorship by Black Press.

I’m writing this background information as an aid in understanding just how insane the court system has become since it’s been co-oped by the Jewish lobbyists and their pro-Zionist lawyers and judges who inevitably put the desires of Israel and the racist ideology of Zionism first and foremost when it comes to upholding the supposed rights and freedoms of all Canadians to expressing their views on the Internet.

When I was arrested back in May of 2012 Det-Cst Terry Wilson of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM made a big deal out of trying to convince me that their unit was going to be investigating these charges in a wholly new and unbiased manner and were not planning on bringing into the equation all of the past dealings that I had with these two bozos who had just laid the second sec. 319(2) charge against me; one that resulted in being jailed, losing my firearms and my computers and all of my electronic files and email going back many years.

But of course this was just another stinking pile of crap from another pro-Zionist special agent working for B’nai Brith along with Abrams and Warman. As it turned out later on I found that Det – Cst Wilson had been working with these zio-rats for many years before and all of this sudden new charge and arrest, etc. was nothing less than a further extension of their earlier attempts to shut me down and put me in jail in order to keep the truth about the Zionists hidden from the general public.

So please bear this in mind as you read through the list of vicious attacks perpetrated upon innocent people who have had their rights and freedoms suppressed, spent time in jail, and had their computers and files and firearms seized and their bank accounts drained all because of this one entity who should have been disbarred years ago and prevented from engaging in any legal activities.

Richard Warman is the epitome of all that is wrong with our Canadian legal system and anyone who has ever been harassed, threatened or victimized by this serial psychopathic complainer should be absolved of all accusations and convictions, their names cleared by the federal court and financially compensated for any and all legal costs incurred during their lengthy battles to retain their fundamental rights as given by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As an associate suggested after reading my initial comments here, “An application should be made, if it has not been done already, to have Warman declared a ‘Vexatious Litigant’ – there is ample precedent I think for this where an individual has persistently abused the system, an offence of which Warman is guilty, in spades! The fact that he has been clearly motivated by malice and personal financial gain and assists a subversive political lobby, would reinforce the application.”

Nothing less in terms of redress ought to be considered when it comes to Richard Warman. Apart from disbarment, a healthy jail sentence of say five years ought to give this traitorous Zionist lackey enough time to reflect on his actions and prepare for a new career upon his release.

With the end of 2012 only hours away I’d like to take one final parting shot at this whole sordid affair known as Zionism. After years and years of researching its fundamentals and observing its ideology in action I’ve come to the only conclusion that I feel any honest, decent human being could be expected to reach. Zionism is, in truth, a mental disease. It’s a psychotic, delusional state of mind wherein adherents to its core cognitive structure and values – all contingent upon a mental belief that one small segment of the human family or species is somehow above and separate from all the rest of humanity – tend to behave in a cult-like fashion in order to outwardly express this political (psycho-mental philosophy) doctrine; one that sees no wrong in the destruction and murder and terrorization of any and all other human beings who stand in the way of its ultimate fulfillment. I can also state with added assurance that the new year will see more and more reasonable, intelligent and caring, loving individuals come to a similar conclusion as the weight of evidence backing such a contention grows heavier and heavier and the Zionist Beast grows more and more desperate and deranged in its behaviour.

God grant that we will stop it before the destruction gets beyond our control.

The best to all of you in 2013!

Love & Peace & Justice for All,

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″

________________________________

From: Marc Lemire <marc@lemire.com>

Subject: Richard Warman’s ‘Maximum Disruption’ Approach: Defamation Suits, Criminal Complaints, Section 13 cases and even Copyright Act lawsuits

Date: 31 December, 2012 1:01:18 AM PST

Richard Warman’s ‘Maximum Disruption’ Approach:

Defamation Suits, Criminal Complaints, Section 13 cases and even Copyright Act lawsuits

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/12/richard-warmans-maximum-disruption.html

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.ca/2012/12/richard-warmans-maximum-disruption.html

Richard Warman is one of Canada’s leading serial complainants. Richard Warman described his tactic of filing complaints as “Maximum Disruption” in a speech he gave to a group called Anti-Racist Action. According to Mr. Warman; “This approach involved working with the police, the Canadian Human Rights Commission and other organizations to create “maximum disruption” within what he perceives to be the Neo-Nazi movement in Canada.”

Here is a list of some of the lawsuits and other complaints he has filed:

—————————————————–

People Richard Warman has sued or threatened to sue

Alphabetically sorted

	Person	Court file # or Source
1)	3535991 Canada Inc.	Ontario Court File No. 12-55389
2)	Andrea Rondeau	Ontario Court File No. 10-47357
3)	Andrew Spencer (Droid1963)	Ontario Court File No. 07-CV-039927SR
4)	Arnie Lemaire	Ontario Court File No. 09-46638
5)	Banyen Books	Ontario Court File No. 02-CV-237691SR
6)	BC Libraries Association	Macleans Magazine: April 21, 2008
7)	Biosfaire	Ontario Court File No. 02-CV-237691SR
8)	Black Press Group Ltd.	http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=684
9)	Boule De Neige	Ontario Court File No. 02-CV-237691SR
10)	Bridge of LovePublications	Ontario Ontario Court File No. 02-CV-237691SR
11)	Byron Tau	http://btau.blogspot.com/2008/04/my-own-tiny-role-in-canadas-biggest.html
12)	Canadian Association for Free Expression	Ontario Court File No: 04-CV-26550SR
13)	Canoe Inc.	Ontario Court File No. 12-53851
14)	Canwest Digital Media	Ontario Court File No. 10-47357
15)	Canwest Global Communications Corp	Ontario Court File No. 10-47357
16)	Canwest Interactive	Ontario Court File No. 10-47357
17)	Canwest Limited Partnership	Ontario Court File No. 10-47357
18)	Canwest Mediaworks Inc.	Ontario Court File No. 10-47357
19)	Canwest Mediaworks Publications Inc.	Ontario Court File No. 10-47357
20)	Canwest Publishing Inc.	Ontario Court File No. 10-47357
21)	Catherine McMillan	Ontario Court File No: 08-CV-352197SR
22)	Constance Fournier	Ontario Court File No. 07-CV-039927SR
23)	Constance Fournier	Ontario Court File No: 08-CV-352197SR
24)	Constance Fournier	Ontario Court File No. 08-CV-352212SR
25)	Cowichan Valley Citizen	Ontario Court File No. 10-47357
26)	Crossroads Television System Inc.	Ontario Court File No. 10-49969
27)	Dan Lepage (SaskBigPicture)	Ontario Court File No. 07-CV-039927SR
28)	Eternal Moment Bookstore	Ontario Court File No. 02-CV-237691SR
29)	Ezra Levant	Ontario Court File No: 08-CV-352197SR
30)	Ezra Levant	Ontario Court File No. CV-09-00370919
31)	Ezra Levant	Ontario Court File No. 12-53851
32)	Ezra Levant	Ontario Court File No. 12-55389
33)	Fivefeetoffury.com	Ontario Court File No: 08-CV-352197SR
34)	Freedominion.ca	Ontario Court File No: 08-CV-352197SR
35)	Freedominion.ca	Ontario Court File No. 08-CV-352212SR
36)	Global TV Calgary	Ontario Court File No. 10-47357
37)	Global TV Lethbridge	Ontario Court File No. 10-47357
38)	Jason Bertucci (Faramir)	Ontario Court File No. 07-CV-039927SR
39)	Jason Ouwendyk	Ontario Small Claims Court File No. 03-SC-081720
40)	John Doe (conscience)	Ontario Court File No. 07-CV-039927SR
41)	John Doe (HR-101)	Ontario Court File No. 07-CV-039927SR
42)	John Doe (Klinxx)	Ontario Court File No. 07-CV-039927SR
43)	John Doe (Padraigh)	Ontario Court File No. 07-CV-039927SR
44)	Jonathan Kay	Ontario Court File No: 08-CV-352197SR
45)	Kamloops Public Library	BC Civil Liberties Press Release:http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/04libelandslander.htm
46)	Kathy Shaidle	Ontario Court File No: 08-CV-352197SR
47)	Kathy Shaidle	Ontario Court File No. 12-53851
48)	Kelly McParland	Ontario Court File No. CV-09-00370919
49)	Knowledge Bookstore	Ontario Court File No. 02-CV-237691SR
50)	Mark Fournier	Ontario Court File No: 08-CV-352197SR
51)	Mark Fournier	Ontario Court File No. 07-CV-039927SR
52)	Mark Fournier	Ontario Court File No. 08-CV-352212SR
53)	Michael Coren	Ontario Court File No. 10-49969
54)	Michael Coren	Ontario Court File No. 12-53851
55)	Michael Veck	Ontario Court File No. CV-10-410527
56)	National Post Company	Ontario Court File No: 08-CV-352197SR
57)	National Post Company	Ontario Court File No. CV-09-00370919
58)	Northern Alliance	Ontario Small Claims Court File No. 03-SC-081720
59)	Paul Fromm	Ontario Court File No: 04-CV-26550SR
60)	Preferred Network	Ontario Court File No. 02-CV-237691SR
61)	Quebecor Media Inc.	Ontario Court File No. 12-53851
62)	Quebecor Media Inc.	Ontario Court File No. 12-55389
63)	Quesnel Cariboo Observer (Newspaper)	http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=684
64)	Roger Smith (Peter O’ Donnell)	Ontario Court File No. 07-CV-039927SR
65)	Russell McOrmond	http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/2603
66)	Seekers Books	Ontario Court File No. 02-CV-237691SR
67)	Shirley Skolos	Ontario Court File No. 10-47357
68)	Smalldeadanimals.com	Ontario Court File No: 08-CV-352197SR
69)	Sun Media Corporation	Ontario Court File No. 12-53851
70)	Sun Media Corporation	Ontario Court File No. 12-55389
71)	Sun TV News General Partnership	Ontario Court File No. 12-55389
72)	The McGill Tribune	http://btau.blogspot.com/2008/04/my-own-tiny-role-in-canadas-biggest.html
73)	Thompson Nicola Regional Public Libraries	Macleans Magazine: April 21, 2008
74)	Tom Kennedy	Ontario Court File No. 02-CV-237691SR
75)	Toronto Public Library	Toronto Public Library: MATERIALS REVIEW COMMITTEE RECONSIDERATION OF MATERIALS SUMMARY – 2002
76)	TVA Group Inc.	Ontario Court File No. 12-55389
77)	Vancouver Public Library	BC Civil Liberties Press Release:http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/04libelandslander.htm
78)	Victoria Indymedia	http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/3102
79)	Victoria Public Library	BC Civil Liberties Press Release:http://www.bccla.org/pressreleases/04libelandslander.htm
80)	Walker Morrow	Ontario Court File No. 10-47357
81)	William Grosvenor	Ontario Court File No. 08-CV-40460SR

Lawsuits filed under Canada’s Copyright Act

1)	Richard Warman and National Post v Mark and Constance Fournier	Federal Court of Canada: T-784-11
2)	Richard Warman and National Post v Mark and Constance Fournier	Federal Court of Appeal: A-395-12

Section 13 Complaints by Richard Warman

Cases before the CHRC and/or Canadian Human Rights Tribunal

1	T726_3102	FRED KYBURZ
2	T998/11804	Eldon Warman
3	T869/11903	Alexan Kulbashian,
4	T869/11903	James Scott Richardson,
5	T869/11903	Tri-city Skins.com,
6	T869/11903	Canadian Ethnic Cleansing Team,
7	T869/11903	Affordable Space.com
8	T1021/0205	Tomasz Winnicki
9	T1072/5305	Craig Harrison
10	T1071/5205	Peter Kouba
11	T1088/6905	Glenn Bahr
12	T1087/6805	Western Canada for Us
13	T1104/8505	Terry Tremaine
14	20031846	Alex Di Civita
15	20031844	Liz Lampman
16	T1095/7605	Bobby Wilkinson
17	T1095/7605	“Canadian Nazi Party”
18	T1106/8705	Jessica Beaumont
19	T1073/5405	Marc Lemire
20	20031956	Freedomsite .org
21	T1090/7105	Melissa Guille
22	T1090/7105	Canadian Heritage Alliance
23		Ciaran Paul Donnelly
24	20030360	WCOTC (World Church of the Creator)
25	T1217/2907	Jason Ouwendyk
26	T1216/2807	Northern Alliance

Criminal Complaints by Richard Warman

1	Alexan Kulbashian	Warman’s Testimony in Lemire Case
2	Arthur Topham	http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1405
3	Bill White	http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Warman
4	Ciarian Donnelly	Warman’s Testimony in Lemire Case
5	Craig Harrison	Warman’s Testimony in Lemire Case
6	Freedomsite	Warman’s Testimony in Lemire Case
7	Glenn Bahr	Warman’s Testimony in Lemire Case
8	James Richardson	Warman’s Testimony in Lemire Case
9	Jessica Beaumont	Warman’s Testimony in Lemire Case
10	Marc Lemire	Warman’s Testimony in Lemire Case
11	Peter Kouba	Warman’s Testimony in Lemire Case
12	Terry Tremaine	www.freedominion.ca/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?f=70&t=159251
13	William Grosvenor	Warman Speech – University of Moncton – March 16, 2010

Please note, for all cases; please refer to the original source material. In the case of the Libel suits, where the source is indicated as a court file, that is an actual lawsuit Warman has filed. Where the source is something other, like a URL, please refer to the originating material. This may or may not be a lawsuit or threatened lawsuit by Warman. The truths of the statements are via the websites.
Please refer to the original source material. This document consists of an overview of cases which (it appears that) Warman has filed or threatened. This is not a complete list. There may be many other cases in all categories, including criminal complaints, libel complaints, Section 13 cases, etc.
If any mistakes are made of this page, please send an email to; marc@lemire.com for correction.

Richard Warman’s ‘Maximum Disruption’ Approach:

Defamation Suits, Criminal Complaints, Section 13 cases and even Copyright Act lawsuits

http://blog.freedomsite.org/2012/12/richard-warmans-maximum-disruption.html

http://canadianhumanrightscommission.blogspot.ca/2012/12/richard-warmans-maximum-disruption.html

_______________________________

NOTE: My apologies for having to include the following appeal but out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign interest censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada. Due to the fact that the Crown is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able to apply for legal aid. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses.

The day after my lawyer’s appearance in Quesnel on the 19th of December I received an invoice showing a balance of $5,222.79 still owing on Mr. Christie’s account. Given my minimal monthly pension of approximately $1400.00 out of which I must pay my mortgage and utilities and insurance on home and vehicles (this doesn’t cover additional costs for fuel and food) which come to approximately $1200.00 one can see that it’s virtually impossible for me to cover these expenses without further assistance from supporters.

As such I would once again implore readers to give serious consideration to helping me out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Cash of course also works. Please don’t make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to me.

Arthur Topham

4633 Barkerville Highway

Quesnel, B.C.

Canada

V2J 6T8

To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham

Pub/Ed

The Radical Press

Filed Under: "hate speech", Abrams/B'nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalP, Alternative Media, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), anti-Semitism, Anti-terrorism Act, Arthur Topham - Editor & Publisher, B'nai Brith, B'nai Brith Canada, B'nai Brith International, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Bolsheviks, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Judicial System, Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Cst Normandie Levas BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Douglas H. Christie, Editor's Zone, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, George Orwell, Harry Abrams, Hate Crime laws, Internet Freedom, Israeli Terrorism, Jewish Banking Cartel, Jewish Defense League (JDL), Jewish Lobby Groups, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish Racism, Jewish Supremacism, Jewish Talmudists, Jewish Terrorists, League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, Radical Press, RadicalPress.com, RCMP Corruption, Richard Warman, Rothschild Zionist Criminal Cartel, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred", Section 13 of CHRA, Section 13(1), The Controversy of Zion, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Ukrainian Holocaust, World Zionist Organization

The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches by Jim Goad

December 29, 2012 by admin 1 Comment

[EDITOR'S NOTE: Currently there's some serious cyber fistacuffin' going on in the alternative media ring between proponents who, as this poignant piece below points out, see everything as being a direct result of Jewish malfeasance and every "Jew" equally culpable when it comes to the multi-faceted query known historically as "The Jewish Question" and those who tend to discriminate (oi!) and assign guilt or responsibility only to the ones (and their sycophants) directly responsible for the woes that befall the self-chosen.

The article below is one of the best interpretations of this problem that I've come across. Please take the time to read and share it with others.

Oh yes, and lest I forget... This particular post is also for Det-Cst Terry Wilson of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM who arrested me, traumatized my dear wife, put me in jail and then illegally entered my home and stole all of my computers and firearms back on May 16, 2012. Ever since his shameful, ignoble performance he faithfully reads all of the posts on www.radicalpress.com each day (when he's not reading all of my thousands of personal emails that were on my computers) in order to scrape together "evidence" that he then sends along like a good little school boy tattle tale to Crown council Jennifer Johnston in Quesnel, B.C. who further flaps pages of all of my posts before the eyes of the Judges so as to reinforce the Queen of England's (Regina) false sec. 319(2) CC charge of willfully promoting hatred against "people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group."

On occasion I like to reinforce this person's traitorous behaviour with a graphic showing the evidence covering his face. I know how important it is for Terry to have his mugshot in the media as it helps him and his accomplices to justify in their own petty little minds not only their existence but also that fat pay cheque they get for acting as Orwellian thought police for the foreign lobbyists who currently control Canada's Prime Minister and all of the opposition parties. I am, of course, referring to B'nai Brith 'Canada' the Israeli lobby 5th Column Mossad agency that is responsible for attacking me in the courts for the past six years.

Anyhow, do enjoy this well-written piece by someone I had not heard of until today.]

—————–

http://takimag.com/article/the_men_who_taste_jews_in_their_sandwiches_jim_goad#axzz2GSd5taZI

Notes From the Edge

The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches

by Jim Goad

November 19, 2012

I woke up this morning with a bit of a chest cold and decided not to blame the Jews for it. Some mystical yearning deep inside my heart—I believe it’s called “common sense”—led me to surmise that I am probably not afflicted with the Jew Flu.

It’s not that I hold Jews blameless, because they are human beings, too, Shylock, and are therefore not to be trusted. I hold other groups—blacks, feminists, and homosexual sausage-gobbling rump-wranglers—to the same standard. Merely because they find it fashionable to hide behind a shield of historic persecution to further their group interests and seemingly insatiable hunger for power doesn’t mean they are presumed innocent in all situations. I see Jews as human and therefore likely to be up to no good at any given moment.

Then again, neither do I blame the Jews for everything. But there is a tiny, bitter, and relentless subset of individuals who tend to do this reflexively. I call them “The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches.” They also taste Jews in the soup they slurp and in the apple pie they eat for dessert.

Merely by stating this, I’m certain I’ll be accused of being afraid to admit that Jews control the sandwich industry.

These types inevitably turn any conversation toward Jews, no matter how little the topic at hand has to do with Jews. If Godwin’s Law predicts that every Internet discussion will inevitably lead to Nazi and Hitler comparisons, these creeps who eagerly leap across the line from logical to pathological are apparently bound by the inexorable forces of Goldman’s Law…or Goldstein’s Law…or Goldberg’s Law. In their diseased brains, all neurons lead to Jews. Perhaps one day this psychological disorder will be diagnosed and a book written about it called The Man Who Mistook His Hat for a Jew.

What’s ironic is the fact that although I don’t personally taste Jews in my sandwiches unless I’m eating a Reuben with kosher pickles, I likely ask some of the same questions as do the schmucks who even taste Jews in a slice of Wonder Bread with mayonnaise. I’m drawn to the Jewish Question merely because it’s such an untouchable topic. I realize that the mere act of questioning Jewish power and influence is a career-killer in much of the West, and that in certain countries asking certain questions about the Holocaust is enough to get you jailed. It’s one topic about which most “irreverent” and “non-PC” people are extremely reverent and effusively PC. I’ve also noticed that it’s a topic that many people are eager to talk about off the record but terrified to mention in public.

So here’s where I stand on Jews…OK, wait, roll back the tape…I don’t literally stand on Jews, because that would clearly be anti-Semitic. Here are some ancillary questions I have concerning the Jewish Question, and if it makes me anti-Semitic merely to ask them, I suppose I won’t be invited to your son’s Bar Mitzvah. If you want to crucify me merely for asking questions, well, I guess you’re one of The Men Who Tastes Nazis in Your Sandwiches.

The Jewish Question always seemed to lead to more questions than answers, so here goes:

• Are Jews members of an ethnic tribe or members of a religion? If the latter, how do you explain Jewish atheists? What exactly is a “Semite,” and why does the term “anti-Semitism” seem to embrace people who appear to be of Eastern European derivation while it tends to exclude Arabs and other indigenous Middle Easterners?

• If you’re so secure that the evidence surrounding the Holocaust is irrefutable, then why jail people who question the evidence? Why does the Western media feel compelled to mention the Holocaust almost daily while it routinely ignores the 30-50 million non-Jewish civilians—not soldiers, but civilians—who were killed in World War II? Were their lives not nearly as important?

• Why are certain “right-wing” writers brave enough to criticize communism, open immigration, the liberal media, and political correctness while they’re mortified to even consider that Jews were often the primary architects behind such movements—or at least disproportionately represented?

• Isn’t the idea of “God’s Chosen People” cosmically racist and supremacist? Is the Talmud not hostile to goyim? Haven’t the Jews historically been racially separatist, all while accusing other groups of “racism”?

• Is it even remotely possible that Jewish behavior, rather than a murkily mystical and ultimately unprovable notion such as “anti-Semitism,” sometimes led to negative perceptions about Jews? Even once throughout history?

• In a European Union document calling for “equal treatment between persons irrespective of racial or ethnic origin,” why does it urge that we should focus “in particular” on “anti-Semitism” if everyone is to be treated equally?

• Why does our current cultural climate allow one to decry “white privilege” but never “Jewish privilege,” especially since Jews are undeniably overrepresented statistically when it comes to wealth and power?

• At the moment, Israel and some of its enemies are lobbing missiles at one another. Why should I care about Israel? Why should I deem this dubiously founded and eternally disruptive nation so important that it’s worth starting World War III, shoveling out tax dollars, and enduring much of the world’s wrath to protect it? What do I get out of the deal?

So those are my questions. I won’t hold my goyishe breath waiting for you to answer them. But dismissing them outright as “paranoid” or “anti-Semitic” is either dishonest or naïve.

My questions are honest and sincere rather than “hateful,” and calling me all the nasty names in the Torah won’t budge my feelings or cause me to relent. And I believe that a huge quotient of the population has similar questions but have been terrorized into silence at the mere thought of asking them. As a truth-seeker rather than a team-joiner, I find this troublesome. So sue me!

And this is the main reason why The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches are such a pain in my tuchis. They live up to the crude stereotype of rabid, delusional anti-Semites, and by so doing, they tend to allow all criticism of Jews to be painted with the same broad Jew Brush. They’re the ones who tend to give so-called “anti-Semites” a bad name. It almost makes me suspect that some of them may be Mossad agents.

Making EVERYTHING about Jews gives Jews far too much credit. So ease up, fellas. There are no Jews in your sandwiches. There are no Jews in your soup. If you have a chest cold, you likely didn’t get it from shaking hands with a Jew…or maybe you did, but that’s what you get for being friendly to Jews.

——–

Please share this article by using the link below. When you cut and paste an article, Taki’s Magazine misses out on traffic, and our writers don’t get paid for their work. Email editors@takimag.com to buy additional rights. http://takimag.com/article/the_men_who_taste_jews_in_their_sandwiches_jim_goad/print#ixzz2GSfhBxgg

Filed Under: "Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Anti-Semiti, "hate speech", "Jewish" holocaust, 'state' of Israel, Abrams/BBC v. Arthur Topham & RadicalPress.com, AIPAC, Alternative Media, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), anti-Semitism, Anti-ZionistCanada Yahoo Group, Ashkenazi Jews, B'nai Brith Canada, B.C. Supreme Court, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, BC Justice Minister Shirley Bond, Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Federation of Chabad Lubavitch, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Politics, CC Johnston, Chabad Lubavich Cult, Crown Council Jennifer Johnston, Cst Normandie Levas BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Editor's Zone, Ernst Zundel, Fredrick Toben, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Harry Abrams, Hasbara, Hate Crime laws, Hate Hunter Wilson, HOLODOMOR, Honourable Justice Morgan, Internet Freedom, Israeli Terrorism, Israeli War Crimes, Jewish Holocaust Industry, Jewish Lobby Groups, Jewish Media Monopoly, Jewish power, Jewish Racism, Jewish Supremacism, Jewish Talmudists, Jewish Terrorists, Jews, Jim Goad, Judaism, League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith Canada, Lonnie Landrud, MP Steven Harper War Criminal, National(Zionist)Post, Political Prisoners, Political Zionism, Quesnel BC, Quesnel Court House, Quesnel RCMP, RadicalPress.com, RCMP Corruption, Richard Warman, Rothschild Zionist Criminal Cartel, Royal Canadian Mounted Police, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred", Shylock, Taki's Magazine, The Babylonian Talmud, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Torah, Ukrainian Holocaust, World Zionist Organization, Zionism

“Fuck you! Harper…Fuck you!” video by Natasha Hynes

December 27, 2012 by admin Leave a Comment

CLICK HERE TO WATCH VIDEO or here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gehHpFaP4C0&feature=youtube_gdata_player

In his An Essay on Man, Epistle I, 1733 Alexander Pope wrote the words that became the proverbial expression, “Hope springs eternal in the human breast.” They were the same words that sprang to my mind while watching Natasha Hynes express her heartfelt sense of outrage over the actions of Canada’s Prime Minister Stephen Harper with respect to the recent passing of the controversial omnibus Bill C-45.

Yes! I thought, finally a young person with enough smarts to realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with the Harper equation and to gather up the courage to express themselves via the medium of video. It was an instant recall moment that transported me back in time to that period of social unrest we now call the late 60′s when the youth of the day were then first standing up to the insanity and authoritarianism of the time and demanding justice and redress.

We didn’t have YouTubes back then, only the spoken and written word and our accompanying actions to back our beliefs and our demands. And being a young man of 21 at the time I didn’t have the years and years of living that I now have under my belt to reinforce what was more of an intuitive, gut reaction to the injustices that I saw occurring all around me.

In 1968 my sense of outrage, not unlike that of this young woman in the video, finally reached the point where I could no longer restrain myself and so I sat down and wrote my very first “Letter to the Editor” to the local newspaper in the town where I was, at the time, completing my student teaching practicum. While I wasn’t able, given the times, to utilize the stark expletives that the young Natasha does in her rant my words still managed to create a stirring reaction within the status quo of the time.

The byline for the letter read: “STUDENT TEACHER BLAMES SOCIETY, PRESS, CHURCH, POLICE, COURTS”. The text read:

Dear Sir:

I am a student teacher from Simon Fraser University presently teaching in Kitimat at Nechako Elementary School. My deepest concern is the youth and their education. I therefore wish to speak out.

The youth of today are rebelling. They are looking into the eyes of the citizens of Kitimat and stating with honesty and conviction that they don’t want to be associated with you as you now live. You are members of a sick society who have degraded yourselves to a baseness that stuns the imagination.

You talk of respect for the courts of law. Let me give you an interpretation of the “law” that the youth hold to be your maxim. Your “law” is set up to perpetuate a society based on lies, murder, theft, and injustice to all individuals who don’t follow this rule of conduct.

It is you who consent to the wars that are going on, both internal and external; you who agree with the exploitation of people; you who lie to yourselves about the state of the world by this continuous cover up of your actions by a press designed to serve your heinous crimes.

The youth cannot acknowledge your crimes against mankind, therefore they receive injustice at the hands of an authority that has lost every shred of legitimacy.

That is your law and the youth will not accept it. Through the news media you gain society’s full consent of the authorities actions to suppress this “law-breaking” by any means. Your “civilized” society is a fraud. Your talk remains simply talk, while your actions go to achieve a height of evil beyond belief.

The schools are an institution which can initiate change; they can and do hold within their operations the means to end these atrocities. The youth realize that there isn’t an honest reason why every human being on the face of this earth cannot live in peace and harmony and happiness TODAY. Society has the means.

Citizens, the youth in Kitimat and around the world are asking only for the universally sought after things: peace, order, freedom, justice, love, friendship, authenticity and plain dealing. They are met with malignant by the press, ignorance by the church, and tear-gas and billy clubs and bullets by the authority that you, the citizens of Kitimat, uphold. Any further negative action cannot be excused.

If there is one thing I have found in teaching young people it’s that honesty is still the best policy.

The youth want good and right and will settle for nothing less.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham

Looking back over the past 44 years since I first penned that initial rant I now have a panoramic world view of all that’s ensued up to the present plus an all-encompassing vision of how time and historical events continually repeat themselves as generation upon generation of youth strive to express their outrage and point the fierce finger of truth at the injustices which they behold and refuse to accept.

So I wish to thank Natasha Hynes for pouring forth her heartfelt disgust with what she feels is PM Harper’s sell-out of Canada’s natural resources to foreign interests. She may not have all the requisite background knowledge to consolidate and reinforce her obvious angst but that is, in many ways, unimportant in the grand scheme of things for what Natasha is doing is drawing upon those timeless ideals and moral codes that make living worthwhile and meaningful.

I can only hope that her words and her spirit will serve to remind those of my generation that we still owe it to the children of the future to never give up fighting for the basic rights and beliefs that sustain us all in a positive and loving manner and that when we do see youth breaking out of the molded reality that so many are stuck in that we give them our utmost support and respect.

———–

Filed Under: Bill C-45, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Conservative Party of Canada, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Freedom to Protest, PM Stephen Harper

Marc Lemire Case: the latest attack on Freedom of Speech by the Canadian Human Rights Commission

December 26, 2012 by admin Leave a Comment

Marc Lemire Case: the latest attack on Freedom of Speech by the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Christopher di Armani

http://christopherdiarmani.com/8968/big-brother/marc-lemire-case-latest-attack-freedom-speech-canadian-human-rights-commission/

I had a long conversation with Marc Lemire on Wednesday evening, December 19, 2012.

For those not familiar with his name, Marc Lemire is the one and only man to ever win a case against the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC). Until Lemire was hauled before this Kangaroo Court the Canadian Human Rights Commission had a 100% conviction rate.

It’s really not that hard when the Truth is no defense and the “judge” can disallow any evidence you present without justifying that action.

Anyway, there was a development in his case this week that does not bode well for the Rights and Freedoms of ALL Canadians. Marc Lemire just happens to be the person being terrorised in this particular manner today.

It is important to remember a few things about Marc Lemire’s case.

1. As soon as Marc Lemire was made aware of the complaints against him, he removed the “offending material” from his website.

2. Despite the “offending material” being removed from the internet, the CHRC refused to drop the case against Mr. Lemire.

3. Repeated attempts by Marc Lemire and his lawyer Barbara Kulaszka at mediation with the CHRC was refused. This wasn’t about “remediation” as the law says, but about silencing individuals with whom the CHRC disagrees.

4. Marc Lemire was found “guilty” of a single infraction. That infraction was for a post on his website that he did NOT create, and contained an article written by an American author. Marc Lemire had nothing to do with the “offending” post, other than to host the website it was on.

5. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Marc Lemire’s case admitted that Section 13 of the Human Rights Act is unconstitutional.

6. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Marc Lemire’s case refused to administer the penalty against him because they knew it was unconstitutional.

7. The Canadian Parliament has already repealed Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. It is waiting for the Canadian Senate to pass it as well, which will happen early this coming year, and then Section 13 will be repealed.

8. Despite all these facts, the boneheads at the CHRC are now pushing for a lifetime BAN on Marc Lemire’s Freedom of Speech while they still can.

They’re desperate to implement their ban on Marc Lemire while this atrocious law is still on the books.

Once Lemire is stripped of his Freedom of Speech by a federal court order, it won’t matter if Section 13 is repealed or ruled unconstitutional. The lifetime ban will still apply.

That is wrong on so many levels I don’t even know where to begin.

Marc Lemire is now battling for his (and OUR) Right to Freedom of Speech on two fronts.

First, at the Federal Court of Appeals, where he is appealing the finding of Justice Mosley. Mosley found that Section 13 was constitutional, but that Section 54 (the penalty clause) was not.

It’s an absurd decision and one that Marc Lemire is fighting to overturn with his appeal. Lemire has also filed a 240 page motion to the Federal Court of Appeals requesting a stay of the earlier Federal Court ruling so the CHRC cannot issue a lifetime speech ban against him.

Second, at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, where Lemire will fight the proposed lifetime ban.

If Freedom of Speech is important to you, then please give generously to Marc Lemire’s Legal Defense Fund. He desperately needs your help as he fights for the Right to Freedom of Speech for ALL Canadians.

You can donate with your check via Canada Post, payable to:

Marc Lemire
Attn: Free Speech Legal Defence Fund
762 Upper James St, Suite 384
Hamilton, ON L9C 3A2

If you would prefer to give online, please send your donation via PayPal.

Anyone giving $50 or more to Marc Lemire’s Legal Defense Fund will receive a digital copy of Lemire’s book Dismantling Tyranny.

Remember… The choice is Free Speech or Approved Speech. If Marc Lemire loses this case, Canadians will forever be subjected to “Approved Speech” by minions of The State.

That’s not the kind of Canada I want to live in, and I hope you feel the same. Support Marc Lemire’s fight for OUR Right to Freedom of Speech without government intervention.

————————-

You can see the article online at: http://christopherdiarmani.com/8968/big-brother/marc-lemire-case-latest-attack-freedom-speech-canadian-human-rights-commission/

Filed Under: Barbara Kulaszka, Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE), Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Federation of Chabad Lubavitch, Canadian Free Speech League, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Judicial System, Canadian Rights and Freedom Bulletin, Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Christopher Diarmani, Editor's Zone, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Marc Lemire, Richard Warman

Radical Press Legal Update #7

December 20, 2012 by admin Leave a Comment

Radical Press Legal Update #7

Yesterday’s Bail Hearing was a three hour session in the Quesnel Court house.

The regular Judge who has been presiding over the various applications thus far was unable to attend and instead we had a female Judge by the name of M. Church who heard the application.

Crown of course had first kick at the cat and Crown Council Jennifer Johnston opened her remarks by giving Judge Church a brief overview of the case which included her reasons for why Crown has still not provided my lawyer with full disclosure in the case.

According to CC Johnston the period from my initial arrest on May 16, 2012 until October 9, 2012 had proven to be an insufficient time period in order to get enough evidence together so that an Indictment could be handed down by the October 9 deadline and that, apparently, somehow justified not providing Mr. Christie with full disclosure.

After the October 9 deadline I was no longer under the original bail conditions that restricted me from posting on my website although for some odd reason I didn’t become aware of this fact until close to 3 weeks after the fact .

The Crown eventually got their sworn information on November 5, 2012 and notified my lawyer that there would be a call date set for Nov. 6 where I was to appear in court. That date was subsequently changed to the 8th of November as Doug Christie was out in Saskatchewan attending to another case and couldn’t appear via telephone on the 6th. It was Crown’s letter to Mr. Christie on Nov. 5th that also informed him that Crown had asked for an endorsed warrant that would allow Crown to have all of the original bail conditions reinstated.

When I appeared on November 8, 2012 the Judge listened to both sides of the arguments and ruled that only some of the original conditions would remain i.e., those concerning my order not to have any contact with the two knaves (Warman and Abrams) who laid the alleged complaint to the RCMP and also the cops hanging on to my illegally stolen firearms. At the same time he set a new date of December 13, 2012 when Mr. Christie could be in court to represent me and Crown would be given the opportunity to argue for the reinstatement of the additional restrictions originally imposed on me by Det – Cst Terry Wilson on the day I got out of jail.

Of course December 13, 2012 proved to be bad timing weather wise and my lawyer was unable to fly into Quesnel that day so again a decision on Crown’s application was delayed for another week which brought it up to December 19, 2012 which was yesterday.

After running through that time line Crown then began their argument for wanting to reinstate the additional Orwellian restraints that would prohibit me from posting articles anywhere on the Internet available to the general public or to allow anyone else to post on any of my other websites that were owned by me.

Just prior to commencing her argument Crown Council Jennifer Johnston told Judge Church that unfortunately she hadn’t been able to provide Mr. Christie with the big fat 1″ thick bail disclosure document because she had been informed by Det – Cst Terry Wilson that when the Indictment was handed down the National Post had published an article on the case which contained statements that the reporter had gleaned from another website called FreeDominion.ca. Those statements were from what is called a “Warned” statement which is considered by the courts to be part of disclosure and therefore confidential information that is not supposed to be given out to the public. The Warned statement was a digital voice recording that Det – Cst Terry Wilson had made of his conversation with me just prior to my release from jail on May 16, 2012. Why IT was given to my lawyer when all the other disclosure documents are still being withheld by Crown is still a mystery to both myself and Mr. Christie but in the case of this particular document when I received a copy of it I didn’t realize it was confidential and had so I had shared it with an associate in a private email and unbeknownst to myself failed to notify them that it was confidential.

Anyhow a couple of quotes were taken from it and posted in the National Post and that was the big reason, according to CC Jennifer Johnston why she was refusing to divulge any more disclosure materials to Mr. Christie. This issue had come up on Dec. 13 when Crown was arguing before Judge Morgan that a second application had been filed regarding the matter of the illegal disclosure but no agreement could be found at the time and Mr. Christie had refused to agree to it.

At this point Crown told Judge Church that she would be willing to let Mr. Christie take a look at the bail disclosure document even though Crown’s application had not be resolved but that he would have to give it back at the end of the hearing! All of this was the typical Catch-22 scenarios that have been playing out since day one of this charade.

The Judge obviously knew that Mr. Christie couldn’t be expected to argue against something he hadn’t even seen so after a bit of discussion it was agreed that Crown would give Mr. Christie the disclosure document and a short 15 recess would be called so that he and I would have an opportunity to take a look at what Crown was planning to use in their argument for reinstating the original harsh bail conditions on me.

It only took about 5 minutes of perusing the document to realize what was going to be the Crown’s argument and we quickly went back and let the clerk know that the recess should end as soon as possible and court resume. Mr. Christie was well aware of the time constraints and needed every minute for his arguments.

Court resumed and Crown Council Johnston began her argument that I had been publishing all these articles, updates, etc. since November 2, 2012 (legally, mind you) and then proceeded to go through individual posts selecting various quotes to back up her position. It was the standard Zionist double-speak argument that posts were continuing to spread hate toward the Jews and Zionists and were attacking unfairly Det -Cst Terry Wilson and his partner-in-crime Cst Normandie Levas and thus possibly endangering their safety!

This went on until about 3 p.m. when she finally concluded her remarks and a break was taken before Mr. Christie was given time to present his arguments.

The issue of the leaked disclosure was addressed first and Mr. Christie told that Judge that he would have no problem with the Court issuing an Order stating that in future neither he nor myself would disclose any confidential information to any third parties not directly connected to the case and definitely not for publication.

Doug then commenced his argument with a bountiful supply of case law references and quickly outlined for the Judge some precedents which included the legal right for publishers and writers to criticize both Jews and Zionists citing articles in various mainstream publications like the New York Times and other Zionist controlled media. His point being that no particular group is exempt from criticism and that includes Jews or those who support political Zionism. Regarding my criticisms of the RCMP he also pointed out to the court that the RCMP were certainly not above criticism and given their public image of late he didn’t feel Crown’s argument in this regard was worthy of consideration.

He also made it crystal clear that what Crown was attempting to do flew in the face any and all statutes currently within the Canadian legal system. By that I mean Crown’s attempt to curtail my Charter Rights to freedom of expression and access to the Internet prior to my case being heard in a court of law and a decision being handed down as to whether or not I did in fact publish materials that were ultimately deemed to be “willful promotion of hatred” as contained in sec. 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code.

To a priori assume that whatever I am publishing is “hatred” and then ask the court to impose such severe curtailments upon my Charter rights prior to being tried is verboten and should not be considered as a reasonable argument.

During Crown’s argument CC Johnston had cited the Basi-Virk Trial (of all trials!) to back up some of her comments regarding the need to protect witnesses. In this instances she was trying to correlate my Warned statement conversation with Det – Cst Terry Wilson with that of secondary witnesses in the Basi-Verk case. When Doug came to this he quickly pointed out to the Judge the vast difference between witness evidence by anonymous third parties and statements directly given to the arresting officer by the accused as was the case in point regarding Crown’s argument.

One by one Mr. Christie countered Crown Council’s arguments and this went on until around 4:15 p.m. at which time Mr. Christie concluded his remarks by informing the Judge that he had a plane to catch before 5 p.m. and that he would have to stop. Doug asked me at this point to call the airport to confirm the exact time when the plane was leaving so I had to leave the court room for about five minutes.

While I was gone Crown apparently tried to refute all of Doug’s arguments and told the Judge that because I was charged with a “Hate” crime that Crown could then basically impose whatever restrictions they wanted to on me. The Judge apparently wasn’t convinced and just when I got back into the court room I heard her telling Crown and Defence that she would be considering the arguments and submitting a request to another body (not sure which one at this point) for further clarification come early January and then after that she would notify Crown and Defence of her decision.

So basically there will be no further bail conditions imposed on myself until January of 2013 at the earliest. We quickly packed up our things and drove Doug out to the airport where he bid us a fond fair well.

For now we will finally have a couple of weeks grace in order to relax a bit and enjoy the Christmas season.

——–

NOTE: Out of necessity I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the censors. Due to the fact that the Crown is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able to furnish legal aid with the required documents that they demand before looking at whether or not I might qualify for legal financial assistance. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses. The airfare alone yesterday for my lawyer to appear in court in Quesnel to defend me against these false charges was $1,050.00 return and given my minimal monthly pension it’s virtually impossible for me to cover these expenses.

As such I would once again implore readers to give serious consideration to helping me out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Cash of course also works.

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

To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press

Filed Under: "hate speech", Abrams/BBC v. Arthur Topham & RadicalPress.com, Alternative Media, Arthur Topham - Editor & Publisher, Attorney General of B.C., B'nai Brith, B'nai Brith Canada, B'nai Brith International, B.C. Criminal Justice Branch, Basi-Verk Trial, BC HATE CRIME TEAM, BC Justice Minister Shirley Bond, BC Rail Scandal, Canadian Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Canadian Free Speech League, Canadian Human Rights Act, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Canadian Jewish Congress, Canadian Judicial System, Charter of Rights & Freedoms, Crown Council Jennifer Johnston, Cst Normandie Levas BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Det-Cst Terry Wilson BC HATE CRIME TEAM, Douglas H. Christie, Editor's Zone, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, FreeDominion.ca, Harry Abrams, Hate Crime laws, Highway of Tears, Internet Freedom, Jewish Lobby Groups, Judge M. Church, Judge Morgan, National Post, National(Zionist)Post, Political Prisoners, Political Zionism, Quesnel BC, Quesnel Court House, Quesnel RCMP, Radical Press, RCMP Corruption, Richard Warman, Rothschild Zionist Criminal Cartel, Sec. 319(2) CC "Willful Promotion of Hatred", The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Zionism

A Very Merry Christmas to all Radical Press friends & supporters!

December 19, 2012 by admin Leave a Comment

Dear Supporter of Freedom of Speech and an open and free Internet,

On behalf of my lovely and dear wife Shastah and myself I would like to wish all our friends and supporters a very Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year in 2013.

In terms of Freedom of Speech 2012 has been one helluva poor year that began that way in the merry month of May when I was arrested and jailed and all of my computers and firearms stolen from my home. All these illegal and immoral acts were committed by the RCMP and justified on the lies and false allegations of two of Canada’s worse serial complainers working for the Israeli Jewish lobby here in Canada.

Thanks to the willing assistance of Canada’s foremost advocate and fighter for freedom of speech in Canada lawyer Douglas Christie we have been giving the haters of free speech a good run for the taxpayer’s money that is being spent in order to close down my website and silence one of the last remaining voices on the Internet in Canada who has been battling for all Canadians so that we can freely express our opinions and views without fear of thought police and politically correct terrorists beating down our doors and arresting us for openly and honestly speaking our minds.

Tomorrow, Wednesday, December 19, 2012 I must appear in the Quesnel court house where the Crown will once again be trying to stop me from publishing and using the Internet to defend myself agains these unjust and untrue allegations. The outcome of tomorrow’s bail hearing is yet to be determined but, as always, one must expect the Crown to do its utmost to fulfill the wishes of the Jewish lobbyists who pull the strings of the BC Attorney General’s office, the Crown and the RCMP.

Whether I will be able to provide any additional updates after the hearing tomorrow is as yet unknown and so for that reason I wanted to post our Christmas wishes to all who have been watching and assisting us during these trying times.

Whatever happens tomorrow it will not be the end of this ongoing battle for freedom of speech. I have full trust that we will win this case in the end.

Wishing you all Peace, Love, Happiness and Joy over the Christmas season and beyond.

Arthur Topham

Publisher and Editor

The Radical Press

_____________

Filed Under: Christmas, Editor's Zone, Free Speech, Free Speech on the Internet, Freedom of Expression, Freedom of Speech, Freedom of Thought, Peace & Love

Statement of Roy Arthur Topham regarding his Arrest on May 16th, 2012 on the charge of “Willful promotion of hatred CC 319(2)”

Who are the original creators of “Hate Crimes” and Hate Crime laws? by Arthur Topham

Speak your mind! Gandhi

The Trial of Guenter Deckert by Sylvia Stolz (English translation by Christine B. Miller)

Letter to Chief Judge of British Columbia from Jim Townsend

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

Honoring Doug Christie by James Holbeyfield, Counter-Currents Publishing

Priest Hails Free Speech Warrior Doug Christie as a “Saint”

In Praise of Doug Christie by Ian V. Macdonald

The Tyee: Zionist Collaborator and Hate-monger promotes Fear and Smear campaign against Doug Christie

Douglas H. Christie Passes Over March 11, 2013 Age 66 Rest In Peace

[VIDEO] Keep Fighting for Internet Free Speech – Repeal Section 13!

CANADIAN OUTLAWS: Truth, Christians and Free Speech fall prey to Zionist misfeasance by Arthur Topham

Radical Press Interview with Mark Glenn on The Ugly Truth BlogRadio Show

Marc Lemire Sec. 13 “Human Rights” Case Update – Feb, 2013

Radical Press Legal Update # 9

Canada’s Controlled News Media and the Vilification of the Idle No More movement by Arthur Topham

Sylvia Stolz, lawyer for Ernst Zundel, gives powerful lecture on Freedom of Speech after 31/2 prison term

Radical Press Legal Update #8

Richard Warman’s ‘Maximum Disruption’ Attacks upon Freedom of Speech in Canada from Marc Lemire at freedomsite.org

The Men Who Taste Jews in Their Sandwiches by Jim Goad

“Fuck you! Harper…Fuck you!” video by Natasha Hynes

Marc Lemire Case: the latest attack on Freedom of Speech by the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Radical Press Legal Update #7

A Very Merry Christmas to all Radical Press friends & supporters!

Donate via PayPal

Below Deck

Click to join Anti-Zionist Canada group

Pages

Recent Posts

Blogroll

Archives

Meta