Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 by Arthur Topham

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

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

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

Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Canada’s illegal witch-hunt: Arthur Topham trial continues Monday By Denis G. Rancourt

rancourtvtisraelgazaattack2014

In a shameful display of state hubris, Canada is using illegal concocted provisions of its Criminal Code to prosecute a citizen for innocuous postings on a personal blog (The Radical Press). The provisions allow a maximum 2-year prison sentence, where the state prosecutor (“Crown”) does not need to prove intent to harm or any actual harm to a single person. Intent and actual harm are not even relevant legal considerations in the proceeding. Both harm and intent are presumed.

The said Criminal Code provisions are straight out of the playbook of a totalitarian state.

The show trial was separated into two parts, despite the objections of the accused. In the first part the accused was found criminally guilty, for one blogpost, while not guilty for the other blogpost of the Crown’s charge. In the second part, which is scheduled to start tomorrow Monday October 3rd, the constitutionality of the law is being challenged on limited grounds. Any sentencing will be decided after the ruling on constitutionality.

The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.

The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.

Meanwhile, the “defendant” was gagged from identifying the original complainants (the usual crew) but allowed to continue blogging about the process until a conviction is finally secured, and has mounted a funding campaign for the expensive constitutional challenge.

These kinds of show-trial proceedings and the associated media assaults are attempts to create a false impression of a victimized Israel, to shield the apartheid state from international condemnation for its on-going violations of the Geneva Conventions, illegal annexation, constant violations of human rights, and mass-murder “mowing of the grass” in Gaza. Israel wants a free hand to continuously expand by the same criminal methods it has used for decades. Therefore, when successful, the domestic show trials (most prominent in Canada, France, and Germany) are geopolitical in character by virtue of Israel’s leading role in US interference in the Middle East, with Canada and France as lead accompanying sycophant states.

Canada’s Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has defended Arthur Topham against the state’s attack on freedom of thought and expression with several interventions. OCLA applies the principle that those who’s views are most at odds with orthodoxy and who are most aggressively attacked using the state apparatus are those most in need of civil defense.

The OCLA’s 2014 on-line petition to the state authority gathered over 1,400 signatures. OCLA also, in 2015, intervened by letter against other “civil liberties” associations that adopted a statement that harmed Mr. Topham’s case.

This year, OCLA intervened prior to the constitutional part of the trial by sending a letter directly to the trial judge, with all the state actors in cc. OCLA’s letter, reproduced below, spells out the illegal character of the criminal law being used in this particular show trial and witch hunt:

January 13, 2016
The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler, Supreme Court of British Columbia

Your Honour:

Re: Unconstitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry)

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) wishes to make this intervention, in letter form, to assist the Court in its hearing of the defendant’s constitutional challenge of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (“Code”), to be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The defendant submits that s. 319(2) of the Code infringes on the s. 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.[1]
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined and reaffirmed that the Charter must provide at least as much protection for basic freedoms as is found in the international human rights documents adopted by Canada:[2]
“And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”.”[Emphasis added.]
Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”). Article 19, para. 2 of the Covenant protects freedom of expression:[3]
“2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
Further, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment dated 12 September 2011, has specified that any restrictions[4] to the protection of freedom of expression “must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality”:[5]
“35. When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.” [Emphasis added.][6]
The impugned provision in the Code does not require the Crown to prove any actual harm, and no evidence of actual harm to any individual or group was presented in the trial of R. v. Topham. There is no “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Topham’s expression on his blog and any threat that would permit restriction of his expression.
The OCLA submits that the current jurisprudence of the Covenant, including the 2011 General Comment No. 34, represents both Canada’s obligation and the current status of reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, in relation to state-enforced limits on expression. The process and the jury-conviction to date in the instant case establish that s. 319(2) of the Code exceeds these limits, and is therefore not constitutional.
Furthermore, s. 319(2) of the Code allows a maximum punishment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. The Code punishment of imprisonment exceeds the “strict tests of necessity and proportionality” prescribed by the Covenant.
In addition, in paragraph 47 of General Comment No. 34, it is specified that: “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” [Emphasis added.] In the penal defamation envisaged in the Covenant, unlike in s. 319(2) in the Code, the state has an onus to prove actual harm.
And in relation to state concerns or prohibitions about so-called “Holocaust denial”, paragraph 49 of the said General Comment has:
“Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.”
Finally, the OCLA submits that the feature of s. 319(2) that gives the Attorney General direct say regarding proceeding to prosecution (the requirement for the Attorney General’s “consent”)[7] is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, wherein provisions in a statute cannot be subject to arbitrary application or be politically motivated or appear as such. The fundamental principle of the rule of law underlies the constitution.[8]
For these reasons, the OCLA is of the opinion that s. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society.
If the Court requests it, the OCLA will be pleased to make itself available to provide any further assistance in relation to the instant submission.
Yours sincerely,

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

[1] Defendant’s “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Charter Issues”, R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry.
[2] Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan [2015 SCC 4], at para. 64.
[3] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19, at para. 2.
[4] Ibid., Article 19, at para. 3, and Article 20.
[5] General Comment No. 34, UN Human Rights Committee [CCPR/C/GC/34], at para. 22.
[6] Ibid., at para. 35.
[7] Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), s. 319(6).
[8] For a recent example where unconstitutionality arising from the rule of law was the main issue before the court, see: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 (CanLII); and see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 SCR 139, 1991 CanLII 119 (SCC), p. 210 (i).


SOURCE ARTICLE

Enough Already! HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

EnjoughAlready!

HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

Holocaust deprogramming course

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

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

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

Escape From The Holocaust Lie by Arthur Topham

EscapeHoloHdr

Escape From The Holocaust Lie

By
Arthur Topham

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

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

DouglasHChristiecopy_zps43b1b5c0

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

tazebook_dees-1-copy

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

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

ZundelTrialFreeSpeechDC800 copy

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

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

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

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

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

As Doug Christie put it in his summation:

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

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

RaulHilbergPic

And the Beat(ing) Goes On

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

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

MonikaSchaeferSorryMomHdr copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5

What to do?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

RepealHateLaws-1000 copy 2

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

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

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

______

CANADA: The New Sodom and Gomorrah? By Arthur Topham

 

CANADASODOM?

CANADA: The New Sodom and Gomorrah?

By
Arthur Topham

On May 17th, 2016, a day recognized by the federal government as “International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia”, an edict emanated forth from Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s office (PMO) stating that the Liberal government was planning to make additional changes to the “Hate Propaganda” laws (Sections 318 to 320) of the Criminal Code of Canada in order to “protect” the nation’s sexually deviant members.

UpYoursTrudeauJr

The unabashed and strident manner in which the federal government is pushing forward with its controversial agenda of planned perversion and subversion of Canadian society (under the guise of supposed “human rights” for sexual aberrants) is an issue fraught with deep and troubling concern, not only those Canadians of the Christian faith who prefer to rely upon the eternal wisdom of God and Nature but also for millions of other citizens whose moral standards won’t permit them to accept the subversive and sinister hidden aim within the government’s mandate to criminalize public dissent and discussion on moral, ethical and health standards affecting the nation as a whole.

In the words of the PM, “To do its part, the Government of Canada today will introduce legislation that will help ensure transgender and other gender-diverse people can live according to their gender identity, free from discrimination, and protected from hate propaganda and hate crimes.”

FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP copy 4

The reality that the federal government intends to expand rather than repeal Section 318 – 320 of the Canadian Criminal Code is disconcerting  in itself given the excessively subjective nature of this draconian section of the Code. The concept of “Hate Propaganda” as a “criminal offence” is nothing less than a blatant example of government mind control; one that, here in Canada, has proven itself over the last half century of contentious litigation, to be extremely controversial, provocative and unjust and a clear and present danger to freedom of expression or “free speech” as defined by Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The alarm bells ought to be ringing across the country at the thought of this new “Liberal” government of Justin Trudeau pulling the Orwellian zipper of censorship even tighter over the mouths of Canada’s citizens than his predecessor Harper. It appears to be a new day but still the same old shit – of increasingly repressive laws and greater restrictions on individual freedoms theoretically guaranteed by our Charter.

5FeetFury copy

In fact the threat of expanding Canada’s “hate” laws to include ‘Tranny’(i.e. transvestite) protection has already angered and incensed Canadian bloggers as we see in the following reaction by Kathy Shaidle, one of the veterans of the previous “Section 13” wars that were ongoing during Harper’s reign.

As I’ve stated numerous times and especially in my essay Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” Laws, these Communist-inspired laws were surreptitiously and deliberately put in place through the mendacious actions of various Jewish lobby organizations such as the Canadian Jewish Congress, B’nai Brith Canada and, more recently, the newly-formed Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs, all of whom have worked in tandem for decades to ensure that issues to do with Israel and its Zionist ideological political system would ultimately fall within this section of the Code and therefore make any truthful and factual statements about important civil and national issues indictable offences.

What must be clearly understood from the start when discussing the issue of  “Hate Propaganda” laws is that the notion of elevating the natural emotional feeling of hatred into a pseudo-legal category wherein it becomes an indictable offence is purely an invention of the Zionist Jews and in certain respects an historical concomitant of the Bolshevik era’s Leninist/Stalinist totalitarian terror regimes. One could rightly state that its essential character is embodied in such classics of “hate” literature as Germany Must Perish!, a book written back in 1941 by the Jewish author Theodore N. Kaufman with the sole purpose of inciting America to hate Germany and then translate that hatred into the USA joining the Allies in their unjust war against the National Socialist government of Germany.

EyeOnFreeSpeech600

In a previous article entitled Canada: Hypocrite Nation Ruled by Zionist Deception & anti-Free Speech Laws I had the following to say about these despicable, sham legal subterfuges disguised as legitimate jurisprudence:

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

Reporting on this issue in Christian News Heather Clark remarks that apart from the criminal aspects of this proposed legislation there are those like Charles McVety, president of the Institute for Canadian Values and others who consider the bill to be “nebulous and reckless.”

Clark’s article goes on, “Bill C-16 is so vague, it is unenforceable,” he [McVety] said in a statement. “The fluid nature of gender identity is so nebulous that people can change their gender identity moment by moment. In that the bill seeks to change the Criminal Code of Canada, people may be sent to prison for two years over something that is ill-defined, and indeterminable.”

“It is also reckless as the proposed law will establish universal protection for any man who wishes to access women’s bathrooms or girls’ showers with momentary gender fluidity,” McVety continued. “Every Member of Parliament should examine their conscience over the potential of their vote exposing women and girls to male genitalia.”

JewShitter

In the context of our Charter rights Clark says, “There is also uncertainty as to how the law will be applied to free speech. As previously reported, in 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the conviction of activist William Whatcott, who found himself in hot water after distributing flyers regarding the Bible’s prohibitions against homosexuality throughout the Saskatoon and Regina neighborhoods in 2001 and 2002.”

Bill-Whatcott-Image

As Charles McVety rightfully stated the proposed Bill C-16 is definitely “nebulous and reckless” but as past convictions in both the cases of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and Section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code show, simply because it’s “vague” doesn’t mean that it isn’t “enforceable”. All it takes are judges and justices within the Canadian judicial system who will interpret and lend credence to subjective definitions of nebulous terms such as “hatred” so that they may then shapeshift into whatever meaning the Crown wishes in order to fit the charge. No better example currently exists than the latest and most severe case of Whatcott.

Conclusion: What’s coming next?

During the heated Sec. 13 Campaign here in Canada when the Canadian Human Rights Act was being wielded like a club by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and bloggers around the country were being bludgeoned and jailed, fined and nailed to the “hate crime” cross the Zionist element within the Conservative Right finally realized that the Sec. 13 legislation no longer was serving just their purposes but was being turned against them as well. As a result they garnered the support of Canada’s Zionist media monopoly and the lobbying to repeal the specious section of the Act was eventually accomplished back in June of 2012. Unfortunately they weren’t smart enough to realize that the “Hate Propaganda” laws within the Criminal Code were even more insidious than Sec. 13. They figured that as long as Sec. 319(2) of the ccc was there and could be used against critics of Israel and anyone else accused of “anti-Semitism” then that was just fine with them. To hell (or jail) with “freedom of speech” if it meant allowing bloggers to speak openly and frankly about the Jews or the Zionist empire builders.

But the tables appear to be turning once again as the new Liberal government of Justin Trudeau begins forcing their faggot philosophy down the throats of unwilling Canadians and then, on top of that monumental insult, threatens the nation with increased criminal penalties of up to two years in jail for anyone who doesn’t want to go happily and gayly along down the road to Sodom and Gomorrah carrying their little rainbow flag in hand.

Will they eventually start campaigning to repeal these anti-free speech laws contained in Sec. 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code and get rid of the last vestiges of Orwellian censorship in Canada?

Time will soon tell.

——

SUPPORTFREEDOMOFSPEECH

The upcoming challenge to this Zionist-created false flag legislation will determine once and for all whether or not Canada will adhere to the spirit and intent of its Charter of Rights and Freedoms or continue to bow down to foreign interests and sacrificing its citizen’s fundamental rights.
Please try to assist in this process by making a small donation to the cause. My GoGetFunding site can be found here: http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/
Standing for Canada and our democratic ideals I remain,
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) Newsletter – Spring 2016

OCLA Hdr

Update on the OCLA’s work so far in 2016.

Letter to Ontario MPPs opposing Bill 202, “Standing Up Against Anti-Semitism Act, 2016”

On May 19, the OCLA wrote to all Ontario MPPs calling for the rejection of legislation proposing to punish participants and supporters of the “Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions” movement. An NDP MPP responded that the NDP would not support the bill, and it was killed at second reading later that day, on a vote of 39-18 against.

Our letter can be read at the following link: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-05-19-OCLA-to-ON-MPPs-re-Bill-202.pdf

Video Interview with Dr. Bruce Clark

The OCLA has produced a must-see video interview with Bruce Clark, an expert on aboriginal rights jurisprudence and a dedicated advocate for aboriginal land rights in Canada. From defender of Aboriginal rights before Canadian and international courts to being jailed and disbarred for advancing legal arguments, Dr. Clark’s struggle is itself a mirror of Canada’s genocidal crimes.

5-min video excerpt: “Lawyer Bruce Clark – Canada’s Genocide”: https://youtu.be/wd-SVbA4wYM

Full 1-hr video interview: https://youtu.be/lp97_pKafC0

Petition: “Allow Cameras in Ontario’s Courts”

“Ontarians want to see their judges in action, want to see Crown attorneys make their arguments, want to see police witnesses testify under oath, and want to see the full court procedures. Likewise, litigants in family and civil courts, many of whom are self-represented litigants, want to know that they have the security of an actual open court.”

The above quote is from our petition statement calling for cameras in Ontario’s courts, as a needed measure to improve Ontario’s justice system. Please read and sign the petition at the following link: https://www.change.org/p/madeleine-allow-cameras-in-ontario-s-courts

Intervention re: Unconstitutionality of Canada’s “Hate Speech” Criminal Code provision (R. v. Topham)

The OCLA wrote to The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler of the Supreme Court of British Columbia to argue that the s. 319(2) “hate speech” provision of the Criminal Code of Canada is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society.

Our argument centred on the Supreme Court of Canada’s recent determinations that Canada must provide at least as much protection for basic freedoms as those found in the international human rights documents that Canada has adopted. The “hate speech” Criminal Code provision does not require the Crown to prove any actual harm, and therefore fails to meet the “strict test of necessity and proportionality” set out in the international human rights documents.

You can read the OCLA’s intervention letter at the following link: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/2016-01-13-Letter-OCLA-re-R-v-Topham.pdf

Letters about Mohamed Harkat and Hassan Diab

The OCLA contributed letters to support campaigns about two important and deeply disturbing cases of abuse of individuals by the Canadian state:

1) OCLA letter to the Minister of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness asking for a stay of the deportation proceedings against Mohamed Harkat: http://ocla.ca/ocla-letter-canadas-threatened-expulsion-of-refugee-mohamed-harkat/

2) OCLA letter to the Minister of Justice of Canada asking for the return to Canada of Dr. Hassan Diab: http://ocla.ca/ocla-letter-hassan-diab-case-and-protection-of-canadian-citizens/

Article: “Canadian Defamation Law is Noncompliant with International Law”

Dr. Denis Rancourt prepared a critical article about Canada’s law of defamation for the OCLA. The article was published online on Feb. 1, 2016, and is available at the following link: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/DGR-Canadian-Defamation-Law-Violates-ICCPR-for-posting.pdf

From the article:

“SUMMARY: Defamation law in Canada is contrary to international law, in both design and practice. (…) With Canadian civil defamation law, the state has unfettered discretion from an unwritten common law that provides presumed falsity, presumed malice, unlimited presumed damages, and broad gag orders enforceable by jail, using a subjective judicial test for “defamation” without requiring any evidence of actual damage to reputation. (…)”

OCLA Director Speaks at Got Law? Mini-Course and “Charter for Children” Book Launch

OCLA Executive Director Joseph Hickey was a guest speaker at the Got Law? mini-course taught by Barbara Ann Vocisano of Legal Education Consultants at Carleton University on May 3, and at the launch of the French translation of Dustin Milligan’s book series “The Charter for Children” (“La Charte pour les enfants”) at the Ottawa Public Library on May 14.

OCLA in the News

• Feb.8, 2016: Interview re: DNA order in animal abuse case, Talk Radio AM640, Toronto: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/2016-02-08-Talk-Radio-AM640-Toronto-Ryan-Bonnar-DNA-dog-case.wav

• Apr. 19, 2016: Interview (in French) re: OCLA petition to allow cameras in Ontario’s courts, TV Rogers Ottawa: https://youtu.be/u1XuzHuOwqM

• May 19, 2016: “Overcoming ‘Divisive Politics of Fear’, Ontario Rejects Anti-BDS Bill”, CommonDreams: http://www.commondreams.org/news/2016/05/19/overcoming-divisive-politics-fear-ontario-rejects-anti-bds-bill

Full list of media articles at: http://ocla.ca/our-work/media-coverage/

How to Stay Connected and Donate to the OCLA

Twitter: @oncivlib

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/groups/110883345731728/

The OCLA is an independent, volunteer-run organization. Donations help cover operating costs such as booking rooms for public events, printing promotional material for campaigns and events, and paying for court filing fees and court document production costs (copies and binding) regarding court and tribunal interventions on civil liberties issues.

As we are an entirely volunteer-run organization with a very small budget, we do depend on donations to continue our work, and appreciate any contribution you can make.

Donations can be made in two ways:

1) Through Paypal, by clicking the “Donate” button in the top-right corner of http://ocla.ca; or

2) By sending a cheque to “Ontario Civil Liberties Association” to our mailing address:

Ontario Civil Liberties Association

180 Metcalfe Street, Suite 20

Ottawa, Ontario

Canada K2P 1P5

Thank you for your support!

Yours truly,

 

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)

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

SUPPORTFREEDOMOFSPEECH

ATEDITOR0216

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Standing for Canada and our democratic ideals I remain,

Sincerely,

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

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN CANADA IS STILL UNDER ATTACK!

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

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

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

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

Dear Free Speech Supporters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank You so much!

OCLA Intervenes in R v. Topham Constitutional Challenge to Sec. 319(2) of Criminal Code of Canada

RPEdNew400-copy-3

Editor’s Note: It’s with a continuing sense of gratification and appreciation that I post the following letter by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) sent out today, January 13th, 2016 in support of my Constitutional challenge to Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code

The OCLA has been the only civil liberties association at the forefront in Canada in their determined efforts to bring a sense of clarity, fairness, honesty and responsibility to the nation’s legal jurisprudence insofar as it applies to Charter issues and in particular the fundamental issue of freedom of expression as guaranteed under Sec. 2b of said Charter.

All their efforts toward ridding this nation of these draconian, anti-democratic “hate crime” laws that only serve vested interests and serve to silence the vast majority of decent, thoughtful citizens are extremely important and should be supported. 
 
There are very strong arguments for defeating this legislation and I would hope to see similar actions by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the British Columbia Civil Liberties Association and every other civil minded organization in Canada that has the nation’s best interests at heart. Now that we have a new and more liberal government in power the opportunity is there for our leaders to do what the previous governments never had the integrity to do – given the people their voice back!

Please try to share this post with as many others as you can.

Sincerely,

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

Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 1.08.46 PM

Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 1.20.02 PM

January 13, 2016                                                                                                    By Mail and Fax

The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler
Supreme Court of British Columbia

Your Honour:

Re: Unconstitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry)

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) wishes to make this intervention, in letter form, to assist the Court in its hearing of the defendant’s constitutional challenge of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (“Code”), to be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.

The defendant submits that s. 319(2) of the Code infringes on the s. 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom, and is not saved by s. 1 of the Charter. [1]

The Supreme Court of Canada has determined and reaffirmed that the Charter must provide at least as much protection for basic freedoms as is found in the international human rights documents adopted by Canada: [2]

And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”. [Emphasis added].

Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”). Article 19, para. 2 of the Covenant protects freedom of expression: [3]

2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.

–––––––––––––––––––
[1]  Defendant’s “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Charter Issues”, R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry.
[2]  Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan [2015 SCC 4], at para. 64.
[3]  International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19, at para. 2.

 

2/

Further, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment dated 12 September 2011, has specified that any restrictions[4] to the protection of freedom of expression “must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality”: [5]

35. When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat. [Emphasis added.] [6]

The impugned provision in the Code does not require the Crown to prove any actual harm, and no evidence of actual harm to any individual or group was presented in the trial of R. v. Topham. There is no “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Topham’s expression on his blog and any threat that would permit restriction of his expression.

The OCLA submits that the current jurisprudence of the Covenant, including the 2011 General Comment No. 34, represents both Canada’s obligation and the current status of reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, in relation to state-enforced limits on expression. The process and the jury-conviction to date in the instant case establish that s. 319(2) of the Code exceeds these limits, and is therefore not constitutional.

Furthermore, s. 319(2) of the Code allows a maximum punishment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. The Code punishment of imprisonment exceeds the “strict tests of necessity and proportionality” prescribed by the Covenant.

In addition, in paragraph 47 of General Comment No. 34, it is specified that: “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” [Emphasis added.] In the penal defamation envisaged in the Covenant, unlike in s. 319(2) in the Code, the state has an onus to prove actual harm.

And in relation to state concerns or prohibitions about so-called “Holocaust denial”, paragraph 49 of the said General Comment has:

Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.

Finally, the OCLA submits that the feature of s. 31 9(2) that gives the Attorney General direct say regarding proceeding to prosecution (the requirement for the Attorney General’s “consent”) [7] is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, wherein

––––––––––––––––––––
[4]  Ibid., Article 19, at para. 3, and Article 20.
[5]  General Comment No. 34, UN Human Rights Committee [CCPR/C/GC/34], at para. 22.
[6]  Ibid., at para. 35.
[7]  Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), s. 319(6).

3/

provisions in a statute cannot be subject to arbitrary application or be politically motivated or appear as such. The fundamental principle of the rule of law underlies the constitution. [8]

For these reasons, the OCLA is of the opinion that s. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society.

lf the Court requests it, the OCLA will be pleased to make itself available to provide any further assistance in relation to the instant submission.

 

Yours sincerely,

Screen Shot 2016-01-13 at 3.54.11 PM
Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)
joseph.hickey@ocla.ca

To:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler
Judge’s Chambers
Supreme Court of British Columbia
800 Smithe Street
Vancouver, BC
V6Z 2E1
Fax: 604-660-2418

And copy to:

The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler
Judge’s Chambers
Supreme Court of British Columbia
305-350 Barlow Avenue
Quesnel, BC
V2J 2C1
Fax: 250-992-4171
––––––––––––––––––

8  For a recent example where unconstitutionality arising from the rule of law was the main issue before the court, see: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 (CanLll); and see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 SCR 139, 1991 CanLll 119 (SCC), p. 210 (i).

 

4/

And to:

Barclay W. Johnson
Barrister, Solicitor & Notary
Counsel for the Defendant
1027 Pandora Avenue,
Victoria, BC
Fax: 250-413-3110

Rodney G. Garson
Prosecution Support Unit
Crown Law Division
Ministry of Justice
3rd Floor – 940 Blanshard Street
Victoria, BC
Fax: 250-387-4262

The Honourable Suzanne Anton
Attorney General of BC
JAG.Minister@gov.bc.ca
suzanne.anton.MLA@leg.bc.ca

The Honourable Jody Wilson-Raybould
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
mcu@justice.gc.ca
Jody.Wilson-Raybould@parl.gc.ca

——–

VIEW SOURCE PDF HERE: 2016-01-13-Letter-OCLA-re-R-v-Topham

Press Release: OCLA Denounces the Hate Speech Criminal Prosecution of Arthur Topham

From: Joseph Hickey – OCLA [mailto:joseph.hickey@ocla.ca]
Sent: November 9, 2015 11:22 AM
To: ‘Joseph Hickey – OCLA’
Subject: OCLA Denounces the Hate Speech Criminal Prosecution of Arthur Topham

OCLA Hdr copy 3

OCLA Denounces the Hate Speech Criminal Prosecution of Arthur Topham

(Ottawa, November 9, 2015) – The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) denounces the criminal prosecution of Mr. Arthur Topham taking place in Quesnel, BC.

Mr. Topham is on trial for charges under the “hate speech” provisions of Canada’s Criminal Code (s. 319(2)). The Crown is expected to make its closing statements today.

These provisions criminalize belief, opinion, and expression of one’s beliefs and opinions, and are incompatible with the universal principle of free debate in a democracy.

No person should ever be subjected to a criminal prosecution without the state having the onus to show actual harm to a person and intent to produce the actual harm, beyond a reasonable doubt.

The “crime” in essence is in the abstract, regarding production of an emotional response “at large”. No actual effect or imminent danger need be demonstrated by the Crown. The Crown will not rely on showing actual harm or intent to harm.

Canada’s “hate crime” provisions require specific consent from the province’s Attorney General for a prosecution to proceed. This feature makes the state’s decision about whether or not to prosecute alleged “hate crimes” particularly susceptible to political influences. In the present political climate in Canada, cases where the expression can negatively impact public opinion about Canada’s diplomatic and military support for US and Israel policy and actions in the Middle East, or where state suppression of targeted expression supports the geopolitical goals of the US and Israel in the Middle East, are among those which are most at risk from being attacked using disproportionate means wielded by the state.

In September 2014, the OCLA launched a petition to the Attorney General of BC asking that she retract her consent for the criminal proceedings against Mr. Topham. The petition, which gathered over 1,400 signatures, can be viewed online at the following link: https://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham

All expression stems from the individual’s experience and perception, and is therefore of value to society, in that it reveals points of view for evaluation. Any individual’s expression of any view is needed content in the struggle for greater democracy and understanding. The OCLA defends Mr. Topham’s expression of his views, along with any other person’s expression of any view. The health of our democracy depends on freedom of speech.

The “hate speech” provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada are irreconcilable with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and should be repealed. They are an offence against decency and human rights.

 About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association

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

 

Contact:

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca

613-252-6148 (c)

joseph.hickey@ocla.ca

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM

ATEditorPic185

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

by
Arthur Topham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NetfirmsWilsonLet

Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner

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

Len Rudner copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

BCHCTFILE 2007-23814

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

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

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

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

Defence Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon

GILAD&BARCLAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crown’s Cross Examination of Gilad Atzmon

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

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

Gilad Atzmon: No.

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

Defence’s Summation to the Jury

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final observations on Crown’s handling of evidence

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.13.33 PM

Still to come

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

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

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

Arthur & the Jews The controversy over freedom of speech By Arthur Topham, Publisher & Editor RadicalPress.com

Arthur&TheJewsFINAL

Arthur & the Jews

The controversy over freedom of speech

By

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
RadicalPress.com

October 23, 2015

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

~ Jesus Christ, John, Ch. 8, Verse 32

“For nothing is secret that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.”

~ Jesus Christ, Ch. 8, Verse 17

“If this book has any sombre look, that is the native hue of the story it tells, not the reflection of my own cast of mind. I have written with feeling: the feeling of a contemporary, participant, eye-witness and of a journalist thwarted in his calling, which in my belief should serve truth without fear or favour, not special interests. I have seen more of the events of our century and of the secret perversions of national purposes than most, and have discovered through this experience that it was not all chance, but design. Therefore I have written a protest, but it is a protest against the suppression of truth, not against life.”

~ Douglas Reed, The Controversy of Zion (1956), Epilogue, P. 568

 

Two days from the time of this writing, on October 26th, 2015, a trial in B.C. Supreme Court involving the case of Regina v Roy Arthur Topham will commence in the small city of Quesnel, located in the central interior of the province of British Columbia in an area known as the Cariboo.

In essence this isn’t just the trial of Arthur Topham based upon a politically motivated and spurious Sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada “Hate Propaganda” charge initiated by one of Canada’s largest Zionist Jew lobby organization, B’nai Brith Canada. It’s far more than that. What will be on trial from October 26th to November 6th is the legal entitlement of all Canadians to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression, both on and off the Internet –  as written in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec. 2b which states that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication“.

The outcome of the trial will determine whether or not Canada is, in fact, a truly open and free democracy or a nation whose sovereignty and freedom has been compromised by the wilful, premeditated actions of foreign lobbyists inimical to the country as a whole. In other words Freedom of Speech will be on trial.

The charge itself ought to be clearly understood by everyone concerned about their rights and freedoms as Canadians. Thus we see that the charge under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

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

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Butler will preside and a jury of twelve men and women will make the final determination of guilty or not guilty.

EndHateCrimeLegislation 2 copy 2

Basically, to narrow it down to its core intent, I am being charged with willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin based upon the multitude of articles and online books which I have published on my website prior to and since April 28th, 2011 when the complaint was officially laid against me by Canada’s most controversial serial complainant in the history of the human rights industry. Within a month of the first complaint being laid a second individual, an agent working for the League of Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, also filed an identical charge.

Upon receiving the complaints, the head of the BC Hate Crime Team, former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson located in Surrey, B.C. along with his partner Cst. Normandie Levas, initiated an investigation into the allegations. What was unknown to me at the time was that all three of these individuals knew each other and had known each other in some cases for as long as fifteen years and all three of them were in the “business” of hunting down and attacking individuals and website owners who were being critical of the foreign Zionist state of Israel and/or its ideology known as Zionism.

In fact the two complainants in the Sec. 319(2) complaint were known to be friends and associates as far back as 2007 when one of the same complainants, a Zionist Jew working for B’nai Brith Canada first laid a similar complaint against my person and my website RadicalPress.com using the now repealed Canadian Human Rights Act legislation known as Sec. 13. In other words I have been attacked by this foreign Zionist lobby organization now for the past nine years and have been in a constant battle with them to retain my basic human rights.

The whole of Crown’s case rests upon the key terms “willfully” and “hatred”, which, in the case of the latter term “hatred”, any person of common sense will realize, is a word that, like its opposite, “love”, is imbued with multiple meanings, all of which are based upon subjective emotions of one type or another.

Now there are some serious problems that accompany an allegation which accuses a person of “hating” a whole “identifiable group” such as the “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin” based upon not only his own writings but also the written works of dozens of other writers, journalists, video producers, talk show hosts, artists, musicians and so on and these problems will undoubtedly come up during the course of the trial.

FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP copy 3

Without going into too much further detail surrounding the spurious nature of the charge of promoting “hatred” toward all the Jews of the world (an accusation arising from comments made to me by former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson during the time I was incarcerated after my arrest on May 16th, 2012) I would rather focus on letting readers know a bit about who I really am and what my life has been all about since at least the year 1967 when I first became involved in what is now commonly referred to as “political activism” or “social activism”.

I was twenty years old and in my second year of university at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C. in 1967. For those who were too young to remember the Sixties or weren’t born yet, it was a period of history not that different from the world we’re now living in. Wars were rampant then as they are now. Protests and civil rights and civil liberties were still in their nascent stages of development relative to today’s scene but people were demanding their rights in the Sixties just as they still are today. Police brutality and corporate crime and political corruption were as widespread then as they are now and the mainstream media in 1967 was basically just as controlled by the Zionists as it is today. The only fundamental difference really was the sudden and unexpected appearance throughout Western society of what became known as the Hippie Movement. It was that previously unheard of phenomenon that attracted me and countless others and became the focus of my life; one which has never ceased or abated since I first became involved with it.

The watchwords of the Hippie Movement were “Love” and “Peace” and our collective efforts to manifest those two positive, life-enhancing moral qualities throughout the war-torn society of our day were what inspired millions of my generation to work toward a world where violence and war and terror and hatred would end forever to be replaced by the fundamental Christian values and precepts taught by Jesus Christ, values that included learning to love each other and respect each other as well as caring for the Earth Mother that sustained us all. These were my guiding principles throughout my life and remain so to this very day.

With that in mind the accusation of the Zionist lobbyists, when it comes to dealing with their own hatred of anything or anyone who doesn’t support their ideological objectives or the actions of the foreign state of Israel and its parallel objectives, that every critic of their political agenda “hates” all the Jews in the world is utterly preposterous and beyond all comprehension. Having fashioned the term “hatred” into a twisted, Talmudic talisman of loathing and contempt through generations of endless propaganda emanating from their own controlled media and then inserting the word into Canadian jurisprudence via legal subterfuge and political influence, they now feel that they have the judicial wherewithal to attack their perceived enemies and somehow stem the unstoppable tide of political and spiritual awareness that was birthed in the Sixties and then embellished beyond comprehension and control in Nineties with the advent of the World Wide Web.

The controversy surrounding the Jews throughout history has now reached the point of culmination. Their mission to stop the truth from being revealed. whenever it applies to their own culpable actions, by using the criminal court system to attack the truth revealers is doomed to end in failure just as their efforts to stop the Internet from exposing their heinous acts of terror and murder and destruction perpetrated upon the defenceless Semitic people of Palestine has proven to be unstoppable.

The Age of Orwellian Censorship is coming to an end and it behooves all people of all races, nationalities, ethnicities and colour including the Jews to recognize that no single group of people has the right or the power or the ability to stem the tide of evolutionary consciousness that’s now happening on this planet.

It’s for these basic reasons that I have fought against the Zionist efforts to control our basic human rights over the past nine years. Now we will see if the country is willing to protect its most precious of gift – the freedom to speak one’s mind and express one’s views on whatever issues they deem of value to sustain our God given right to live in peace and happiness without fear and war.

I pray that God will grant us the wisdom to choose freedom over censorship and love over hate.

•••0•••

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

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

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

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

 

Interview with Joseph Hickey of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association by Ezra Levant on Arthur Topham’s Sec. 319(2) criminal case

ATEditorPic185

Editor’s Note: Only recently did I learn that Joseph Hickey, Director of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) had been interviewed by former SunNews television personality Ezra Levant on his show “The Source” after the OCLA came out in defence of my criminal charges brought forth by the actions of B’nai Brith Canada, Israel’s principal lobby group operating within our country.

Screen Shot 2015-09-26 at 10.58.56 AM

True to Zionist form Ezra Levant introduces the topic of discussion by making false, misleading pronouncements about myself (calling me “anti-Semitic” and implying that my website RadicalPress.com is guilty of publishing “Hatred” toward the Jews and then also suggests that Joseph Hickey undoubtedly would agree with him [he doesn’t]) but then moves into a discussion with Mr. Hickey about why his organization volunteered to come to my support.

Mr. Hickey’s position with respect to Canada’s so-called “Hate Speech” laws is clear and unequivocal: he doesn’t feel that such legislation is required in a free and democratic society.

Again, one other example of the Zionist media monopoly’s misfeasance and disinformation propaganda occurs in the video when Levant shows an image of the digital “book” cover that I created for my satire on Theodore Kaufman’s actual book “Germany Must Perish!” and portrays it to the viewing audience as if it were an actual book. Of course he conveniently overlooks mentioning the real book that was written by a real Jew back in 1941 and thus conveys a false image of my work and my website.

Screen Shot 2015-09-26 at 11.00.03 AM

This video is well worth viewing and sharing with others as it clearly shows how the Zionist media functions in order to suppress free expression and vilify those who exercise it but more importantly it also shows that there is a strong and growing support for the repeal of these Zionist created “hate crime” laws in the form of civil liberty associations such as the OCLA.

I wish to acknowledge Joseph Hickey’s stand on this vital issue and thank him (belatedly) for having presented his positive position in a clear and understandable fashion.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_MxPOUzZuw&feature=youtu.be

••••  ••••

Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial in October by making a donation.

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

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

Pianist Valentina Lisitsa: latest victim of Canada’s pro-Zionist Sec. 319(2) Hate Propaganda laws By Arthur Topham

VLHeader

Pianist Valentina Lisitsa:

latest victim of Canada’s pro-Zionist Sec. 319(2) Hate Propaganda laws  

By

Arthur Topham

“We don’t have freedom of speech to protect only those we agree with, or those whose views are inoffensive. We have it precisely to protect people who have unpopular or even outrageous opinions.”

Editorial, Toronto Star, April 7, 2015

“It’s really hard to come up with words to praise her highly enough because this is someone the world needs to hear.”

Michael Fine, Producer, Valentina Lisitsa’s Rachmaninoff Project at London’s Abbey Road Studio with the London Philharmonic Orchestra

Preliminary remarks

Back on April 27th, 2011, just days prior to Canada’s May 2nd federal election that saw the Stephen Harper Conservative government ascend to power, I penned and published an article titled, Hating Harper. The purpose of the piece was two-fold; first, to highlight my own battle with the then despicable Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” legislation that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and B’nai Brith Canada had been using against me since 2007 and second, to warn the Canadian electorate of the potentially dire consequences for the nation should the Conservative win a majority government.

The essay outlined what I felt were the root reasons why Canadians shouldn’t vote for this particular party. In part it contained the following:

Plainly stated Canada is a Zionist Jew-controlled colony of the state of Israel. . . While hidden for over six decades from the majority of Canadians by the Zionist-controlled media’s ‘Iron Curtain’ of deception it is nonetheless an established fact and a reality that must be faced if the nation is to ever recover its former independence and sovereignty.

Anyone who desires to dispute this assertion has to explain and justify to the people of Canada why there is not a single federal political party in the country willing to stand up to the Zionist Jew lobby that now wields such a sinister political influence upon the nation. To attempt a negation of the argument without speaking to this issue can only be construed as evasion and denial.

In the thick of yet another federal election, with Harper and his Conservative party striving with utmost intent to gain a majority government, this pseudo-Semitic elephant in the midst of Canada’s political/judicial/cultural/social living room blithely goes about its business of knocking over, crushing and destroying the country’s constitutional rights along with trammeling upon its domestic and foreign policies, all the while aided and abetted in its traitorous actions by a colluding, fifth column ‘mainstream’ media; itself but another monopoly controlled weapon within the Zionist’s plethoric armory of subterfuge and deception. . .

Screen Shot 2015-04-09 at 11.17.33 AM

. . .The Conservative government of Stephen Harper is a contemptible Trojan Horse. Like previous governments it was dragged into Ottawa under the pretense of being the best option for Canadians to preserve not only their integrity as a free and democratic nation but to set a good example for the rest of the world; one that other nations might look up to and aspire after in the hope that someday they would also reap the benefits that a free society and sovereign democracy can offer to its people. This has not been the case. As we can see from the graphic immediately above there is a specific, self-chosen group of zealots who, through subterfuge and the power of their usurious ‘purse’ plus their Babylonian Talmud-inspired ideology known as Zionism, have a totally different agenda in store for the nation.

Voters, who for the most part have been deceived by the pundits and the Zionist-controlled talking heads within their media, remain unaware of this insidious threat to our sovereignty. Were Canadians fully apprised of the seditious nature of the Zionist Jews within their nation’s walls they would likely vote en masse to rid the country of this omnipresent danger. But they aren’t and so the country once again teeters on the brink of the unknowing. Should the false saviour of Canada, Stephen Harper, achieve his mandate to rule over us with his Zionist rod then maybe that will be the time for a new movement to arise and a new federal party to germinate; one that will address the issues I’ve delineated in this essay plus all the others not covered. The key to our future as a sovereign nation is to understand how the Zionist agenda operates, not only in Canada but throughout the world. Without that key we will continue to remain prisoners of Zion.”

On April 28, 2011, the day after my article appeared on the net Canada’s #1 serial “hate crime” complainant working for the Canadian Jewish lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada (a court order prohibits me from mentioning his name), filed a Sec. 319(2) CCC complaint against myself and my website RadicalPress.com alleging that I was “promoting hatred toward Jews”.

On May 30, 2011, less than a month after the Harper Conservative government won the election, a second Sec. 319(2) CCC “hate propaganda” complaint was filed against me and my website by a representative of B’nai Brith Canada (a court order prohibits me from mentioning his name as well) also accusing me of “promoting hatred toward Jews”.

Both of these complaints were received by the BC Hate Crime Team in Surrey, B.C. and an investigation was undertaken by Det. Cst. Terry Wilson. A year later on May 16th, 2012 I was arrested by the BC Hate Crime Team while traveling to work and placed in a jail cell while the RCMP illegally entered my premises using a trumped up “search warrant” and stole all of my computers and electronic files containing well over a hundred thousand private emails.

I have been fighting this second, specious criminal charge that could result in a two year jail sentence ever since. The case is now in BC Supreme Court with a trial date set for October 26th, 2015.

With the one exception of my home town community newspaper the Quesnel Cariboo Observer and its illustrious editor Autumn Macdonald, ever since 2012 my story has been virtually blacked out by Canada’s mainstream media. Nothing, other than the usual smear and slander that appeared back in the msm in November of 2012 when the Indictment was formally handed down by the BC Attorney General’s office, has come out in the press since relating to the mis-use of these so-called  “Hate Propaganda” laws.

The Discordant Case of Valentina Lisitsa

lisitsa

The recent case of world renowned pianist Valentina Lisitsa has once again highlighted the hypocrisy, bigotry and outright malfeasance that pervades Canada’s judiciary and the nation’s cultural and social media environment when it comes to using the “hate” card, aka Sections 318 – 320 of Canada’s Criminal Code, to harass, intimidate and slander anyone whose opinions and political viewpoints don’t fall in line with the expected (and calculated) agenda of the Zionist interlopers who now control the Prime Minister’s office, his cabinet and, thus far, the leaders of all the other federal parties.

In an article published April 7th, 2015 in the Globe & Mail, reporter Robert Everett-Green writes: “On March 13, Ms. Lisitsa said, the TSO [Toronto Symphany Orchestra] forwarded to Ms. Dorn an e-mail from Toronto lawyer Michael C. Smith that cited section 319 of the Criminal Code concerning “wilful promotion of hatred,” and said “there is a possibility that Ms. Lisitsa could be stopped at the border … and deemed ‘unacceptable’ to Canada.” An attached note from Mr. Melanson, who is not a lawyer, went further, stating that Ms Lisitsa’s social media posts “would likely breach or come close to breaching the Criminal Code of Canada.” Ms. Lisitsa replied with her lawyer’s opinion rejecting that of Mr. Smith. [All emphasis added.]

So what exactly does Canada’s Criminal Code say about “hate” – this oft used and ever abused term that the Zionist lobbyist has managed to inject, via subterfuge, into the country’s legal system and their media tool kit? The Code reads:

Wilful promotion of hatred

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

(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or

(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Judging from the wording of the text we find that just like the term “terrorist” there’s no actual definition given as to what the word “hatred” means. In other words it is subjective and means whatever a person or lawyer or judge decides it means to them. This fact renders it useless in terms of trying to argue against it or debate it once the word has been inserted into jurisprudence thus making it merely a tool for intimidation and control in the same way that the term “anti-Semite” has been used for the last century to browbeat and demonize anyone who so much as issues a dissenting sigh in hearing distance of a Zionist Jew or one of their sycophantic lackeys.

The same has now become true for the “6 million” holocaust debate wherein an accusation of being a “holocaust denier” has taken on the same legal authority in certain countries and is being used to censor proven historical facts and jail anyone who so much as questions whether the alleged event ever occurred in real time or disputes the purported numbers.

As an editorial in the Toronto Star on April 7 put it the Ukrainian-born pianist shouldn’t have been prevented from performing with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, adding that, “In a particularly weak explanation of why the orchestra was dropping her, TSO president Jeff Melanson said Lisitsa was bounced over “ongoing accusations of deeply offensive language by Ukrainian media outlets.” And, he added: “As one of Canada’s most important cultural institutions, our priority must remain on being a stage for the world’s great works of music, and not for opinions that some believe to be deeply offensive.”

This misses the point on at least two counts. First, Lisitsa was not invited to Toronto to discuss her provocative political views. She was scheduled to play the piano. And second, banning a musician for expressing “opinions that some believe to be offensive” shows an utter failure to grasp the concept of free speech.

We don’t have freedom of speech to protect only those we agree with, or those whose views are inoffensive. We have it precisely to protect people who have unpopular or even outrageous opinions.

Again, in a subsequent article on April 9 in the same publication writer  Vinay Menon adds, “It’s a good thing Jeff Melanson isn’t running our public library system. Or the city would need to hire 2,000 firefighters to keep up with all the book burnings this summer. . . Am I being unfair to Melanson, chief executive of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra? Perhaps! But this is my opinion and, here in Canada, we are allowed to express opinions, even ones that may seem unfair and offensive.”

Menon further states, “The spiritual charter of any cultural institution, important or otherwise, must have certain words etched between the operational lines, including ‘freedom of expression‘ and ‘don’t cave to special interests.‘”

Valentina Quote graphic800

It’s a well established fact that those who accuse others of “promoting hatred” are, themselves, the ones who hate to hear the truth and therefore resort to Canada’s infamous “Hate Propaganda” laws in order to stifle any discussion related to their own questionable actions. Such has been my own experience in dealing with my accusers and, as we can see from Valentina’s encounter with the bureaucrats who run the Toronto Symphony Orchestra she ran into this this same mindset; one that invariably displays both a lack of integrity and the inability to talk openly and honestly about their intentions or their ultimate agenda.

Are we finally seeing a change in attitude on the part of Canada’s mainstream media when it comes to actually challenging Canada’s ill-conceived “Hate Propaganda” laws contained in Section 318 – 320 of the Criminal Code?

Is Canada’s media, the same organ that trumpeted the call for the repeal of Sec. 13(1) now going to tackle the final citadel of censorship, Section 319 of the Criminal Code? If so then they’ll also have to start considering lending a positive voice to organizations like the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, the one and only civil liberties group in Canada to date that is openly supporting my legal case and the repeal of these Orwellian “Hate” laws that reap nothing but repression, opprobrium and the loss of free expression for all Canadians and others like pianist Valentina Lisitsa.

The time is long past for Canada to resume its former role as a free and democratic nation and nothing will ensure that this happens more than the country ridding itself of all its Zionist-induced “Hate” legislation.

—–

 

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

KarmaEzra 1000 copy

KARMA: Ezra Levant, Zionism & the Politics of Deception

by

Arthur Topham

“What goes around comes around”

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

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

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

EzraLrg copy 5

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2013-01-27 at 3.38.53 PM copy

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

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

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

EzraLevant 1 copy 8

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

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

EzraFF1000 copy

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

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

~*~

Further articles on Ezra Levant by Arthur Topham:

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

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

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

Why I Ought to Sue Ezra Levant November 11, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 8.07.14 PM copy

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

Screen Shot 2014-11-09 at 11.05.10 PM

ATEditorRP300 copy

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

Bolshevik Laws in Canada to Penalize Speaking out against Jews

COMMIE-JEW-NKVD-e1415565931817

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

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

anti-semitism-7-e1415566239164

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

From the article “The Jewish Takeover of America“,

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

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

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

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

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

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

UnbrokenCovenant500x230-e1415566413172

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

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

An Ideological War

jewish-racism31-e1415566722470

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

GermanyPerishFBCovers-copy-3-e1415566765892

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

From the article “The Jewish Takeover of America”,

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

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

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

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

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

Seymour Zak
October 4, 2014 at 11:42 am

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

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

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

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

Arthur-Topham-Fundraising

Arthur Topham on ITEL Radio – 11.8.14

Click on link below to listen in:

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

————-

OCLA Petition to B.C. Attorney General Hon. Suzanne Anton now over the 1100 signature mark By Radical Press

 

OCLAPetMarkNew

The OCLA petition is now just over 1100 signatures and slowly wending its way upward toward the 1500 mark. PLEASE! if you haven’t read and signed it and added a comment consider doing so. Anyone who values freedom of expression in Canada certainly shouldn’t overlook this opportunity to let our “leaders” know just how much we value this civil right of ours. 

Please click on the link below to go to petition:
http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created

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

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

HarperPolicy

Foreign policy shift puts Canada in extremists’ crosshairs

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

October 23, 2014 

by

Massoud Hayoun @mhayoun Google+

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

——-

When the Chicken-Hawks Come Home to Roost: Harper’s War on Terror lays a gold egg for further Zionist Repression in Canada By Arthur Topham

GoldenZioEggHdr

When the Chicken-Hawks Come Home to Roost: 

Harper’s War on Terror lays a gold egg for further Zionist Repression  in Canada  

By 

Arthur Topham

October 23, 2014

“By such measure we shall obtain the power of destroying little by little, step by step, all that at the outset when we enter on our rights, we are compelled to introduce into the constitutions of States to prepare for the transition to an imperceptible abolition of every kind of constitution, and then the time is come to turn every form of government into our despotism…. But you yourselves perfectly well know that to produce the possibility of the expression of such wishes by all the nations it is indispensable to trouble in all countries the people’s relations with their governments so as to utterly exhaust humanity with dissension, hatred, struggle, envy and even by the use of torture, by starvation, by the innoculation of diseases, by want, so that the “goyim” see no other issue than to take refuge in our complete sovereignty in money and in all else…. But if we give the nations of the world a breathing space the moment we long for is hardly likely ever to arrive.”

Protocol No. 10, Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

 

By all standards of logic and recent vicissitudes of world history it was inevitable that sooner or later an event like the shooting at Canada’s Parliament would occur.

Like other similar acts of violence perpetrated in the USA since September 11, 2001, it’s beyond doubt that they are all, in one form or another, related to the underlying ideology and political agenda of the Zionist state of Israel, the world’s foremost rogue nation whose principal business plan is the promotion of a malevolent, psychopathic, power-driven, worldwide program of terror and fear designed with the sole purpose of dividing and destroying sovereign nations through the creation of deceptive false flag events, endless wars, media disinformation and economic insecurity, all of which they hope will eventually converge to accomplish their ultimate objective of attaining absolute political and economic world hegemony.

That primary goal was first laid out in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in the first decade of the 20th Century. It is still the modus operandi of the psychotic, delusional Zionist cult today and will remain their primary strategy until either the world soon unites against them and takes away their license to kill and destroy or they, through their endless machinations accomplish their diabolical goal and turn the world into a global gulag ruled by the iron heel of Zionism.

Those who have studied world history within the context of the Protocols will already be fully cognizant of this fact but for the majority of Canadians and others who are still dependent for their intellectual understanding of world history and current events upon the information presented to them in the Zionist-controlled mainstream media (including CBC), this latest in an endless series of violent false flags, will simply add to their confusion and play into the grander Zionist scheme; one meant to slam the people of West with head punch after head punch of apparently senseless, violent incidents which they inevitably will associate with their current Middle East victims until they’re eventually programmed via the trauma effects of mind-control and willingly lay down their freedoms in order to obtain what will ultimately be a false sense of security leading them down a one-way street that ends in an Orwellian police state on par with that of the former Marxist Bolshevik-ruled Soviet Union.

In this sense, we the people, everywhere, are now in the same geopolitical boat as the victim’s of Gaza/Palestine (or Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya or Syria or Ukraine, etc.) and given the fact that the UN has been neutered and unable to rein in the ongoing viciousness and unabashed terror and destruction that Israel consistently subjects the people of Palestine to, it has only spurred them on to more of the same behaviour throughout the Middle East thus fomenting and laying the groundwork for greater hatred and resentment toward the Zionist state and all who align themselves with their insane and immoral behaviour.

This pattern for Zionist tyranny, once laid out upon the fabric of societies everywhere, inevitably leads to the type of reaction that we’ve just witnessed in Ottawa, Canada. Given the overriding matrix of mendacious, deceptive designs cut from the cloth of today’s political milieu it becomes practically irrelevant to debate the motives of the deceased shooter. Whether he was reacting to the incessant brutality meted out to the Muslim nations of the world via the Zionist-controlled killing machine (of which Harper & Co. are now an integral part) or whether his personal agenda was something other than revenge, the result is still the same – furtherance of the Zionist objectives of causing endless war and hatred and terror with the added bonus of buttressing their ongoing attack upon freedom of expression in Canada.

Referring once again to the Protocols, in Number 2 it states, “In the hands of the States of to-day there is a great force that creates the movement of thought in the people, and that is the Press. The part played by the Press is to keep pointing to our requirements supposed to be indispensable, to give voice to the complaints of the people, to express and to create discontent. It is in the Press that the triumph of freedom of speech finds its incarnation. But the goyim States have not known how to make use of this force; and it has fallen into our hands. Through the Press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade….”

The British author Douglas Reed probably put it best in his classic 1956 study of political Zionism titled The Controversy of Zion, when he wrote,”The state of affairs thus brought about after 1920 [referring to the then recent coup in the former Russian Republic. Ed.], and continuing today, was foretold by the Protocols in 1905: ‘Through the press we have gained the power to influence while remaining ourselves in the shade … The principal factor of success in the political” (field) “ is the secrecy of its undertaking; the word should not agree with the deeds of the diplomat … We must compel the governments … to take action in the direction favoured by our widely-conceived plan, already approaching the desired consummation, by what we shall represent as public opinion, secretly prompted by us through the means of that so-called ‘Great Power,’ the press, which, with a few exceptions that may be disregarded, is already entirely in our hands … We shall deal with the press in the following way: … we shall saddle and bridle it with a tight curb; we shall do the same also with all productions of the printing press, for where would be the sense of getting rid of the attacks of the press if we remain targets for pamphlets and books? … No one shall with impunity lay a finger on the aureole of our government infallibility. The pretext for stopping any publication will be the alleged plea that it is agitating the public mind without occasion or justification … We shall have a sure triumph over our opponents since they will not have at their disposition organs of the press in which they can give full and final expression to their views owing to the aforesaid methods of dealing with the press …’”

Of course it must be borne in mind that those words were written well in advance of the Internet.

Back in 1921 Henry Ford, Sr. made the following prescient and provocative statement regarding the authenticity of the Protocols:

“The only statement I care to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are sixteen years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. THEY FIT IT NOW.”

One can only repeat this same refrain today by restating, “The only statement I care to make about the PROTOCOLS is that they fit in with what is going on. They are now a hundred and ten years old, and they have fitted the world situation up to this time. THEY FIT IT NOW!

As was predicable the Harper Conservative government, its lackey sycophants and the Zionist media are making full use of the present killing event to try and convince Canadians that it’s the “radical” elements with society (bloggers, alternative news media, environmentalists, natives, publishers and non-msm journalists) who have somehow played a part in laying the groundwork for the scenario that’s just unfolded in Ottawa and calls for clampdowns on any form of dissident behaviour ought to be taken for the ‘security and safety’ of the general public. Here’s where the “Hate Propaganda” laws in our criminal code (Sections 318 – 320) come into play once again and one can bet that Jewish lobby organizations like B’nai Brith Canada (the group that was instrumental in charging me with a sec. 319(2) “hate” crime in May of 2012) are ecstatic over the recent turn of events just as Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was most pleased by the events of 911.

What it all means in the long run for Canadians who value their right to question the course of history now unfolding around the world is that we will have to be just that much more vigilant and forthright and proactive and UNITED in challenging and resisting these false accusations of the Harper regime, the Zionist media and all of those Jewish lobby groups here in Canada who are determined to maintain and even increase the levels of censorship in our nation, especially as it applies to the free use of the internet to openly discuss political events.

—–

[If you haven’t already please consider signing the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) petition to the Hon. Suzanne Anton, Attorney-General of British Columbia requesting that she remove her consent from the criminal charges laid against Arthur Topham. Over 1000 signatures have been registered to date but we need many more. Thanks. Arthur Topham, Ed.]

OCLA Petition: Congratulations and Thank You to all who have signed it

ATOCLATHXPoster

 

PLEASE CLICK ON THE URL BELOW TO SIGN THE PETITION AND KEEP IT GROWING

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

PLEASE SUPPORT THE ARTHUR TOPHAM LEGAL DEFENSE FUND. CLICK ON THE URL BELOW

http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=657

Please do your best to share this email and petition with friends and family and associates. We need to build the support for the OCLA initiative by increasing the signatures into the thousands. See additional information on the OCLA petition below:

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Expression, 

Please take a moment to read and consider signing OCLA’s petition in defence of the civil rights of Arthur Topham, a BC man who is currently being prosecuted under a “Hate Propaganda” section of Canada’s Criminal Code. The petition is online at the following link: http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created

OCLA has the position that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code should be repealed. These sections allow egregious violations of the civil rights of liberty, just process, and freedom of expression. Under these provisions, a person can be jailed without the Crown being required to prove any actual harm to a single identified individual.

Mr. Topham was arrested in front of his spouse, detained, subjected to a home-invasive seizure, and faces jail time if convicted, for expressing his highly unpopular views.

OCLA’s public statement on this matter is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OCLA-statement-re-Arthur-Topham.pdf

Please read OCLA’s letter to the BC Attorney General asking her to withdraw her consent for this prosecution, which is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-of-BC.pdf

Yours truly,

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director

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

613-252-6148 (c)

joseph.hickey@ocla.ca

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

 

Jason Erb interviews Arthur Topham on Exposing Faux Capitalism, October 16, 2014

FauxCapHdr

 

CLICK HERE TO LISTEN:

 http://fauxcapitalist.com/2014/10/16/jason-erb-interviews-arthur-topham-on-exposing-faux-capitalism-october-16-2014/

First they came for the Socialists… by Robby Porter

FreedomofExpressionPorterOCLA

Exercise your Right to Free Expression: Sign the OCLA petition

FreeSpeechPetitionAd

CLICK ON URL BELOW TO SIGN THE PETITION:

http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham

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

OCLAWynneLetHdr

OCLA_logo_only_250

October 2, 2014

By Email

Kathleen Wynne, Premier

Legislative Building

Queen’s Park

Toronto, ON M7A 1A1

Re: Protecting freedom of speech in Ottawa

Dear Premier Wynne,

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

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

For example, you have:

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

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

2

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

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

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

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

Yours truly,

Screen Shot 2014-10-02 at 11.22.18 AM

Joseph Hickey

Executive Director

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

613-252-6148 ©

joseph.hickey@ocla.ca

Cc: Members of Provincial Parliament

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

About the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

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

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

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 22

Screen Shot 2014-05-02 at 9.28.03 PM

notice4RP

 

RPEdNew400 copy

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update #22

September 30th, 2014

Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,

It has been close to five months (May 7th, 2014) since I last posted a Legal Update on my Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” CCC charge that commenced back on May 16th, 2012. This is the greatest span of time since I began writing these records where I haven’t had to report on my case but it was a long overdue and necessary break from the onerous, ongoing reality that we know as the legal process here in Canada. The wheels of justice do indeed move at a snail’s pace.

Back in April of this year I was fortunate to have had B.C. Provincial Court Judge, the Honourable Judge Morgan, decide against agreeing to the Crown’s application to impose stringent bail conditions on me which would, in effect, have prohibited any further publishing on RadicalPress.com or any other internet site until after the completion of the upcoming trial in B.C. Supreme Court.

My case having then shifted from the provincial court to the B.C. Supreme Court I returned to Supreme Court on Monday, April 28th, 2014 in order to fix a date for trial. It was then that Crown asked me whether or not I was once again going to apply for a Rowbotham application which is a process that would have, if successful, enabled me to have the case stayed until the Attorney General’s office provided me with legal counsel.

I advised the court that I was planning on reapplying for said application (having done so prior to the preliminary inquiry when it was first refused by the court) and it was at that point that Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston suggested that I be given until September 29th, 2014 to refile all the necessary paperwork and return on the 29th to set a further date for a hearing on the matter.

Given that I had more than sufficient time to reapply I decided to take some time off from all the legal work and focus on regenerating the family garden which  had fallen into neglect over the years due to all the past eight years of legal wranglings with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and now the criminal court of Canada. Apart from our gardens there were numerous other maintenance projects awaiting redress on our 5 acre plot that also require urgent attention.

Nearing the end of June I was beginning to get ahead of the game and began preparing to start the process of applying a second time for a new Rowbotham application. Then, in the beginning of July all hell broke loose in Gaza as the Israeli government once again began beating their war drums and commenced with yet another murderous bombing campaign against the helpless, entrapped Palestinian people slaughtering thousands of innocents and crippling and maiming thousands more as well as destroying much of Gaza’s infrastructure. It was the worse case of unjustified lethal aggression against the Palestinian people to have ever occurred and as a result all of my thoughts about working on another Rowbotham application came to a screeching halt as I decided that covering this gross act of genocide by the Zionist forces against the people of Gaza was much more important than spending endless hours on preparing documents that I intuitively knew would be rejected a second time.

The mainstream media (msm) being dominated by the Zionists there was nothing else left to counter all of their lies and disinformation but to focus on constant efforts to disseminate the truth about what was really going on with respect to Israel’s illegal, immoral, unjust and depraved slaughter of defenceless children and adults in Gaza. Being a part of the alternative news media it became my first and foremost duty to try and provide internet readers with a more balanced perspective on the war. In the process of doing so the months of July and August were consumed and when a lasting truce was finally signed with Hamas there was little time left to begin again on the Rowbotham application.

I contacted Keith Evans, counsel for the BC Attorney General’s office on August 22nd, 2014 alerting him to the fact that I wished to resume the process but instead I received a reply from a Freya Zaltz, Barrister and Solicitor, Constitutional and Administrative Law Group, Minister of Justice / Legal Services Branch who informed me that, “Given that it is already August 22, it’s highly unlikely that a new Rowbotham application could be resolved by September 29, 2014.”

Given this information I then decided to forego applying for the Rowbotham application and replied to Ms. Zaltz on September 2nd, 2014 informing her:

With respect to your comment that “it’s highly unlikely that a new Robotham application could be resolved by September 29, 2014″ I would add, by way of explanation, that the delay in applying was due to the unfortunate actions of the state of Israel and their war on Gaza that began in early July and consumed most of that month plus August.
As my professional responsibilities to my readership at RadicalPress.com required ongoing coverage of this event in order to counter the Zionist media propaganda here in Canada I had to make a decision as to where my priorities would be focussed. My decision was to place Gaza at the forefront, over and above all other considerations. Given the nature of my case and the spurious charges which were brought on by the Zionist Jew lobby B’nai Brith Canada and then approved by your office in November of 2012 I’m sure you can understand why I deemed my actions to be of greater importance than to focus on my own personal circumstances. Had Israel not attacked Gaza when it did I would, in all likelihood, have met the obligations set.
As such, seeing that the application deadline cannot be completed by my next appearance on September 29, 2014, I will forego proceeding with it and let Crown Counsel in Quesnel know of my decision.
That aspect of the case having been terminated I then awaited the court appearance on September 29th, 2014 designed to “fix a date” for the upcoming trial in BC Supreme Court and also to possibly set a hearing date for the former Rowbotham application.
ATCourt Sept29:14
My dear wife Shastah accompanying me as we appeared at the Quesnel courthouse at 10:00 am on Monday, September 29th, 2014. The Supreme Court Justice appeared on video from somewhere and the proceedings were recorded as per normal. Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston began by notifying the judge that we were there to set a date for trial and then proceeded to name a couple of time slots when she would be available. Both dates fell in the year 2015. The first suggested date was too early for me given that I am planning  a number of pre-trial Charter applications which will most likely require at least four days of court time to address. That proposed date was in the late spring of 2015. The second date (covering a two week time period) was to commence on October 26th, 2015 and run until November 6th, 2015.

After Crown made her dates known to the judge and I had the opportunity to speak I informed the judge that I would prefer the latter period and then explained to him why I felt I couldn’t be prepared in time to meet the early date. I began by stating that the issues surrounding the case were very complex from the standpoint of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and at the same time also informed the court that I was in consultation with a lawyer from the lower mainland of the province who would be preparing extensive written legal arguments that they would be unable to complete prior to at least March of 2015. As well, I informed the court that my legal counsel would also not be free to appear in Quesnel until at least May of the same year.

Crown Counsel Johnston appeared pleased with the knowledge that I was in consultation with legal counsel and told the court that she had no problem with setting the trial date for October 26th of 2015. She also told the judge that the 10-day schedule trial could possibly be shortened by the fact were I to have legal representation.

The trial date thus being set Crown then asked the judge to set another date for a pre-trial conference with my counsel. That date was set for March 23rd, 2015.

I was very pleased with the outcome as now I will have the time to prepare all the important documents relevant to the case and also have the time to organize an ongoing legal defense fund in order to cover the costs of procuring legal counsel to represent me during both the pre-trial applications and, if needs be, the trial itself. That was all that took place and within a matter of about fifteen minutes my wife and I left the courtroom.

•••• 88 ••••

 The other important notice regarding my case concerns the recent  and rather startling news that the Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has taken it upon themselves to come out publicly in favour of me as well as challenging Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws Sections 319 to 320, calling for their complete and final repeal.

When I first heard of this I was absolutely overwhelmed with a sense of instant relief and thankfulness. After eight long years of battling with the Jewish lobby (B’nai Brith Canada) who were instrumental in laying both the sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaint against myself and RadicalPress.com back in 2007 plus the current sec. 319(2) CCC “Hate Propaganda” complaint in 2011 that resulted in my arrest and incarceration on May 16th, 2012, the fact that a well-recognized and prestigious mainstream public civil liberties organization such as the OCLA was backing up my right to freedom of expression, petitioning BC’s Attorney General, the Hon. Suzanne Alton to retract her consent to the spurious charges, and tackling the final stronghold of the forces of Orwellian internet “freedom of speech” repression, i.e. Sections 318 to 320 of the Canada’s Criminal Code, was almost beyond belief.

This sudden turn of events has been a game changer and is comparable to having a D-9 Caterpillar appear on the legal/media playing field in my favour to level off what’s been a definite bumpy, one-sided, stacked deck of silence and collusion in favour of the Zionist lobby, their mainstream media cartel and the courts. As such, on behalf of my wife and myself, I wish to publicly express my deepest sense of gratitude to the OCLA for having come to this important and prescient decision; one that is bound to affect all Canadians and, should their campaign prove successful, ensure that the future of Canada’s media, both msm and alternative, will remain free and open and democratic and not subject to political interference from any special interest groups.

I would like at this point to add the latest statement on this matter from OCLA which was sent out by Joseph Hickey, Executive Director, Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA):

OCLA_logo_only_250

Dear OCLA Supporter,

Please take a moment to read and consider signing OCLA’s petition in defence of the civil rights of Arthur Topham, a BC man who is currently being prosecuted under a “Hate Propaganda” section of Canada’s Criminal Code. The petition is online at the following link: http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created

OCLA has the position that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code should be repealed. These sections allow egregious violations of the civil rights of liberty, just process, and freedom of expression. Under these provisions, a person can be jailed without the Crown being required to prove any actual harm to a single identified individual.

Mr. Topham was arrested in front of his spouse, detained, subjected to a home-invasive seizure, and faces jail time if convicted, for expressing his highly unpopular views.

OCLA’s public statement on this matter is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OCLA-statement-re-Arthur-Topham.pdf

Please read OCLA’s letter to the BC Attorney General asking her to withdraw her consent for this prosecution, which is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-of-BC.pdf

 

Yours truly,

 

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

In closing I would ask all readers to assist both the OCLA and myself in achieving the highest number of signatures and comments on the OCLA petition to Hon. Suzanne Alton as humanly possible and to pass this information on to as many other people and blogsites and news sites as possible. The OCLA has taken a courageous and valiant step forward in our battle to retain our Charter rights to Freedom of Expression. It may be our last chance to change this draconian legislation using peaceful, lawful means. Please take advantage of this opportunity for the sake of all Canadians both present and of future generations.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

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

 *******

My court battle has now moved to an actual trial by judge and jury in the British Columbia Supreme Court. In doing so it places a far greater emphasis on my having to obtain legal counsel and/or advice from legal counsellors, which ultimately requires funding. 

The trial will be a major battle in the upcoming legal war to rid Canada of all the Section 318 to 320 “Hate Propaganda” legislation now in the Canadian Criminal Code. The outcome of this trial will, in all likelihood, determine whether or not Canadians will retain their right to publish the truth on the Internet about any and all injustices that may befall our country. 

I DO NEED YOUR HELP NOW MORE THAN EVER!!!  

Please consider a donation to the Radical Press Free Speech Defence Fund.

My PayPal button is on my website at http://www.RadicalPress.com

If you can’t send a donation via PayPal please consider sending one through Canada Post to:

Arthur Topham

4633 Barkerville Highway

Quesnel, B.C. Canada

V2J 6T8

Remember that every bit helps (all of us).

Thank you.

Arthur Topham

Pub/Ed

The Radical Press

 

Please Support the OCLA Petition in Defence of Arthur Topham by RadicalPress.com

 

OCLAFriends

OCLA_logo_only_250

Dear OCLA Supporter,

Please take a moment to read and consider signing OCLA’s petition in defence of the civil rights of Arthur Topham, a BC man who is currently being prosecuted under a “Hate Propaganda” section of Canada’s Criminal Code. The petition is online at the following link: http://www.change.org/p/hon-suzanne-anton-attorney-general-of-bc-jag-minister-gov-bc-ca-hon-suzanne-anton-retract-your-consent-for-the-criminal-proceedings-against-mr-arthur-topham?utm_source=guides&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_created

OCLA has the position that sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code should be repealed. These sections allow egregious violations of the civil rights of liberty, just process, and freedom of expression. Under these provisions, a person can be jailed without the Crown being required to prove any actual harm to a single identified individual.

Mr. Topham was arrested in front of his spouse, detained, subjected to a home-invasive seizure, and faces jail time if convicted, for expressing his highly unpopular views.

OCLA’s public statement on this matter is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/OCLA-statement-re-Arthur-Topham.pdf

Please read OCLA’s letter to the BC Attorney General asking her to withdraw her consent for this prosecution, which is available at: http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-of-BC.pdf

 

Yours truly,

 

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) http://ocla.ca
613-252-6148 (c)

“I do not agree with what you have to say, but I’ll defend to the death your right to say it.” – Voltaire

•••

QUOTE OF A COMMENT ON THE OCLA PETITION
“The belief that ideas are a prerogative of any self-chosen element of society is repugnant, intellectually and morally indefensible and insulting to any citizen who has both the right and responsibility to consider all available evidence, pro or con, on any issue of possible public concern or interest. The crucially important issue is that all citizens must be free to communicate their views and the right of all citizens to do so must be assured. Anti-“Hate” legislation is a transparent political measure meant to serve the interests of its sponsors who obviously are willing to employ almost any form of sophistry, cajoling, deception and intimidation to achieve the suppression of views which they do not like. Each citizen must be accorded the elementary respect as being sufficiently intelligent to assess the validity or otherwise of expressed views. Many of these issues have been debated by seers and saints from time immemorial and the debate certainly does not belong in a criminal court but rather in the court of informed public assessment. Informed assessments can only be made in light of full disclosure of evidence – on every ongoing process in the affairs of mankind. State suppression of ideas is a clear and inevitable route to tyranny and people who support such repression are a threat to civilization. I think that I am sufficiently intelligent and knowledgeable to hear an idea and accept, reject or consider it without any “assistance” from the State or those who exercise influence upon and behind the State apparatus. Anti-“Hate” (which can mean almost anything depending upon one’s perspective) legislation is an affront to the intelligence and integrity of every citizen and a violation of the historic assumption that truth is paramount and can only be found by diligent and unimpeded individual enquiry. The motives of persons or groups which attempt to suppress comment or criticism are patently suspect and transparent and such conduct does not go unnoticed or help their cause in the court of public opinion. By all means, do stay proceedings in this case and do not initiate them in any comparable situations. I do not need to be told what to think.” – Wallace Klinck