FREEDOM TO OFFEND EVERYONE BUT THE JEWS By Arthur Topham

FREEDOM TO OFFEND EVERYONE BUT THE JEWS

By
Arthur Topham

January 25th, 2017

Fake News sites come in all sizes, shapes and flavours during these heady days of Alternative vs Zionist media wars. And one of Canada’s top deceptive “Fake News” sites has to be TheRebel.Media run by “Rebel Commander” Ezra Levant, Zionist Jew and self-chosen saviour of Canada’s dumbed down goyim ‘christians’, assorted atheists, Germanophobes and most recently Islamophobes.

Ezra loves to think of himself as Canada’s Number One defender of “Free Speech” and has been active in the free speech movement for a long time. In fact it was the issue of freedom of speech that first brought him to my attention a decade ago when the Zionist Jew lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada first filed a Sec. 13 “hate speech” complaint against me with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the summer of 2007 and I suddenly found myself the latest member of that exclusive Canadian association known as the “Anti-Semitic, Racist, Jew-hating, Neo-Nazi, Hate-mongerer’s Club.”

Of course I wasn’t alone any longer in my then ongoing struggle to bring forward to the Canadian public the facts surrounding the true nature of political Zionism and the ongoing conspiracy by this Rothschild created Apocalyptic Beast to wreak havoc not only in the desert sands of middle eastern Arab nations but around the globe in their relentless quest to create a new world order under the iron heel of Talmudic totalitarian despotism. As is evident in the graphic below I was now amongst the former luminaries of Canada’s modern-day revisionists who, ahead of me, had already solved the ancient riddle known as “The Jewish Problem.”

Initially, because Ezra Levant had also been accused of a Sec. 13 “hate crime” by an Islamic organization here in Canada prior to my own case, a mutual acquaintance attempted to connect us up in the vain hope that we might work together but Levant’s immediate response was to label me an “anti-Semite” and therefore one of the untouchables.

Since that time I’ve covered a number of Levant’s serpentine adventures in the mainstream media, including the example of when he has used his position on national television back in 2012 to libel and vilify me personally via his former position with Sun News media and his tv show “The Source.”

Levant’s modus operandi is to hoodwink gullible goyim Zionist Christians and other assorted small “c” conservatives, atheists and regular tv watchers and mainstream newspaper readers and fill their minds with hatred toward Muslims and Germans and anyone else who might display the chutzpah to criticize the Zionist ideology or the racist actions of the state of Israel or anything remotely related to enterprises that the Jews have their fingers and their shekels invested in.

A couple of other related articles on this zio-wolf in sheep’s clothing that readers might wish to take a look at are the following:

?http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=5722

http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=6000?

A recent article by one of Commissar Levant’s lieutenants, the young, pretty naive and zealous Faith Goldy, a self-confessed “fearless journalist and devout Catholic who stands up for family values, freedom, and firearms” titled, FREEDOM TO OFFEND: Support free speech, not sharia! caught my attention as its title obviously calls out to all those who value the God-given right to be able to speak one’s mind openly and freely without fear of the state or some special interest group laying a “hate speech” complaint against you.

In her article, embellished with a glitzy video presentation to enhance her Islamophobic argument, Faith Goldy slams the Liberal government’s “anti-Islamophobia initiative”; one that was brought on by a petition to the government calling “upon the House of Commons to recognize that terrorists are not real Muslims by condemning all forms of Islamophobia, with no exact definition of what they meant by the term.”

Faith was vehemently outraged by the fact that the petition had gained unanimous consent of Canada’s MP’s. She was also incensed by the Liberal’s tacitly implied proposal to introduce further draconian legislation to prohibit Canadians from “offending” Muslims; legislation that would most likely fall into Canada’s current Criminal Code “Hate Propaganda” sections 318 to 320, the very same legislation that the foreign Zionist Jew lobbyist organization B’nai Brith Canada used to indict me back in 2012 under their spurious claim that:

“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.”

Faith sums up her angst with the Liberals by stating:

“In short: The Canadian government is preparing to silence anyone who criticizes Islam.

Their anti-Islamophobia motion (which will, in all likelihood, be voted on during this parliamentary session) resembles a kind of blasphemy law in favour of one preferred religion above all others. If this motion passes, Canadians can be persecuted for expressing any criticism of Islam, even when warranted.

This unfounded anti-Islamophobia legislation flies in the face of our Constitution and its embedded Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sharia law and it’s related speech codes are not a reasonable limit on my freedoms.

According to our charter of rights and freedoms — we’re all equal. Every individual (not a belief system or ideology) is equal before and under the law. We all have equal protections and benefit equally from the law.

Muslims do not get special treatment or protections.”

Enter the Bigots and Hypocrites

Allow me now to repeat what I did on my website with Theodore N. Kaufmann’s book, Germany Must Perish! in a satire of it that I titled, Israel Must Perish! and change but a few salient words of what Faith wrote so it now reads:

“In short: The Canadian government is preparing to silence anyone who criticizes Judaism.

Their anti-Semitism motion (which will, in all likelihood, be voted on during this parliamentary session) resembles a kind of blasphemy law in favour of one preferred religion above all others. If this motion passes, Canadians can be persecuted for expressing any criticism of Judaism, even when warranted.

This unfounded anti-Semitic legislation flies in the face of our Constitution and its embedded Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Talmudic Jew law and it’s related speech codes are not a reasonable limit on my freedoms.

According to our charter of rights and freedoms — we’re all equal. Every individual (not a belief system or ideology) is equal before and under the law. We all have equal protections and benefit equally from the law.

Jews do not get special treatment or protections.”

Now either Goldy the intrepid and fearless journalist is extremely naive when it comes to Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” legislation or else she’s intentionally avoiding the fact that these laws were knowingly and specifically introduced into Canadian jurisprudence by the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada in order to first and foremost protect the Jews and the actions of the foreign state of Israel. There’s no other reasonable explanation for why she would make such a ludicrous statement that the Liberal’s “anti-Islamophobia motion resembles a kind of blasphemy law in favour of one preferred religion above all others.” Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws are precisely that; laws that “favour of one preferred religion above all others” and that religion just happens to be Judaism, whether Goldy likes it or not.

Surely, as a Roman Catholic, Faith Goldy must have a very clear understanding that the Catholics and Christians in general certainly don’t warrant any protection under Canada’s current “Hate Propaganda” laws. Canadians are free to criticize, vilify, malign, libel and hate Christians as much as they like. As a Christian I can verify the veracity of this statement. The same goes for any other religion, with the one exception – Judaism – and that’s why the Zionist Jew mainstream media here in Canada has been attacking the Muslims with a vengeance and with impunity ever since Israel and its Mossad secret service, in collusion with the Zionist infested White House in Washington, D.C. and its Zionist controlled CIA, pulled off the greatest caper of the 21 century when they orchestrated 911 and then blamed it on the Muslims in order to justify their planned, pre-emptive wars with any Arab nation not willing to bow down and kiss the ass of either the Zionist state of Israel or its global bully the USA.

If Faith Goldy is the “fearless journalist” that she professes to be then she would display that professed trait by looking fearlessly into the politics of Canada’s media and research the involvement of the Jew lobbyists like B’nai Brith Canada, the former Canadian Jewish Congress and the more recent umbrella org know as the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs and the roles they’ve played in corrupting and poisoning Canada’s justice system so that it consistently and inevitably favours only one religion, that of the Jews.

But alas, I fear that this seemingly narrow-minded, glib-tongued Roman Catholic is not about to face the truth about Judaism and its bastard satanic, atheistic son Zionism any more that she’s about to face the truth about Ezra Levant and his goy-seducing “Rebel” disinformation site that she’s now using as a soap box to promote the Zionist agenda of spewing forth endless hatred toward Muslims, all of which is designed with the long range goal of inciting yet another major war between the Christians and the Islamic nations; one that will, as all the wars inevitably do, solely benefit the Jews and their sinister plans for global hegemony.

The double-edged sword

Allow me to conclude this critique of Faith Goldy and Ezra Levant with a general explanation as to why the Zionist Jew media and their lobbyists here in Canada were so fervently opposed to Sec. 13 and its “hate speech” provisions as contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act and why, when that draconian legislation was repealed in 2012, they didn’t then proceed on to ridding the country of the far more dangerous, Orwellian and freedom-denying legislation contained in Sec. 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code known as the “Hate Propaganda” laws.

For many years the Jewish lobby groups in Canada used the Sec. 13 legislation to attack anyone who criticized either Israel or its political ideology known as Zionism. Then, the Muslim organizations here in Canada realized that they too could wield this same legislation in order to prohibit the Jew mainstream media from spreading hate and lies about them and so they set out to do just that. They laid complaints against Ezra Levant for publishing the insulting and degrading images of their spiritual leader Mohammad as well as Mark Steyn; two Canadian Jews who had been vilifying and promoting hatred toward the Muslims and their Islam religion for years. On top of that Steyn was a regular contributor at Maclean’s Magazine and suddenly it found itself embroiled in the Sec. 13 “hate speech” complaint. That was when the Zionist Jews in Canada finally saw the light and realized that the sword they’d inserted into the Canadian Human Rights Act right after 911 was double-edged and could be used against them too. Oi veh! they exclaimed. Such a deal! This law has to go. And it did. It took a number of years of promoting it via the Jewish media establishment and on social media and blogs around the country but eventually enough awareness was raised and political pressure applied that the Conservative government under Harper finally buckled under and decided they had to get rid of Sec. 13.

I, like many others, fought long and hard to have the legislation repealed. Of course I had a vested interest in seeing it thrown out. I was being forced to run the gamut of both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal where “Truth” was no defence and the only outcome of appearing before the dreaded Stalinist tribunal was to be found guilty and have one’s rights to freedom of speech squashed along with the strong possibility of incurring exorbitant fines and restrictions on using the internet and ever publishing one’s views again. And I wasn’t alone. There were dozens of others who had already suffered and were still caught up in this vortex of madness that the Zionists had created thanks to their narcissistic, power-crazed delusions of power and grandeur. When the legislation was repealed there was great rejoicing amongst those who had been caught up in the merciless machinations of this Talmudic-driven censorship machine that had been running over our Constitutional and Charter rights for so long.

By the time the repeal occurred I had already come to the conclusions stated above and realized that the chances were not likely that the same forces who had brought to bear enough political and media pressure upon the government to repeal Sec. 13 were now going to do the same for Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws. And for obvious reasons. The “Hate Propaganda” laws had taken painstaking years of Jewish lobbying in order to get them implanted in the Criminal Code and it was understood by the Zionists that these laws were their last refuge and defence against having their long-range, secret agenda exposed to the general public on the internet. Without these Bolshevik-inspired laws to stem the inevitable tide of “anti-Semitism” that would automatically and naturally begin to rise once the public began realizing what the bigger picture was all about and their game plan was unravelling on the Internet they knew damn well that in order to keep the gullible goyim in their place and restrict the truth about their conspiracy they had to keep those “Hate Propaganda” laws intact and protected.

No sooner had Sec. 13 been repealed the same B’nai Brith Jewish lobbyists who filed their Sec. 13 complaint against me did an about turn and filed a Sec. 319(2) criminal code “hate complaint” against me in order to perpetuate the harassment and intimidation and legal torture that had finally ceased with the repeal of Sec. 13. When my trial came up in the fall of 2015 none of the former “rebels” and “free speech warriors” who I had worked with on the Sec. 13 campaign were to be found. Former allies in the fight for “freedom of speech” scurried like rats off a sinking ship. The likes of the great “free speech” fighters like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn suddenly pulled a disappearing act. Others, like Marc Lemire, whose Sec. 13 battle was the final spike driven through the draconian heart of the Sec. 13 legislation and who I had worked tirelessly to assist, were now as silent as lambs when it came to Regina vs Roy Arthur Topham. Mark and Connie Fournier who had run the conservative website and forum known as “Free Dominion” and, ironically, had won the George Orwell Award from Lawyer Doug Christie’s Canadian Free Speech League after labouring for years to have Sec. 13 repealed also faded into the void when the trial of Arthur Topham was reported across the country in the Zionist media. All of my efforts to help them during their tribulations proved fruitless. Instead of standing up for Canada and going the extra mile required in order to destroy these “Hate Propaganda” laws once and for all they chose instead to betray the country and their fellow partisans in favour of Israel, Zionism and Judaism. Hypocrites, one and all, they will go down in history as being little more than Zionist sycophants who enabled the destruction of the nation’s Charter rights to freedom of expression.

God have mercy on their tormented, deluded souls.

As for Faith Goldy there appears to be little Hope and no Charity for the Islamic nations of the world. It appears that Goldy has traded her Bible in for a copy of the Babylonian Talmud and is now in total denial of the words of Jesus Christ, her supposed Saviour, who once so prophetically stated in Revelation 2 verse 9: “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”

——

Prof. Anthony Hall vindicated – B’nai Brith and its U. of Lethbridge punks bitch-slapped by national faculty association By Kevin Barrett

 

screen-shot-2016-12-08-at-5-18-51-pm

Dr. Kevin Barrett, a Ph.D. Arabist-Islamologist, is one of America’s best-known critics of the War on Terror. 

Prof. Anthony Hall vindicated – B’nai Brith and its U. of Lethbridge punks bitch-slapped by national faculty association

screen-shot-2016-12-08-at-5-18-31-pm

Will slandered professor Anthony Hall soon return to the University that has so mistreated him?

By Kevin BarrettVeterans Today Editor

The witch-hunt against University of Lethbridge professor Anthony Hall may have just ended not with a bang but with a whimper. And it is the Israel lobby group B’nai Brith Canada, and its flunkies at the University of Lethbridge, who are whimpering.

The Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) just issued a stinging reprimand for University of Lethbridge president Mike Mahon, a glorified gym teacher who unilaterally suspended Professor Hall without pay because he disagrees with Hall’s political views. See:

Lethbridge University President Says He Can Fire Tenured Faculty at Will for No Reason

Here is CAUT’s statement:

screen-shot-2016-12-06-at-11-19-03-pm

CAUT is using extremely strong language. The statement accuses Mike Mahon of violating “all principles of due process and natural rights” and “denying…legal rights” i.e. violating the law.

CAUT is not only threatening all-out legal action, but also “imposing censure” on the University of Lethbridge. This is a formal process that amounts to a complete boycott of the University of Lethbridge by the entire Canadian academic community – a sort of scholarly BDS action. Professors would refuse to work there, students would refuse to study there, and all Canadian academicians would essentially consider that the “University of Lethbridge” no longer existed.

How could the University of Lethbridge resolve the situation? I spoke to Professor Hall this morning. He was optimistic about the long-term prospects of his academic freedom struggle, and grateful to CAUT for doing the right thing. But he also hastened to point out that Mike Mahon and others at the University had created an extremely hostile work environment for him, and that the University of Lethbridge needs to do much more than merely allowing him to return to teaching in the horrendous environment they have created for him.

By suspending Professor Hall without pay, without any form of due process, the University essentially endorsed the outrageous, libelous lies concocted by the B’nai Brith and its suspected confederates. The biggest lie, the one that launched the entire witch hunt, was a Zionist-fabricated “kill all Jews” image that was mysteriously planted on Professor Hall’s Facebook page without his knowledge. B’nai Brith and Facebook conspired to create a media scandal about the image, and despite Hall’s complete innocence, media outlets including the Lethbridge Herald and CBC labored to fabricate a spurious link between the horrific, genocidal image and Professor Hall in their coverage of the incident. Rather than reporting the truth – that Professor Hall was the innocent victim of a smear campaign – they absurdly implied that Professor Hall himself wanted to “kill all Jews” !

The genocidal image was created by a Florida-based Jewish Zionist false flag terrorist named Joshua Goldberg (who has been arrested for plotting fake “Islamic terrorism”) and then planted on Professor Hall’s Facebook page by persons unknown. Though the planted image was credited to “Glen Davidson,” an Alberta resident, Davidson  says he was not the source of the image, and does not know how it came to be surreptitiously planted, under his name, on Professor Hall’s Facebook page. See:

The PLANTED weaponized image that got Professor Anthony Hall suspended

screen-shot-2016-12-08-at-5-19-25-pm

We now know that this image was produced by Florida-based Jewish Zionist false flag terrorist Joshua Goldberg, planted on Professor Tony Hall’s Facebook page by an unknown hacker, and then used by B’nai Brith to launch a witch hunt against Professor Anthony Hall, who was completely innocent of any connection whatsoever to the image.

This is B’nai Brith’s tweet slandering Professor Hall. B’nai Brith’s own confederates appear to have manufactured and planted the image on Professor Hall’s Facebook page, then spammed Canada with press releases blaming Professor Hall, who had no idea the image was there!

Why would B’nai Brith and its accomplices target Professor Hall for this kind of slander operation? Presumably they disapprove of Hall’s research and public statements on various controversial issues, especially his work on false flag terrorism. (Hall has interpreted such events as 9/11 and the Ottawa capitol shooting as apparent false flag public relations stunts designed to further the Zionist war on Islam and Muslims.)

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5The University of Lethbridge, by implicitly endorsing B’nai Brith’s libelous big lie, has managed to tarnish Professor Hall’s reputation on campus to the point that many students and colleagues have accepted the false notion that Hall is a “genocidal anti-Semite.” Hall has suffered hostile treatment on and off campus as a result of the University’s going along with the B’nai Brith’s witch hunt.

At a very minimum, the University needs to:

*Fire president Mike Mahon and Board Chairman Kurt E. Schlachter;

*Apologize in the strongest possible terms;

*Vow to support Professor Hall’s academic freedom to study, write, and speak about any and all issues;

*And make it absolutely clear that Professor Hall has done nothing wrong, but has in fact been doing exactly what all tenured professors are implicitly required to do by virtue of their tenure: Investigate the  most controversial issues and pursue the truth wherever it leads, no matter how much  powerful interest groups may be displeased.


SOURCE ARTICLE

Editors’ note: Jim Dean suggests that people who care about freedom should consider emailing CAUT a brief note of thanks:   acppu(at)caut[dot]ca

 

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.)
 

Tenure’s End: Foreign Israeli Lobby B’nai Brith Attacks Canada’s Longstanding Academic Tradition to Safeguard Freedom of Speech

Tenure’s End: Foreign Israeli lobby B’nai Brith Attacks Canada’s

Longstanding Academic Tradition to Safeguard Freedom of Speech

By Arthur Topham

The foreign, Jew’s-only, secret Masonic lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada and its ADL-ed component the League for ‘Human Rights’ of B’nai Brith are on a rampage through Cyberspace in their ongoing attempts to destroy Canadian’s constitutionally guaranteed Charter right to freedom of expression.

One of the most recent, egregious examples by this traitorous, Israel-sponsored, Fifth Columnist organization is their  despicable attempt to destroy Canada’s longstanding tradition of academic Tenureship via their relentless, underhanded attacks upon tenured Professor Anthony Hall of the University of Lethbridge, Alberta.

Using every dirty trick in their bag of lies, this traitorous “benevolent society” of Zionist Jew, duel-citizens  have been falsely maligning Professor Hall both in their Zionist-controlled mainstream media and via Canada’s legal system through their misuse of provincial “Human Rights” organizations.

The usual plethora of slander, lies, vilification, ugly epithets and guilt by association, coupled with copious amounts of arrogant innuendo, are their standard psycho-weapons of destruction and in the case of Professor Hall they’ve pulled out all the stops.

I have been covering Professor Hall’s plight for some time and observing how this Public Enemy #1 of Canadian sovereignty, B’nai Brith Canada, has been viciously libeling Hall in their Jewish publications both here in Canada and in the foreign state of Israel’s  media outlets as well as in the mainstream media.

It’s well beyond time that Canadians WAKE UP and smell the kosher coffee that’s been brewing beneath their noses for decades and realize that this subversive agent of the foreign state of Israel is quickly destroying the underpinnings of Canadian culture through their blatant attempts to dismantle and subvert every level of the nation’s government, media, judiciary and, now, academia.

Watch the above video and listen carefully to the words of Professor Anthony Hall and TAKE HEED! If this apocalyptic beast hidden with the Trojan Horse called “B’nai Brith Canada” isn’t collared and put on a leash soon all hell will be breaking loose as our rights and freedoms dissolve and we shift into either a state of anarchy or totalitarian dictatorship.

Please share this article with your friends and associates and if you can, write to those persons listed below and tell them how you feel about this deplorable affront to Canada’s freedom.

Those concerned about the B’nai Brith’s assault on Professor Anthony Hall can contact Lethbridge University President Mike Mahon. Email: mike.mahon@uleth.ca and cc contactmeliorist@gmail.com  program@ckxu.com  antoniusjameshall@gmail.com

Write, fax, or phone: Mike Mahon President & Vice-Chancellor A762 University Hall, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada  T1K 3M4. Phone: (403) 329 -2201. Fax: (403) 329-2097.

There is also a Petition that’s been started where you can help support Professor Hall and our rights and freedoms. Here’s the link:

https://www.change.org/p/kurt-e-schlachter-kurt-e-schlachter-step-down-as-chair-of-the-board-university-of-lethbridge

As the old saying goes, “JUST DO IT!” The time for hesitation is long past. Let’s put our country’s freedoms ahead of our own petty and personal agendas for a change and start standing up for CANADA instead of kowtowing to the interests of a foreign, racist nation!

—–

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

How Do Canada’s Hate Propaganda Laws Work Behind the Scene? The R vs Roy Arthur Topham Case By Arthur Topham

behindthescene

How Do Canada’s Hate Propaganda Laws Work Behind the Scene?
The R vs Roy Arthur Topham Case

By
Arthur Topham

September 25th, 2016

As the Constitutional challenge in the R vs Roy Arthur Topham case moves close to the hearing date of October 3 to 7, 2016 in Quesnel, BC’s Supreme Court it’s time Canadians were told how the methods of surveilling, complaining, charging, arresting and trying a Canadian citizen for such a flawed and unwarranted “crime” actually plays out behind the scene and not just what the mainstream media and courtrooms attempt to portray in order to lend credence to the charade in the eyes of the general public.

My example, given all that I’ve learned over the past decade about how the Zionist Jew lobby organizations operate in conjunction with the police forces and provincial and federal court systems here in Canada, is, I believe, fairly typical of how the process works.

I must preface the article by first stating that there were two individuals who were responsible for laying the “hate crime” complaints against myself and my website RadicalPress.com. That’s two people out of a population of 33,476,688 citizens (as of February 2012) who decided they didn’t like my website and wanted to have it destroyed. Due to a bail order issued by the the Honourable Provincial Court Judge R. D. Morgan on April 15, 2014 I am forbidden to “post on any internet site or otherwise publish the names of the two civilian complainants… and that he [me, Arthur Topham] immediately remove their names from any internet site he has direct or indirect control of. I find that there may be a risk of harm or intimidation in posting the names of these two civilian complainants.

Of the two complainants I can state that one is a Jew living in Victoria, BC who is (or was at the time) a regional director for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada and the other is a lawyer living in Ottawa, Ontario who is not a Jew but has acted on behalf of Jewish lobby organizations in Canada for at least the past twenty years and is in all likelihood Canada’s Grand Champion of “hate crime” complainants. The Jew in Victoria I will refer to as “Agent Z” throughout the article and the non-Jew lawyer from Ottawa will be known as “Agent S”. The rest of the protagonists throughout the melodrama will have their real names cited as there is no court order prohibiting mention of them.

How the Ten Year Show Trial Played Out Behind the Scenes

My “hate crime” trials initially began on February 14th, 2007 (Valentine’s Day) and have gone through innumerable twists, contortions and transmutations that saw them morph from a Canadian Human Rights Act Sec. 13 complaint in November of 2007 to a Criminal Code of Canada (CCC) Sec. 319(2) complaint in May of 2012 that resulted in my arrest on the Barkerville Hwy near Quesnel, BC and my incarceration in the Quesnel jail. From there it went to a further three years of ongoing legal wrangling that eventually resulted in a trial in BC Supreme Court in Quesnel that commenced on October 26th, 2015 and ended on November 12th with the jury finding me Guilty on Count 1 and Not Guilty on Count 2. Both Counts of course were identical.

As I said it began on Valentine’s Day when Agent Z sent me an email under a false alias calling himself “Brian Esker”. He accused me of publishing all sorts of materials on my website that he stated were “anti-Semitic” and “hateful” demanded that I take them down then let him know when I had and he would send me a list of more articles to take down. Of course he never stated which articles he wanted removed other than to mention the fact that I had The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion on my site and that was verboten as far as he was concerned.

I civilly and politely attempted to find out who “Brian Esker” really was but “Brian” refused to communicate any further with me and I never heard a thing more until I received a letter in my mailbox from the quasi-judicial Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC) back on November 20, 2007 that contained a Sec. 13 “hate crime” complaint first filed with the (CHRC) back on August 14, 2007. That’s when I first learned that the skulking, serpentine troll who wrote me on Valentine’s Day was in fact Agent Z of the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, the same foreign, false flag organization that’s been recently attacking German-Canadian citizens Monika Schaefer and Brian Ruhe and also doing its damnedest to slander and libel Professor Anthony Hall of Lethbridge University with false accusations in order to have him fired from his tenured professorship.

By 2008 I was coming out swinging and refusing to back down to the spurious accusations brought on by this agent of Israel. The CHRC decided that they had another victim and referred my case to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (CHRT) which was another total gong show of misfits and miscreants who must have thought they were living in Stalin’s Soviet Russia back in the 1930’s and would pull any dirty trick they could think of to intimidate and torture their victims.

But I learned something else back in 2008 regarding Agent S. This snake in the Zionist grass hadn’t filed a Sec. 13 complaint with the CHRC when Agent Z did but he was personally known to Agent Z at the time. I only found out when both of them threatened Black Press (not affiliated with Conrad Black) the publisher of my local community newspaper The Quesnel Observer with a law suit because the paper was publishing my side of the story. Agent Z was going ballistic and phoning the newspaper and threatening the editor and being his belligerent, arrogant, Zionist self. So both these agents were working in tandem from day one.

The whole CHRC and CHRT charade carried on right up until the Conservative government finally repealed the Sec. 13 law in June of 2012. Fortunately for me there were other victims ahead of me and by the time my turn came up the case was stayed due to it being repealed.

But the end of Sec. 13 didn’t stop the two Israeli agents from pursuing their goal of harassment of myself and my website. The second time they came after me it was prompted by Agent S, who, by the way, was also a former employee of the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I had just published an article called Hating Harper on April 27, 2011. The following day Agent S filed his Sec. 319(2) complaint with the next player in this freedom of speech farce, Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team, centred in Surrey, BC.

On May 28th, 2011, precisely one month later, I published my controversial satire of Theodore N. Kaufman’s 1941 pro-German genocide book, Germany Must Perish! I called it Israel Must Perish! The very next day Agent Z filed his Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” complaint with Det. Cst. Terry Wilson and the Hate Crime Unit in Surrey.

gaywilsonlevasimage

Enter the Queer-Jew Connection

There are aspects to the R v Roy Arthur Topham criminal case that have yet to be revealed to the general public since this Stalinist Show Trial began almost a decade ago and had it not been for the Liberal government’s lamentable decision to threaten, via the use of Sec. 319(2), the decent folks of Canada now outraged at their government’s degrading attempt to drag the nation down into the mire of mendacious sexual masochism, these revelations may never have surfaced. But they have and so I must share now what has thus far remained hidden from the general public.

It was soon after I was arrested on May 16th, 2012 while my wife and I were traveling to Prince George on placer mining business that I found out that Det. Cst. Terry Wilson, who was leading the BC Hate Crime Team in their tireless efforts to hunt down “haters” on the Internet, was a queer. Then, as my court case carried on and further revelations occurred I also learned while cross-examining Det. Wilson during the Preliminary Inquiry back in January of 2014 that Det. Wilson had first joined the London Ontario Police Service back in 1989 and then their hate crime unit in 1995. But more importantly was the fact that as far back as 1996 Det. Wilson was already working on similar cases such as mine with the same Agent S who initially filed the first Sec. 319(2) complaint against me!

Det. Cst. Wilson has since retired from the New Westminster Police Force and has suddenly morphed into a “Hate Crime Expert” even though in court he swore under oath that he wasn’t a hate crime expert. His website http://www.hatecrimeexpert.com/ contains all the essential ingredients showing Wilson’s former connections with the Jewish lobbyists and other unsavoury characters.

screen-shot-2016-09-26-at-7-54-57-am

Now I don’t have any proof that Agent S is a homosexual or not. I do know that I’ve seen his photo on the net numerous times and read much that he’s written on his website but I’ve never seen or heard of him either having a girlfriend or being married. All I do know is that he and Wilson have been conspiring to hunt down Canadians for the past twenty years and charge them with “hate crimes”. As for Agent Z out of Victoria, BC, he’s also been working in concert with these same two “hate” hunters for at least a decade and most likely longer. Being a married man with a family it’s doubtful that Agent Z is a queer but regardless it’s no secret that the Jewish lobby has been pushing the Queer agenda in the courts and through the media for decades.

So here we have this Zionist triune of truant “hate crime” agents all directly connected up with B’nai Brith Canada and its ADL arm the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith hell-bent on accusing Arthur Topham of promoting “hatred” against people of “Jewish ethnicity” and attempting to get the jury to believe that my satire of the Jewish book Germany Must Perish! was a blatant attempt to convince the Canadian public to genocide “the whole of the Jewish population”. Did the jury buy the argument put forth by Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston during the trial that this was in fact why I wrote the satire? God only knows because the jury is under strict orders not to reveal why they found me Guilty of one count of promoting hatred and then Not Guilty of the second and identical count.

The upcoming Charter challenge to this Zionist-created legislation will argue that Sec. 319(2) is an unacceptable infringement on Sec. 2b of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and ought to be struck down. It will be of interest to anyone concerned about their right to open debate and freedom of speech because if these “Hate Propaganda” laws contained in Sections 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code of Canada aren’t repealed you can bet your bottom dollar that there will be more and more innocent Canadians charged and arrested, their homes invaded by these goon squads of “Hate Crime Units”, all their computers and electronic files stolen and God knows what else, all at the behest of these foreign interlopers disguising themselves as Jewish “lobbies” so that they can then infiltrate and poison the Canadian judicial system via their clandestine pressuring and media control in order to prevent their own crimes and the criminal activities of the state of Israel from being revealed on the Internet.


Please help out with the costs of the upcoming Charter hearing by going to the following website and making a donation.

gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings

BREAKING NEWS: Canada’s Terror Patsies, John Nuttall and Amanda Korody’s guilty verdict overturned by Judge

http://greencrowasthecrowflies.blogspot.com/2016/07/breaking-news-canadas-terror-patsies.html

Screen Shot 2016-07-30 at 9.52.04 AM

Screen Shot 2016-07-30 at 10.04.15 AM

Friday, July 29, 2016

BREAKING NEWS: Canada’s Terror Patsies, John Nuttall and Amanda Korody’s guilty verdict overturned by Judge

John Nuttall and Amanda Korody
after hearing verdict today
“The world has enough terrorists…we do not need the police to create more.”
BC Supreme Court Justice Catherine Bruce

In what Vancouver Sun reporter Ian Mulgrew describes as a stunning decision, the Judge in the Canadian Terror Patsies trial today ruled that the pair were entrapped by the RCMP. She overruled last year’s jury “guilty” decision and ruled that the police themselves broke the criminal code and if the guilty verdict were left to stand, it would obstruct justice. Well, that’s about as clear a verdict as can be stated by a judge. But it’s not good enough for the Crown and the police. They’re going to appeal. But looking at the verdict from their POV…what other choice do they have? If they don’t appeal, and win the appeal, the government’s going to get its @$$es sued off by the couple for entrapment, false charges and imprisonment.

Here is the CTV news report on the verdict and I will have some more comments to follow:

“VANCOUVER — A British Columbia couple found guilty of terrorism charges have had their verdicts tossed out in a scathing court decision that flays the RCMP for its “egregious” conduct in manipulating naive suspects into carrying out a police-manufactured crime.
B.C. Supreme Court Justice Catherine Bruce said the Mounties used trickery, deceit and veiled threats to engineer the terrorist acts for which John Nuttall and Amanda Korody were arrested on Canada Day three years ago.
The couple believed they were planting pressure-cooker bombs to kill and maim crowds gathered to celebrate at the B.C. legislature.
“The world has enough terrorists. We do not need the police to create more,” Bruce said in a landmark ruling Friday as she characterized the RCMP’s methods as “multi-faceted and systematic manipulation.”
“There is clearly a need to curtail the actions of police … to ensure that future undercover investigations do not follow the same path.”
Bruce said Mounties involved in a months-long sting launched in early 2013 knowingly exploited Nuttall and Korody’s vulnerabilities to induce them to commit an offence.
She described the pair as marginalized, socially isolated, former heroin addicts dependent on methadone and welfare to subsist and said they were “all talk and no action.”
Nuttall and Korody were recent converts to Islam. Their trial heard Nuttall say in a recording that he wanted to kill and maim countless people during Canada Day festivities in retaliation for Canada’s role in the mistreatment of Muslims in Afghanistan and other countries.
Without the heavy-handed involvement of undercover officers, it would have been impossible for Nuttall and Korody to articulate, craft and execute a terrorist bomb plot, Bruce said.
“Ultimately, their role in carrying out the plan was minuscule compared to what the police had to do,” Bruce said. “It was the police who were the leaders of the plot.”
She also condemned the behaviour of the primary undercover officer who, at the direction of the operation’s overseers, discouraged Nuttall and Korody from seeking outside spiritual guidance and convinced them he was a member of a powerful international terrorist group that would likely kill them if they failed to follow through.
“He was their leader and they were his disciples,” said Bruce, who stayed the proceedings, which threw out the convictions and allowed the couple to walk free after more than three years behind bars.

Screen Shot 2016-07-30 at 10.03.34 AM

They embraced outside B.C. Supreme Court before being temporarily re-arrested and later released from provincial court under a peace bond, which places them under strict conditions for up to a year.
A jury found the pair guilty in June 2015 of terrorism-related charges but Bruce delayed registering the convictions at the request of defence lawyers, who wanted to argue the Mounties had entrapped their clients.
The stay of proceedings means the charges won’t appear on any criminal record and can’t be used against the couple in the future. Had they been convicted, Nuttall and Korody could have faced a maximum sentence of life in prison.
Nuttall’s mother, Maureen Smith, was in court for the ruling and pumped her fist in the air when Bruce ordered a stay of proceedings.
Smith said she was ecstatic about the verdict but still furious at the RCMP.
“It makes me so angry that the cops did that to my son and Amanda,” she said. “The police were dirty crooks for committing these crimes against people, especially marginalized ones.”
Outside court, Crown lawyer Peter Eccles said he was disappointed by the decision and emphasized that the couple still pose a threat to the public.
“Let’s face it, they did do it,” Eccles said about Nuttall and Korody planting the inert explosives. “And they meant it.”
The Crown has filed an appeal of the ruling issued Friday.
Marilyn Sandford, Nuttall’s lawyer, referenced a section of the judge’s ruling, which described the RCMP’s perception of the risk posed by her client as “farcical.”
“We don’t criminalize thought in our country,” Sandford said. “We don’t criminalize crazy ideas. There are a lot of people with crazy ideas who are not inclined to act on them.”
Korody’s lawyer, Mark Jette, described the ruling as a “powerful indictment” against the RCMP and said the next step will be helping the couple re-integrate into society.
Jette rejected the suggestion that the public should be concerned about the ruling hamstringing police from investigating terrorism threats.
This is the first time in Canada that the legal defence of entrapment has been successfully argued in a terrorism case. Three previous attempts failed.”

Screen Shot 2016-07-30 at 10.03.21 AM

This is not over…as John Nuttall himself stated outside the courtroom after the verdict. He said he and Amanda Korody just want to go away and live their lives and have children. But he’s afraid to walk the streets of Canada…afraid the police will frame him again and/or take any children he and Amanda have. He says he can’t live in this country anymore.

I would say that John’s fears are well-founded. The police (and the police officers’ handlers…CSIS) cannot let this verdict stand. Not only will it bring lawsuits by the victimized couple for entrapment and imprisonment, etc…as I said before…but the RCMP and CSIS are in deep doo doo with the international cabal. They were supposed to get a conviction, which would serve as a precedent in the further corruption of the justice system in Canada….and lay the groundwork for more entrapment of vulnerable patsies and more terror plots/false flags for the international terror grist mill they’re setting up.

This Canadian legal precedent can be applied internationally and is a major setback for Terror Inc. The mistake the perpetrators of the entrapment scheme made was that they needed a corrupt judge to go along with the corrupt police officers and CSIS agents. The Canadian judicial system just isn’t far enough along in terms of corrupt judges….and hasn’t kept up with the corruption of the police departments.

And speaking of justice. Kudos to Supreme Court Justice Catherine Bruce…a true Canadian heroine if ever there was one! Hopefully she can now retire in peace. She saved the integrity of the Canadian judicial system…for now at least.

—-

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.

______

Authoritarian Jasper Violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom by Attempting to Silence Monika Schaefer’s Violin in Canada’s Jasper National Park by Prof. Tony Hall

BIGOTSVILLE

Authoritarian Jasper Violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom by Attempting to Silence Monika Schaefer’s Violin in Canada’s Jasper National Park 

by Prof. Tony Hall

Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 10.17.57 AM

To Dave Baker,

I am dumbfounded by the decision you delivered on behalf of some unnamed authority. To Ms. Monika Schaefer you write, “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.”

Please clarify who is included in this “we” on whose behalf you claim to speak? Who takes responsibility for the decision to violate core provision of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in the community of Canada’s Jasper National Park?

This unilateral decision extends the so-far-unaccountable decision of those in Jasper’s Canada Day Committee to silence Monika Schaefer’s violin playing last July 1st. Because some Jasperites apparently threatened to disrupt the event, presumably in response to Ms. Schaefer’s peaceful video expression, the precedent was set that Jasper is a place of censorship where freedom of expression and conscience can be subordinated when threats of violence arise.

Now comes this gross violation of fundamental principles of Canadian decency, not to mention the rule of law, as dictated by whatever authority it is on whose behalf you, Dave Baker, claim to be acting in handing down this truly reprehensible arbitration.

Canadians should know that because of the treatment by officialdom of Monika Schaefer, a very active and contributing 35-year citizen of the community you share with her, Jasper should not be considered a safe place suitable for hosting international visitors. From what I have been learning, Jasper seems to be a place where intolerance and arbitrary measures go forward founded on nothing more than the political opinion of unaccountable decision makers.

So far Monika has been dis-invited from her invited Canada Day performance. She has, as reported in The Fitzhugh, been banned from the Jasper Legion No. 31 seemingly on the unilateral say so of Ken Kuzminki. She has been refused by The Fitzhugh newspaper a right of a full response. Her censored full response to the original smear piece against her was considerably shorter than Paul Clarke’s report. Now you and those unnamed individuals for whom you claim to speak have decided to discriminate against Ms. Schaefer because of her beliefs. Characterizing her opinion as “non-inclusive” you have determined she is ineligible for a busking permits to play music in the Jasper town centre.

Your decision is exclusionary as well as discriminatory. The actions taken by you and others are thought to be “justified” on the basis of personal opinions about her video, a 6 minute item that some dislike and many more like. At last count of the 70,000 or so views, over 1400 individuals registered a “like” of the video while almost 600 voted thumbs down.

Given the way Jasper authorities are dealing with this controversy so far, should those that express “like” for the video be banned from Jasper National Park? Should entry into Jasper National Park be conditional on expressing dislike with Ms. Schaefer’s “Sorry Mom” video? Should entrants to the park have to go through screening for political correctness? Should all existing residents be subjected to a thought test like that to which Ms. Schaefer is currently being subjected?

Will the next step be to require Ms. Schaefer to wear some marker, say with a Germany-related symbol, to announce to visitors that she is the punished Jasper citizen whose ideas are so verboten that her violin playing in the streets of Jasper has been prohibited? Will all applicants for a busking permit be subjected to Internet checks to make sure everything they have published is consistent the Values and Principles Statement emanating from the Jasper Community Habitat for the Arts? To do any less would be discriminatory.

I await your indication of who is behind the decision to ban Monika’s beautiful violin playing from the streets of Jasper because she dared speak her mind on a controversial issue that should be treated with nuanced responses rather than with the authoritarian approach that you express in your terse statement to her. How many benefit events in Jasper have been graced by Monika’s legendary violin playing, now transformed into a political football to be thrown around for self-interested political advantage by Jasper’s self-appointed arbiters of community values and tastes.

Yours Sincerely,

Tony Hall
Professor of Liberal Education and Globalization Studies
University of Lethbridge

——————————————
From: Dave Baker <betabake@gmail.com>
Sent: July 23, 2016 11:55:28 AM
To: Monika Schaefer
Subject: RE: Busking Permit

 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.

 habitatvaluestatement2 (1)

Traitorous, Zionist Secret Masonic Jew Lobby group B’nai Brith Canada Bitching & Whining and Complaining About Elementary School Teacher’s Support for Palestine By Jillian D’Amours | MEE

Traitorous, Zionist Secret Masonic Jew Lobby group B’nai Brith Canada Bitching & Whining and Complaining About Elementary School Teacher’s Support for Palestine

Pro-Israel group claims Shoufani called for ‘violence against Israelis’ when she said Palestinians had right to resist occupation.

By Jillian D’Amours | MEE | July 15, 2016

Screen Shot 2016-07-22 at 5.56.48 PMTORONTO, Canada :– A Toronto-area school board and Toronto city police are investigating an elementary school teacher after pro-Israel lobby groups complained about comments she made during a rally in solidarity with Palestinians.

The teacher, Nadia Shoufani, addressed a downtown Toronto rally on 2 July, marking al-Quds Day, an annual event held around the world to support Palestinian rights and to protest Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.

“Silence in situations of oppression and injustices is a crime against humanity,” Shoufani said in her speech at the rally, in which she condemned the Israeli occupation and Israel’s policies of home demolitions, land confiscation and arrests of Palestinians.

Shoufani also quoted Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani, an important figure in the left-wing Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), who was assassinated by Israeli Mossad agents in a car bombing in Beirut in 1972.

“We say no, no, no to the occupation. We are here to tell the world that Palestinians are not alone,” Shoufani said:

 

Pro-Israel lobby involvement

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5

On its website, pro-Israel group Bnai Brith Canada accused Shoufani of “glorifying terrorists” in her speech.

“We are greatly concerned that an individual who espouses open support for terror and praises terrorist groups is teaching Canadian youth,” the group’s CEO, Michael Mostyn, said in a statement.

The group also accused her of “calling for violence against Israelis” by saying that Palestinians had a right to resist the Israeli occupation and its policies.

The Dufferin-Peel District Catholic School Board told Middle East Eye it is investigating Shoufani after the speech was brought to its attention by various sources, including Bnai Brith Canada and another pro-Israel group, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

ProPalHateCrime? copy 3

Shoufani teaches at an elementary school in Mississauga, a large suburb of Toronto, school board spokesperson Bruce Campbell said in an email. “We are actively investigating the issue brought to our attention,” Campbell said.

“In order to conduct a comprehensive investigation we are unable to place a definitive timeline on determining the results of an investigation at this point. However, given the serious nature of the issue, we would look to reach a resolution as quickly as possible,” he said.

 

Police launch investigation

Tyler Levitan, campaigns coordinator at Independent Jewish Voices-Canada, a group that supports Palestinian rights, said organisations like Bnai Brith Canada and Canadian Friends of Simon Wiesenthal “are shills for Israel”.

“Ms Shoufani was speaking passionately in support of the Palestinians’ right to defend themselves against an occupying power,” Levitan told MEE in an email.

“Under international law, those living under military occupation and a system of colonialism have the absolute right to resist. Ms Shoufani spoke as a defender of the rights of an occupied and besieged people to resist an obscenely violent and criminal military occupation over their lands.”

Meanwhile, Caroline de Kloet, a spokeswoman for the Toronto Police Service, told MEE on Thursday that a complaint was filed with police on 6 July about “comments made at a rally”.

De Kloet would not disclose which specific comments were subject to the complaint, or which and how many individuals were under investigation. She also would not disclose who filed the complaint.

“I can’t tell you who filed the report or what’s being looked into, or any of the specifics,” she said, “But right now there is a report on file and it’s being looked at.”

Shoufani could not immediately be reached for comment.

 

‘Put a chill’ on organizing

Recently, pro-Israel lobby groups in Canada have launched several campaigns targeting groups and individuals supporting Palestinian rights.

Bnai Brith Canada lauded a parliamentary motion passed earlier this year condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to hold Israel accountable under international law.

In March, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs accused Canadian law professor Michael Lynk of demonstrating a pro-Palestinian bias and of being involved in “anti-Israel advocacy”. The accusations came after Lynk was appointed as the new Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Pro-Israel groups have also urged Canada to maintain funding cuts on the United Nations agency that supports Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.

They are also pressuring the Green Party of Canada to dismiss two motions, set to be debated at a party convention in August, that would strip the Jewish National Fund of its charitable status and endorse BDS.

“I know from past experience that Bnai Brith would be using every means possible to try to shut down the al-Quds rally,” said Ken Stone, treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War and another speaker at the al-Quds Day rally in Toronto this year.

Stone told MEE that Bnai Brith Canada has taken the comments made at the rally out of context and distorted them in an effort to shut down the annual event and silence Canadian supporters of Palestinian rights.

“What they’re trying to do is … put a chill on people like Nadia Shoufani,” he said.

“[And] put a chill on people who might be tempted to get up at an al-Quds rally and declare their support for the Palestinian cause.”

—-

This article was originally appeared on Mid East Eye.

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”

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Young Canadian Truth-revealer Evalion has her You-Tube channel ‘liquidated’ by Joogle’s Zionist-Bolshevik Hate Commissars by KIN KARASIN FOR MAILONLINE

EvalionCensord

Angel-faced Youtuber, 18, is kicked off the site after sharing racist views and singing Happy Birthday to Hitler – with swastika CUPCAKES
By EKIN KARASIN FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: May 20th, 2016

••• 88 •••

An official YouTube spokesperson said: ‘That channel was terminated by us because it violated policies against hate speech.’

JEWSLOSINGPOSTER

Screen Shot 2016-05-22 at 11.48.15 AM
An 18-year-old woman, known as Evalion (pictured above) was banned from Youtube for posting videos where she praised Hitler and condemned Jews

A racist vlogger has been booted off YouTube after she sang happy birthday to Hitler and called black people ”niggers’ in her videos.

The woman, known as Evalion, caused outrage by calling Hitler a ‘brilliant’ and ‘compassionate man and condemning Jewish people.

Her true identity isn’t known but she is believed to be 18, living in Canada and well spoken.

Evalion’s channel was suspended after a profilic YouTuber, called Leafyishere uploaded a video about her entitled ‘The Most Racist Girl On The Entire internet’.

In Evalion’s videos called Why Hitler Wasn’t Evil and How Feminists Supported Rape by Causing the Migrant Crisis, she shared her support for Hitler.

There was shock when she made swastika cupcakes with birthday candles and sang happy birthday to a picture of the Fuhrer – who was behind the execution of six million Jewish people during the Second World War.

AdolfQuoteImage

Evalion insists that the leader of the Nazis was a good man whilst also admitting to being a Holocaust denier.

The baby-faced blogger is openly anti-Semitic by opening her videos with lines such as ‘Do you despise the Jews as much as I do’ and ‘Do you want to know how to spot a Jew.’

She also went on to use racist language by saying: ‘Don’t you hate those lazy niggers who are never satisfied even after they are given reparations.’

Screen Shot 2016-05-22 at 11.41.13 AM

Evalion caused outrage after she made Swastika cup cakes with birthday candles and sang happy birthday to a picture of Hitler

She also holds contempt for feminists blaming them for the migrant crisis and singling out criticism for Labour MP Jess Phillips.

The banning of Evalion has sparked intense debate on social-media with some people outraged at YouTube’s decision to censor her.

Disturbingly Evalion had over 40,000 subscribers before she was exiled.

One Twitter user called Spanky the Monkey said: ‘If you love free speech, then you have to allow ALL people to speak!’

And @Polite-Critical said: ‘I don’t support what Evalion says, but I defend her right to say it.’

Screen Shot 2016-05-22 at 11.43.06 AM

Teen YouTuber sings happy birthday to Hitler in shock video
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3600710/Angel-faced-youtuber-18-kicked-site-sharing-racist-views-singing-happy-birthday-Hitler-swastika-cupcakes.html#v-7373024103982284359

However other people agreed with the Google owned video platform’s decision.

@HeroticTV said: ‘YouTube has every reason to ban Evalion from YouTube.’

And Craig Ewen added: ‘I think Evalion deserved it. At the end of the day YouTube is a place kids 5+ can go to.’

An official YouTube spokesperson said: ‘That channel was terminated by us because it violated policies against hate speech.’

Young EvalionSpeaks

In Evalion’s videos called ‘Why Hitler Wasn’t Evil’ and ‘How Feminists Supported Rape by Causing the Migrant Crisis’ she describes Adolf Hitler as a ‘brilliant’ and ‘compassionate man’


SOURCE ARTICLE

Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia PMO office

Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia

PMO, Ottawa, Ontario

PMOStatement4

Statement by the Prime Minister of Canada on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia

May 17, 2016
Ottawa, Ontario

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia:

“Today, I join Canadians – and people around the world – to recognize the International Day Against Homophobia, Transphobia, and Biphobia.

“Everyone deserves to live free of stigma, persecution, and discrimination – no matter who they are or whom they love. Today is about ensuring that all people – regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity – feel safe and secure, and empowered to freely express themselves.

“On this important day, I encourage all Canadians to raise awareness, and mobilize to end the violence, prejudice, and judgement faced by LGBTQ2 persons.

“As a society, we have taken many important steps toward recognizing and protecting the legal rights for the LGBTQ2 community – from enshrining equality rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to the passage of the Civil Marriage Act. There remains much to be done, though. Far too many people still face harassment, discrimination, and violence for being who they are. This is unacceptable.

“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.

“Today, let us unite in a global celebration of diversity, and reaffirm our commitment to unequivocally defend LGBTQ2 rights as human rights. We will never stop fighting for a safer, more equal, and more just world for all of our children.”


FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP copy 3

EndHateCrimeLegislation 2 copy 2

SUPPORTFREEDOMOFSPEECH

ATEDITOR0216

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”

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

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!

Anti-BDS Motion – Why Does Canada Sanction Other Countries for Human Rights Violations but Not Israel? By Julie Lévesque Global Research

BDSCANADAVOTE

http://www.globalresearch.ca/anti-bds-motion-why-does-canada-sanction-other-countries-for-human-rights-violations-but-not-israel/5510386

Anti-BDS Motion – Why Does Canada Sanction Other Countries for Human Rights Violations but Not Israel?

By Julie Lévesque

Global Research, February 26, 2016

BDS-Logo-Israel-Boycott-400x242

 

The international community, speaking through the United Nations, has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights – colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation… Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem contains elements of all three of these regimes”. – John Dugard, UN’s former Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

This week, the Canadian Parliament overwhelmingly voted in favour of a motion condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

The motion, passed on February 22 by a 229-51 vote, states:

“That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.”

First, there is no such thing as “friendship” between states. States have no friends, they have interests and nothing else.

Second, the BDS movement does not promote “the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel,” as the motion puts it, in a very unfactual and questionable manner. The BDS movement promotes international law and Palestinian rights and condemns Israel’s total lack of respect for both.

Despite its emotional and propagandist wording, the motion completely fails to hide the fact that it condemns criticism of human rights violations by Israel. This calls for some explanations.

By condemning a peaceful movement that tries to bring Israel to account, Canada expresses its total disregard for human rights and international law and its sheer hypocrisy when faced with human rights violations.

There are currently 22 states targeted by Canadian sanctions, several of them for human rights violations. And Israel, being Canada’s “friend”, is not one of them, even if the sanctioned countries’ misdeeds pale in comparison to the death and destruction Israel has imposed on Palestinians for decades.

While not one sanction has been imposed on Israel for its war crimes and crimes against humanity, some countries have been sanctioned by Canada simply for “misappropriating state funds.”

There are no words to describe the scale of this hypocrisy, but, we don’t need any since the facts speak for themselves. Before looking at the list of sanctioned countries and the reasons behind their sanctions, it is worth mentioning only a few facts about Israel.

As mentioned in the quote above, Israel’s policies and practices violate the most fundamental human rights of the Palestinians. The Hebrew state has been the subject of at least 77 UN resolutions since 1955, and has been criticized in at least 26 resolutions for its violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

In July 2015, a report by Amnesty International found “compelling evidence of serious violations of international humanitarian law by Israeli forces” as well as “strong evidence of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity” during Israel’s 2014 assault on Gaza.” Evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity were also found during Operation Cast Lead in 2008.

Of course, most reports from the U.N. as well as the ones from human rights organizations mentioned below pretend to be “balanced” by equally blaming both sides, the Israeli army as well as Palestinian militias. If opinions can be “balanced”, facts, however, cannot, and the scale of death and destruction doesn’t lie. Most, if not all the damage and loss of life occurs on the Palestinian side. Every single time.

These few facts about Operations Cast Lead in 2008 and Protective Edge in 2014 prove it:

Cast Lead:

[B]etween 1,385 and 1,419 Palestinians were killed during Cast Lead, a majority of them civilians, including at least 308 minors under the age of 18. More than 5000 more were wounded. Thirteen Israelis were also killed, including 3 civilians.

According to the UN, 3,540 housing units were completely destroyed, with another 2,870 sustaining severe damage.

More than 20,000 people – many of them already refugees, some two or three times over – were made homeless.

Protective Edge:

At least 2,100 Palestinians were killed, of whom the United Nations identified more than 1,500 as civilians, and approximately 11,000 people, mostly civilians, were injured. The tens of thousands of Israeli attacks caused the vast majority of destruction during the fighting, which left uninhabitable 22,000 homes, displacing 108,000 people, and left hundreds of thousands without adequate water or electricity.

Attacks by Palestinian civilians injured 61 Israeli settlers in the West Bank as of October 31, the UN reported. In addition to the three Israeli teenagers who were killed in June, nine Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians.

How many dead Israeli civilians compared to Palestinian civilians? How many housing units destroyed in Israel? How many homeless Israelis? Let’s be honest. A truly balanced report would reflect the facts and not try to equally blame both sides. The forces in this conflict as well as the damage done are anything but equal. They are completely disproportionate.

That being said, Israel’s contempt for international law is legend and with this motion, Canadian Parliamentarians have just proven one more time they are bought and sold.

It is now worth taking a look at the countries against which Canada has placed sanctions and why, since all of them, without exception, pale in comparison to Israel’s bloody record.

The list clearly shows how Canada has no credibility whatsoever when it comes to condemning states for their lack of respect for human rights or people who protest against criminal states, for that matter.

Here is the list of the countries sanctioned for human rights reasons. It should be noted that several, if not all, background explanations provided on the Canadian Government web site (in brackets) are totally biased and simplistic, when not pure propaganda.

Belarus: “[D]eteriorating human rights situation.”

This includes “widespread harassment and detention of opposition party campaign workers, the physical assault of senior opposition figures, arbitrary use of state powers to support the incumbent president, pressure on state workers and students to support the President, restrictions on the ability of opposition campaigns to communicate with the electorate, and control of the state media to severely restrict access by opposition candidates.”

What happens it the Occupied Territories is much worse, yet no sanctions against Israel.

Burma: “[G]ravity of the human rights and humanitarian situation…, which threatened peace and security in the entire region.”

Libya: “[V]iolence and the use of force against civilians.”

Day-to-day in the Occupied Territories.

Russia: “Activists were beaten, kidnapped and tortured [in Ukraine]. The Russian government encouraged, and supported, these measures.”

Meanwhile, more and more “Palestinian children [are] beaten and tortured by Israeli security forces while in detention.” Read also Israeli NGO B’Tselem’s report Backed by the System: Abuse and Torture at the Shikma Interrogation Facility.

Sudan: “[H]umanitarian crisis and widespread human rights violations resulting from the conflict in Darfur region”

Syria: “The Syrian Government’s violent crackdown on peaceful protesters led to many civilian deaths and injuries. Thousands of civilians were detained arbitrarily and there were credible reports of summary executions and torture.”

Israel arbitrarily detains Palestinians on a regular basis, including children, and summary executions and torture and common.

According to B’Tselem: “At the end of Dec. 2015, 422 Palestinian minors were held in Israeli prisons as security detainees and prisoners, including 6 administrative detainees.”

According to Human Rights Watch:

“Israeli security forces continued to arrest children suspected of criminal offenses, usually stone-throwing, in their homes at night, at gunpoint; question them without a family member or lawyer present; and coerce them to sign confessions in Hebrew, which they do not understand… As of October 31, Israel held 457 Palestinian administrative detainees without charge or trial, based on secret evidence. Israeli prison authorities shackled hospitalized Palestinians to their hospital beds after they went on long-term hunger strikes to protest their administrative detention.”

Last year, Amnesty International has condemned “what it called a ‘clear pattern’ of… summary killings… as the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces this month [October 2015] rose to at least 61. )

Ukraine: “Activists were beaten, kidnapped and tortured.”

Zimbabwe: “marked escalation in human rights violations and violence directed at the political opposition, a stolen election, the denial of a peaceful democratic transition and a worsening humanitarian situation.”

Other reasons for which Canada has sanctioned countries include:

– “political crisis and conflict” (Yemen, Somalia);

– “violations of ceasefire and hostilities” (Ivory Coast, Democratic Republic of the Congo);

– “misappropriated state funds” (Egypt, Tunisia);

– “heavy loss of human life and widespread material damage resulting from a conflict” (Eritrea, Somalia);

– “nuclear program” (Sanctions on Iran, which has a nonexistent nuclear program, but none on Israel, which is known to possess between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads.)

– “invasion” (Sanctions on Iraq for the invasion of Kuwait… but no sanctions for the U.S. which has illegally invaded Iraq, among other countries, and of course, no sanctions on Israel for decades of occupation);

– “continued escalation of hostilities” (Lebanon)

– “support for the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone” (Liberia)

– “violation of the constitution and international law” (Ukraine).

– “conducting a test of a nuclear weapon” (North Korea)

– “acts of violence and the increase in acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea against vessels” (Somalia)

– “engaging in violent conflict, much of it along ethnic lines” (South Sudan)

As you probably noticed, none of these countries has been accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Canada imposes sanctions on countries for misappropriated state funds, but regards war criminal state Israel as a “friend” which deserves that it condemns its own citizens for protesting against its supreme crime.

Parliamentarians need to explain this nonsense.

As a member of the United Nations, Canada should, as stated in the U.N. Preamble, “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and… establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained.”

By voting in favour of this motion, Canadian Parliamentarians have failed to honor their obligations.Miserably.

—–

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Julie Lévesque, Global Research, 2016

TO FIND OUT HOW YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT VOTED PLEASE GO TO THIS LINK

Canadian Roundtable – The Trial of Arthur Topham & The Jewish Lobby in Canada by Red Ice Radio

http://www.redicecreations.com/radio/2016/02/RIR-160210.php

CanRound Final

 

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

Kenneth L. Marcus: King Canard and the Lie of Anti-Semitism By Arthur Topham

MarcusKingCanardHdr

Kenneth L. Marcus: King Canard and the Lie of Anti-Semitism

A response to the Marcus Interview in the Canadian Jewish News

By

Arthur Topham

UPDATE: DEC. 23/15

Editor’s Note: In the interest of dialogue I posted the following comment on the Canadian Jewish News website where Kenneth L. Marcus’s interview was published. When I clicked “send” the following window appeared:

CJNHoldOn!

Four hours later when I checked to see if my comment had appeared on the site I found this:

CJCRemoved

So I suppose it proves the point that I’ve been trying to make when it comes to dialoguing with the Zionist Jews:

FBHeaderNew copy

A dear friend recently alerted me to a Jonathan Dick email interview in the Canadian Jewish News with Kenneth L. Marcus, self-chosen founder, president and legal beagle for his Zionist propaganda organization titled the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law. The reason for doing so was because Marcus had mentioned my trial here in Canada in response to a question from Dick regarding whether he could provide readers with any specific examples of anti-Semitism “in a Canadian context”.

Marcus’s interview was mainly focused on the Zionist’s ongoing attempts at equating “anti-Semitism” with criticism of Israel and its Zionist ideology within the context of what the Zionists perceive as a growing resurgence of “anti-Semitism” on U.S. campuses. My response is as follows:

In his interview with the Canadian Jewish News Kenneth L. Marcus tells us that he “sadly discovered that anti-Semitism was surging on university campuses” but of course fails to address the reasons why he perceives such a phenomenon occurring today.

In response to the question, “How do you feel about the EU’s recent ruling in the labelling of products originating from Israeli settlements? Could this type of legislation bolster anti-Semitism globally?” Marcus replies that “The European Union’s labelling policy is classically discriminatory in that it subjects products produced in Jewish-owned businesses to adverse treatment. It is no mere response to occupation.” and then goes on to state that “Other countries are engaged in occupations, but Europe does not treat them in this way.” This of course is pure, outright hypocrisy and bigotry veiled behind a lame, undocumented accusation that other nations are doing it so why can’t Israel.

Marcus then attempts to suggest that the reason for Israel being singled out is simply because it is a “Jewish state” as if that, in itself, was something warranting a positive response. Merely making such a confession is proof enough that Israel is a RACIST, Jews-only state that treats its own non-Jewish, Arab and Christian citizens as second class, thus refusing them equality under state laws.

To then further his sophistry Marcus has the unmitigated gall to state that “The EU’s actions make sense only as an example of anti-Jewish hate. The EU may protest that they are not anti-Semitic. But their actions speak for themselves.”

It didn’t take Marcus too long to get to the “hate” factor which is the essence of his groundless accusations against the EU, “hate” of course being the semantic oil that the Zionist Jew applies liberally to every aspect of Jewish misfeasance and crime against humanity in order to make their “anti-Semitism” canard run smoothly throughout their global network of lies, deception, and brainwashing.

Marcus adds, “Whether consciously or unconsciously, Europe’s leaders are treating Israel as the collective Jew, assailing its legitimacy in the same way that their ancestors challenged the legitimacy of the Jewish people.” It begs the question as to whether or not Marcus actually expects readers to fall for such simplistic, transparent jingoism given that during the last genocide of the Palestinian people of Gaza by the Israeli state the Israeli people were 95% in favour of the wanton bombing and killing of thousands of innocent men, women and children. No Marcus you’re wrong. Israel IS the collective Jew in that its Jewish population, as a collective, whole-heartedly endorses mass genocide of innocent Palestinian citizens and the theft of their legitimate territory and it therefore begs the question as to why it’s that difficult for Marcus to understand such a simple and truthful concept?

Then, to add further injury to his already pretentious, self-righteous accusations, Marcus has the chutzpah to reference the charlatan of all modern-day charlatans, Elie Wiesel and allude to his fictional, propagandist novel, Night, as a “classic”. Yes, Kenneth it truly is a classic alright; a classic example of pure, fictional lies and hate propaganda designed to promote endless Germanophobia and prop up the Zionist 6 Million “holocaust” lie that the Jew media has been inculcating into gentile minds since the end of WW II. It’s lies and bigotry are only surpassed by that other hideous “classic” Jewish “hate” novel, Germany Must Perish! penned by the American Jewish writer Theodore N. Kaufman back in 1941.

Of closer note though are references to your traitorous Canadian Jew associates/advisers like Irwin Cotler who has been working tirelessly for decades to undermine Canada’s Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms by conspiring with like-minded dual-citizen Israeli/Canadian Jews and gentile sycophants to promote his brain-scheme the “Ottawa Protocols” along with infesting Canada’s judicial system with Talmudic-driven “Hate Propaganda” legislation such as Sec. 319(2) under which I was recently falsely accused, tried and (thus far) found guilty on one count out of two of “promoting hatred” toward “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin”.

Your remark that, “Part of the problem is that anti-Semitism is not widely enough understood.” is a classic statement in itself Kenneth. Most intelligent observers of the actions of the state of Israel are quite aware of the discrepancies that exist within that government’s policies toward non-Jews, be they the second-class citizens within Israel or the Arab people of Palestine, and it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Israel’s actions are legally and morally reprehensible and most worthy of condemnation by any normal, civilized nation or individual. No, Kenneth, we don’t need any more “education” from the Zionists about what Jewish hatred toward non-Jews is all about. We see it enacted daily around the world in both the open and hidden actions of the Zionists everywhere. The only “problem” is you and your ilk who cannot seem to grasp the obvious truth that it’s your actions against others that call forth the indignation and displeasure of decent people around the world; healthy, natural reactions which you refuse to acknowledge because of your own grotesquely perverse mindset that sees any attempt to dissuade you from your killing and destructive behaviour as merely “anti-Semitism”.

As for young people today on campuses reacting with horror and revulsion upon witnessing the actions of Israel against the defenceless Palestinian people of Gaza and the West Bank this is no different than the reactions of young people on campuses back in the 1960s when the Viet Nam war was being enacted before the world. Judging from your age you were likely still in diapers at the time or else unborn but I clearly recall the temper of those times. The only difference now is that it’s not the US military doing the slaughtering but the IDF and so for students to be able to recognize who the guilty culprits are is as simple as going online and watching the devastation. But not only have you got this wrong Kenneth you’re also out to lunch as well in stating that “North American campuses often harbour radical left-wing movements that are hostile to Israel, Zionism, and the Jewish people.” If you knew your “left-wingers” you’d know that most of them support the actions of Israel for the “left” is but another category of the Zionist conspiracy. It’s the truth-revealers and those on the right who condemn Israel’s heinous actions not the “left”.

Your attempt to lay blame on the German people (again) for being the original instigators of boycotts like the BDS movement is another futile gesture which others have exposed in the comments section below your CJN article. Again, it all boils down to your refusal to look into the mirror and see yourself for what you are – a pretentious fool so entangled in your own convoluted, Talmudic “logic” and sophistry that you cannot extricate yourself from an identity that’s leading you and your Zionist cohorts to the edge of that same self-created abyss you’ve always arrived at throughout history.

Your advice to college students again illustrates the degree to which you misinterpret what’s happening to Jewish people everywhere due to the actions of the Zionist element which is apparently now beyond redemption. To suggest that people should “maintain the moral high ground” and not “use the vicious tactics of Jewry’s enemies” has got to be another gross example of Zion’s fatuous, deluded mentality given the incredibly immoral actions on the part of the state of Israel which you are attempting to legitimize in your interview. The same goes for your advice to “Stay safe”, “Stand tall”, “Organize”, “Collaborate”, “Educate”, “Cooperate”, “Laugh” and “Fight”. These are actions for individuals who are ethical and moral beings; people who understand what truth and freedom and justice mean. It’s obvious from the stance that you take in this interview that none of those qualities could ever apply to people who condone what the state of Israel is doing to the Palestinian people and others around the world.

In a further question form Dick “Could you provide specific examples of recent anti-Semitism in a Canadian context?” you replied, “More recently, one thinks about the trial of Arthur Topham [emphasis added. A.T.]”

It’s good that you should think about the trial of Arthur Topham Kenneth Marcus. You and all the rest of the Zionist Jews across Canada, the USA, the EU and elsewhere in the world. That trial is far from over and there will be additional lessons to be learned by studying its unfoldment. It’s not, as you would suggest, a case involving “anti-Semitism” but rather a case revealing to the world the TRUTH about the extent of Zionist Jew collusion and conspiracy, not only in Canada, but in every democratic nation around the planet. It’s a case of wilful collusion designed to destroy the civil and legal rights of individuals and prevent people from expressing on the internet their opinions and thoughts on political matters relevant to their own lives, the lives of their families and friends and their respective nations. What’s really on trial in the Arthur Topham case Kenneth is whether Truth or Deception will reign supreme in the future of free and democratic countries around the world. Your “anti-Semitism” canard is but an old, worn-out, transparently duplicitous epithet whose time is long past and will never serve to cover up the crimes of the Zionists as it once did when you controlled all the major media sources.

Dick’s final question to Marcus: “Where do you see Israel in ten years? Where do you see the state of global anti-Semitism/anti-Zionism in ten years?”

Your final comment Kenneth that the future of Israel and of the Jewish people is “in our hands” couldn’t be closer to the truth although you obviously cannot envision what that truth is or how it might unfold for the “Jewish people”.

The “truth” is unfolding before your eyes and before the eyes of all Zionists today, be they Jewish or gentile, yet you are unable to recognize it for what it is because of your own lack of prejudicial understanding and the age-old handicap known as the Talmudic mindset that has formed the foundational basis of your religious/political ideology over the past two thousand years.

Seeing as how Christmas and Hannukah are currently underway it might be a fitting time to draw some analogies from these two historic events.

Just as Jesus Christ attempted to convince the Jewish Pharisees and Sanhedrin of old that their stifling, dead letter approach to divine Law was no longer relevant in a world evolving toward love, peace, universal brotherhood and freedom of the individual, so too now, as the world at large is attempting to tell you once again that your actions and Israel’s actions are no longer acceptable to the freedom-loving people of the world today, you are still doing your utmost to deny what’s happening and resorting to the only escape you feel is available which is to delude yourselves and others into thinking that the truth-revealers who are trying to help you avoid the ultimate pitfall actually “hate” you and wish to do you wrong. Nothing could be further from the truth Kenneth.

Your Pharisaic, Talmudic legacy was responsible for the murdering of the prophets of old in a vain attempt to co-opt the divinity of the heavenly Father and claim Providence as your own but that time has now passed away. As things stand today it’s inconceivable that Israel will still exist as a nation in ten years if it doesn’t break free from its Pharisiac-imposed, ghetto consciousness (psychosis) wherein it sees every action designed to enlighten it and bring it back into the family of man as mere “anti-Semitism”. The global truth movement Kenneth will not be stopped. It’s unstoppable as the rising sun is unstoppable. The Zionist’s licence to indiscriminately kill has been revoked. The light of truth is increasing at an exponential rate and cannot be resisted without having major detrimental effects upon those who fight against it. You do have the power to change Kenneth but that power will only come from recognizing the error of your ways and returning to a path of peace and love for all of humanity not just your own tribe. Only then will you and the rest of humanity achieve what you term “justice for all”.

Letter to Editor, Quesnel Cariboo Observer: Witnessing the dismantling of our freedoms By Al Romanchuk

ATEditorPic185

Dear Reader,

The following letter, written by Al Romanchuk of Edmonton, Alberta and published in the Quesnel Cariboo Observer on Wednesday, December 2, 2015, is a superlative testament, not only to the courage, willingness and sagacity of the writer but also to the strength of heart and integrity of the editor of this community newspaper, Autumn MacDonald for having the strength of conviction to put into print the truth of what Canadians now face in terms of a clear and dire threat to their Constitutional right to freedom of expression on the Internet.

It is with a profound sense of gratitude that I thank both these individuals and the publisher, Black Press for taking the lead and providing the rest of the country’s mainstream media with a positive example of what a newspaper can do, no matter its size, to stand up for an individual’s right to express their opinions and beliefs as provided in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Please pass this letter on to your friends and associates.

Note also that you can access the editions of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer by going to the following url: http://issuu.com/search?q=Quesnel,+BC

Sincerely,

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

AlRomanchuk'sLet2CaribooObserver

DOUBLE CLICK ON THE IMAGE TO ENLARGE. YOU MAY HAVE TO DO IT TWICE.

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham: Part 2 by Eve Mykytyn

Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 4.51.44 PM

http://dissidentvoice.org/2015/11/the-extraordinary-trial-of-arthur-topham-part-2/#more-60483

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham: Part 2

by Eve Mykytyn / November 14th, 2015

Read Part 1.

On November 12th the jury found Mr. Topham guilty of ‘inciting hate.’ This leads to a few questions.

First, the jury found Mr. Topham guilty on Count 1 but not guilty on Count 2. Ordinarily, this is a result we are comfortable with since the state (the Crown) may have proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that a defendant committed an assault but not have shown sufficient evidence of battery. Mr. Topham’s case is different. He was charged with two virtually identical counts, both relating to his website but covering different periods of time, that is, count 1 was for the period from April 28, 2011 to May 4, 2012, and count 2 was for January 29, 2013 to December 11, 2013.

If Mr. Topham intended to incite hate, would he really have changed his mind in the brief period between counts 1 and 2? We will never know what the jury relied upon; in yet another abrogation of free speech, the jury was threatened that if they spoke to anyone about their deliberations, they would be committing a criminal offense. How is the public supposed to understand the mysterious machinations of the term ‘hate’ without knowing what caused a jury to convict a fellow citizen of such a crime?

Hate is a crime the essential elements of which have been left undefined. As a writer, one must not only discern from the miasma what constitutes ‘hate’ but also guess what elements a jury will find persuasive. If one of the main goals of the criminal law is to prevent certain behavior then clarity of what such behavior is, is essential. What can Canadians say? May they say they disagree strongly with a particular group? What evidence can one print in support of their disagreement? Surely, it is not the defendant’s responsibility that a particular political group is also associated with an ethnic identity and a religion. The Crown, by controlling website content through its ‘hate’ law, is controlling not only what Canadians may say but also what Canadians may read. Mr. Topham’s is not the only blog to criticize Israel and Zionism. Should Canadians then read political criticism only from other countries? Very troubling.

Second, the crown had almost 2 years to prepare its case. Its evidence was contained in 4 binders. Many of the pages were illegible and the Crown itself seemed to have extraordinary difficulties in citing to its own arguments. The defense quite properly objected. The Crown wanted to provide clear copies of the illegible pages in yet another binder cross referenced to the originals. The trial could have been an exercise in maze solving. Judge Butler ruled that the Crown had to provide legible copies. This seemed to present a large obstacle and endless court time was wasted in discussions of printing costs, etc. As a foreign observer it seemed ironic that the crown spent $190 an hour on its expert witness, who as an earlier independent complainant against Mr. Topham might have been willing to accept less, and I don’t know how much money on ‘security’ but had so much trouble producing legible copies.

I belabor this point because it is very odd for the prosecution to allow its evidence to be blurry. I would expect in proving an elusive crime like ‘hate’ they would want their evidence to be as clear and convincing as possible. Was the intent to confuse the jury? Was the Crown merely incompetent? This is not impossible. The judge spent much time instructing the crown’s representative, Ms. Johnston, on procedural issues. This gave me the impression (and perhaps the jurors as well?) that the judge was helping and thus favoring the prosecution. Surely this was unintentional on Judge Butler’s part.

Third, and this relates to point two, the jury was given 62 pages of ‘charges’ (or what Americans call jury instructions). Even if all twelve jurors, ordinary men and women, are speed readers, how are they to read and evaluate 62 pages of instructions and then apply them to four binders? The plethora of material leads me to suspect that the jury was not intended to read the material at all. This would tend the jury toward a guilty verdict.

There is not a sinister act by the jury. They were asked to sit through weeks of testimony about Jewish politics, history, religion, and identity. Jury selection would have excluded anyone who was actually interested in such topics. They were handed stacks of paper. Faced with these circumstances, they presumably decided that the Crown and the judge worked for their province and had British Columbia’s best interests at heart. It is actually a testimony to the weakness of the Crown’s case that Mr. Topham was found not guilty at all.

The battle is not over. Following the verdict, both sides indicated that they intended to appeal. (Here Canada differs from the United States where prosecutors can appeal only under very limited circumstances). The Crown asked that Mr. Topham’s bail restrictions be changed and that his website be taken down. Judge Butler did not decide these issues because first, as the defense pointed out, these requests were improperly made. Mr. Topham intends to present a Charter (constitutional) argument that the judge had stayed at the beginning of the trial so that the ‘facts’ of the case could be more fully developed at trial.

Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.

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

 

HARPER GOVERNMENT SUPPORT FOR ISRAEL: Ottawa threatens to use Sec. 319 “Hate Propaganda” laws against Canadians who support boycotting Israel PressTV

Screen Shot 2015-05-23 at 4.00.19 PM

CLICK HERE TO VIEW: https://youtu.be/tTOO5K4UhsM

Screen Shot 2015-05-23 at 4.05.15 PM

Screen Shot 2015-05-23 at 4.01.33 PM

Commentary on the Current Hate-Fest Against Arthur Topham & Radical Press in Wells, B.C. from a Facebook user

WellsCommentary