KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by the B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress
By Arthur Topham
January 4, 2008
KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by the B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress By Arthur Topham
KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by the B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress
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 the Special 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 the Special 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, focusing 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 focused 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.
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 traveling 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:
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
CBC Prince George Reporter-Editor Betsy Trumpener: Lying, Anti-free Speech Hack Agent for B’nai Brith Canada’s League for ‘Human Rights’ By Arthur Topham
CBC Prince George Reporter-Editor Betsy Trumpener:
Lying, Anti-free Speech Hack Agent for B’nai Brith Canada’s League for ‘Human Rights’
By Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
Betsy Trumpener CBC “reporter”Prince George, B.C.
As the Constitutional Charter challenge to Canada’s notoriously unjust, Zionist-created “Hate Propaganda” legislation contained in Sections 318 to 320 of the Canadian Criminal Code was due to commence in Quesnel, B.C.’s Supreme Court on Monday, October 3rd, CBC’s Prince George reporter-editor ran a hit piece on the hearing that was posted to the CBC website on September 30, 2016 under the title of B.C. man convicted of promoting hate on web to challenge law in court today.
Due to a court order imposed upon Topham prohibiting him from publishing the names of the traitorous scumbags who’ve been attacking him and his family and website for the past 10 years this article cannot post a direct link to the Trumpener article.
The slanderous excuse for an objective news story was pure Zionist vilification of Arthur Topham, Editor and Publisher of RadicalPress.com that consisted of lies, half-truths and mis- and dis-information.
Trumpener, who has been following the case of R vs Roy Arthur Topham since Topham’s trial back in Oct/Nov. of 2015, has been publishing lies and half-truths about the case in an attempt to portray the publisher of the alternative news site as an “anti-Semitic, Racist, Jew-hater” who’s been using his website to publish articles calling for the “sterilization” and “genocide” of all the Jewish population in order to resolve the “Jewish Problem” once and for all.
In her most recent repulsive screed aimed at defaming Topham’s motives and character, Trumpener, without speaking to Topham and getting his perspective on the case and the Charter challenge, interviewed the Zionist Jew scumbag B’nai Brith agent from Victoria, B.C. who had filed the Sec. 319(2) against Topham back in May of 2011 and prior to that had also filed a Sec. 13 complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission back as far as 2007 alleging that Topham was “promoting hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnicity and/or citizens of Israel”. No shit. Promoting “hatred” toward citizens of the foreign, racist, Jews-only state of Israel.
Trumpener then quotes the lying scumbag Mossad operative known as “Agent Z” and publishes all of his bullshit lies about Topham including the most insidious falsification of all – that Topham was calling “for the sterilization of all Jews” and that, in the scumbag’s demented mind meant “incitement to genocide”.
The same lying Israeli sayan Trumpener had sat through the trial back in 2015 and knew full well that the scumbag from Victoria was lying when he made these statements. She knew that this agent for the foreign racist, supremacist, criminal state of Israel was misquoting statements from a satire that Topham had posted on his website called Israel Must Perish! This hack “journalist” also knew that Israel Must Perish! was a satirical response to a REAL BOOK published back in 1941 in the USA by a JEWISH writer by the name of Theodore N. Kaufman, titled Germany Must Perish!
Trumpener was aware that Topham had merely chose some of the more juicey and outrageously hateful sections of the real book of Kaufman’s and then digitally reprinted them VERBATIM. The only alteration of the actual text of the real book was when Topham changed the words “Germany” and “German” and “Nazi” and “Hitler” to “Israel” and “Jew” and “Zionist” and “Netanyahu” in order to transform the original, lurid production of Kaufman’s into a satire or parody of the original work.
It was Kaufman in his book Germany Must Perish! who was calling for the total sterilization of the German population in order to wipe out the German race. It was Kaufman who actually wrote and published this book and when it was placed on the market for sale this heinous publication calling for the absolute genocide of the German population was endorsed on the back cover by some of the leading and most prestigious newspapers and magazines in the United States. Time Magazine and the Washington Post as well as the New York Times and the Philadelphia Record (as illustrated below in the graphic showing the actual front and back covers of the book) all added their voices to the Jewish call for the “total sterilization of the German population in order to wipe out the German race.”
“The lying hack “journalist” Trumpener from CBC Prince George also was cognizant of the fact that in creating the online, digital satire of Kaufman’s book Topham had explained to his readership why he had come up with idea of satirizing Germany Must Perish! and the bottom line rationale for doing so was that the Zionist Jew lobbyists here in Canada had been falsely accusing and vilifying Topham in their Zionist controlled media (including CBC) for close to a decade and calling him a “hater” and a “racist” and an “anti-Semite” and Topham finally had had enough of these hypocrites and bigots calling the kettle black when, in truth, their own tribe of Jewish hate-mongers were the REAL HATERS and ADVOCATES OF GENOCIDING THE TOTAL GERMANIC RACE!”
So the satire appeared and when the scumbag Agent Z from Victoria, B.C. saw it he immediately saw his opportunity to twist it around 180 degrees and use it to accuse ME of wanting to genocide the “whole Jewish population”. He filed his complaint with the faggot Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team and Wilson swallowed Agent Z’s story hook, line and sinker (along with who knows what else) and proceeded to commence an investigation that eventually led to the arrest and incarceration of Topham on May 12th, 2012 and the Sec. 319(2) charge of “promoting hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnicity”.
It never seemed to have registered on the scumbag Agent Z or Det. Cst. Terry Wilson OR the BC Attorney General’s office who laid the charge that if Topham was calling for the “genocide of the total Jewish population” then he should have been charged under Sec. 318 of the Criminal Code NOT Sec. 319(2) because Sec. 318 deals with the promotion of genocide.
That folks is what the lying, hasbara Israeli reporter from CBC should have published in her story about Topham’s Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2) for that is the TRUTH about what happened and why Topham was framed and exploited and incarcerated and dragged through over four years of endless litigation. But then of course that’s NOT what B’nai Brith Canada wants done and CBC, given that it, as well as all of Canada’s major mainstream media, are controlled by the Zionist Jew lobby, instead publishes the LIES that the Zionist Jews want published.
So the question remains – who are the real haters in this psycho-drama now unfolding throughout Western civilization and when are they going to be held accountable for their traitorous acts against Canadian citizens?
Pianist Valentina Lisitsa: latest victim of Canada’s pro-Zionist Sec. 319(2) Hate Propaganda laws By Arthur Topham
Pianist Valentina Lisitsa:
latest victim of Canada’s pro-Zionist Sec. 319(2) Hate Propaganda laws
“We don’t have freedom of speech to protect only those we agree with, or those whose views are inoffensive. We have it precisely to protect people who have unpopular or even outrageous opinions.”
Editorial, Toronto Star, April 7, 2015
“It’s really hard to come up with words to praise her highly enough because this is someone the world needs to hear.”
Michael Fine, Producer, Valentina Lisitsa’s Rachmaninoff Project at London’s Abbey Road Studio with the London Philharmonic Orchestra
Back on April 27th, 2011, just days prior to Canada’s May 2nd federal election that saw the Stephen Harper Conservative government ascend to power, I penned and published an article titled, Hating Harper. The purpose of the piece was two-fold; first, to highlight my own battle with the then despicable Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” legislation that the Canadian Human Rights Commission and B’nai Brith Canada had been using against me since 2007 and second, to warn the Canadian electorate of the potentially dire consequences for the nation should the Conservative win a majority government.
The essay outlined what I felt were the root reasons why Canadians shouldn’t vote for this particular party. In part it contained the following:
“Plainly stated Canada is a Zionist Jew-controlled colony of the state of Israel. . . While hidden for over six decades from the majority of Canadians by the Zionist-controlled media’s ‘Iron Curtain’ of deception it is nonetheless an established fact and a reality that must be faced if the nation is to ever recover its former independence and sovereignty.
Anyone who desires to dispute this assertion has to explain and justify to the people of Canada why there is not a single federal political party in the country willing to stand up to the Zionist Jew lobby that now wields such a sinister political influence upon the nation. To attempt a negation of the argument without speaking to this issue can only be construed as evasion and denial.
In the thick of yet another federal election, with Harper and his Conservative party striving with utmost intent to gain a majority government, this pseudo-Semitic elephant in the midst of Canada’s political/judicial/cultural/social living room blithely goes about its business of knocking over, crushing and destroying the country’s constitutional rights along with trammeling upon its domestic and foreign policies, all the while aided and abetted in its traitorous actions by a colluding, fifth column ‘mainstream’ media; itself but another monopoly controlled weapon within the Zionist’s plethoric armory of subterfuge and deception. . .
. . .The Conservative government of Stephen Harper is a contemptible Trojan Horse. Like previous governments it was dragged into Ottawa under the pretense of being the best option for Canadians to preserve not only their integrity as a free and democratic nation but to set a good example for the rest of the world; one that other nations might look up to and aspire after in the hope that someday they would also reap the benefits that a free society and sovereign democracy can offer to its people. This has not been the case. As we can see from the graphic immediately above there is a specific, self-chosen group of zealots who, through subterfuge and the power of their usurious ‘purse’ plus their Babylonian Talmud-inspired ideology known as Zionism, have a totally different agenda in store for the nation.
Voters, who for the most part have been deceived by the pundits and the Zionist-controlled talking heads within their media, remain unaware of this insidious threat to our sovereignty. Were Canadians fully apprised of the seditious nature of the Zionist Jews within their nation’s walls they would likely vote en masse to rid the country of this omnipresent danger. But they aren’t and so the country once again teeters on the brink of the unknowing. Should the false saviour of Canada, Stephen Harper, achieve his mandate to rule over us with his Zionist rod then maybe that will be the time for a new movement to arise and a new federal party to germinate; one that will address the issues I’ve delineated in this essay plus all the others not covered. The key to our future as a sovereign nation is to understand how the Zionist agenda operates, not only in Canada but throughout the world. Without that key we will continue to remain prisoners of Zion.”
On April 28, 2011, the day after my article appeared on the net Canada’s #1 serial “hate crime” complainant working for the Canadian Jewish lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada (a court order prohibits me from mentioning his name), filed a Sec. 319(2) CCC complaint against myself and my website RadicalPress.com alleging that I was “promoting hatred toward Jews”.
On May 30, 2011, less than a month after the Harper Conservative government won the election, a second Sec. 319(2) CCC “hate propaganda” complaint was filed against me and my website by a representative of B’nai Brith Canada (a court order prohibits me from mentioning his name as well) also accusing me of “promoting hatred toward Jews”.
Both of these complaints were received by the BC Hate Crime Team in Surrey, B.C. and an investigation was undertaken by Det. Cst. Terry Wilson. A year later on May 16th, 2012 I was arrested by the BC Hate Crime Team while traveling to work and placed in a jail cell while the RCMP illegally entered my premises using a trumped up “search warrant” and stole all of my computers and electronic files containing well over a hundred thousand private emails.
I have been fighting this second, specious criminal charge that could result in a two year jail sentence ever since. The case is now in BC Supreme Court with a trial date set for October 26th, 2015.
With the one exception of my home town community newspaper the Quesnel Cariboo Observer and its illustrious editor Autumn Macdonald, ever since 2012 my story has been virtually blacked out by Canada’s mainstream media. Nothing, other than the usual smear and slander that appeared back in the msm in November of 2012 when the Indictment was formally handed down by the BC Attorney General’s office, has come out in the press since relating to the mis-use of these so-called “Hate Propaganda” laws.
The Discordant Case of Valentina Lisitsa
The recent case of world renowned pianist Valentina Lisitsa has once again highlighted the hypocrisy, bigotry and outright malfeasance that pervades Canada’s judiciary and the nation’s cultural and social media environment when it comes to using the “hate” card, aka Sections 318 – 320 of Canada’s Criminal Code, to harass, intimidate and slander anyone whose opinions and political viewpoints don’t fall in line with the expected (and calculated) agenda of the Zionist interlopers who now control the Prime Minister’s office, his cabinet and, thus far, the leaders of all the other federal parties.
In an article published April 7th, 2015 in the Globe & Mail, reporter Robert Everett-Green writes: “On March 13, Ms. Lisitsa said, the TSO [Toronto Symphany Orchestra] forwarded to Ms. Dorn an e-mail from Toronto lawyer Michael C. Smith that cited section 319 of the Criminal Code concerning “wilful promotion of hatred,” and said “there is a possibility that Ms. Lisitsa could be stopped at the border … and deemed ‘unacceptable’ to Canada.” An attached note from Mr. Melanson, who is not a lawyer, went further, stating that Ms Lisitsa’s social media posts “would likely breach or come close to breaching the Criminal Code of Canada.” Ms. Lisitsa replied with her lawyer’s opinion rejecting that of Mr. Smith. [All emphasis added.]
So what exactly does Canada’s Criminal Code say about “hate” – this oft used and ever abused term that the Zionist lobbyist has managed to inject, via subterfuge, into the country’s legal system and their media tool kit? The Code reads:
Wilful promotion of hatred
319. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Judging from the wording of the text we find that just like the term “terrorist” there’s no actual definition given as to what the word “hatred” means. In other words it is subjective and means whatever a person or lawyer or judge decides it means to them. This fact renders it useless in terms of trying to argue against it or debate it once the word has been inserted into jurisprudence thus making it merely a tool for intimidation and control in the same way that the term “anti-Semite” has been used for the last century to browbeat and demonize anyone who so much as issues a dissenting sigh in hearing distance of a Zionist Jew or one of their sycophantic lackeys.
The same has now become true for the “6 million” holocaust debate wherein an accusation of being a “holocaust denier” has taken on the same legal authority in certain countries and is being used to censor proven historical facts and jail anyone who so much as questions whether the alleged event ever occurred in real time or disputes the purported numbers.
As an editorial in the Toronto Star on April 7 put it the Ukrainian-born pianist shouldn’t have been prevented from performing with the Toronto Symphony Orchestra, adding that, “In a particularly weak explanation of why the orchestra was dropping her, TSO president Jeff Melanson said Lisitsa was bounced over “ongoing accusations of deeply offensive language by Ukrainian media outlets.” And, he added: “As one of Canada’s most important cultural institutions, our priority must remain on being a stage for the world’s great works of music, and not for opinions that some believe to be deeply offensive.”
This misses the point on at least two counts. First, Lisitsa was not invited to Toronto to discuss her provocative political views. She was scheduled to play the piano. And second, banning a musician for expressing “opinions that some believe to be offensive” shows an utter failure to grasp the concept of free speech.
We don’t have freedom of speech to protect only those we agree with, or those whose views are inoffensive. We have it precisely to protect people who have unpopular or even outrageous opinions.”
Again, in a subsequent article on April 9 in the same publication writer Vinay Menon adds, “It’s a good thing Jeff Melanson isn’t running our public library system. Or the city would need to hire 2,000 firefighters to keep up with all the book burnings this summer. . . Am I being unfair to Melanson, chief executive of the Toronto Symphony Orchestra? Perhaps! But this is my opinion and, here in Canada, we are allowed to express opinions, even ones that may seem unfair and offensive.”
Menon further states, “The spiritual charter of any cultural institution, important or otherwise, must have certain words etched between the operational lines, including ‘freedom of expression‘ and ‘don’t cave to special interests.‘”
It’s a well established fact that those who accuse others of “promoting hatred” are, themselves, the ones who hate to hear the truth and therefore resort to Canada’s infamous “Hate Propaganda” laws in order to stifle any discussion related to their own questionable actions. Such has been my own experience in dealing with my accusers and, as we can see from Valentina’s encounter with the bureaucrats who run the Toronto Symphony Orchestra she ran into this this same mindset; one that invariably displays both a lack of integrity and the inability to talk openly and honestly about their intentions or their ultimate agenda.
Are we finally seeing a change in attitude on the part of Canada’s mainstream media when it comes to actually challenging Canada’s ill-conceived “Hate Propaganda” laws contained in Section 318 – 320 of the Criminal Code?
Is Canada’s media, the same organ that trumpeted the call for the repeal of Sec. 13(1) now going to tackle the final citadel of censorship, Section 319 of the Criminal Code? If so then they’ll also have to start considering lending a positive voice to organizations like the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, the one and only civil liberties group in Canada to date that is openly supporting my legal case and the repeal of these Orwellian “Hate” laws that reap nothing but repression, opprobrium and the loss of free expression for all Canadians and others like pianist Valentina Lisitsa.
The time is long past for Canada to resume its former role as a free and democratic nation and nothing will ensure that this happens more than the country ridding itself of all its Zionist-induced “Hate” legislation.
[Editor’s Note: The following article is an excerpt from a longer posting of Bill Whatcott’s on March 10th, 2015 which is titled, “Whatcott ministry to Canada comes to an end“. Bill has been one Canadian who has displayed the intestinal fortitude that so many Canadians today lack when it comes to standing up for Canada rather than tossing their principles and their integrity into the Zionist ring and only standing up for Israel instead.
Bill’s efforts, when it comes to defending the right to freedom of speech for ALL Canadians have proven effective in other ways. What he has accomplished through his actions is that he exposed the hidden agenda of satanic forces that now control the hidden agenda of Canada’s Supreme Court and he did so by refusing to back down to the endless attacks by the homosexual lobbyists and their willing accomplices the courts themselves. This process of unveiling the agenda of the dark side might not have occurred had Bill Whatcott simply idly stood by like most Canadian “Christians” and kept silent in the face of the obvious injustice and degradation that’s occurring within our legal system and society at large.
Bill’s ministry may have come to an end here in Canada but his legacy of love for Canada and his efforts to save as many children as possible from the hidden scalpel of the abortionists will continue to inspire others just as his Lord and Master Jesus Christ’s example has lived on for over two thousand years.
May God bless him and his family with peace and happiness. He’s sacrificed enough for any man.]
My ministry to Canada has come to an end, at least for the foreseeable future. My ministry wrapped up about the way I would have wanted it to. Two days before leaving for Philippines my friend Rev. Gerhard Wilch and I had coffee with a reporter for a large homosexual publication. The reporter prefers to remain unidentified. I shared the Gospel and some apologetics with the reporter, but he was not particularly open to mine and Gerhard’s worldview. Anyways, I gave the reporter my book “Born in a Graveyard” and requested that he share it with other folks who work at his media outlet.
My Dad and I spent some quality time together and I visited a few family members. My Dad and I also had coffee with one of my faithful ex-gay friends, who is also a loyal supporter of my ministry. Me and my ex-gay friend who was redeemed from the transgender and lesbian lifestyle many years ago certainly had an interesting conversation. My dad who is a little more mainstream Canadian than us just sat quietly and listened as we covered our favourite topics about Jesus and the destructive aspects of the homosexual agenda. It is possible as my Dad sat there and listened to us that he just figured me and my choice of friends is nuts.
I spent my final day in Canada putting out the last of my flyers “Imagine Defunding the CBC” around the east end of Vancouver. I was not particularly surprised that most of the responses were negative, however Vancouver’s recipients of my truthful message have been far less vitriolic than the recipients in Kamloops a few days earlier.
After my final truth assault my Dad and I went to Gerhard’s church for a Lenten supper and service. From there my Dad drove me to the airport. Now, I am in the Philippines with my wife.
I have pretty much given the last quarter century of my life to fighting for a Judeo Christian vision for Canada, especially in the areas of life, sexuality and family. I also fought very hard for free speech and religious freedom for social conservative Christians.
While the path I chose was somewhat controversial , devastating to my secular career prospects in Canada, and indeed a path that rendered me a pariah in the eyes of many, I am quite happy with some of what I accomplished. On the abortion front I am very happy there are a number of children alive as a direct result of my graphic abortion sign and sidewalk counseling ministries.
….My efforts in defending Canada against the homosexual onslaught has been less successful in my view, perhaps more costly on a personal level, though these efforts have not been completely in vain.
My fights with the various university campuses that have tried to have me arrested and banned for preaching against homosexuality and abortion have been very successful. I won multiple court cases against the University of Regina and University of Calgary and made my presence known on many other campuses across the country, challenging attempts at censorship on the University of Alberta, University of Saskatchewan, Carlton University and University of British Columbia campuses. As far as I can tell, the courts have affirmed the right to preach, protest and hand out literature on politically incorrect topics such as abortion and homosexuality on university campuses, even if the university administrations are hostile to the message.
On a nationwide level I have certainly had an impact on the course of free speech in Canada, though I can’t really trumpet my contribution as the success I wanted it to be. In October 2011 I appeared before the Supreme Court of Canada on charges that I was guilty of “hate speech” for distributing four pamphlets criticizing the promotion of sodomy in our public schools and for criticizing an ad advertising “man seeking boys… for friendship, exchanging video and pics and more….age, race, nationality not so relevant.”
The Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal imposed a $17,500 fine and lifetime speech ban on me for distributing flyers criticizing the homosexual agenda and the potential pedophile ad. I broke the ruling right away with a new flyer entitled “Sodomites and the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission” and appealed to the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench for relief.
My lawyer Tom Schuck and I were hoping to have the hate speech provisions of the human rights tribunals ruled unconstitutional. The Court of Queen’s Bench ruled against us, and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal ruled in our favour. The Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada and a record number of intervenors, 22 in total, applied to make submissions before the Court. One of the intervenors, my favourite one, Association for Reformed Political Action was rejected.
My lawyer Tom was quite confident we were going to win but in the end the loss was appalling. The ruling from Canada’s Supreme Court was 6-0 in favour of upholding Canada’s hate speech code, and also my conviction for so-called hate speech on two of the four counts. What was most distressing to me was the logic used to uphold my conviction for so-called hate speech. Justice Rothstein wrote for the unanimous court that defendants in hate speech cases could not use intent or truth as a defense. While accurate medical and social statistics on homosexuality were not enough to get me the defendant acquitted, Rothstein and the court decided they didn’t even need truth on their side to render a guilty verdict. Rothstein wrote a “reasonable person” should be able to conclude my speech would prevent sodomites from expressing themselves, prevent them from participating in society, and my speech if not censored would ultimately lead to discrimination and even genocide. Rothstein also falsely asserted that I called all homosexuals pedophiles.
Of course in Rothstein’s world I would not be a reasonable person, but from my vantage point it seemed in the more than 10 years that I delivered my flyers, sodomites did nothing else but express themselves, whether it was marching naked on parade routes, demonizing and destroying the careers and businesses of Christians who disagreed with them, advocating for a lower age of consent, successfully advocating for same sex marriage, or through mostly unchallenged homosexual propaganda in our children’s classrooms and on our televisions.
From 2002 to 2013, I put out more than 500,000 flyers and as far as I could tell I failed spectacularly in preventing sodomites from expressing themselves. As for Rothstein’s worries about my flyers leading to genocide? Aside from the fact I never called for genocide in any of my flyers, the reality is most of secular Canada never heeded my warnings on homosexuality. The reactions to my flyers were (with a few exceptions were I found supporters) mostly indifference or hostility towards me. In my view Rothstein’s fantasies of anti-gay pogroms and genocides starting as a result of my flyers were delusional and it appalls me this reasoning formed the basis of Canada’s law on what Canadians are allowed and not allowed to say.
The Supreme Court attached my flyers to the bottom of their judgment. You can read my flyers (and the entire ruling if you wish) to see that I never called all homosexuals pedophiles, you can see I never called for the genocide of anyone, and you can see for yourself Rothstein’s reasoning that my (and your) speech could be silenced even if there is no evidence of harm, simply because he and his cronies believe they are “reasonable” and they can discern (even without evidence) my speech might lead to harm: https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-c … 6/index.do
My lawyer Tom pointed out the errors of fact to the Supreme Court (that I called homosexuals pedophiles) after they released their judgment. However, while truth is no defense for defendants like me in hate speech cases, making statements that are demonstrably untrue is no hindrance for Supreme Court judges.
In my view rulings like this one should be grounds for removal from the bench.
In any event, given the Whatcott ruling was based on blatant falsehoods and politically correct fantasies, I did what a “reasonable” Canadian should do. For two years I ignored the ruling, refused to pay the malicious penalties imposed on me and continued to put out truthful flyers on homosexuality just as I did before the ruling.
The Supreme Court made me liable for all the costs incurred by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission even though I had a partial victory. This was a departure from the judicial norm in partial victories where both parties are generally liable for their own costs. A lawyer writing for the National Post commented that the imposition of costs on me was malicious and said had I not appealed the human rights ruling, the Supreme Court of Canada would not have had the opportunity to review the “man seeking boys ads” flyer and find me innocent of so-called hate speech for my flyer exposing those ads.
Having two years of hindsight, I don’t think I would have done anything different in picking my fight with the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission. I do believe the truth was on my side and way back in 2001 I was correctly concerned the church was losing its ability to express its moral teachings on the homosexual lifestyle in the public square. My flyers were deliberately provocative and in some cases graphic and disturbing. This approach while not overly pastoral was a legitimate approach in my view to challenge increasing censorship and apathy that I perceived was gripping my beloved Canada.
My flyers did succeed in starting debate. Over the years I have even been blessed with developing a few relationships with homosexual activists and their allies. While the flyers were not pastoral and were not intended to be pastoral, I was able to have a number of pastoral conversations with lost souls over the years as a result of my flyers and was even blessed to play a role in leading a few folks to the risen Christ. None of the above was in vain. However, I have to concede defeat in my primary objectives of securing a robust level of free speech for my social conservative brethren and in activating large numbers of Christians to take a public stand against the homosexual agenda.
Anyways, I did the best I could with what I had. As a legacy I have a book published, “Born in a Graveyard” though I am not making any money off it in Canada, it might take off in Poland thanks to the efforts of my friend Pastor Art Pawlowski. The book is a good history of my life and activism, and in my view is a good educational resource on the effects of the culture of death and homosexual activism on true freedom in the west.
It is nice to be in the Philippines with my wife. I really have no idea what I will be doing here. I am heading to a trade school right now to see if I can learn some mechanics. My wife and I are poor as I left Canada with very little. However we have family and God.
In Christ’s Service
My new contact info is:
Address: Block 12, Lot 5
St. Margaret St, Adelina Homes,
Lipa City, Batangas, Philippines
“In your hearts honor Christ the Lord as holy, always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect.”
1 Peter 3:15
CLICK URL BELOW TO LISTEN:
Arthur Topham, the editor and publisher of “The Radical Press“, was interviewed on Inside the Eye – Live! on Saturday, November 8, 2014. Arthur appeared in the second hour of the show, or 11am Eastern. Topham, 67, has gained somewhat of a “dissident status” as he has been hounded by Canada’s B’nai B’rith and the Harper government in Ottawa due to Arthur’s honest and open discussion of Israel and Canada’s unequivocal support for Jewish genocide in Palestine.
Bolshevik Laws in Canada to Penalize Speaking out against Jews
Arthur Topham is currently in the docket in Canada for a rather Orwellian and nebulous charge of “spreading hatred towards Jews”. The very act of someone being charges with such a crime is itself a damning tact to be taking, because how can you not have hatred for Jews when Jews are eagerly seeking to prosecute another adult simply for writing, speaking, or publishing works in a manner that would be quite acceptable in Israel, and yet is a criminal act if done by a “lowly goy” outside of Israel?
The obvious to anyone not living in this Orwellian macabre world that Jews are seeking to create for Canada and Canadians is that Jews have become something like the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union: there can be no criticism of the “The Comrade”, nor can there be criticism of anything that “The Comrade” deems to be materially important.
For instance, why should any mature adult be forced to accept unequivocal support for a terrorist nation as Israel? To demand such is to be absurd to the point of tyrannical, yet that is precisely what Jews are demanding in Canada!
From the article “The Jewish Takeover of America“,
Here is what B’nai B’rith Canada would like to see incorporated into Canadian law:
“We must repeat again and again these basic facts — TO BE ‘anti-Israel’ IS TO BE ANTI-SEMITIC. TO BOYCOTT ISRAEL, ISRAELI PROFESSORS and ISRAELI business, these are not political acts, these are acts of hate, acts of anti-Semitism! Anti-Israel hysteria is anti-Semitic hysteria. They are one and the same.”
The above statement was made in 2009 by Yuli Edelstein, Israeli Minister of Public Diplomacy and Diaspora Affairs, The capital letters are his.
Of course, one has to to take a step back and think. “Spreading hatred towards Jews?” is somehow a criminal charge? And then B’nai B’rith is seeking to enshrine into Canadian law points and opinions which are being made by an Israeli ultra-nationalist?
Isn’t this exceptionally anti-democratic at the face of it and treason at a wholly ideological level? And what of the emotion of “hate”? It is, after all, a human emotion.
Should people not hate the fact that B’nai B’rith is seeking to operate as a foreign agent for Israel and impose Jewish ideology onto the whole of Canadian society?
So does that not make B’nai B’rith guilty of spreading hate – I know I would hate that if I saw such brazen acts of treason in the United States – consequently, should not B’nai B’rith be disbanded for “spreading hatred towards Jews” by their very actions and efforts?
When Jews are allowed to go down such a slippery slope, when will it end and should it end with Jews themselves as the ultimate victims of the very laws they sought to tyrannize the host countries with?
An Ideological War
It is absurd for any mature political society in the West to ever stoop down to the Bolshevik mindset where “thought and words” are “crimes”. The very idea of a “hate crime” has purely one purpose: to preclude people from criticizing the body politic which “just happens” to be largely dominated by and run for and on the behalf of Jewish interests.
It is so brazenly obvious the tactics being employed by Jewish political groups.
What is at stake is an ideological war being waged by organized Jewish political and social organs against all the citizenry of “the West”.
After having been thrown out of so many countries in their history as vagabonds and usurpers, apparently they believe that they can create legal strangleholds on the indigenous populations that are so tyrannical that no people will ever consider “tossing them out” again”.
To clearly demonstrate the hypocrisy of Jewish thinking, we can simply show how Jews openly call for genocide of others even to this day, and yet when the target ethnicity for which Jews call for genocide is simply replaced back with the word “Jew”, using, in other words, Jewish words to describe Jewish thinking, but projecting Jewish thinking back onto Jews themselves, Jews somehow are befuddled and confused as to how someone could call for genocide of Jews!
The total moral and intellectual insanity of the Jewish legal and rational position be damned in the eyes of Jews who shamelessly twist reality and facts to paint realities that simply did not nor do exist.
Take for example the book “Germany Must Perish”. Written in 1941 by a scion of Jewish society (he is insane to most of us but quite normal and lucid in Jewish intellectual and social circles), the book called for the total genocide of the German people – in 1941 – a date LONG BEFORE the supposed “gas chambers” and the mythical 6 million figure.
What Arthur Topham did was simply to replace the word “German” with the word “Jews”, and so forth.
From the article “The Jewish Takeover of America”,
In order to highlight the enormity of what this psychotic Jew was actually suggesting, Arthur employed the ingenious device of republishing the book on his website with a few significant alterations. First, he changed the title to Israel Must Perish! Then he substituted the word “Israel” for “Germany”, “Jew for “German”, and “Netanyahu” for “Hitler”. This at once transformed Kaufman’s hateful book into a Swiftian satire.
The point Arthur Topham was making was unmistakable. If it is permissible to call for the mass extermination of the GERMAN people by enforced sterilization of every single GERMAN MALE, then it was equally permissible to call for the extermination of the JEWISH people by the enforced sterilization of every single JEWISH male. The logic was impeccable.
Such perfect logic, however, was displeasing to B’nai B’rith Canada, Driven to desperation, this Jewish organization then resorted to dirty tricks. First it alleged, falsely, that Arthur had actually published a real, hard copy book called Israel Must Perish! He had done no such thing.
Yet, even to this day, we can find comment after comment of Jews in all corners of the world calling for the genocide of others.
In a post written by someone who appears Jewish and supports Kaufmann’s position of genocide against all Germans, we find this comment:
October 4, 2014 at 11:42 am
As for Kaufman’s book “Germany Must Perish”, I can’t see what all the fuss is about. Sure, this Kaufman guy wanted to castrate every single German male in the world. I don’t see anything wrong with that. The Germans killed 6 million Jews, don’t forget, so what’s the big deal if you cut off all their balls to teach them a good lesson? Anyway, the New York Times wouldn’t have given the book such a good review if it had thought cutting off all the German’s people’s balls was the wrong thing to do. – source
So you see, it is ideological. Jews clearly have no qualms about murdering others, even if these “qualms” are based on lies, distortions, or pure mythology. Jews have no problems “spreading hatred” for others, so long as they are able to achieve their ideological and very real geopolitical goals without these goals being drawn into the light.
In a body politic where the citizens are mature, intelligent, and schooled in Reason and Logic, the farce of the campaign against Arthur Topham would never see the light of day, and the perpetrators of this attempted tyranny would find themselves in deep legal and political trouble.
Why would courts and the people stand for such obnoxious idiocy of “censoring” another adult when it is clear that such forms of censorship are merely tools of political repression? Such repression shows a clear ideological warfare by Jews against The West.
Arthur Topham on ITEL Radio – 11.8.14
Click on link below to listen in:
Ottawa shooting: a false flag designed to steal away our freedoms?
Brandon Martinez October 22, 2014
October 22, 2014
I’m not one to hastily jump to conclusions about events like these, but the alleged shooting at the Canadian parliament and a nearby war memorial that took place today smells like a false-flag operation designed to expedite the Harper regime’s militarist agenda.
The mainstream media is in a furor over the incident. Non-stop wall-to-wall coverage has commenced. Even American and British outlets have picked up the story.
One very noticeable clue as to the fraudulent nature of this event is the immediate calls from establishment propagandists for a crack down on free speech (what they call “hate speech”) and the bolstering of Orwellian “anti-terrorism” laws which will in effect hand the state unlimited powers to spy on the citizenry of Canada and snuff out dissidents.
For example, the former CSIS Assistant Director Ray Boisvert said this on CBC:
“We need to get at those who are the purveyors of hate. So those who proselytize, those who are radicalizing, we need to find ways to go after them with respect to hate speech or perhaps its time for new legislation under the anti-terrorism act as we’re seeing in the UK.”
The former Canadian spy boss essentially echoed what British PM David Cameron said in a UN speech last month wherein he called for “non-violent extremists” to be criminalized. The traitorous British statesman specifically named 9/11 and 7/7 skeptics as falling within his dubious definition of “non-violent extremists.”
Another suspicious guest on the aforementioned CBC program used innuendo to try to link the Ottawa shooting to ISIS and Islamism, conveniently at a time when Stephen Harper is looking to justify his decision to whore out our military in the US-led bombing initiative in Iraq.
Shortly after the false-flag attacks of 9/11, the Canadian government mimicked its US counterpart by passing anti-terror laws which included the infamous “Section 13? provision in the Human Rights Act that was consequently used by Zionists and their agents to silence critics on the internet.
Look for more of the same from the Zionist regime in Ottawa in the coming days. The mainstream media’s job is to whip up hysteria in order to scare the populace into accepting draconian laws that will eliminate our freedoms. Unfortunately most of the population are lemmings who will believe anything the government or media tells them and willingly forfeit their freedoms to the deceptive miscreants who currently occupy our government.
In any case, one cannot discount the very real possibility that the Canadian state had a hand in this.
Click here to listen to Joshua Blakeney’s commentary on the matter.
Written by Brandon Martinez
Brandon Martinez is an independent writer and journalist from Canada who specializes in foreign policy issues, international affairs and 20th and 21st century history. For years he has written on Zionism, Israel-Palestine, American and Canadian foreign policy, war, terrorism and deception in media and politics. His articles and analysis have appeared on Press TV, Veterans News Now, Media With Conscience News, Whatsupic, Intifada Palestine, Information Clearing House, What Really Happened, and other alternative media outlets. He is the co-founder of Non-Aligned Media with Joshua Blakeney and the author of an upcoming book addressing Israeli involvement in the 9/11 attacks. Readers can contact him at firstname.lastname@example.org or visit his blog at http://martinezperspective.com
Section 13 is Officially Repealed:
The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 2]
Modus Operandi of the CHRC: “simple forced deletion of the message”
You can read part 1 here: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/section-13-is-officially-repealed.html
[June 29, 2014] Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act was a monstrosity since it’s inception in 1977. It was a piece of targeted legislation to silence one man and his telephone answering machine. But why on earth was it ever put into the Canadian Human Rights Act in the first place? The rest of the Act; is about employment, accommodation, services, etc. And the “Human Rights” Act, was remedial; Unlike the Criminal Code of Canada, it was not meant “to assign or to punish moral blameworthiness” to the people involved.
Why would the censors choose a remedial piece of legislation to target people, when Canada has criminal speech prohibitions, which could actually imprison people? The answer is simple, they didn’t want a Section 13 case to generate any publicity, the way a criminal charge would. They wanted to quietly censor people, in the back room; without anyone seeing what they were really up to.
|In a letter dated November 13, 1975, Ontario’s Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan outlined some of the problems they faced when trying to “get” a man named John Ross Taylor. In reference to Taylor’s taped telephone answering machine, Callaghan stated:|
“The messages usually are topical and political and focus on a wide variety of subjects. However, the emphasis always is racial and federal immigration policies frequently are criticized.”
Callaghan continued in his letter: “The messages discuss such matters as immigration, integration and urban crime, all of which clearly are matters of public interest.”
The real intent of Section 13 was to silence legitimate non-violent criticism of immigration, crime, multiculturalism and integration. Ontario’s Deputy AG Callaghan summed up the true motivation behind silencing Taylor using the Human Rights Act:
“The simple forced deletion of the message which I have proposed could have a major advantage over a criminal prosecution in that, presumably, it would not be attended by great publicity whereas a criminal prosecution, through publicity and polarization, might promote the mischief which it sought to suppress.”
In other words, Ontario’s Deputy AG wanted silence the messenger behind closed doors, “simple forced deletion” as he calls it; and hoped that no one would pay any attention to the gross infringements to freedom of speech that was occurring. And sadly for many years that was the case; marginalized people were crushed under the weight of the repressive state apparatus, without anyone standing up for them.
There was some public interest in the John Ross Taylor case, because Mr. Taylor was the perfect media “villain”. He was totally unrepentant and steadfastly believed that what he was doing was proper and fair; some have claimed that in a criminal court, Mr. Taylor’s charge would be thrown out because he did not have the mental faculties to stand trial. Mr. Taylor put a notation in the phone book which read “White Power Message–967-7777”. Certainly most people might have an idea what that message was about prior to calling.
In fact, when Mr. Taylor first appeared before the Canadian “Human Rights” Tribunal, he was totally overwhelmed. Part of the Taylor decisions reads “It would appear from Mr. Taylor’s cross-examination of witnesses and his argument that he was attempting to establish the truth of what he said about Jews in his tape recorded statements. Strange as it may sound, the establishment of truth is not in issue in this case.” Yes, strange indeed; this is Canada after all, not North Korea. Was Kim Jong Un presiding at the Hearing; no worse, it was Francis Leddy!
With Truth is no defence; it is not surprising that the Tribunal ordered Mr. Taylor to stop putting messages on his answering machine and slapped a lifetime speech ban on him. Mr. Taylor, not one to be pushed around by what some have called a Kangaroo court, left the Tribunal hearing, and immediately recorded a new message on his answering machine. That led to a Contempt of Court charge, for which Mr. Taylor was imprisoned for a year. As soon as Mr. Taylor got out, he said a big F.U. to censorship, and recorded another message on his answering machine. This led to yet another Contempt of Court charge and a one year sentence. In an odd twist of circumstances, the prison officials actually just let Mr. Taylor out after a few days of his second year-long jail sentence.
By this time, word of Mr. Taylors exploits reached Western Canada, where lawyer Douglas Christie heard about the treatment of Mr. Taylor and was disgusted. He immediately got involved and represented Mr. Taylor all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The ‘Supremes’ narrowly upheld Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act by the slimmest of margins – 4 to 3. Writing for the dissenters on the Supreme Court, Madame Justice McLachlin found that “Section 13(1) of the Act infringes the guarantee of freedom of expression in s. 2(b) of the Charter. Where, as in this case, an activity conveys or attempts to convey a meaning or message through a non-violent form of expression, this activity falls within the sphere of the conduct protected by s. 2(b).”
Ontario’s Deputy Attorney General, F.W. Callaghan did not completely get his wish. Not all Section 13 cases “would not be attended by great publicity” but in fact, most were. In the years after Taylor, numerous marginalized people and organizations were crushed by the censors. Terry Long, Bill Harcus, Kevin Lew, Tony MacLeer, Canadian Liberty Net, Charles Scott, Church of Christ in Israel, Randy Johnson, Micka and Machiavelli Emprise Inc., Ernst Zundel, Fred Kyburz, Eldon Warman, Craig Harrison, etc, etc, etc.
Hate laws only exist in Canada because very few Canadians even know about them. Canadians are perfectly capable of handling the back and forth of debate and do not need the nanny state watching over their shoulders looking for anything that might be “offensive”. Hate laws are political tools to silence certain people. That’s why almost 100% of cases are against marginalized White Canadians, of a certain political stripe, which they categorize as “nazi” or “anti-Semitic”.
In the case of the Canadian “Human Rights” Commission, 100% of the cases they have prosecuted are against White Canadians. It is ironic, that the CHRC goes around to various employers and harasses them about the percentage of minorities they hire, but are blind to the fact they are in fact the biggest racists of all, and only accept complaints against one race. For the CHRC, the only haters in Canada have white skin. It really calls out to file a CHRC complaint! Over the years, to show the hypocrisy of the CHRC, some people have filed complaints against Muslim haters. Surprise surprise…. The CHRC did not accept those complaints.
Trifecta against Censorship
While Section 13 was happily censoring marginalized Canadians, three cases bubbled to the surface and changed the entire game. Firstly, was my case, which started in 2003 and was the definitive Constitutional Challenge which Section 13 had ever seen. Secondly, was the case(s) against Ezra Levant. These were “hate speech” cases filed in Alberta and at the Federal level. And thirdly were the complaints against Macleans Magazine and Mark Steyn, filed at both the provincial (Ontario and British Columbia) and Federal level.
While there were different complainants in the three cases, the end result was the same. All three of us were not about to shut up and go away; Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn were journalists who wrote for major publications in Canada and I was a webmaster and writer who published the most critical information on the Internet about the CHRC and their corrupt and abusive methods.
Along with me posting as much source material and documentation on the Internet as I could get my hands on, was my super talented lawyer and Section 13 expert – Barbara Kulaszka. Barbara is a dedicated warrior for freedom and it was mostly due to her that all the evidence about the corruption, spying, lying and conniving of the CHRC came to light.
Over the next few days I am going to go into detail about the three main CHRC / “Human Rights” cases, which brought an end to Section 13. Each case was so important in the overall battle; they deserve a detailed look as part of the CHRC’s censorship obituary.
- The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 1]: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/section-13-is-officially-repealed.html
- The Obituary of CHRC Censorship [Part 2]: http://blog.freedomsite.org/2014/06/the-obituary-of-chrc-censorship-part-2.html
 Heading picture from Radical Press
Re: Going to court with a hatemonger; (2014-02-21); Alan Borovoy
What a disappointment that the National Post has decided to publish Alan Borovoy taking a self-serving swipe at the late, distinguished Doug Christie, now that he is dead and will not have a chance to defend himself. I wonder if this newspaper ever invited Christie to tell his side of this story? Not very likely.
Mr. Borovoy has been spending considerable time and effort lately trying to rehabilitate his legacy. His commitment to free speech is a sham, exemplified by the influence he used to push the then Liberal government of Pierre Trudeau to establish the first Canadian Human Rights Commission back in 1977. His desire to present himself as a great defender of free speech is breathtakingly disingenuous given the cancerous growth of these deeply flawed and generally reviled extra-legal whipping chambers that he so vigorously championed at the time. Borovoy has protested that he “never imagined that they might ultimately be used against freedom of speech”. How convenient and surprising, given that many critics of his creation, true civil libertarians, tried valiantly to point this out to him at the time. Surely an intellect like Borovoy could not have missed the implication of what the end result would be when politically appointed commissars could simply do an ideological end-run around the law to punish people whose opinions they wanted to silence. Certainly, the man he vilifies, Doug Christie, could understand a simple concept like that.
But Borovoy was scratching a personal itch back then and feigning blindness to the long term effects on Canada’s free speech protections was a requirement of the cause. Like many Canadian Jews of the day, he wanted to use Canada as an example to the rest of the free world of how to get around the rule of law to punish anti-Semites and Holocaust deniers. An appointed Commission was faster and more effective without the costly inconvenience and delay of a court challenge. A kangaroo court is what he wanted and that is what he gave us. Now he wants to do a clean-up job on his legacy by writing a book attacking a dead man and touting himself as the great civil libertarian. He hopes we have forgotten that the most lasting gift he has left us are the hateful Human Rights Commissions that he inspired.
November 20th, 2013
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,
My last Legal Update was sent out well over four months ago on July 11th, 2013 so for those who may not recall all what transpired up to that point I’ll give a brief overview so as to put subsequent events into some meaningful context.
All of what is going on concerns the matter of the Sec. 319(2) CCC charge and arrest for the purported crime of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’” originally brought on by B’nai Brith Canada’s Agent Z and serial Section 13 complainant Ricardo Warmouse.
Crown had anticipated that the Attorney General’s office was going to go for a “direct indictment” and skip the preliminary hearing stage of events but that strategy fell through on July 8th, 2013. That then brought my proposal to file for a Rowbotham application back to the forefront. As explained in earlier Updates the Rowbotham application was part of my former counsel’s plan to get government funded legal counsel to defend me and to act on my behalf during the preliminary inquiry to determine the merits of the aforementioned Sec. 319(2) charge. Of course when Doug was alive it was he who anticipated being that counsel.
I had met with the Trial Coordinator and via telephone spoke with Keith Evans, legal counsel for the B.C. Attorney General’s office in order to discuss my Rowbotham application which he was overseeing. Prior to that I had already submitted my Notice of Application and Affidavit to the AG’s regarding the Rowbotham back on April 23, 2013 and received a package of material back from Mr. Evans on May 11th explaining all the additional information that I was expected to furnish him with prior to a hearing taking place on the matter.
On August 13th I met again with the Trial Coordinator and a date was set to hold a hearing on the Rowbotham application on Monday, November 18th, 2013.
During the interim time period leading up the hearing I had to furnish the AG’s office with as much documentation as I possibly could that would show that I was not in a financial position to be able to afford to hire a lawyer to represent me at the upcoming preliminary hearing scheduled for January 22nd, 2014. As a result the month of September leading into the early weeks of October were spend doing what was basically a forensic audit of all of my finances and sending all of this information to the Attorney General’s office in Vancouver, B.C. It was quite time consuming and left little opportunity for doing much else besides publishing the occasional article on the website. Keith Evans of the AG’s office was very congenial and willing to assist me with any questions that that arose during the period that I was amassing all of my evidence I felt would show that I was in fact indigent and unable to cover the cost of a hiring a lawyer. The term “indigent” is one that the AG’s office uses and it means “impoverished or destitute or poverty-stricken or disadvantaged, hard up, etc.” All of these descriptive words I felt fitted my circumstances.
Approximately one week before the hearing on November 18th I received all of this information back from the AG’s office along with all of my email exchanges with AG lawyer Keith Evans. The booklet containing these communications ended up being 455 pages in length!
Radical Press Publisher Arthur Topham displaying the Rowbotham application documents from the B.C. Attorney General’s office
There are basically two main features or parts to a Rowbotham application, the first deals with having to prove you are in fact “indigent” and the second being able to argue that your particular case is complex and out of the ordinary to the point where it is evident that without legal representation you would not have a chance of a fair trial and therefore your Charter right to a fair trial would be infringed upon.
The hearing began at 9:30 a.m. in the Quesnel courthouse with Judge Morgan presiding. Also in attendance was Christina Drake, a lawyer working for the Attorney General’s office out of Victoria, B.C. who had flown up to argue against the application.
Judge Morgan began by asking me to explain to him why I felt I was unable to afford to hire a lawyer and why I felt my case was so “extraordinarily complex” (another expression that the AG’s office employed throughout their argument repeatedly). I then proceeded to tell him about how I have been battling with legal issues brought on by B’nai Brith Canada’s two separate complaints, (the sec. 13(1) Canadian Human Rights Act complaint from 2007 and the Sec. 319(2) CCC charge of May 16th, 2012), for the past six years and how having to do all the legal work on my own has affected my ability to earn a sufficient income that would allow me to hire a lawyer.
Following all of that (which took a couple of hours) I then outlined for the Judge the reasons why I felt my case was unusual and complex enough that it warranted having a professional legal expert to represent me during the preliminary hearing stage so as to show how the illegal search warrant that resulted in the invasion of my home and the theft of all of my computers and electronic files was an actual criminal offence on the part of the RCMP and the B.C. Hate Crime Team led by Det. Cst. Terry Wilson. It was my argument that because of this initial illegal act that the case should be thrown out at the preliminary hearing stage. In fact my former lawyer Mr. Christie had planned to set aside five days for the preliminary hearing in order to accomplish this. After his demise the court changed that time period from five days to five hours! Obviously they felt that whatever Mr. Christie was planning to present to the court didn’t warrant further consideration after he was out of the picture.
Due to space constraints I won’t go into the details of my argument for why I felt the case is complex other than I told the Judge that, based upon my personal experience with the whole free speech issue over the past six years, I felt it was the aim of Jewish lobby groups here in Canada, specifically B’nai Brith Canada, to set a precedent using my charge so that, were they successful in obtaining a conviction, it would affect every other publisher and writer in Canada who might try and criticize either the Jew’s-only state of Israel or anything else related to the Zionist political ideology or their religious practices as found in Judaism and the Talmud. It would, in other words, create a stifling climate of censorship that would negatively affect every Canadian’s right to freedom of speech and expression as stated in the Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
One additional point needs to be emphasized here regarding all of the sec. 13 controversy that has taken place over the past quarter century or longer. When I began to speak to Judge Morgan about sec. 13(1) and about the fact that the federal government had repealed that section of the Canadian Human Rights Code back in June of 2012 he confessed that he knew nothing about the whole issue! I was literally taken aback by this unexpected pronouncement on his part and my facial expression must have surprised him as he then stated that he actually sat on a “human rights” committee of some sort and yet he was still unaware of the whole issue. Then, only to exacerbate his revelations further, the lawyer for the Attorney General’s office also spoke up and informed the court that she, too, was aware of what was going on in terms of Section 13 and the Canadian Human Rights Code.
After a lunch break the hearing continued and Christina Drake, representing the Attorney General’s office, gave her arguments as to why I ought to be refused the Rowbotham order. She cited numerous case law examples and how in one way or another none of them met the financial threshold that the Crown demands. Of course it’s always a great advantage to be able to be the party that sets the threshold in the first place and when it comes to the state having to pay for a lawyer to defend an accused (and presumed innocent) citizen the Crown finds such a proposal most abhorrent and the thought of it appears to terrify them that such a precedent might actually occur (as it did in the case of Rowbotham) and they would have to actually defray the costs of a Canadian citizen receiving justice in the courts of the land.
When the issue of complexity was addressed Drake stated:
• [The applicant] Has four years of university education and communicates effectively orally and in writing, as evidenced by the sophisticated written summary he provided of the arguments he wishes to make with respect to the search warrant;
• Has experience in legal and quasi-legal proceedings, specifically in the context of a human rights complaint in which it appears that he represented himself;
Of course, to my way of thinking, there’s no direct correlation between a person’s ability to express themselves either orally or through the written word or having obtained a Teaching certificate for Elementary school and their ability to perform the work of a qualified and legally trained lawyer. To try and suggest that this is the case would be akin to asserting that the Applicant, because of his university training, would also be qualified to perform the work of a surgeon.
Drake argued that I hadn’t done enough to show that I had contacted other lawyers in order to find out if they would work at lower rates and represent me. Of course I had checked into this and did contact those who I felt might come to my defense but I never received a reply back from them. Again, what the AG’s office intentionally appears to overlook is the reality that defending cases such as mine is a very serious matter for any lawyer who wants to steer clear of being labeled a defender of “hate mongers” and “anti-Semites” and “racists” and end up with a reputation such as that which Douglas Christie acquired by his willingness to defend those charged with “hate crimes”. To defend a person against a charge of “willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’” is to accept that you will will also be attacked by these very same foreign lobbyists who are now threatening me.
It was around 4:00 p.m. by the time the AG’s argument was completed. I was then given an opportunity to “sum up” my financial picture which I proceeded to do culminating by emphasizing once again that I and my wife have been forced to live an extremely minimalist existence ever since 2007 and that this ought to be given consideration. Judge Morgan then left the courtroom for about fifteen minutes and returned to give his decision. Predictably, based upon the AG’s argument, he concluded that I hadn’t met the financial threshold and so therefor my reasons regarding the complexity of the case wouldn’t be considered. He added further that this might change after the preliminary hearing when, should the case go to trial (which it appears is highly likely), that I would then have the opportunity to file another Rowbotham application and give it another shot so to speak.
When we left the courthouse it was -20 Celcius outside with a cold, bitter wind blowing. Rather fitting in some respects.
[Editor’s Note: When Section 13 was repealed by the federal government on June 26th, 2013 there was great rejoicing among Canadians who have been witnessing the tragic events that have unfolded over the past few decades due to the draconian nature of this unjust piece of legislation tucked away in the Canadian Human Rights Act. I was one of those who was glad to see it finally repealed but as Marc Lemire explains in his article below it’s not as if a general amnesty had suddenly been declared for those who were already under the gun and had been accused under this specious legislation prior to the June 26th repeal.
Like Marc and others I too was being forced to participate in that charade right up until the time that Marc’s case was heard by the Canadian Human Right’s Tribunal and the Tribunal declared it to be unconstitutional. It was then that my case and others like mine were all stayed when the Canadian Human Rights Commission appealed the Tribunal’s decision and forced Marc to then have to then contest their appeal in the federal court.
In other words all the cases that were not yet completed when the Tribunal ruled on Marc Lemire’s are still waiting in line and if Marc doesn’t win in this final battle with the Canadian Human Rights Commission then the rest of us will be rammed through the now defunct process regardless of whether or not it no longer exists in real time. What it really goes to show is that human rights organizations like the Canadian Human Rights Commission exist in separate realities and twilight zones where what is considered normal and common sense don’t hold any sway.
Given these circumstances and the fact that those writers, publishers, bloggers and concerned individuals who weren’t affected by Section 13 when it was still actively in force are now free to speak out more forcefully about this issue it’s now their responsibility to pick up the slack and start defending those of us who are still awaiting a fate that none are guilty of nor responsible for having created in any way.
The first thing for everyone is to spread the word about the importance of Marc’s case now pending and to assist in any way possible to make sure that he doesn’t lose his appeal.]
Last week, the Senate of Canada passed Bill C-304, which repealed Section 13 and 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. Section 13 was Canada’s shameful censorship legislation, which made it an offence to “likely” “expose” privileged groups to “hatred and/or contempt.” There are NO defences under Section 13! Even truth and intent are considered irrelevant to a finding of discrimination. The law was enacted in 1977 and in the intervening years, not a single person who has been hauled up on Section 13 charges has ever been acquitted – a 100% conviction rate. Section 13 has been used and abused since its inception.
Bill C-304 has a one year implementation period written into it, so in effect, Section 13 will technically be gone in June, 2014. It is unlikely that the Canadian Human Rights Commission will accept and approve any new Section 13 complaints at this point, but who knows, it’s really hard to know what fanatics will do. The CHRC’s main stumbling block is the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal which ruled in the Lemire case, that Section 13 was unconstitutional, and has since stopped all Section 13 cases “Sine Die”. It’s pretty clear the Tribunal does not want to be a willing participant in the Human Rights Commission’s fanatical restriction of freedom of speech, or have any part in the CHRC’s spying and harassing of Canadians. As odd as this may sound, in the judicial system, it was actually the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal which sounded the alarm over Section 13 and the CHRC’s apparatchiks’ handling of cases, and their steadfast refusal to mediate any complaints (which flies in the face of any remedial piece of legislation). Section 13 was never meant to punish and persecute people, but the fanatics at the CHRC just couldn’t resist grinding poor and defenseless people into the ground with protracted and expensive litigation.
So what happens now?
At it currently stands, there will most likely never be another new Section 13 case in Canada, but for those currently in the system; it’s a totally different story.
Bloggers can now rest easy; that the “Nazi fetishists” of the CHRC will not be logging into their websites, dressing up as Nazis and spying on them. Message Board owners can breathe a little bit freer now and not have to worry about busy body “hate finder General’s” looking to cash in on the latest “witch”. The chill that Section 13 placed over all internet communications is now gone.
But for those of us who are caught up in the Section 13 ‘torture rack’, it might still be a while until we can throw off the yoke of censorship. The process is still the punishment, and the CHRC is going to take out their anger and revenge on us. As of today, all other Section 13 cases have been stopped pending a decision in my case. But with being the last standing Section 13 victim, the CHRC is going to open up both barrels on me!
Canadian law is quite a confusing thing. There is a big difference between a repeal of a law, and the court finding a law “unconstitutional”. Of course my entire 10 year legal ordeal against the CHRC has been for the latter. To find Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act an unconstitutional abridgement of the Charter of Rights, and of my freedom of expression. I spent some 6+ years fighting for my freedom before the CHRC and the Human Rights Tribunal. On September 2, 2009, the Tribunal acquitted me of the hundreds of “hate speech” charges leveled against me, and also found that Section 13 was unconstitutional. This ruling was appealed by the CHRC to the Federal Court, which partly sided with the CHRC. The court ruled with me, that the fine provisions were unconstitutional (Section 54), but that Section 13 was just fine. That ruling is currently under appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals, with the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and others supporting my position.
Just to give a better explanation between a repeal of a law, and the finding that a law is unconstitutional. (Keep in mind, I am not a lawyer) My impression is that the Parliament can repeal any law. That does not mean that the law was an unjustifiable infringement on any Canadians. But rather, when a law is found to be unconstitutional, it is the court saying that this law was wrong from the start, and is an unjustifiable infringement. The main difference is, when a law is repealed, no future cases can be brought. But if a law is found unconstitutional, then no cases should have EVER been brought. It may open up an option for individuals to sue the government for wrong doing, as well it demonstrates that no person should have even been convicted under the law. In effect, the law is flawed, and the court is correcting this flaw by striking down the law.
Those are big differences, and especially important for those who are currently before the CHRC’s Section 13 Thought Inquisition. When a law is repealed, it applies going forward. But Canadian law is so screwy that anyone who was previously charged, they have to fight under the previously enforced rules. So basically, the law was “constitutional and in force” when the complaint was filed against me in 2003, so that’s the version of the law I am fighting. Move over ‘Alice in Wonderland’ there is a whole new world where the rabbit hole never ends.
So in other words, I am now fighting at the Federal Court of Appeals, on the constitutionality of Section 13, which has now been repealed. WTF! How much crazier can it get? But it’s no laughing matter. I am fighting against a lifetime speech ban, which if I ever violated, could result in me going to jail for up to 5 years. (Several others in the past have been sentenced to up to 1 year in jail for violating a lifetime speech ban, so this is no joke)
The heart of my appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals is that Section 13 is unconstitutional on dozens of grounds. That it is an unjustified limitation to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and not saved by Section 1 of the Charter. That’s really the crux of the case – Section 1 of the Charter. And as part of a review of my Section 1 arguments, the Court has to look at the will and wishes of the Parliament of Canada (pressing and substantial need). And this is where the repeal of Section 13 is going to immensely help me. How can anyone say that Section 13 is a minimal impairment to freedom and “pressing and substantial” in Canada, when the Parliament of Canada has spoken so clearly and repealed Section 13.
My case is the last hurrah for the CHRC censors. There won’t be any new cases, so if they want to leave with a bang (and fanatics always seem to!) they are going to pull out all stops to beat me at the Federal Court of Appeals. In their eyes, if Section 13 has not have been found unconstitutional they can blame those evil “Conservatives” for repealing the law (once again refusing to accept any responsibility for the issues surrounding Section 13) The CHRC has already spent hundreds of thousands of tax-payers money to fight against me over the past 10 years. I would not be surprised in the number was actually in the millions. The CHRC are using a high priced lawyer (actually lawyers) from one of downtown Toronto’s expensive law firms. In order to try to manipulate public opinion, the CHRC spent hundreds of thousands with the astronomical priced Hill and Knowlton public relations firm, to do damage control on the Section 13 file. Gee, that was money well spent! After all, it seems like the censors just see the gullible tax-paying sheeple as an endless pit of CA$H, which they can use to harass and silence those “ignorant” Canadians who just don’t get with their “program”. (Pogrom?)
“Why Marc Lemire Must Challenge Constitutionality of a Law That May Be Repealed”
Please have a look at my video on “Why Marc Lemire Must Challenge Constitutionality of a Law That May Be Repealed”
1. If Marc Lemire simply accepts the Federal Court ruling of Justice Richard Mosley then Lemire faces a lifetime Free Speech Ban for the “crime” of posting a document that contains the very same information and statistics the Canadian Blood Services used to ban homosexual men from giving blood.
2. Even if Section 13 is repealed by the Senate it makes no difference to Marc Lemire’s case, nor to the cases of hundreds of other Canadians already charged and convicted under this oppressive law. As absurd as it sounds, Marc Lemire could face a lifetime ban on his Right to Freedom of Speech under a law that no longer exists.Should he refuse to abide by the lifetime Free Speech ban he could go to prison.
The maximum penalty for contempt of a Tribunal decision is 5 years in prison. The maximum penalty for a conviction of criminal “hate speech” under Section 319 of the Criminal Code: Two years.
In the entire history of the Canadian Human Rights Commission not a single person has ever been sent to prison for violating an Canadian Human Rights Tribunal ruling…
Except for those convicted of “thought crimes” under Section 13…
If Marc Lemire wants to retain his Right to Freedom of Speech and let me assure you, he does, then he has no choice but to challenge both the Constitutionality of Section 13 as well as appeal Justice Mosley’s horribly flawed and biased Federal Court decision.
3. It is critical for Freedom of Speech that Section 13 be denounced as an affront to our Charter Right to Freedom of Speech and that the Federal Court of Appeals strikes it down as unconstitutional. Why? It will mean the hundreds of cases prosecuted under this law over the past 33 years were unconstitutional prosecutions. More importantly, it will mean the penalties imposed by those unconstitutional convictions are also unconstitutional.
4. If Section 13 is declared unconstitutional, as any unbiased judge must clearly see, then those people suffering under lifetime Freedom of Speech bans could appeal to the court to have those bans removed. If the law is simply repealed (removed from the books) then there is no avenue in Canadian law for those individuals to regain their Right to Freedom of Speech.
5. There are multiple cases currently “on hold” because of Marc Lemire’s case, his Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 and his Federal Court Appeal of Justice Mosley’s decision.
These cases are at both the Tribunal and Federal Court level.
All of the cases currently “on hold” will move forward the second there is a final decision in Lemire’s case.
6. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, the body that said itself that Section 13 was unconstitutional, stopped all Section 13 cases pending the outcome of Marc Lemire’s case.
“… I have also concluded that Section 13(1) in conjunction with Sections 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with Section 2(b) of the Charter [of Rights and Freedoms], which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of Section 1 of the Charter.”
— Athanasios D. Hadjis’ Decision in Warmouse v. Lemire
7. Repeal of the law does not address all corruption and the inappropriate administration of Section 13. We need a court to examine the spying, lying and conniving of the CHRC and rule that they were out of control in both Marc Lemire’s case and in many other cases.
The stated aims of the Canadian Human Rights Act are remedial, not punitive. The object of the Act is to “correct discriminatory behaviour” not punish.
Is it “remedial” to refuse any and all attempts at mediation? Is it “remedial” to refuse any and all attempts at mediation?
Is it “remedial” to refuse to communicate with the subject of a Human Rights Act complaint?
Is it “remedial” to continue prosecuting a man 8 years after all “offending” documents were removed from the Internet?
No, it is not.
If you despise government bodies telling you what you can and cannot say on the Internet…
If you despise law written for telephone answering machines being applied to all of your internet communications on any internet platform…
If you believe Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act violates your Constitutional Right to Freedom of Speech…
Then please contribute generously to Marc Lemire’s Free Speech Legal Defense Fund so he can continue his appeal and Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Now that Section 13 has been repealed by Parliament, the CHRC is going to go after me with both guns blazing. Can I count on you to support the cause of freedom? My courageous lawyer Barbara Kulaszka and I have demonstrated what two dedicated freedom fighters can accomplish against overwhelming odds. We have single-handedly and doggedly fought the system and exposed the corrupt underbelly of the “Human Rights” Commission’s racket. I cannot carry on this important fight alone. Your donations literally equal the survival of this case.
Please support Marc Lemire’s Constitutional Challenge of Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Marc Lemire is the only person to beat the CHRC in it’s 33 year history!
(Interac Money Transfers, Donate Online, and online store)
Donate via PayPal by clicking here: [here]
762 Upper James St
Dear Free Speech Supporters,
It certainly is encouraging news to hear that the Senate has finally passed third-reading on Bill C-304 and put the draconian Big Brother Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act out of its misery once and for all.
My heart goes out to all of those Canadians who have suffered under this Bolshevik-inspired Orwellian piece of legislation planted in the Canadian Human Rights Act by the Zionist Jew lobbies here in Canada in order to censor and silence any deserved criticism of both the rogue state of Israel and its racist, supremacist ideology known as Zionism. Too many Canadians have been forced and coerced over the past quarter century or longer to suffer extreme stress and duress at the hands of those within the “Human Rights” commissions and and tribunals who treated anyone accused of these so-called “hate crimes” with utter disdain and dragged them through the equivalent of the Soviet Stalinist “Show Trials” convicting everyone and forcing many to pay exorbitant fines plus imposing bans on their right to express themselves on the Internet and elsewhere.
What we now need to see is some form of restitution paid to all the victims and an apology from the federal and provincial governments for having treated their citizens in such a shabby, dictatorial fashion for so long.
We can only hope and pray that now that this repressive Stalinist law is a dead duck that more Canadians will find the courage and the will to speak out about the undue influence that these foreign lobbyist organizations are having on our legal and social structures not to mention our foreign policies and the environment degradation that increases with each passing day.
The only avenue available now for these same control-freak forces who have relied on section 13 to stop open discussion of Israeli war crimes and Zionist involvement within the media, government, banking and corporations will be to charge Canadians under section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code, the very same section that the two complainants used in order to have me arrested back on May 16th, 2012 and charged with willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group”. This will undoubtedly make it a much tougher row for the Zionists to hoe given the stringent conditions currently in place in the Criminal Code that allow for various defences, including speaking the TRUTH.
For today though let’s raise a cup and give a toast to the Conservative government for having done what neither the Liberals nor the NDP would ever have ventured to do.
Publisher & Editor
The Radical Press
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
Yesterday, the Senate of Canada passed Conservative MP’s Private Members Bill – Bill C-304, which repeals the notorious censorship provision, Section 13 of the Canadian “Human Rights” Act. Late last night, the Bill became law and received Royal Assent. As of today, there will never be a new Section 13 complaint ever again! The outstanding Section 13 cases have just won a huge battle, but the war is not yet over.
Section 13 makes it an offence to “likely” “expose” privileged groups to “hatred and/or contempt.” There are NO defences under Section 13! Even truth and intent are considered irrelevant to a finding of discrimination. The law was enacted in 1977 in order to silence a man named John Ross Taylor for messages he recorded onto his telephone answering machine. In the intervening 32 years, not a single person who has been hauled up on Section 13 charges has ever been acquitted – a 100% conviction rate. Section 13 has been used and abused since its inception.
Testimony on Bill C-304
Several people testified on June 25, 2013 before the Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights. Most of the testimony was nauseating and not worth spending a second watching. But there were two stand outs, which are worth watching.
First is the presentation by Cara Zwibel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. The CCLA supports a repeal of Section 13 and Cara Zwibel testifies about freedom of expression and why it is so important in Canada.
CLICK HERE TO VIEW VIDEO: http://youtu.be/aLCqPNax56o
The second is a very short clip of Professor Richard Moon talking about Mark Steyn and the Macleans case. His comments on Mark Steyn and linking him to Anders Breivik are something else. Readers might remember Richard Moon as the CHRC’s hand-picked “expert” on Section 13 who submitted a report which called for a repeal of Section 13 (then he disappeared with his $50,000 cheque). Of course the CHRC immediately dumped his report and pulled a “mulligan” to produce a report that said exactly what they wanted.
CLICK HERE TO WATCH VIDEO: http://youtu.be/j-_z5bx8UaM
DAVID AKIN | PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU CHIEF
OTTAWA – An Alberta MP has succeeded in his bid to repeal a section of the Canadian Human Rights Act long seen by free-speech advocates as a tool to squelch dissenting opinions.
Conservative MP Brian Storseth saw the Senate give third and final reading late Wednesday to his Bill C-304 which repeals Section 13 of the Human Rights Act, an act that had been used to, among other things, attack the writings of Sun News Network’s Ezra Levant and Maclean’s columnist Mark Steyn.
Section 13 ostensibly banned hate speech on the Internet and left it up to the quasi-judicial human rights commission to determine what qualified as “hate speech.”
But, unlike a court, there was no presumption of innocence of those accused of hate speech by the commission.
Instead, those accused had to prove their innocence.
With elimination of Section 13, producing and disseminating hate speech continues to be a Criminal Code violation but police and the courts will adjudicate rather than human rights tribunals.
Storseth drafted his bill in 2011 and enjoyed support from the highest levels in cabinet.
“Our government believes Section 13 is not an appropriate or effective means for combating hate propaganda,” Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said in late 2011. “We believe the Criminal Code is the best vehicle to prosecute these crimes.”
Last summer, Storseth’s bill cleared the House of Commons in a free vote and, now that it’s through the Senate, it will get royal assent and Section 13 should soon disappear.
FULL ARTICLE ON SUN NEWS AT: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/politics/archives/2013/06/20130626-184219.html
Brian Lilley – June 26th, 2013
As I write this I am still only being updated by text message on the proceedings in the Senate chamber but I am told Bill C-304 has passed third reading and will receive Royal Assent tonight making it law.
What does this bill do?
There are a number of amendments to the act that help limit abuse but the main one is this:
2. Section 13 of the Act is repealed.
To put it bluntly, the means you can’t take someone through the federal human rights apparatus over hurt feelings via a blog post or a Facebook comment.
Now the bill is passed and will become law but like many acts of Parliament it will not come into force for a year.
Still after a long hard battle to restore free speech in Canada, this is a victory.
Here is the section of the act as it now stands, soon to be just a memory.
13. (1) It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
· Marginal note:Interpretation
(2) For greater certainty, subsection (1) applies in respect of a matter that is communicated by means of a computer or a group of interconnected or related computers, including the Internet, or any similar means of communication, but does not apply in respect of a matter that is communicated in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a broadcasting undertaking.
· Marginal note:Interpretation
(3) For the purposes of this section, no owner or operator of a telecommunication undertaking communicates or causes to be communicated any matter described in subsection (1) by reason only that the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking owned or operated by that person are used by other persons for the transmission of that matter.
SEE FULL ARTICLE AT: http://blogs.canoe.ca/lilleyspad/general/a-long-batte-but-section-13-is-dead/
· BREAKING NEWS: Section 13 has been Repealed! Bill C-304 passed Third Reading in the Senate
· Mark Steyn: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/352156/one-step-forward-two-steps-back-mark-steyn
More information at:
B’nai Brith, ADL, Child Porn, Regina and Arthur Topham
B’nai Brith, ADL, Child Porn, Regina and Arthur Topham
December 17, 2012
From the very beginning of my longstanding legal battle with B’nai Brith Canada and the International Jewish Lobby it has been my intention to point a fierce yet truthful finger at World Jewry: the primary purpose being to bring to the forefront for Canadians the true identity and purpose of these front organizations that the Zionists have set up over the past couple of centuries to deceive the gullible goyim (non-Jews) on multiple levels.
A prime example of how, like clockwork, Zionists inevitably resort to the same tactics over and over, is the recent behaviour by the Crown in my upcoming sec. 319(2) CCC “Hate Crime” case involving B’nai Brith Canada and the RCMP’s Det-Cst Terry Wilson of the “BC HATE CRIME TEAM”.
In my last Legal Update #6 published on December 14, 2012 reference was made to the fact that I would publish an article related to the subject of this incident that took place (again) during my last court appearance on December 13, 2012).
Since the onset of the false allegations brought on by Agent Z and Agent Y of B’nai Brith Canada that led to my arrest on May 16, 2012 the Crown has done its damnedest to portray me in a false and negatively perverse light.
Beginning with my first appearance in the Quesnel court room Crown Council Jennifer Johnston immediately began her vilification of my person by resorting to “case law” (examples from former court cases used as precedents that purported prove similar intent and purpose) that equated the cases referenced by her to my own situation with respect to the articles which I have posted on RadicalPress.com.
The “case” in point here being the Crown’s feeble and malicious attempt to suggest to the presiding Judge that articles published on RadicalPress.com are of the same revulsive caliber as photographs and videos of child pornography and sexual abuse that are illegally posted on the Internet and exchanged between perverts via email and that when it comes to any consideration on the part of the Judge as to the degree and severity of bail conditions that ought to be imposed upon me during the course of this bolshevik show trial that this fallacious argument on Crown’s part ought to be given serious consideration so that I would not be permitted to continue to post anything further on the website or possibly even be permitted to email friends and associates.
This, dear lover of freedom of speech, is the degree of chutzpah (arrogance) and deception which permeates not only the mindset of the Jewish lobbies around the world but also that supposedly impartial, independent and august body within Canada’s judicial system (the Crown) which is currently doing the bidding of this foreign agent of Israel – B’nai Brith Canada.
One of the hallmarks of Zionist thinking is to turn whatever truth exists upon its head and then attempt to portray the actual perpetrator of a crime as the innocent victim and nowhere will you find a better example than in the case of sexual perversion, child pornography, deviancy of all types and the secretive masonic order known to the world as B’nai Brith.
I might add too at this point that it’s a known fact, boldly and unabashedly announced by the perpetrators themselves, that the global porn industry was initiated by and has been controlled by Jews since the very beginning. Anyone doubting this need only type into the Google search engine the aforementioned topic and they will find this simple fact out for themselves.
In my own case because of these false allegations made against my person, my life’s work and Truth itself I will site two precedent setting cases that show both the hypocrisy and the deceit that this purportedly “benevolent Jewish society” has projected upon the public’s perception via their controlled media over the past century.
The first is a recent incident that actually took place at the time when I was battling with the Canadian Human Rights Act’s sec. 13(1) complaint that Agent Z and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada had filed against me back in 2007.
During the course of that long and protracted exchange of arguments and motions that eventually led to a decision by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to uphold and lend credence to the complaint; one which eventually moved the case into the hands of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (another communist/zionist style, quasi-judicial body of appointed Zionists doing the bidding of their taskmasters from Israel) B’nai Brith’s touted moral superiority and unblemished integrity suffered a serious blow when one of their former Canadian directors of B’nai Brith Quebec, Bill Surkis, was arrested and charged on May 29, 2009 with possession of 86 videos containing close to nine hours of footage showing men engaged in sexual abuse of under children between the ages of six and fourteen. On top of the videos were an additional 153 photos also showing children being abused.
To add insult to injury Surkis’s lawyer Steven Slimovich (no pun intended!) at first attempted to convince the Crown that his client had all this porn on his computer for “The purpose of his viewing the child pornography material [in order] to educate himself on the topic of child pornography” so that afterwards he would be able to “go into schools and give lectures on people abusing people.”! That, I suggest, is the sort of chutzpah one continually confronts whenever this touted “benevolent” front organization gets caught with its pants down.
Of course even the Crown in this instance couldn’t pretend to fall for such a scam and they had to prosecute Surkis but given the severity of the charges: all three – possessing, accessing and distributing of child pornography – each carrying a maximum penalty on conviction of 10 years in prison, the final outcome of the trial which included plea bargaining to drop the “distributing child pornography” charge was one that showed the powerful influence of the Jewish lobby when it comes to protecting one of their own.
Out of a total of possibly 30 years imprisonment for the three initial charges what did this former registered lobbyist and Quebec Regional Director of B’nai Brith Canada, board chairman for the Holocaust Memorial Museum and Academic Dean of John Abbott College for 22 years receive as punishment for his crimes? Why a grand total of 45 days in jail to be served on weekends, the minimum sentencing allowed under the law!
Oi veh is all I can say!
Yet in my own case, where a conviction for a said sec. 319(2) CCC “Hate Crime” carries a maximum 2 year sentence, do you think that were the Crown to win their case that they would sentence me to say a relatively similar punishment of 5 to 10 days in jail to be served on weekends? Fat chance!
And so it’s fairly evident by now, given Crown Council Jennifer Johnston’s repeated references to Judge Morgan directly associating RadicalPress.com’s articles with child pornography, that her motive is designed to convince the Judge that extremely severe restrictions are justified and must be imposed upon me to prohibit me from writing and publishing any further (pornographic?) articles in my own defence or providing updated information to my long list of supporters and donors who are helping me (and themselves) in this battle to retain my Charter right to freedom of speech on the Internet.
One final irksome comment in this regard. Sturkis’ lawyer Slimovich also did his best to insure that his client, a “stellar” member of his Jewish community, who he stated was a “staunch individual” who “stood up for what is right” would not lose his privilege of retaining his home computer so that he could “continue to serve” his community. Whether he gained that right I was at this point unable to determine.
The second example is one that I will touch upon only briefly but will furnish readers with an url to a website where they can read about it in depth so as to understand the duration of time that has passed since this “benevolent” charity called B’nai Brith that has been fronting as a philanthropy organization for the past hundred years and longer first began their attempts at covering the blood soaked tracks of their membership via the use of their mainstream media propaganda mechanisms using both print and television to gain their dubious ends.
Today the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) of B’nai Brith is the foremost American Jewish watch dog and lobbyist for the state of Israel and for support of the Zionist ideology that buttresses said state’s political doctrines. Its influence in the USA is notoriously well known and its victims are legion since its inception back in the year 1913. The following “case” exposes the history behind why B’nai Brith created the ADL in the first place and it serves as yet another reminder of what this essay is trying to do, i.e. expose B’nai Brith’s true identity and its historic links with pedophelia.
Back in 1913 the United States of America witnessed a rather grizzly murder trial involving a Jew by the name of Leo M. Frank who was the owner of a sweat shop Pencil Company that employed young girls. Leo M. Frank was also president of the Atlanta, Georgia, Gate City [masonic] Lodge 144 Chapter of B’nai B’rith which had about 500 members. The controversy surrounding his sensational trial and subsequent conviction has been ongoing with the ADL still attempting to exonerate the pedophile sex killer as late as 1986.
I highly suggest that readers take a look at the website which exposes all the machinations surrounding this historic trial. It can be found at the following url: http://www.leofrank.org/introduction-to-leo-frank/
I believe these two examples given in this essay are reason enough to challenge Crown Council Jennifer Johnston’s erroneous assertions that she is putting forth in court which suggest that my work and the information contained on RadicalPress.com are somehow related to pedophilia and child pornography when the facts suggest that those who were involved in laying the complaint against me are the ones who ought to be ashamed and embarrassed by the ongoing behaviour of their own members in this highly suspect and shady Jewish lobby organization that is aggressively pursuing its agenda of supporting these so-called “Hate Crimes” in order to silence any criticism of themselves or of the state of Israel and its ideology of Zionism.
I’m sure there will be more to report on this issue as the trial unfolds.
Dear Supporters of a Free Internet and Freedom of Speech,
To say the least this session was particularly crazy in a number of ways.
First off we awoke in the early morning to find ourselves in the midst of a major snow storm! That meant getting the driveway cleared so we could get into town to attend court and as there was no time for me to shovel the 300 foot swath to the Barkerville Hwy we had to call the neighbour and get him to come over with his snow-clearing machine.
Meanwhile I tried to call my lawyer Doug Christie to check on things but I was unable to reach him on his cell phone. The court time for the bail hearing was set for 1:30 p.m. I called the local airport to see if Doug’s flight was still on schedule only to find that it wasn’t happening. As it turned out the plane made it from Vancouver International airport as far as Williams Lake (the next city about 90 km south of Quesnel), circled for awhile and then due to poor visibility was forced to return to Vancouver.
Realizing this of course created a number of questions in terms of what might occur when we got to the courthouse in Quesnel.
Upon reaching town over roads that were in dire need of plowing we went into the government building where the courts are located around 1 p.m. only to find the place basically empty with the exception of some supporters who had come to view the session. I went upstairs to the court registry to see what was up and was told that it wouldn’t be happening until 2 p.m. and that Mr. Christie would be appearing via telephone instead of in person. I knew right then that we would be encountering some difficulties as my lawyer and I had already discussed the importance of him being there in the flesh in the courtroom due to the strident actions of Crown council during the last session on November 30th.
Having a few minutes to kill, my wife and I went for a quick bite before the court resumed.
There are normally a number of different cases on the docket during the afternoon but on this day my case was the only one so the gallery was empty except for one mysterious elderly woman who was in attendance. She was probably in her mid to late 70?s and appeared to be following my wife and I around as we awaited the opening of the doors leading into the court room. My immediate impression was that she was a local sayanim (Isreali supporter and operative) sent out by B’nai Brith to observe the session.
Crown council Jennifer Johnston was there raring to go as usual with her mountains of files and folders stacked up on the table below the Judge’s bench. While we sat quietly awaiting the Judge’s entrance into the room CC Johnston added a new prop to her planned submission to the Judge by setting up an additional little podium on the table that looked a bit like a soap box or a preacher’s pulpit where I assumed she would be placing her papers and her Criminal Code book as she commenced her flamboyant actions against me on behalf of Rothschild’s front organization B’nai Brith Canada.
Judge Morgan, the Judge who has been sitting in on this charade for the majority of the sessions of late, came in and court immediately commenced the clerk having already called Mr. Christie on his cell phone a few minutes prior to the Judge appearing.
Crown council Johnston immediately rattled off the case numbers and proceeded to get right into it but the Judge had to soon interrupt her and allow Mr. Christie to state some things regarding the defence’s side of the issue.
During the last session on November 30th Mr. Christie had reiterated, as he has been reiterating for the past 6 months now, that he is STILL awaiting Disclosure from the Crown. What that means for those unfamiliar with court room procedure is that he has not received from the Crown the documents which state what exactly it is that I am being charged with, what the sentencing is that the Crown is asking and what the contents or evidence is that the Crown is planning to use in their offensive efforts to convict me of this spurious “HATE CRIME” also known as sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada. This procedure of furnishing the defence with the Disclosure is standard practise in all litigation yet the Crown has been stalling and stalling and back-pedalling on the issue since I was first arrested on May 16th, 2012.
During the November 30th session Judge Morgan had asked Crown council to get the Disclosure documents to Mr. Christie by no later a date than December 11th, 2012 so that he would have (a very limited amount of) time to study the charges and prepare to address the proposed arguments of Crown as they pertained to the bail conditions which CC Johnston is hell-bent on imposing upon me. Well, as usual, this again didn’t happen and instead Mr. Christie got word at the last minute that instead of receiving the required information Crown council was now making an additional Application to the Judge wherein the Crown would be attempting to restrict Mr. Christie from divulging the contents of the Disclosure to his client, me!
Why you might reasonably ask? Allow me to explain. When the formal charge was handed down on November 5th, 2012 the Zionist controlled media in Canada were on it like a dog on a bone and all the major print media and Canada’s largest TV media, SunNews Network, were spreading their excremental slurs and the usual vilifying statements about me and my website around the country. In the case of the National Post aka the Zionist National Post as I prefer to call it, their intrepid reporter Stewart Bell had published some quotes from a document which another website, FreeDominion.ca had published on a thread on their forum. The quotes in question were extracts taken from what is called a “Warned Statement”. Allow me to explain what that is.
Prior to Det – Cst Terry Wilson of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM (the Zionist created police hit squad that orchestrated my arrest and that also works in tandem with Agents X and Y of B’nai Brith Canada – the two Zionist B’nai Brith agents who filed the sec. 319(2) charge against me) releasing me from jail on May 16, 2012 he and I went to a small interview room where he “interviewed” me in order to solicit further “evidence” to be used against me. I ought to have listened to my lawyer and told Wilson to stuff his interview up where the sun doesn’t shine but of course I didn’t and decided to humour him and gave him some facts to counter all the bullshit that he was spewing forth during our talk; bs that was pure Zionist disinformation most likely planted in Wilson’s lightning struck brain by Agent Y after decades of conspired with him back in Ontario (more on that in a subsequent post).
Well, as it turns out our sleuth Det Wilson has been collaborating with this same serial sidewinder Agent Y for years now pulling off on others precisely what they pulled off in my case, that is, coming up with some phoney “evidence” furnished to them by B’nai Brith Canada via Agent X their BC sayanim agent and then arresting the person and stealing their computers and copying all the information off of their hard drive and subsequently using the Canadian court system and the Zionist controlled media to first vilify the person and afterwards strive to find them guilty in the “human rights” tribunals (modelled on the Stalinist show trials of the 1930’s) of “spreading ‘hatred’ toward Jews and citizens of Israel”. Once those steps have been taken they then proceed to fine the shit out of their victim and order them to take down their websites and also issue cease and desist orders preventing the victim from publishing any further truth about B’nai Brith’s sinister actions. Agent Y of course greedily collects his blood money, pockets it and then proceeds to look for another website to sucker in to his hate crime scam. This has been the modus operandi of the Jewish lobby groups here in Canada for decades and began as soon as they were able to surreptitiously configure their “hate crime” legislation into Canada’s statutes via their sayanim Jewish Supreme Court Justices (Irwin Cotler being the primary Zionist agent and former Liberal Attorney General of Canada) and all the rest of their pro-Zionist lawyers and sycophants working on “commissions” and behind the scenes.
Anyhow, getting back to the scene of the crime de jure and what happened as a result of Connie Fournier (also unaware of its confidential status) posting this document on her website in the form of a pdf. Crown council Jennifer Johnston is now attempting to use that as an argument against my lawyer and an excuse for her holding back on sending Mr. Christie the long awaited disclosure and second, to file an additional Application to stop Mr. Christie from sharing any additional information regarding the Crown’s charges with me, the accused.
Then, to add insult to injury, she held up documents before the Judge saying that she did have the necessary information sitting on her computer just waiting (at the click of a button as she remarked) to send to Mr. Christie but of course she had to have the new Application approved beforehand so she could sleep at night knowing that Mr. Topham wouldn’t be privy to it and go and post it on someone’s website!
Some of course might think it lame and some lame-brained on her part to expect that Mr. Christie be subjected to such an outrageous set of conditions given the fact that the Crown itself hasn’t disclosed a damn bit of information from the get go! But given all the antics on the part of CC Johnston thus far in this little mini-series nothing that she attempts comes as too great a surprise. Mr. Christie of course outright rejected Crown’s claims and also argued that there were mitigating circumstances regarding the “Warned Statement” that needed to be addressed when he could be in court in person.
Mr. Christie then asked the Judge to set another date for these matters to argued as obviously Crown was making it supremely difficult for him to do anything without first receiving disclosure.
Then something occurred which bears mentioning as it’s not the first time that Crown council Johnston has pulled this stunt. When she began stating to the Judge that the Crown needed to get additional bail conditions imposed on me asap she held up in her hand a booklet that Wilson had prepared of all the posts I had placed on my website since November 2, 2012 when I first learned that I was able to do so legally. I gather it is one of his prime sources of entertainment and a justification for his otherwise unearned pay cheque when he’s not busy snooping about in all my private emails that he stole from me back in May. One could see that to her way of thinking she had in hand all the solid evidence needed to prove that I was continuing to publish “willful hatred” toward Jews and Zionists and that because of all these posts (up to at least November 30) it was imperative that I be restricted from using my website and posting my articles, news reports, other articles, political cartoons and unrelated stories.
This business of trying to misinform the Judge while at the same time intimidate me into somehow feeling guilty for doing what I’ve been doing for the past fourteen years of publishing is as pathetic as it is laughable. She still hasn’t twigged on the fact that I run an alternative News Service and that posting articles is what one does when providing such a venue for readers. It’s as if I’m supposed to hang my head in shame because these Zionist psychopaths have alleged that I’m a hate mongering anti-Semite and tuck my tail between my legs and slink off into the underbrush somewhere to await my conviction! My God! Is that the degree of intelligence that our legal beagles are functioning at? If so, heaven help the nation.
It was then that Judge Morgan began to repeat early statements and false accusations by Crown council Johnston (in her zeal to convince the Judge of the dastardly deeds I supposedly was committing), that what I was writing and publishing might be comparable to a website that was publishing child pornography and therefore had to be stopped as soon as possible. Child pornography!!! I couldn’t at that point help but groan and Mr. Christie was quick to rebut such statements stating to Judge Morgan that this was an unfair and inapplicable comparison. (Again, I will address this issue further in a separate article). The Judge listened to Mr. Christie’s argument and tended to agree although Crown council Johnston must have got a chuckle out of having influenced him to the point where he was beginning to regurgitate the same standard Zionist double-talk and lies that CC Johnston was attempting to use.
Given all the disjointed and conflicting accusations and misinformation that were colliding in the court room Judge Morgan suggested that court adjourn for half an hour so that Crown and Defence could speak privately and try to come to some agreement over the contentious issues at hand and also so Mr. Christie could speak with me as well. This was around 2:30 p.m. We took a half hour break and returned to the court room at 3:00 p.m.
There was no possibility of Mr. Christie agreeing to anything that Crown council Johnston was proposing and so when court resumed Mr. Christie and Crown council Johnston along with Judge Morgan began to look at future dates where Mr. Christie could be in court to argue the case. A date of Wednesday, December 19, 2012 at 1:30 p.m. was agreed upon by all parties and Judge Morgan then ended the session.
Stay tuned folks! It can only get more interesting as this 2012 freedom of speech farce continues to unfold.
NOTE: Again I would ask of readers that they try to assist me financially in my battle with the censors by sending donations to the cause. Due to the fact that the Crown is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able to furnish legal aid with the required documents that they demand before looking at whether or not I might qualify for legal financial assistance. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses and while I have been receiving some assistance from a few kind souls who realize the importance of this case to all Canadians the amount of money thus sent comes nowhere near that necessary to pay for my lawyer to appear in court in Quesnel to defend me against these false charges.
As such I would once again implore readers to give serious consideration to helping me out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Cash of course also works.
4633 Barkerville Highway
To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site.
The Radical Press
Dear Free Speech Supporters,
On Tuesday, November 27, 2012 my wife and I once again wended our way into Quesnel to attend what I thought was to be a meeting with a Justice of the Peace who was going to speak with my lawyer Douglas Christie via telephone at 1:30 pm and arrange dates for an arraignment and a preliminary hearing regarding the sec. 319(2) criminal charge of “Willful promotion of hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin” brought against me by B’nai Brith Canada via their two agents X and Y. That was what the JP stated during the previous meeting held on November 20, 2012.
Just prior to 1:30 pm the Justice came and told us that the meeting would be held in Judge’s Court instead at the same time.
When I was called up before the Honourable Judge Morgan the court clerk called Mr. Christie on the phone and upon answering Judge Morgan began to discuss the dates for the two issue and it was agreed upon that the arraignment would take place on April 2, 2013 at 1:30 pm and that preliminary inquiry would be set for the week of June 3 – 6, 2013.
Initially my lawyer had requested five days for the preliminary inquiry but for some reason unbeknownst to anyone present it was set for only four. Mr. Christie stated that he didn’t feel four days might be enough and given the fact that he was still awaiting disclosure from Crown Council Johnston of the relevant documents supporting the Crown’s reasons for the charge after a delay of over six months he felt that it was unreasonable to expect him to be able to ascertain the amount of time that might be required. That said the Judge still left it at four days.
Then the issue of the application to address bail conditions came up again. Crown council Jennifer Johnston told the Judge in no uncertain terms that the Crown was going to be pressing to have all of the original bail conditions reinstated when the bail hearing took place citing the “fact” that Det. Wilson had informed her that I was still posting articles on my website that Wilson deemed to be of the same calibre as those complained of by Agents X and Y.
The previous undertaking given to a judge which I am presently bound by came into effect on October 13, 2012 and did not include the following two conditions which were originally given to me by Det-Cst Terry Wilson back on May 16, 2012 when I was released from the Quesnel jail. At the time of my release I did not sign the document but that didn’t matter to the Crown who insist that it still is in effect.
These two conditions (and possibly more planned) are:
1. “You shall not post any information on any internet website that can be read by members of the general public.”
2. “You shall not operate, post to or manage or allow anyone to operate, post to or manage any internet site owned by you that can be accessed by the general public.”
It must of course be recognized that both of these Orwellian ultimatums fly in the face of my Charter of Rights and Freedoms as guaranteed by Canada’s so-called “Constitution.” This fact also appears not to have entered into the mind of Crown Council Jennifer Johnston.
Mr. Christie’s response to all this was that he finds it extremely difficult for him to argue against the Crown’s position when he is still waiting for the disclosure of the documents that would indicate the reasons why the Crown was taking such a hard line approach in defiance of my constitutional rights.
This of course brought up the subject of said disclosure materials which Crown Council had assured both Judge Morgan and Counsel Christie that she would be supplying Mr. Christie with when we last attended court on the 20th of November. That information, apparently on cd discs, never arrived at Mr. Christie’s office prior to November 27th.
Judge Morgan asked the Crown what the problem was stating that he thought the Crown had had sufficient time to get this matter together.
Crown Council Johnston then gave the Judge a swan song about how she really, really wanted to get it done but that she was just so busy and then launched into all the things that she had on her plate that prevented her from accomplishing what she had said she would do last time we met in court. She then added that the material on the cd’s had to be “vetted” prior to sending them to Mr. Christie and that there were so many pages that had to be gone over and examined and it was soooo important that the accused not be privy to these documents before they were vetted and so on and so forth.
When it came time for setting a date for the next bail application to be heard there was no agreement between either Crown Council or Mr. Christie as to when they would be able to meet and so Judge Morgan decided that he would set a date and that both parties would have to make sure they were in attendance. At this point Judge Morgan also told Mr. Christie that this would likely be the last time he would be permitted to attend via telephone and that after that he would need to appear in person. The date was then set for Thursday, December 13, 2012 at 1:30 pm and the allotted time for Mr. Christie to argue against the Crown’s proposed conditions would be 45 minutes.
That said Mr. Christie then asked the Judge if he would ensure that the Crown furnish him with all the documentation required so that he would have time to prepare his arguments and Crown Council immediately said that she would get the information to Mr. Christie well in advance of the 13th of December. Judge Morgan then stated that Crown would have to furnish Mr. Christie with the information by no later than December 11, 2012. Hardly sufficient time in which to prepare a proper argument especially in light of the fact that Crown most likely was going to argue that all of my posts on RadicalPress.com since November 2nd, 2012 were indicative of more “hatred” being published against the ‘victims’ of this alleged “hate” crime.
That ended the session.
Some final comments:
It has been over six months now since Det-Cst Terry Wilson and his “BC HATE CRIME TEAM” swooped down upon my wife and I while we were travelling up to Prince George, B.C. in order to arrest me on this bogus charge, outraging me and traumatizing my dear wife. All the drama and hoopla surrounding Hate Hunter Wilson’s premeditated assault upon my constitutional right to freedom of speech on the Internet was simply that – a staged performance designed to lend some form of legitimacy and authenticity to what was simply an attack by the state upon an otherwise law-abiding citizen; one who has been openly informing the public about the very foreign agents who were responsible for making the complaint to the RCMP that precipitated this subsequent ambush on my legal and human right to freedom of speech and freedom of expression.
Yet, for all the hullabaloo and the gravity of this said “hate crime” – one based solely upon the contents of my website RadicalPress.com – the Crown still refuses to supply my defence lawyer Douglas Christie with the required disclosure documents that they apparently used to determine that such a charge was justified.
Instead, they used this bogus allegation to justify obtaining an illegal search warrant which was then used to invade my home and steal all of my computers and electronic files. And, in addition to that, they also stole my firearms (my only means of personal safety in the rural area where I live) and then had the audacity to add a further bogus charge of “unlawful storage of firearms” to the initial false charge. All this was of course done in order to furnish their controlled media with yet another juicy bit of misinformation that could then be used to smear and slander my person and give the impression that I was not only a vile hate-mongerer but also armed and dangerous!
The whole gist of this massive scam is to cover up the fact that the Jewish lobbies here in Canada have the judiciary and the RCMP and the media by the balls and whenever they wish to silence someone who is revealing this fact to the people of Canada all they have to do is put the squeeze on RCMP Hate Hunters like Det-Cst Wilson and Levas and the legal system suddenly kicks in to carry out the bidding of their task masters the Zionist lobby acting at the behest of its controlling arm B’nai Brith International. The perps in this charade then sit back and let the taxpayers of Canada pay all the expenses while I, a senior citizen on a very limited, fixed income, am forced to defend myself against this specious, anti-Charter of Rights charge.
Must be nice to have that sort of influence upon a nation that purports to be “free and democratic.”
One final note regarding my website.
Readers were informed that my website host Netfirms.com has issued a decree at the behest of a complaint from Hate Hunter Wilson that my website would be “terminated” in 48 hours unless I removed all the supposed “hate” content alleged by Wilson to be on the site.
Upon receiving said notification I replied to the Corporate representative for Netfirms.com, a person going by the name of “Zach P”, requesting further information as to what exactly I was expected to remove in order to meet Netfirms.com policy rules. I also requested of my readership that they write to Zach P and let him know that they did not agree with Hate Hunter Wilson’s assessment of my website and that Netfirms.com ought to leave it alone. All of these efforts of course proved to be futile. Zach P never had the decency to even respond to anyone, a clear indication that he and his company Netfirms.com could give a shit about what Canadians think and feel about the issue of freedom of speech on the Internet.
Realizing that I had but 48 hours to save my site I had it moved to a different server and now it is still alive and functioning but for how long is anyone’s guess.
The fact that Hate Hunter Wilson has been sleuthing about behind the scenes doing his damnedest to destroy my website speaks volumes in terms of the underhanded tactics that these supposed ” ‘Royal Canadian’ peace officers” will resort to in order to due the bidding of their foreign controllers. My lawyer tells me that even though Hate Hunter Wilson’s tactics are unethical and immoral and deplorable they still are not illegal and so there’s nothing that I can do about it. I’ll leave readers to judge whether or not H.H. Wilson’s actions ought to be allowed.
And so it goes as the wheels of justice here in Canuckistan slowly grind away and erode my rights and freedoms along with yours.
Again I would ask of readers that they assist me financially in my battle with the censors by sending donations to the cause. Due to the fact that the Crown is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able to furnish legal aid with the required documents that they demand before looking at whether or not I might qualify for legal financial assistance. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses and while I have been receiving some assistance from a few kind souls who realize the importance of this case to all Canadians the amount of money thus sent comes nowhere near that necessary to pay for my lawyer to appear in court in Quesnel to defend me against these false charges.
As such I would once again implore readers to give serious consideration to helping me out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Cash of course also works.
4633 Barkerville Highway
To access my PayPal button please go to my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page.
Thanks for all the support from those good folks who had the courage of their convictions to write a letter to Netfirms.com on my behalf. While these excellent letters may have had no effect upon the corporate heads at Netfirms.com they certainly provide a strong and positive endorsement for both myself and RadicalPress.com and for that reason alone they are gratefully received and acknowledged.
For Peace and Love and Truth and Justice for All,
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
Conservative Party passes resolution to remove Internet Censorship provision from Human Rights Fanatics
Conservative Party passes resolution to remove Internet Censorship provision from Human Rights Fanatics
By Marc Lemire
In a show of support, the Conservative Party of Canada today voted overwhelmingly in favour of Resolution P-203 http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/nov12-08_Support_P-203_to_repeal_sec13.htmlÃ‚Â to repeal Section 13 (Internet censorship provision) of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
According to many of the reports, it was supported by 99% of the delegates http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=107546 , and surprisingly even the Minister of Justice, Rob Nicholson voted in favor of P-203 http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2008/11/rob-nicholson-on-section-13a/ .Ã‚Â This is a bit of a surprise, since it is his ministry that has spend at least $500,000 in the Lemire case to uphold the constitutionality of Section 13.Ã‚Â When the resolution was passed, Conservative Party Delegates went wild http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=107546&sid=57f0a8faa34756366db3d5e3308a4b9aÃ‚Â with applause and a standing ovation for the riding association that brought forward the motion.
[VIDEO http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2008/11/rob-nicholson-on-section-13a/ ] Interview with Attorney General of Canada Rob Nicholson from Stephen TaylorÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s website.
The Resolution as passed reads:
Modify HRC Jurisdiction
PROPOSED BY VICTORIA AND KELOWNA – LAKE COUNTRY
iii) The Conservative Party supports legislation to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Much of the credit for this overwhelming endorsement against the Human Rights Enforcers, has to go to a loose coalition of bloggers across Canada who prepared a fantastic campaign to support Resolution P-203 http://blog.freedomsite.org/2008/11/flyer-support-conservative-party.html .Ã‚Â Ã‚Â This included an information package handed out to delegates http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=107327 , people on the floor raising the issue, and a massive blog blast.Ã‚Â [Here http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/nov12-08_Support_P-203_to_repeal_sec13.html are some of the Blogs and websites that helped to raise the issue of HRC censorship]
For those who didnÃ¢â‚¬â„¢t catch the vote on CPAC http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&template_id=481&lang=e , an intrepid reporter inside the convention reported: “When one of the people from the riding association rose to speak to the resolution on the floor, not only was there wild applause but he received a standing ovation. Pretty much everyone (we’re talking the whole room) stood up and applauded. It was a thing of beauty!”
Media reports on P-203:
But other hot-button issues found wide support on the convention floor.
One policy would take away investigative and adjudication powers from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and tribunal for complaints of hate-mongering.
“This tribunal is a direct threat to our freedom of speech,” the sponsoring delegate said to applause.
Edmonton MP Laurie Hawn supported the motion, saying “we already have hate laws” and the tribunals “punish individuals for expressing legitimate – even if they’re controversial – views.”
The resolution was adopted virtually unanimously.
A resolution that seeks to limit the investigative and adjudication powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission and tribunals for complaints of hate-mongering was passed almost unanimously.
“This tribunal is a direct threat to our freedom of speech,” the sponsoring delegate said to applause.
Edmonton MP Laurie Hawn supported the motion, saying “we already have hate laws” and the tribunals “punish individuals for expressing legitimate Ã¢â‚¬â€ even if they’re controversial Ã¢â‚¬â€ views.”
It remains to be seen whether the Conservative government will actually follow through on this, but a great day for free speech as Conservative party members have voted “yes” on P-203
This would seem to be smart policy for the Tories – libertarian conservatives like it and social conservatives like it. Moreover, groups like the Canadian Association of Journalists, PEN Canada, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, and the BC Civil Liberties Association have been supportive of such a change.
Furthermore, a pro-free speech message can and should also include an anti-censorship message – something that could help the Tories make inroads in various communities that fear a streak of censorship mentality still exists within the Conservative Party.
In the end, the rank and file urged the party to press ahead with its tough-on-crime agenda, and support some long-held causes of rock-ribbed conservatives, such as curbing the powers of the Canadian Human Rights Commission.Ã¢â‚¬Â¦
The party also overwhelmingly approved a proposal to remove authority from the Human Rights Commission to probe or adjudicate hate speech.
Nicholson said he supported the resolution, but is waiting for a report from the commission on the matter. “We’ll have a look at all input on this, but we’ve got a very busy criminal-law agenda,” he said.