Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 by Arthur Topham

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

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

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

Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

B’nai Brith attack on Canadian professor has roots in Zionist false flag tactics by RAFIQ for the American Herald Tribune

amhertribune

OCTOBER 13 ,2016

BY RAFIQ
B’nai Brith attack on Canadian professor has roots in Zionist false flag tactics
anthony_hall_bb_6208e
Anthony Hall

In late August a sensational anti-Jewish screed and graphic were posted on the Facebook page of University of Lethbridge professor Anthony Hall.

1113

As a result, B’nai Brith Canada launched a legal campaign against Dr. Hall for committing a “hate crime,” followed by an ongoing campaign to have him dismissed from his tenured position after twenty-six years.

fb_bb_22ad81111-1Although the racist, hate-mongering Facebook post was ostensibly put on Dr. Hall’s page by someone self-identified as “Glen Davidson,” B’nai Brith launched no legal campaign against this person. Instead, it succeeded in having the Lethbridge Police Service open an investigation of Dr. Hall. As reported by CTV News Calgary, B’nai Brith said that “by allowing” the anti-Semitic post “to remain on his Facebook page, Hall was committing a hate crime.” [1]

CTV News Calgary went on to falsely report that “Hall did eventually remove the offending post.” In fact Dr. Hall didn’t know about the post’s existence until after B’nai Brith had successfully lobbied Facebook to take it down. As reported by Now Magazine, Facebook removed the post after initially, and ludicrously, claiming that it didn’t violate the website’s standards. [2]

For its part, as reported by J.W. Schnarr at the Lethbridge Herald (Sept. 29, 2016), the Lethbridge Police Service has stated that the post, “while extremely offensive and inappropriate, does not meet the threshold for intent set out in the Criminal Code of Canada for advocating genocide or public incitement of hatred.’” [3] Although this finding fails to dissociate Dr. Hall from the anti-Semitic posting and thus does nothing to restore his reputation, the upshot is that no criminal charges are going to be laid against him for committing a “hate crime.”

lh_c389aSo if not a hate crime, what are the grounds for B’nai Brith’s ongoing campaign to destroy the career of a respected historian known for his moral courage in standing up for Indigenous rights both in Canada and around the world? And why has the University of Lethbridge decided to bow to the pressure of B’nai Brith and seek Dr. Hall’s dismissal, as reported in the American Herald Tribune? [4]

According to the Lethbridge Herald, at issue are claims against Dr. Hall that involve “the alleged spread of conspiracy theories and anti-Zionist propaganda.” The newspaper goes on to explain that Dr. Hall “promotes the idea of a global Zionist conspiracy to foster hatred of Muslims through ‘false flag’ terror events, beginning with the 9/11 terror attacks in New York City.” [5] CTV News Calgary adds that Dr. Hall is known for “condemning Israel and implying agents of that country were behind the 9/11 attacks in New York.” [6]

These statements make it clear that Dr. Hall has aligned himself against Zionism and against the political machinations of Israel. Nowhere is it suggested that Dr. Hall has aligned himself against the Jewish people. Yet B’nai Brith insists that Zionism and the Jewish people are synonymous and that to question Zionism is to be anti-Semitic. The two are conflated in its rhetoric against Dr. Hall:

B’nai Brith continues to demand that the University of Lethbridge investigate, to guarantee that students are not subjected to Hall’s anti-Zionist itinerary.

Does the University of Lethbridge feel that Holocaust denial, accusations of world Zionist conspiracy plots and antisemitism are the legitimate “results of research and scholarship?”

Hall’s personal antisemitism cannot be separated from his academic career. [7]

anti-semitism_adca1

Here, Dr. Hall’s stance against Zionism is conflated with denial of the Jewish holocaust and with anti-Semitism – understood as hatred of Jews. It makes no difference that Dr. Hall has been legally absolved of committing a “hate crime.” It makes no difference that in an article he published in the American Herald Tribune, he has vocally decried the racist posting placed on his Facebook page. [8] B’nai Brith has branded him an “anti-Semite.” As Now Magazine puts it in a slanderous and libelous article smearing Dr. Hall, his critique of Zionism means that he is a “Jew-hater.” [9]

The University of Lethbridge has given every indication that it agrees with this assessment. In early October university president Dr. Michael Mahon declared that Dr. Hall’s actions “appear to contravene Section 3 of the Alberta Human Rights Act,” and he promptly suspended Dr. Hall without pay while the university investigates the situation. In explaining his suspension of a tenured professor without due process and without any finding of wrongdoing, Dr. Mahon echoed the accusations and rhetoric of B’nai Brith, citing both the use of Dr. Hall’s Facebook page “for virulent anti-semitic comments” and his research into Israel’s role in 9/11, which Dr. Mahon interprets as an accusation against “Jewish individuals,” absurdly denying Israel’s diverse ethnic makeup.

aht_mahon_5c7b3

jews_mossad_0d0c3

wtc7_d48eb

Dictionaries generally define “Zionism” as “a political movement that supports the maintenance and preservation of the state of Israel as a Jewish homeland, originally arising in the late 1800s with the goal of re-establishing a Jewish homeland in the region of Palestine.” [10] This proper view of Zionism as “a political movement” distinct from Jewish people themselves is supported by many individuals and organizations within the Jewish community. They condemn the genocidal tactics used by Israel in its campaign against the Palestinian people as it seeks to create a state that is solely Jewish.

msm_israel_6db0d

For example, in a recent fundraising email, Jewish Voice for Peace provides this testimony from a retreat participant, “Jake said he’d grown up participating in Zionist youth movements, and travelling to Israel. So when he began to understand the extent of human rights abuses against Palestinians, and the lengths that mainstream Jewish society goes to silence them, he felt like he’d lost something huge. He believed he’d never feel at home in a Jewish community again. And then he found JVP.” [11]

jvp_3403a

The website True Torah Jews takes an even stronger stand against the Zionist political project. In an article explaining that the German Zionists colluded with the National Socialists in creating hostility against the Jews of Germany as a means of ensuring their expulsion to Palestine, the website writes, “We implore and beseech our Jewish brethren to realize that the Zionists are not the saviors of the Jewish People and guarantors of their safety, but rather the instigators and original cause of Jewish suffering in the Holy Land and worldwide.” [12]

israel_cartoon_62a6f

Indeed, under the Transfer Agreement of 1933, concluded between Adolf Hitler’s National Socialist government and Chaim Arlosoroff of the World Zionist Organization, tens of thousands of German Jews were able to migrate to Palestine with their wealth. This seemingly humane cooperation between the National Socialists and the Zionists was in fact based on their shared racist ideas about ethnicity and nationhood. Both agreed that for the good of each “race,” Germans and Jews should no longer live side by side. Absolute separation of the “races” was necessary.

haavara_252da

Thus, when the National Socialists adopted the “Nuremberg laws” of 1935, which prohibited sex and marriage between Germans and Jews, who were no longer regarded as Germans but reconceived as an “alien minority,” the Zionists were pleased. Only on a rising tide of anti-Semitic sentiment could the Zionist political project be achieved. The founder of modern Zionism, Theodor Herzl, “maintained that anti-Semitism is not an aberration, but a natural and completely understandable response by non-Jews to alien Jewish behavior and attitudes. The only solution, he argued, is for Jews to recognize reality and live in a separate state of their own.” [13]

The article by True Torah Jews goes on to explain the tactics of such Zionists – thus shedding light on the conduct of B’nai Brith and its accolades at Now Magazine:

It has been the age-old intention of Zionism to intentionally stir up anti-Semitism anywhere possible, and even more commonly, to take advantage of any Jewish suffering anywhere in order to enhance its cause. Indeed, hatred of Jews and Jewish suffering is the oxygen of the Zionist movement, and from the very beginning [its intention] has been to deliberately incite hatred of the Jew and then, in feigned horror, use it to justify the existence of the Zionist state – this is, of course, Machiavellianism raised to the highest degree. Thus, the Zionists thrive on hatred and suffering of Jews, and seek to benefit thereby through keeping Jews in perpetual fear, causing them to ignore the true nature of Zionism, and instead to consider the Zionist state as their salvation.

In his article in the American Herald Tribune discussing his treatment at the hands of B’nai Brith Canada, Dr. Hall speculates that B’nai Brith may have been behind the anti-Semitic screed and graphic that were posted on his Facebook page. [14] The Lethbridge Herald makes note of this observation: “The discussion also turned to the possibility that some of the organizations currently demanding Hall be disciplined for his statements could have made the posting themselves in order to discredit him and to fuel their argument.” [15] However, this concern is framed by the Lethbridge Herald as dismissible out of hand and in need of no actual journalistic investigation.

Yet the description of Zionism offered by True Torah Jews suggests that Dr. Hall may indeed be right about the tactics being employed against him by B’nai Brith. Clearly, in the case of Dr. Hall, B’nai Brith is bent on seeing anti-Semitism where there is none. Moreover, B’nai Brith does not appear to have attempted to identify or pursue charges against the claimed poster of the racist screed and graphic, “Glen Davidson.” Nor has it sought to identify or pursue charges against the creator of the posting, even though it depicts a known cartoonist, Ben Garrison, assaulting an Orthodox Jew.

If the Lethbridge Herald had done some investigating, it would have unearthed a story that is entirely consistent with the description of Zionism offered by True Torah Jews. It would have discovered what Arthur Topham of Radical Press learned when he contacted Garrison and asked him about the anti-Semitic posting, in which Garrison is supposed to profess, “I will not rest until every single filthy, parasitic kike is rounded up and slaughtered. The greedy hook-nosed kikes know that their days are numbered … KILL ALL JEWS NOW! EVERY LAST ONE.”

hall_bb_01a73

* Original Post Planted on Dr. Hall’s Facebook page and then removed by Facebook without any notice at to the victim of the social media false flag from Facebook or its partner B’nai Brith

In Garrison’s words, “that Photoshopped image of me assaulting that Orthodox Jewish man continues to circulate and be posted everywhere. Ironically, it was created by a 20 year old Jewish kid named Joshua Goldberg. He was arrested by the FBI about a year ago for sending bomb making instructions to what he thought was a Muslim terrorist – instead it was an FBI undercover agent. Goldberg is now pleading mental illness, but for years he was allowed to stir up trouble from his parent’s basement in Florida. For some reason he enjoyed targeting me and he’s the one who created that image as well as many other hate screeds.” [16]joshua_goldberg_1ada2

1113-1

Joshua Goldberg’s arrest is confirmed by newspaper reports. One is in the Sydney Morning Herald, where we learn that Goldberg “is suspected of a number of other online hoaxes, including posing online as prominent Australian lawyer, Josh Bornstein … In the Bornstein hoax, Goldberg established a blog on the Times of Israel in the lawyer’s name before posting an inflammatory article calling for the ‘extermination’ of Palestinians. The Times retracted the article and apologised.’” [17]

In response to the revelations about Goldberg, Dr. Kevin Barrett of Truth Jihad Radio has called the anti-Semitic post that turned up on Dr. Hall’s Facebook page a “weaponized image” that “was created by a Jewish-Zionist false flag provocateur and instigator of phony ‘Islamic terrorism,’ presumably to be used precisely the way it was deployed against Tony Hall.” [18] Indeed, Goldberg’s own description of one of his other plots is consistent with this conclusion. As reported in the Sydney Morning Herald, “the fake jihadi also claimed a friendship with anti-Islamophobia campaigner Mariam Veiszadeh, but only to smear her reputation.” [19]

the-islamophobia-industry_60fa4

In light of the context that produced the anti-Semitic screed and graphic at the centre of the attack on Dr. Hall’s character, B’nai Brith’s failure to investigate the posting’s origins and its determination to focus instead on branding Dr. Hall an “anti-Semite” look suspicious. And given the Zionist movement’s history of duplicitous dealings, as discussed by True Torah Jews, one can understand the historical context of the research done by Dr. Hall and other scholars that shows 9/11 was an Israeli false flag operation conducted in collusion with the CIA.

5_israelis_dac78

Indeed, the Mossad agents who were arrested in New Jersey on 9/11 and later quietly returned to Israel would themselves admit on national television that they had been in New Jersey “to document the event.” [20] This statement, which makes clear that Mossad had prior knowledge of the 9/11 attack, is supported by additional research showing that Mossad agents pretending to be art students had unfettered access to the twin towers and had every means and opportunity to plant the demolition explosives that have been identified in dust samples from ground zero. [21]

Also consistent with this emerging picture of Zionism’s tactics is Mossad’s own motto: “By Deception We Shall Rule and Do War.” From a groundling like Joshua Goldberg to the state of Israel itself, one sees that deception is indeed key to the Zionist’s genocidal project against the Palestinian people and – through the Israeli-US fabricated “war on terror” – against Muslims everywhere. Those who stand against the inhumanity of Zionism should be applauded. Like Dr. Hall, they are not anti-Semites but heroes.

Notes

[1] CTV News Calgary, “Fallout of U of L Professor’s Controversial Views,” September 2016, http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=962755.

[2] Bernie Farber, “Facebook Removes Anti-Semitic Post after Online Blowback,” Now Magazine, 7 September 2016, https://nowtoronto.com/news/facebook-removes-anti-semitic-post-after-online-blowback/.

[3] J.W. Schnarr, “Professor Investigated by U of L,” Lethbridge Herald, 29 September 2016, http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/local-news/2016/09/29/professor-investigated-by-u-of-l/.

[4] Rafiq, “Canadian Professor Libelously Targeted as ‘Anti-Semite’ in Coordinated Attack,” American Herald Tribune, 28 September 2016, http://ahtribune.com/world/americas/1225-canadian-professor-anti-semite.html.

[5] Schnarr, “Professor Investigated,” http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/local-news/2016/09/29/professor-investigated-by-u-of-l/.

[6] CTV News Calgary, “Fallout,” http://calgary.ctvnews.ca/video?clipId=962755.

[7] B’nai Brith, “Academic Freedom Does Not Include Holocaust Denial,” 28 September 2016, http://canadafreepress.com/article/academic-freedom-does-not-include-holocaust-denial#.

[8] Tony Hall, “Israeli-Canadian Thought Police Take Aim … at Me,” 21 September 2016, American Herald Tribune, http://ahtribune.com/in-depth/1210-israeli-canadian-thought-police.html.

[9] Farber, “Facebook Removes Anti-Semitic Post,” https://nowtoronto.com/news/facebook-removes-anti-semitic-post-after-online-blowback/.

[10] “Zionism,” in The Free Dictionary by Farlex, http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Zionism.

[11] Jewish Voice for Peace, https://jewishvoiceforpeace.org/.

[12] True Torah Jews, “Nazi Propaganda Was Based on What Zionists Said,” http://www.truetorahjews.org/naziismzionism.

[13] Mark Weber, “Zionism and the Third Reich,” Journal of Historical Review 13, no. 4 (1993): 29-37, http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v13/v13n4p29_weber.html.

[14] Hall, “Israeli-Canadian Thought Police,” http://ahtribune.com/in-depth/1210-israeli-canadian-thought-police.html.

[15] Schnarr, “Professor Investigated,” http://lethbridgeherald.com/news/local-news/2016/09/29/professor-investigated-by-u-of-l/.

[16] Arthur Topham, “Ceaseless Smear Campaigns by B’nai Brith Lobby and Zionist Media Must End!” Radical Press, 28 September 2016, http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=10192.

[17] Elise Potaka and Luke McMahon, “FBI Says ‘Australian IS Jihadist’ Is Actually a Jewish American Troll Named Joshua Ryne Goldberg, Sydney Morning Herald, 12 September 2015, http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-is-jihadist-is-actually-an-jewish-american-troll-20150911-gjk852.html.

[18] Kevin Barrett, “Rafiq on the U. of Lethbridge Witch Hunt,” Truth Jihad Radio, 2 October 2016,
http://noliesradio.org/archives/120566.

[19] Potaka and McMahon, “FBI Says,” http://www.smh.com.au/national/australian-is-jihadist-is-actually-an-jewish-american-troll-20150911-gjk852.html.

[20] Christopher Bollyn, “Five Dancing Israelis,” http://www.bollyn.com/five-dancing-israelis.

[21] Dick Eastman, “The 14 Israeli ‘Art Students’ Were inside the WTC Towers Camping with Construction Passes,” 12 October 2009, http://www.rense.com/general87/14_1.htm; Niels H. Harrit et al., “Active Thermitic Material Discovered in Dust from the 9/11 World Trade Center Catastrophe,” Open Chemical Physics Journal 2, no. 1 (3 April 2009): 7–31, http://benthamopen.com/contents/pdf/TOCPJ/TOCPJ-2-7.pdf.

screen-shot-2016-10-14-at-12-18-01-am


SOURCE ARTICLE

 

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

screen-shot-2015-02-08-at-6-30-10-am-copy

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

betsycbcziotroll

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!”

actualcopyoffrbkcovergermmustper
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?

——

Canadian professor libelously targeted as “anti-semite” in coordinated attack by RAFIQ for the American Herald Tribune

amhertribune

http://ahtribune.com/world/americas/1225-canadian-professor-anti-semite.html

 

halllibelhdr

In his Now Magazine article “Facebook Removes Anti-Semitic Post after Online Blowback,” Bernie Farber explains that “the Facebook ravings on the social media site of Anthony Hall,” a tenured professor at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta, have been identified as anti-Semitic. This statement might lead readers to believe that there were anti-Semitic ravings by Dr. Hall on his Facebook page, but as the article makes clear, there are no examples of such ravings by Dr. Hall, only by “one Glen Davidson,” who we are told posted these ravings on Dr. Hall’s page.

Farber goes on to state that Dr. Hall “has publicly embraced the ridiculous and obnoxious notions of Gerard Menuhin, who has purported to have proof that the Holocaust is a myth.”

Farber does not attempt to dismiss any of this proof, as one might expect an objective journalist to do, but instead takes the position that such proof can be dismissed out of hand as false without any investigation.

By comparison, Dr. Hall sounds like the more reasonable person for having actually looked at Menuhin’s book Tell the Truth and Shame the Devil. Note, too, that when Hall says “I’m reading that text and having to reassess a lot of ideas,” he does not say that he has changed his ideas, only that he is reassessing his ideas. Again, Hall sounds like the more courageous thinker for his willingness to reassess his thinking on a narrative as seemingly sacrosanct as the Jewish holocaust.

Having not yet said anything that convinces me Dr. Hall is an anti-Semite, Farber adds, “Hall reportedly linked Israel’s intelligence service, Mossad, with 9/11.” The role of Mossad, along with the CIA, in the 9/11 attacks is a fact well documented by credible journalists and scholars and widely disseminated online and in books. It is public knowledge and in the public domain. To admit the role of Mossad and the CIA in 9/11 is to admit the villainy of national governments and their foreign policies. Jewish identity and anti-Semitism have nothing to do with it.

Regarding  the anti-Semitic Facebook post that did not even originate with Dr. Hall, Farber writes, “To the best of my knowledge, Hall was never moved to delete this post himself.” An unbiased journalist would have contacted Dr. Hall and asked him about this matter. Well, I did contact Dr. Hall, and he informed me that he didn’t even know that the post was up on the “wall” of his Facebook page until after it had been taken down and after he had learned of the resulting controversy. So, here again, Farber offers no proof that Dr. Hall is even remotely anti-Semitic.

Not only that, but Dr. Hall’s award-winning two-volume book The Bowl with One Spoon, published by respected arbiter of scholarly history McGill-Queen’s University Press, gives every indication that Dr. Hall is the opposite of a racist, particularly in light of his deep commitment to exposing the plight of Indigenous peoples. Indeed, renowned Canadian scholar Naomi Klein, who happens to be Jewish, doesn’t seem to think that Dr. Hall is a racist either. On the cover of Dr. Hall’s book, she writes, “I cannot overstate the importance of this book. If used properly, it could change the world.”

Nonetheless, Farber goes on to bemoan that “the combined efforts of B’nai B’rith Canada and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs were unable to move the University of Lethbridge to take action against Hall.” I would like to believe that this unwillingness on the part of the University of Lethbridge to help B’nai B’rith destroy Dr. Hall’s career is due to the university’s professed commitment to liberal education and liberal values, even if Farber does portray Lethbridge as a racist backwater in conservative Alberta, where Hall is said to have “found a comfortable home amongst Holocaust deniers.”

I would like to believe that the unwillingness of the University of Lethbridge to help B’nai B’rith destroy Dr. Hall’s career is due to the fact that, as a nation, Canada has shown itself willing to reconsider history when there is good cause. Notably, Canadians have recently begun the hard process of re-evaluating our own history with respect to our nation’s cultural and physical genocide against our Indigenous peoples. Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission on Indian Residential Schools has just published a six-volume final report on its findings, and in the tradition of scholars like Dr. Hall, this report shows fearlessness in confronting past lies so that history can better reflect the truth, however uncomfortable that truth may be.

I would like to believe that the unwillingness of the University of Lethbridge to help B’nai B’rith destroy Dr. Hall’s career is due to the university’s high ideals and Canadian bearing, but when I contacted Dr. Hall, he informed me that the University of Lethbridge has indeed asked him to step down from his tenured position after twenty-six years as a professor. It seems that the university is ready to bow to outside pressure and to sacrifice Dr. Hall. I’m sure that Farber’s biased account of the anti-Semitic posting on Dr. Hall’s Facebook page did little to help Dr. Hall’s chances of staving off B’nai B’rith’s attack.

Farber’s misrepresentation of Dr. Hall is no less offensive than the crime of which Dr. Hall is accused, namely misrepresentation of the Jewish holocaust. The difference between the two is that, in the case of Farber, his accusation that Dr. Hall is an anti-Semite is clearly baseless, whereas Dr. Hall’s willingness “to reassess a lot of ideas” about the history of the Second World War seems to be well thought out given his reputation as a respected historian.


rafiq

Enough Already! HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

EnjoughAlready!

HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

Holocaust deprogramming course

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

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

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

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

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

CanRound Final

 

Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal by Eve Mykytyn

Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 4.51.44 PM

Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal
The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham: Part 3
by Eve Mykytyn / November 29th, 2015

On November 12, 2015 Arthur Topham was convicted of inciting hatred against a racial group, the Jewish people. Mr. Topham maintains a website, RadicalPress.com, in which he publishes and comments upon various documents. These documents include The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, various anti-Zionist texts, and a tract entitled Germany Must Perish!, first published in 1941 and then satirized by Mr. Topham as Israel Must Perish!.

Mr. Topham’s defense rested primarily on the theory that his writing was not directed at Jews as a race or religion, but rather at the politics espoused by a number of Jewish people. The best discussion of this topic is by Gilad Atzmon, contained in his book, The Wandering Who?. The basic take away for considering the implications of Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction is that some people conflate Judaism as a religion, an ethnic heritage AND with a political view, not always consistent, that generally favors Israel’s perceived benefit.

Canada has a lobby entitled Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) that lobbies the Canadian government on behalf of Israel. Mr. Rudner, who had lodged various complaints about Mr. Topham in the past and was the Crown’s expert in Mr. Topham’s case, has worked for CIJA or its predecessor for 15 years. So the Crown relied upon the testimony of a man who lobbies for Israel (clearly a political entity) for proof of anti Semitic content and potential harm to Jewish people. His appearance in tiny Quesnel is testimony to the political importance that his organization places on silencing Mr. Topham. (The original witness scheduled to testify, Mr. Farber was a former colleague of Rudner’s, and apparently the two are close enough that Mr. Rudner’s written testimony was an exact duplicate of Mr. Farber’s original.)

Since Mr. Topham was accused of anti-Semitism, let’s look at the term. The quote below is from the Holocaust Encyclopedia, published and maintained by the United States Holocaust Museum so it is probably safe to assume that this is a standard definition.

“The word antisemitism means prejudice against or hatred of Jews. The Holocaust, the state-sponsored persecution and murder of European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945, is history’s most extreme example of antisemitism. In 1879, German journalist Wilhelm Marr originated the term antisemitism, denoting the hatred of Jews, and also hatred of various liberal, cosmopolitan, and international political trends of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often associated with Jews. The trends under attack included equal civil rights, constitutional democracy, free trade, socialism, finance capitalism, and pacifism.”

Interesting that, in the first paragraph of its section on anti-Semitism, the encyclopedia blends together the concepts of ‘hatred of the Jews’ with opposition to various political and social movements generally associated with Jews. This is puzzling. Is it anti-Semitism to oppose socialism or is it anti-Semitic to oppose finance capitalism? While one could oppose both, it would be impossible to espouse either view without rejecting the other. I assume the author did not intend to imply that opposition to socialism, for instance, was it anti-Semitic even if such opposition was from a fellow Jew.

I bring this up because this is precisely what I believe happened in Mr. Topham’s case. Mr. Topham was charged with two counts of inciting hatred over different periods of time. The jury found him guilty on the first count and not guilty on the second. Of course there are many possible explanations for a split verdict (none of which the jury is allowed to discuss even after trial without committing what the judge termed a ‘criminal’ offense). The observers, including myself, tended to believe that the discrepancy in the verdicts was a result of the text Germany Must Perish! and its satirization by Mr. Topham in Israel Must Perish!, a text that appeared on his website during the period for which Mr. Topham was found guilty.

The original text of Germany Must Perish! was written in 1941 by Theodore Kaufman, an American Jewish man. The text was originally self-published, but was apparently advertised and reviewed by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Time magazine. In any case, the publication was well known enough to have been read in Germany and was cited by Hitler and Goebbels as evidence of the bad intention of the Jews. The book is horrendous. Its semi-literate ravings are a ridiculous indictment of the German people and their warlike nature. Kaufman advocates sterilization of the Germans as the only possible remedy. At best, the author is confusing all Germans with Nazis, but that is not what the book says. Mr. Topham’s satire in which he substitutes the words ‘Israel’ for Germany and ‘Zionists’ for Germans helps to make the original text comprehensible. The satire hopefully provides some insight into how these words might have been viewed by Germans in 1941. The proof that the works were effective but the satire was not understood, is that Mr. Topham faced criminal charges for aping Kaufman’s words.

In its case, the Crown made the point that Israel Must Perish! was a horrible text. The Crown argued that the fact that the words were originally written by a Jewish man to indict the Germans did not kosher the text. “Jews,” the Crown said, “could write anti-Semitic things too.” Presumably her next case will be against a Jew for inciting hatred against the Jewish people. Mr. Topham was making a political point. I believe he was trying to convey the idea that Israel and Zionists could seem very much like Germans and Nazism in 1941. It is not necessary to agree with Mr. Topham’s point to understand it.

If I am right and it was this text that caused Mr. Topham’s conviction, then that is an important indictment against Canada’s admirable attempts to limit ‘hate’ speech while allowing freedom of political speech. Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction may well have been the result of a misunderstanding that Mr. Topham was criticizing Israel and Zionism and not Jews as a race. Germany and Israel are political constructs, Germans may not be, but Zionists, or those who support establishment of the state of Israel are, by definition, espousing a political cause. So, Mr. Topham criticized the political cause of the Zionists. Is there a way in which Canada’s laws would allow Mr. Topham’s political views to find an outlet? Perhaps Canada ought to make criticism of Israel legally off limits so that Canadians may adjust their behavior accordingly.

Read Part 1 and 2.
Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.

Article Source

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM

ATEditorPic185

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

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

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

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

Sincerely,

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

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

by
Arthur Topham

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NetfirmsWilsonLet

Crown Expert Witness Len Rudner

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

Len Rudner copy

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

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

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

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

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

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

BCHCTFILE 2007-23814

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

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

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

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

Defence Expert Witness Gilad Atzmon

GILAD&BARCLAY

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Crown’s Cross Examination of Gilad Atzmon

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

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

Gilad Atzmon: No.

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

Defence’s Summation to the Jury

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

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

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

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

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

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

Final observations on Crown’s handling of evidence

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 12.13.33 PM

Still to come

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

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

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

Canada’s Hate Crime Law: Sec. 319(2) CCC Created by Zionist Jew Lobby to Penalize Debate on Israel’s Criminal Actions

HATECRIMELAWBBC&CJC copy

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

ATEditorPic185

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

Screen Shot 2015-09-26 at 10.58.56 AM

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2015-09-26 at 11.00.03 AM

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

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

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

••••  ••••

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

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

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