DENY THE LIE! – JUSTIN TRUDEAU & LIBERAL GOVT. ARE TRUTH-DENIERS By Arthur Topham

denytheliefinal

DENY THE  LIE! – JUSTIN TRUDEAU & LIBERAL GOVT. ARE TRUTH-DENIERS  

By Arthur  Topham

The Liberal Party of Canada under their new rookie Prime Minister Justin Trudeau are guilty of outright lying to the people of Canada about the alleged “6 Million Jews” who were supposed to have been “gassed” and “burnt” in German work camps during World War II.

Like clock-work the Prime  Minister’s Office (PMO) spits out announcements over and over stating that the “Nazis” murdered “millions” of “Jews” between 1939 – 1945. This is wilfully done by Justin Trudeau’s ‘advisors’ (i.e., read Zionist Jew handlers) who are firmly in control of both him and his party.

The latest repetition of this lie came forth from the PMO’s office yesterday, Wednesday, September 21, 2016. It reads:

Prime Minister of Canada welcomes progress on National Holocaust Monument

September 21, 2016
Ottawa, Ontario

The Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau, today participated in a site dedication ceremony for the National Holocaust Monument, which is being built at the corner of Wellington and Booth streets in Ottawa.

The Monument, which is scheduled to be unveiled in 2017, will honour the millions of Jews and other innocent victims who died in the Holocaust. It will also promote a better understanding of the historical events surrounding the Holocaust and how they affected Canada, and celebrate the tremendous contributions that Holocaust survivors have made to this country.

Quote

“It is important for Canadians and the rest of the world to remember the suffering and murder of millions of Jews and others in the Holocaust. We must never forget the stories of the victims, and the important lessons of the Holocaust. As Canadians and citizens of the world, we must fight the hatred and fear that once fuelled these deplorable acts, and ensure that tolerance and pluralism always triumph over anti-Semitism and racism. We must also pay tribute to the resilience of those who survived that horrific ordeal and went on to make enormous contributions here in Canada as well as many other countries around the world.”
—The Rt. Hon. Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada

“This national monument will stand as a testament to the suffering of the millions who lost their lives and families to the Holocaust and tell the stories of those who came to Canada to build a new life. The Monument will serve as a reminder to future generations of Canadians to keep the lessons of history alive in our country’s consciousness. We must never take for granted our freedom, diversity, and deep commitment to human rights.”
The Honourable Mélanie Joly, Minister of Canadian Heritage

The question needs to asked over and over, “Why is the Liberal government emphasizing and repeatedly pushing this 6 Million Lie so much?

Is it because the Zionist lobbyists here in Canada like B’nai Brith and their USA Anti-Defamation League (ADL) counterpart the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada as well as the latest traitorous Israeli espionage agency the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs (CIJA), are beginning to panic because their 71 year old “6 Million” deception is now, thanks to the Internet and Social Media outlets like Facebook, so tattered and torn by the Truth that they’re frantically attempting to shore up this massive deception in any way possible?

It must be remembered that the Zionist Jew lobbyists here in Canada built their draconian “Hate Propaganda” laws, contained in Sections 318 – 320 of the Canadian Criminal Code, and now being used against Truth Revealers, on the baseless foundation of the “6 Million Jews” holocaust lie. This fact is documented in my March 29, 2014 article, Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” Laws.

We’re seeing a quickening by the Jewish lobbyists in their last-ditch attempts to sustain their fraudulence and deception when it comes to the greatest lie ever told to the world. Could it be because more and more Canadians and especially German-Canadian citizens are finally standing up and speaking  out in defence of their ethnic homeland and especially in defence of Truth itself?

Monika Schaefer of Jasper, Alberta and Brian Ruhe of Vancouver, B.C. are two of the latest shining examples of German-Canadian truth revealers who’ve shown the courage of their convictions by speaking out on the net through their blogsites and their videos in order to inform Canadians and warn them against continuing to believe the Zionist-controlled mainstream media (MSM) and the Liberal government of Justin Trudeau.

There is also a concerted effort on the part of the B’nai Brith foreign lobby in Canada to destroy the livelihood and reputation of University of Lethbridge tenured Professor Anthony Hall by spreading lies on their website and in other Zionist-controlled media that are simply not true.

Could all of this be a prelude to the Liberal government possibly attempting to introduce “Holocaust Denial” laws into Canadian jurisprudence like the ones we see in occupied Germany today in order to stem the growing tide of Truth about what really happened during WWII and who the real perpetrators were?

Will Canada become the next Germany and start jailing its citizens for questioning historic events that have been created and spun throughout past history like gigantic spider webs of lies in order to keep the world in a state of perpetual ignorance?

It won’t take too long to find out given the times that we’re living in.


See the following related article dealing with my upcoming Constitutional challenge to Sec. 319(2) due to begin October 3rd in Quesnel Supreme Court.

Those wishing to help out with the additional costs of the upcoming Charter hearing can do so by going to the following website and making a donation.

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

THANK YOU!

Prelude to Freedom of Speech or Zionist Hate Laws and Censorship? The Upcoming Charter challenge to Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws By Arthur Topham

preludehdr1000

Prelude to Freedom of Speech or Zionist Hate Laws and Censorship?
The Upcoming Charter challenge to Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” lawsBy
Arthur Topham“I am a Canadian, a free Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship God in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.”

~ The Canadian Bill of Rights.
The Right Honourable John G. Diefenbaker, Prime Minister of Canada,
House of Commons Debates, July 1, 1960.

There is a grave danger to any democracy when the laws of the land begin to shift from the concrete to abstract/emotional/ethereal planes of mental cognition. Such has been the case for many years now in Germany where freedom of speech has deteriorated to the point where, in reality, it no longer exists. A German citizen, if they so desire to question the authenticity of the purported “6 Million Jewish Holocaust” are automatically charged with “holocaust denial”, arrested and, when pronounced guilty, imprisoned, regardless of the fact that the state refuses to prove that the inquisitive thinker wrong in a court of law. All that was necessary was to create the “holocaust denial” legislation out of the shady realm of psychological cogitation; state that it was “manifestly obvious” that the event had occurred the way it was written (by the victors in WWII; and if anyone suggests otherwise then they are to be punished with a prison term up to 5 years in jail.

A similar reality existed here in Canada during the days when Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act was being used by the Jewish lobby groups and their sycophant supporters to harass, intimidate, fine and even incarcerate Canadian citizens who were deemed “guilty” of having committed the offence of promoting “hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.” If victims were publishing information on practically any topic related to either the state of Israel, Jews, or the political ideology of the Jews-only state known as Zionism they were considered fair game and Jewish lobby organizations like the Canadian Jewish Congress (now defunct) and B’nai Brith Canada considered it open season on their critics and would scan the Internet in search of any sign of dissenting viewpoints which they could then attack via the Sec. 13 clause. While Sec. 13 existed in Canadian jurisprudence truth was not considered a defence against such accusations and if the Canadian Human Rights Commission decided to prosecute you it was commonly understood that you didn’t stand a snow’s chance in hell of ever winning. All you could look forward to was being forced through the quasi-judicial wringer then known as the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, for years, having your whole life turned upside down and then inevitably being found guilty of promoting “hate” and duly punished. The only difference between this process and that of the Stalinist Soviet Union’s Show Trials was that the Canadians at least attempted to defend themselves rather than simply admitting guilt and grovelling before their oppressors.

Fortunately for Canadians Sec. 13 was eventually repealed back in 2012. The story behind why it was repealed is a whole other can of worms that time and space won’t allow me to go into here. Suffice it to say that the law proved itself to be a “double-edged sword” and therefore was deemed unsuitable to the Zionist lobby here in Canada. The Zionist controlled media then consciously conspired to focus on it and before you could say “Bobs’ Your Uncle” it was gone from the statute books.

“A judiciary which functions as an auxiliary to Canada’s foreign, Zionist Jew lobbyists inevitably must produce absurd rulings for the simple reason that Hate Propaganda laws, in and of themselves, are the quintessential example of legal sophistry and not in any way reality based.”
~ Arthur Topham

What remained though and is currently enshrined in the Canadian Criminal Code and of much greater danger to our rights and freedoms is the section known as the “Hate Propaganda” laws which span Sections 318 to 320 of the Code. When it came time for the mainstream media to focus on that specious area of Canadian jurisprudence though their powerful and persuasive voice suddenly became muted.

The section under which I was charged in 2012 reads as follows:

• Wilful promotion of hatred
• (Sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada
• 319. (2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

Having been found GUILTY on Count One of the crime of “Hate Propaganda” under Canada’s Section 319.2 of the Criminal Code and, simultaneously, found NOT GUILTY on Count Two of the exact same charge, by a jury of 12 Canadian citizens back on November 12th, 2015 I realized fully why it was that I had fought against this Orwellian section of the Canadian Criminal Code for over four years. What the legislation itself has now proven, beyond the shadow of a doubt, is that the whole concept of supposed “hate crimes” are irrational in nature and illogical in practise. When attempts are made by the legal system to insert them into a structure of jurisprudence that is purported to be based upon logic, common sense, the principle of Truth and, in the case of criminal offences, a foundation upon which real victims who have suffered some type of overt, damaging injustice are either present in a court of law to testify or else 6 feet under, they only exacerbate the absurdity that we currently are witnessing in Germany. A judiciary which functions as an auxiliary to Canada’s foreign, Zionist Jew lobbyists inevitably must produce absurd rulings for the simple reason that Hate Propaganda laws, in and of themselves, are the quintessential example of legal sophistry and not in any way reality based.

When the verdict first came down I, like most of those present in the court room, was taken by surprise. When I heard the spokesperson for the jury state that I was guilty on Count One I automatically assumed (given that the charge was identical) that I would be found guilty of the second charge as well. When a Not Guilty verdict was then announced for Count Two it blew me away and immediately I began to question why the jury would have come to such a conclusion.

An answer to that seemingly contradictory verdict wouldn’t be easy to figure out as Supreme Court Justice Butler, who had overseen the proceedings, made it perfectly clear to the jury members that their decision (in either of the two Counts) was to remain hermetically sealed forever and that it was a very serious offence if any jury member were to divulge the rationale for why they had come to their two diametrically opposed decisions. The matter of this process will of course play out in the ensuing Charter challenge set to occur in the Quesnel Supreme Court during the week of August 3 to the 7th, 2016.

To Satire or Not to Satire
One of the alleged claims during the trial by the Crown and the arresting officer (former) Det. Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Unit, was that I was promoting the genocide of the Jewish population by having published my satire Israel Must Perish! and it was a point that the Crown Prosecutor consistently alluded to in her attempt to convince the jury that I was promoting “hatred”.

In the case of my satire of an actual book written by Theodore N. Kaufmann titled Germany Must Perish! I composed it in order to show the blatant hypocrisy of the Jews who subscribed to and supported the actual genocide of the German people and the only simple way of doing that (for me) was to turn the tables on the original author and his supporters by changing a few simple words in the text and shooting the very same book at them.

In the eyes of non-Zionists and non-Jews the idea of doing this in order to show the glaring bigotry of the Zionist lobbyists who were instrumental in creating Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws was not only self-evident but also considered an act of brilliance on my part. What better way to expose the machinations of the serpent powers who control Canada’s judicial system and its media than to publish a satirical article depicting their own malfeasance and hubris while at the same time revealing who, in actual fact, are the real haters.

Another fundamental point is, had there been some solid evidence contained on my website that clearly showed I was promoting genocide of the Jewish race or population or ethnic group then, by such logic, I should have been charged under Sec. 318 of the Criminal Code of Canada not Sec. 319.2 for advocating genocide.

Section 318 reads as follows:

Advocating genocide
• 318. (1) Every one who advocates or promotes genocide is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years.
• Definition of “genocide”
(2) In this section, “genocide” means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy in whole or in part any identifiable group, namely,
• (a) killing members of the group; or
(b) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction.

As in Germany so in Canada?
The example of present day Germany is but a foreshadowing of what the rest of the worlds’ democracies can expect should they allow the forces of Zionist dictatorship to invade and take control of their respective judiciaries.

Since my trial ended in November of 2015 we’ve witnessed more cases where the foreign Jewish lobby organization B’nai Brith ‘Canada’ has been instrumental in attacking and vilifying and destroying or attempting to destroy the livelihoods of other Canadians who have shown the courage to speak out about the crimes of the Zionist state or the lies surrounding the now dismantled myth of the so-called “6 Million Jews” holocaust.

First we saw Buddhist teacher and videographer Brian Ruhe having his employment with various school districts in Vancouver, B.C. destroyed by the same individual agent of B’nai Brith who first charged me with a Sec. 13 “hate crime” back in 2007 and then lodged a Sec. 319(2) complaint with the BC Hate Crime Unit in 2011. This agent of a foreign, secret, Jews-only Masonic order (which is what B’nai Brith is) lives in Victoria, B.C. and has been responsible for numerous crimes against Canada’s Charter right to freedom of Expression. Were it not for a court order imposed upon me by B.C. provincial court Judge Morgan back in 2013 I would divulge the name of this traitor.

The more recent case is that of musician and activist Monika Schaefer of Jasper, B.C. who has also been attacked by the Jewish lobbyists for having produced a short video on the holocaust lie while holidaying in Germany this past summer. Ms. Schaefer’s vilification and slandering and the subsequent loss of her position as a music teacher in Jasper is just one more example of what Canadians will be seeing on a regular basis if these despicable and unjust “Hate Propaganda” laws are not speedily removed from Canada’s statutes.

As well as these two German Canadians we also are seeing the academic careers of university professors being threatened by these same cliques of power-crazed control freaks whose lust for dominance over the nation’s legal system has gone berserk. The case of tenured Professor Anthony Hall from Lethbridge University in Alberta comes to mind and his is but the latest not the last if we don’t curtail this madness within the legal system that’s making Canada look like a remake of Bolshevik Russia under Stalin.

On October 3rd of this year I will once again be appearing in B.C. Supreme Court in Quesnel, B.C. to argue that Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code is an infringement of Sec. 2b of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms which unequivocally states:

Fundamental freedoms
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

It’s my heartfelt hope that justice will prevail and that B.C. Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler, who will be presiding over the hearing, will see the logic and the reasoning and the justice in defending this extremely important basic human right and free Canadians from these notorious dictatorial laws so that like former Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker said, they will be once again “free to speak without fear, free to worship God in [their] own way, free to stand for what [they] think right,” and “free to oppose what [they] believe wrong”.

In closing, and on behalf of my loving and devoted wife Shasta and myself, I would like to thank the many friends and associates from Canada and around the world for their steadfast support over these past ten years of litigation. There’s absolutely no way that we could have carried on without your moral, spiritual and financial support. God bless you all!

May Truth and Justice prevail.
_____

Those wishing to help out with the additional costs of the upcoming Charter hearing can do so by going to the following website and making a donation.

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

THANK YOU!

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

Holocaust deniers threaten Green Party credibility by Toronto Sun

Toronto Sun logo

Screen Shot 2016-08-03 at 7.10.27 AM

[***Editor’s Note: Graphics in article compliments of Radical Press]

Holocaust deniers threaten Green Party credibility

By Sue-Ann Levy, Toronto Sun
August 02, 2016

She was a member of the Green Party of Canada when it was founded in 1983 and ran in four elections as a party candidate.

Monika Schaefer, who stood for election provincially in 2004 and federally in 2006, 2008 and 2011, came to the party’s attention in mid-June when she posted a video on YouTube flatly denying the Holocaust.

According to the Jasper resident, who shot the video in Germany, the Holocaust is “the biggest and most pernicious lie in all of history” and there were “no gas chambers there (in Germany or elsewhere)… the only gas used was to get rid of lice.”

MonikaSchaeferSorryMomHdr copy

It appears the Green Party had egg on its face, not just because this woman was a candidate several times over, but because Green Party leader — and the party’s only sitting MP — Elizabeth May didn’t seem to know whether she was still a member, or not, when leading Canadian Jewish groups exposed Schaefer last month.

MayShocked

Reached in Jasper Tuesday, Schaefer said she rescinded her membership a year ago “on a matter of principle” — namely because May distanced herself from a petition seeking an investigation into the events of 9/11.

MonikaSchaeferPhoto

She accused May of “making political hay” out of her video — an affront considering she was a “loyal” Green Party member and candidate and shared her views “widely” with many Green Party members.

“She is bowing to her political masters … The Zionist lobby,” said Schaefer, whose candidacy was rejected in 2014.

Martin Sampson, spokesman for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, says the Green Party is “particularly susceptible to infiltration” by Holocaust deniers and 9/11 Truthers.

CIJABomb copy 2

“In order to remain credible, the Green Party must stop people who hold these abhorrent views from hijacking the party, distracting it from its mission and relegating it to the margins,” he said.

No kidding.

One has to look no further than this weekend’s annual conference in Ottawa, where two controversial anti-Israel motions — and the only foreign policy positions to be presented at all — will be debated Saturday morning (on the Jewish Sabbath.)

1_boycott-israel-campaign_2006_50_70_amer-shomali-basel-nasr1 copy 2

Those controversial motions urge Green Party members to support the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement (which attempts to restrict ties and business with the Jewish state) and to approve revoking the charitable status of the Jewish National Fund of Canada (a charity that has worked to protect the natural environment of Israel for decades).

Online voting has been so supportive that the motions have made it to the convention’s workshop sessions, where they will be debated and voted on and then sent to full membership for a vote.

Michael Mostyn, CEO of B’nai Brith, says they believe members of the Independent Jewish Voices organization are pushing these Green Party motions — a group he says has spearheaded the anti-Israel boycott movement in Canada, have sent speakers to the highly “morally reprehensible” anti-Semitic Al Quds day rallies and “pretends” to speak for the majority of Jews in Canada, when in fact they do not.

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5

Green Party spokesman Dan Palmer said May has previously indicated publicly that she opposes both motions and that she is just one vote at the convention.

“Policy proposals come from the grassroots of the party and are not vetted before being put to members,” he said Tuesday.

Mostyn said they certainly hope the anti-Israel motions do not pass this weekend and that the Green Party would not be associated with “views of this sort,” especially since the IJV organization have their paw prints all over them.

“You don’t want any political party motions that would single out groups for hatred,” he says.

He added that Schaefer’s video is “horrendous” and “extremely disturbing.”

—–

SLevy@postmedia.com

Source Article

Enough Already! HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

EnjoughAlready!

HolocaustDeprogrammingCourse.com

Holocaust deprogramming course

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

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

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

Alberta Al’s letter to the Jasper Fitzhugh on the smearing of Monika Schaefer and her right to freedom of speech

ALBERTAALNEWHDR copy

From: “Al Romanchuk” romanesq@shaw.ca
Subject: The smearing of Monika Schaefer and her right to freedom of speech
Date: July 22, 2016

 

Mr. Clarke,

Not only was I disappointed in your article allowing the printing of the condemnation of Miss Schaefer by Ken Kuzminski and the two Jewsish organizations, I became downright angry.  I am an 80 year old now retired in Kelowna but was once the alderman and Mayor of Grande Prairie where I lived and worked as a lawyer for 15 glorious years.  Allowing Mr. Kuzminski to smear  and degrade Miss Schaefer, along with the Jewish organizations THE CENTRE FOR ISRAEL & JEWISH AFFAIRS and the EDMONTON JEWISH FEDERATION, for no apparent good reason other than in your OPINION she went too far in her video questioning the so-called Jewish holocaust.

I have been an avid free speech advocate all my life.  I believe that freedom of speech INCLUDES the right to offend.  If people don’t like what I say or write they don’t have to hear me nor read my articles.  But here you have allowed self-seeking groups and an individual to perpetuate a lie about Miss Schaefer when all she REALLY did was IN HER OPINION deny the holocaust.  And there are many deniers out there.

As a lawyer I have been taught to question, question, question and question because you’ll never get an answer without questioning.  So I took the liberty of writing to these two Jewish organizations, one of which labelled Miss Schaefer an “ignoramus” and “anti-semite”, and asked them a simple question:  SINCE YOU HAVE ASSERTED THE POSITIVE THAT THE GERMANS WERE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE KILLING OF EXACTLY 6 MILLION JEWS DURING WW2, PLEASE PROVIDE ME WITH WRITTEN AND SUBSTANTIATED EVIDENCE OF YOUR ASSERTION BECAUSE IT IS YOU THAT HAS THE BURDEN OF PROOF.  I have yet to receive answers.

KuzminskiNDP

As for Mr. Kuzminski he ought to be ashamed of himself as President of the Jasper Legion to inflame the public against Miss Schaefer for expressing her opinion.  Quite frankly I don’t think that Mr. Kuzminski knows the first thing about the history of the so-called Jewish holocaust of WW2.  His bigoted opinion against Miss Schaefer deserves the worst condemnation because as the grand pooh-bear of a prestigious organization he should know better.  If he doesn’t believe in free, unfettered speech then he should have the guts, the mettle, to say so.  The same goes for every Jewish organization in Canada.

I support Miss Schaefer and HER DEMOCRATIC RIGHT to say what she wants in a non-aggressive manner and her video is no exception.  Blocking freedom of speech and of the press is nothing short of silencing those of us who believe in the unrestricted right to our freedoms.

ALEXANDER S. ROMANCHUK
Kelowna, BC
Email: romanesq@shaw. ca

Monika Schaefer’s Holohoax Video Causes “Uproar” in Jasper, Alberta By The Jasper fitzHUGH

MonikaJasperfitzhughstory

JASPER, ALBERTA:- A video shot by a local resident denying the Holocaust has been widely condemned by the community and at least one resident has filed a formal complaint with the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

On June 17, Monika Schaefer, a well-known Jasper resident and former Green Party candidate, appeared in a video on Youtube denying the Holocaust. The video was subsequently posted on her Facebook page.

MonikaSchaeferTruth

“This is the most persistent and pernicious lie in all of history,” said Schaefer, about the Holocaust.

In the video she described the Holocaust as the “the six-million lie” in reference to the six million Jews who lost their lives at the hands of the Nazis during the Second World War.

The six-minute video quickly went viral and garnered more than 30,000 views at the time of publishing.

At the end of the video Schaefer invited viewers to read several books published by Holocaust deniers, including Ernst Zündel, who lived in Canada for four decades before being deported to his native Germany where he was imprisoned for five years for denying the Holocaust.

ErnstZVictim copyKen Kuzminski, president of the Jasper Royal Canadian Legion, described the video as hate speech.

“Monika has a right to say whatever she wants to say, but once she’s published it I feel that’s moved on to hate speech,” said Kuzminski.

“She can stand up and say whatever she wants, but she has to accept the consequences of doing that.”

He said he has written a formal complaint to the Alberta Human Rights Commission, contacted the local RCMP detachment and the German embassy.

“By her denying that this ever happened it perpetuates hatred, racism and discrimination,” said Kuzminski, adding he’s heard from several young people in town that they no longer feel safe.

“This is not the community we are and what we believe in.”

The Alberta Human Rights Commission neither confirmed nor denied it had received a formal complaint.

“All of the information that comes into the human rights commission with regards to complaints is confidential,” said Susan Coombes, with the Alberta Human Rights Commission.

With that said, she said any complaint involving hate would fall under section three of the Alberta Human Rights Act.

“It’s really difficult to prove,” said Coombes, about whether someone is in violation of the act. “What you have to do is say that there was intent to incite hate.”

The Jasper RCMP confirmed it was aware of the video, but said no formal investigation has been launched.

“At this time what I can say is that I’m aware the video exists and it was brought to my attention,” said RCMP Sgt. Rick Bidaisee. “Discussions are ongoing.”

Schaefer said she stood by her comments in the video during a telephone interview July 11.

“Right now the issue for me is freedom of speech,” said Schaefer. “Last I checked I thought we had freedom of speech in Canada and suddenly I’m the criminal.”

She confirmed she shot the video in Germany, where it is illegal to deny the Holocaust.

“If we don’t have the right to question a historical event then we don’t have freedom of speech,” said Schaefer.

Schaefer was slated to perform during Canada Day, but was pulled from the schedule after the Canada Day committee learned a group of residents were going to protest her performance.

“We had really reliable information that there was going to be a protest and in the interests of public safety and her safety for that matter, we decided it would just be in everybody’s best interests if she stood down for this year,” said Pattie Pavlov, general manager for the Jasper Park Chamber of Commerce.

Kuzminski confirmed she is also banned from the legion.

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) quickly condemned the video after learning of its existence.

CIJABomb copy 2

“As a Holocaust denier, Ms. Schaefer, who appears in this absurd video, has earned her place on the very margins of society,” wrote Martin Sampson, director of communications for CIJA.

“Her comments would be laughable but for the intense pain they cause the survivor community and their descendants. Denying the Holocaust exposes her as an anti-Semitic ignoramus.”

“The truth is the Holocaust was industrialized, state-sponsored murder committed by the Nazis against the Jewish people. It is the most well documented genocide—by both perpetrator and victim—in history. To deny this fact is to spit in the face of truth.”

News that a formal complaint was lodged with the Alberta Human Rights Commission, comes after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau visited the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, on July 10 in Poland, where one million people, mostly Jews, were killed in the Second World War.
——
Source Article

Paul Clarke
editor@fitzhugh.ca

CANADA: The New Sodom and Gomorrah? By Arthur Topham

 

CANADASODOM?

CANADA: The New Sodom and Gomorrah?

By
Arthur Topham

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

UpYoursTrudeauJr

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

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

FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP copy 4

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

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

5FeetFury copy

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

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

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

EyeOnFreeSpeech600

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

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

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

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

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

JewShitter

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

Bill-Whatcott-Image

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

Conclusion: What’s coming next?

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

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

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

Time will soon tell.

——

SUPPORTFREEDOMOFSPEECH

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

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

Bolshevik/Zionist Hate Propaganda laws must be repealed RadicalPress.com Public Service Announcement

BolshevikHateLawsFinal

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

From Zundel to Topham: Zionist theatre by Eric Walberg

http://ericwalberg.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=585:from-zundel-to-topham-zionist-theatre&catid=39:europe-canada-and-us-&Itemid=92

From Zundel to Topham: Zionist theatre

Saturday, 21 November 2015

Eric Walberg

israel-must-perish47

The trials of Arthur Topham, Canadian journalist and publisher of Radical Press, for “hate crime” (2007) and “hate propaganda” (2012) under new Criminal Code “Hate Propaganda” legislation, have resulted in exactly the opposite of what the prosecution, B’Nai Brith, wanted. Instead of quietly muzzling the gadfly critic, the result has been the highlighting of past Jewish hate crimes, and the increasing control by Zionist groups of Canadian politics to promote Israel and censor anti-Zionist criticism.

Topham’s trial is a storybook battle of the brave little guy against goliath.  The 68-year-old Topham lives on an isolated farm in BC, and has worked as a carpenter, miner, farmer, and journalist-publisher. The crown’s chief witness against him was Len Rudner from the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). Prior to this trial, Rudner had attempted to force Topham’s internet provider to shut down his web site, and no doubt took satisfaction when a hacker mysteriously wiped out its contents in 2006.

As evidence of hate, Rudner presented Topham’s political poster which truthfully (if provocatively) shows the theatrical state of Canadian-Israeli relations today. (thanks Len, for bringing this sizzling graphic to the attention of millions of Canadians).

wakeupcanada-458x600

Puppet theatre

Germany Must Perish!

Then the trial turned to Israel Must Perish!, Topham’s parody based on a now forgotten book Germany Must Perish! (1941) by Theodore Kaufman.

One of the most bizarre literary careers in America is that of the now obscure Theodore Kaufman, a  pacifist member of the American Federation of Peace, born in 1910, whose first publication was “Life Liberty Pursuit of Happiness – Where? In The Graves of European Battle Fields?” (1938). He, like most Americans at the time who bothered thinking about it, realized the insanity of WWI, and even in 1938 was, again, like most Americans, staunchly against US participation in the coming war. He differed from most American Jews, who by then were pressing the US to join in the battle against Hitler, who was openly persecuting Jews in Germany and had vowed to clear Europe of them.

As the US war began and the evidence against Nazi crimes mounted, Kaufman drew inspiration, and wrote his startling book Germany Must Perish!, advocating the sterilization of all German males. A few hausfraus could be left to breed, but preferably with non-Germans, so a defanged German identity could be left extant.

Whew! What a hot potato that seems these days. But hardly warranting a prison sentence for the author. And in any case eugenics and sterilization were not taboo in the 1930s. The British Eugenics Education Society (1907) and the American Eugenics Society (1921) promoted eugenics. Patients with mental illness were sterilized not only in Nazi Germany but in Belgium, Brazil, Canada, Japan, and Sweden. At its peak of popularity, supporters of eugenics included Winston Churchill, HG Wells, Theodore Roosevelt, Herbert Hoover and George Bernard Shaw. Granted, sterilizing all Germans sounds a bit over-the-top.

Just before his epiphany and the publication of Germany Must Perish!, pacifist Kaufman went so far as to advocate sterilizing all American troops: “A possible plea to Congress….

germanymustperish2

Kaufman’s post-war Europe

Have Us All Sterilized! … If You Plan On Sending Us To A Foreign War … Spare Us Any Possibility Of Ever Bringing Children Into This World — Into This Country Of Ours!” Kaufman’s book was ignored in the US. 1941 was not a good year for civil rights advocates, especially of German rights. Americans of German descent were being herded into prison camps along with Japanese Americans and communists.

Kaufman’s greatest fan

Nazi Propaganda Minister Joseph Goebbels read the book and immediately grasped its value, writing in his diary: “This Jew did a real service for the enemy [German] side. Had he written this book for us, he could not have made it any better.” Under Goebbels’ direction, Germany Must Perish! became a staple of German radio and press, convincing wavering Germans that killing Jews was necessary and justified, till the last Jewish death was registered as the Reich collapsed.

What a horrifying legacy for the gentle, militantly pacifist Kaufman, who apparently soon rued his rhetoric.

Theodore N Kaufman

His final publication at his Argyle Press was the March 1942 brochure titled “No More German Wars! Being an outline for their permanent cessation”, advocating democratic re-education of the German population. But it was read by no one.  He tried to atone, dropping his pacifism, and enlisting in the US Army, along with his three brothers. After World War II, Kaufman disappeared entirely from public life and died in 1986, not in Israel but in his ‘homeland’ in New Jersey, in obscurity. Not feted by Israel as a Zionist icon—with good reason, as he  greatly facilitated the murderous deeds of the Nazis through his success in promoting hatred of his own people through his scandalous screed.

Kaufman’s surprising legacies

In a bizarre twist, Israeli Zionist hate literature continues the shortlived propaganda life of Kaufman, promoting daily murder and occasional campaigns of mass ethnic cleansing and wholesale slaughter of Palestinians. In yet another bizarre twist—more hopeful—the Zionist version of Kaufman’s screed—Palestine Must Perish!—has inspired millions of people—including Jews—to fight Zionism.

In his defense, Kaufman’s plans were not so different from FDR’s (Jewish) Secretary of the Treasury Henry Morgenthau, who advocated dismantling postwar Germany’s industrial base, turning it into a harmless (destitute) rural nation. Lucky for the Germans, the US occupational forces did not follow directions for large-scale destruction of mines and industrial plant, giving wide-ranging discretion to the military governor and Morgenthau’s opponents at the War Department.

Celebrating Zundel’s 30th anniversary

This trial recalls the legendary trials of Ernst Zundel, a German Canadian jailed in 1988 for publishing literature “likely to incite hatred against an identifiable group” as a threat to national security, and in Germany in 2007 for charges of “inciting racial hatred”. He lived in Canada from 1958 to 2000 but was denied citizenship.

In 1977, Zündel founded Samisdat Publishers, which issued his “The Hitler We Loved and Why” and Richard Verrall’s “Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth At Last”.  In 1984, the Ontario government initiated criminal proceedings against Zündel based on Holocaust survivor Sabina Citron’s complaint, charging him with spreading false news by publishing “Did Six Million Really Die? The Truth At Last.”

He underwent his first criminal trial in 1985, where he was found guilty, though this conviction was overturned on a legal technicality, and he was tried again in 1988, when he was again convicted and sentenced to 15 months imprisonment. In 1992 this conviction was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada who ruled that the law under which he had been charged—reporting false news—was unconstitutional.

Wow! In 1992, Canada’s Supreme Court ruled that you can question the veracity of the official Holocaust narrative.

But Zundel’s trials were far from over. His house was destroyed in an arson attack in 1995. The leader of the Toronto wing of the Jewish Defense League, Meir Weinstein, denied involvement in the attack; however, five days later, Weinstein and American JDL leader Irv Rubin were arrested trying to break into the property. No charges were ever filed. Weeks after the fire, Zündel was targeted with a parcel bomb that was detonated by the Toronto Police bomb squad. A suspect was arrested but again, no charges were laid. Finally, he was deported to Germany and in 2007, convicted and sentenced to the maximum term of five years in prison (released in 2010).

The more oppressive political climate today vs the 1980s is shown by Topham’s fate. Despite strong support from Jews and Gentiles alike, and though Topham’s credentials as civil libertarian and anti-Nazi are impeccable (none of Zundel’s baggage), he was nonetheless found guilty on one of two “promoting hate” counts (they were indistinguishable, covering two periods of Topham’s website publications). British-Israeli anti-Zionist activist Gilad Atzmon flew to BC to testify that contemporary opposition to Jewry is driven by political and ideological arguments, that no one criticizes Jews as a race or a biology, that Israel Must Perish! was a harmless parody, but to no avail.

Topham is now out on bail, pending an appeal (the prosecution also wants to appeal). Meanwhile, Zionists are free to promote hatred of Topham, such as Ezra Levant (“I Hate Arthur Topham” on the Sun News Talk Show “The Source”). When Topham heard this, he debated whether to sue Levant, and instead, just laughed.  The circus continues.

—-

Eric Walberg

‘Connect with Eric on Facebook or Twitter

Eric’s From Postmodernism to Postsecularism is available here

Eric’s Postmodern Imperialism: Geopolitics 

and the Great Games is available here

Canadian Eric Walberg is known worldwide as a journalist specializing in the Middle East, Central Asia and Russia. A graduate of University of Toronto and Cambridge in economics, he has been writing on East-West relations since the 1980s.

He has lived in both the Soviet Union and Russia, and then Uzbekistan, as a UN adviser, writer, translator and lecturer. Presently a writer for the foremost Cairo newspaper, Al Ahram, he is also a regular contributor to Counterpunch, Dissident Voice, Global Research, Al-Jazeerah and Turkish Weekly, and is a commentator on Voice of the Cape radio.

A Battle With No Front by Gilad Atzmon

Screen Shot 2015-11-14 at 7.42.59 AM

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/2015/1/1/a-battle-with-no-front

A Battle With No Front
November 14, 2015 / Gilad Atzmon

By Gilad Atzmon

Yesterday morning, the news was broadcast of extensive ‘heroic’ allied drone attacks in Iraq and Syria in support of the battle for Sinjar. We also learned about the assassination of Jihadi John. We were told some revenge might be on the way. As promised, last night Paris was bathing in blood.

Welcome to World War III – a global conflict with unlimited battlefronts. We, as people of the world, are all caught in the middle in this disaster. We see that our universe is crumbling, we want peace, yet we don’t even know who the enemy is.

For some of us, this recent escalation is not a surprising development. We have been writing about it for years. We have been scrutinising the disastrous impact of the matrix of Ziocon immoral interventionist lobbies that have been relentlessly advocating more and more conflicts. The CRIF in Paris, CFI in London and AIPAC in Washington all push for escalation of the battle against Arabs and Muslims in accordance with the Israeli plan for a new Middle East.

We are forced to accept the fact that extremist Muslims are very upset and they can hit hard and in a very short time. Russia saw one of its planes falling out of the sky, killing more than two hundred innocent holiday makers. Paris has again suffered. We must ask, is it necessary? Do we have to live in fear from now on? Is peace an option?

The terror is a message that we have to understand. What is its message? ‘Leave us alone’ is what these homicidal terrorists are trying to tell us. Is that too complicated for the Western subject to take in? ‘Live and let others be,’ is what this is about. The pragmatic implication is obvious. The West must immediately stop serving Israeli and global Zionist interests. We must cease all operations in Arabia and the Mid East. For that to happen, and for a chance for peace, opposition to global Zionism and Israeli lobbying is imperative.

Here is some practical advice; next time Bernard Henri Levy, David Aaronovitch or Alan Dershowitz attempt to sell a new conflict-pack in the name of ‘human rights,’ we should politely advise them that we have learned our lesson – no more wars for Zion. Then, peace may prevail.

—–

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham by Eve Mykytyn

Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 4.51.44 PM

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham

Part 1

by Eve Mykytyn / November 7th, 2015

Five security guards, members of the RCMP, two in bulletproof vests, all entrants pass through metal detectors, undergo a wand search, check all electronics including cell phones and have their bags meticulously scrutinized. Why all the security? The crown was presenting its criminal case against Arthur Topham, for the crime of “hate.’

The Law

Section 319 of Canada’s criminal code is an extraordinary law by most western standards. It reads, in relevant part: “(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.

The statute does not define hatred, but does provide 4 statutory defenses.

(a) if he establishes that the statements communicated were true;
(b) if, in good faith, the person expressed or attempted to establish by an argument an opinion on a religious subject or an opinion based on a belief in a religious text;
(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true; or
(d) if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.

It is important to understand that the prosecution (the Crown), with all of its resources, need only prove ‘hate,’ and then the only available defenses are affirmative, meaning that the burden of proof switches to the defense.

This week I attended some of the extraordinary trial of Arthur Topham in the Supreme Court (the highest provincial trial court) in Quesnel, British Columbia. As a lawyer, the differences in procedure between American and Canadian courts were of interest to me. Ahead of the trial, I read a little about the Canadian legal system and found that on paper the differences appeared minor. I don’t know if the huge differences in practice that I observed in this trial has to do with the way trials are usually conducted in Canada, the understandable loosening of formality in a court in a small town and/or the nature of the trial.

The Background

The history of Mr. Topham’s travails can be found here.

It is sufficient to understand that this trial follows eight years of harassment. Mr. Topham has already had to close his successful remodeling business. This is a criminal trial, and Mr. Topham could go to prison for two years. Mr. Topham and his wife live on a remote property on which they maintain a chicken coop, grow vegetables and engage in other rural activities. But it is clear that Mrs. Topham could not live there alone. These are not wealthy people. Mrs. Topham told me that she is not a political person, but she loves and supports her husband and believes in free speech. The defendant and his wife have exhibited bravery, courtesy and calm to a degree that is awe inspiring.

The police arrested Mr. Topham for ‘hate’ after they received complaints from various Jewish people who found his writing hateful. Although the police clearly knew where he lived, they arrested Topham as he and his wife were driving, leaving his wife stranded and Mr. Topham in jail. While jailed, Mr. Topham’s house was searched and his computers, shotguns and other items were taken. (Shotguns are essential in an area where grizzlies often decide to take up residence on the porch.)

The Trial

I understand that before I arrived, the Crown presented the arresting and investigating officers. Clearly the officers are not qualified to establish ‘hate,’ so how does the Crown do this? There is no victim to present, no one whose injuries the jury must assess, instead it is to the jury to decide if ‘hate’ is present, no injury need be shown.

The Crown chose to use an expert witness to show hate, and qualified Len Rudner as an expert in Judaism and anti-Semitism. Mr. Rudner’s biography indicates that he is a ‘professional Jew,’ in that he has been employed for the last 15 years by the Canadian Jewish Congress and its successor organization, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA). Prior to this trial, Rudner has attempted to force Mr. Topham’s internet service provider to shut down his web site, and has lodged civil complaints against Mr. Topham.

The crown used its questioning of Rudner to introduce what it considered to be the most damaging articles on Topham’s site, Radical Free Press (RFP). These included a list of books and articles, all of which are easily accessible on the internet and/or for sale at Amazon.ca.

Most of these publications accuse Jews of some pretty nasty politics. What at first appeared to be the Crown’s most damning evidence was a picture of a stereotyped Jew holding puppets that were Canadian politicians. On cross examination, it was hard for Mr. Rudner to counter what a careful viewing showed to be a clear political statement. I think the shocking picture of the Jew served to make the statement more powerful. But is it the job of the court to evaluate the strength of a political cartoon?

Without going to the truth of the matters presented, I am troubled that Mr. Topham is on trial for reprinting sources that are widely available in Canada. Again, on cross examination, Mr. Rudner had to admit that this was so. A quick google search for “the protocols of the Elders of Zion,” reveals hundreds of sources that display the protocols in full.

The procedure, at least in this court, was that all objections had to be heard outside the presence of the jury. This meant that each objection forced the jury to leave the room (not the judge and the lawyers) thus making an objection, even for the record, was a cumbersome and time consuming process.

In one of these interminable objection interludes, the Crown stated that ‘free speech is not on trial here.” Shockingly, Judge Butler echoed her sentiments. Legal fictions (such as that all lawyers are capable of providing an adequate defense) are generally employed to allow the system to work. In this case, the legal fiction went to the charge itself. Mr. Topham is on trial for writing and for publishing articles that presumably reflect his beliefs. What else is free speech if not that?

Mr. Rudner indicated under direct examination that he was the author of the written expert opinion he provided to the court. This was troubling, because the Crown had originally employed Bernie Farber as its expert, and Mr. Farber had provided an opinion that was word for word the same as Mr. Rudner’s. If Mr. Rudner did not commit perjury, he was at least deceptive in his presentation of his expert opinion.

The Defense

Barclay Johnson, defense attorney extraordinaire, gave an opening argument that was an impassioned call for freedom of thought and speech. Later the Crown objected, but the damage so-called had been done. Mr. Johnson endured a tongue lashing and a civil procedure lesson from the judge. The jury was instructed to ignore some of Mr. Johnson’s speech. I assume that this helped plant the speech more firmly in their minds.

Mr. Topham countered the charge of hate and argued as a defense that the writing was political with an expert of his own. Gilad Atzmon, the iconoclastic jazz musician, writer and philosopher volunteered his time to help. It seems wrong to enjoy a presentation when a man’s freedom is at stake, but it was delightful to watch Mr. Atzmon ignore or flaunt every rule of procedure and get away with it.

Atzmon was qualified as an expert on Jewish Identity Politics a topic that clearly few in the court had heard of. In his most amusing argument on the subject, Atzmon explained that there was a section on identity politics in every bookshop, and that topics included the LBGT community. Faced with political correctness, the court backed off and agreed to allow Atzmon in as an expert.

Atzmon began by explaining his system of characterization. He divides ‘the Jews’ into three non-exclusive categories. The first, Judaism, is made up of religious Jews. The second, Jews, are people who are Jewish by an accident of birth. The third, and most important category for this purpose is ‘Jewishness,’ those who identify politically as Jews. Mr. Atzmon described the first two categories as innocent. Objections were raised, innocent is, after all, a legal conclusion and if the first two are innocent, the third is, by implication, guilty. Judge Butler agreed with the Crown’s objection and then allowed Atzmon to proceed in describing the first two categories as innocent. From then on, the defense attorney, the prosecution and the judge adopted these categories for clarity of discussion.

Atzmon argued that contemporary opposition to Jewry is driven by political and ideological arguments; that no one criticizes Jews as a race or a biology. There is little criticism of Judaism, the religion, as a whole, but there has been some criticism leveled at a few aspects of the religion such as blood rituals and goy hatred. The thrust of his argument was that Jewish politics and ideology must be subject to criticism like all other politics and ideologies.

Like a rabbi on acid, Atzmon explained his philosophy, allowed few questions, and browbeat the attorneys. He dealt with his own philosophical approach to Jewishness and the dangers of believing oneself ‘chosen’ and then he got in a few swipes at categories one and two as well. The jury was mesmerized. Later, Atzmon told friends that he had directed his remarks to the juror sleeping in the first row. If he could be made to listen, presumably the others could as well.

Atzmon made the point that many of the most apparently anti-Semitic writings were made by the early Zionists. According to Atzmon, Herzl and others saw a problem with European Jewry and thought that the existence of a homeland could cure problems such as usury, discrimination against non-Jews, exclusiveness, etc. The take away is that if Jews are entitled to criticize Jews, why can’t other people? This is especially true because the Jews have a disproportionate amount of power in government, finance and the media. They clearly have the means to counter criticism if they choose to do so.

Part 2 will cover the closing arguments and the verdict.
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.
 
•••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