Welcome to 2017! from Radical Press

ashall1500

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Dear Radical Readers,

My wife Shasta and I spend New Year’s eve at our local community hall in Cottonwood, B.C. enjoying a wonderful pot-luck dinner and then playing country music with our friends and neighbours.

2017 is now here and it promises to be another exciting year of global turmoil and unexpected surprises both good and bad!

On behalf of Radical Press I want to wish all subscribers and readers the very best in the days and months ahead and thank everyone for their ongoing support throughout my own “trials” and tribulations in the Canadian justice system.

This coming March will see the results of my Charter challenge to the infamous “Hate Crime” legislation now contained in Sec. 318 to 320 of Canada’s Criminal Code. Until then it’s back to the waiting game and carrying on with publishing as much truth and real news as possible.

I’m still trying to raise money to cover legal expenses (what’s new!) so any help in defraying these costs is always appreciated. If you’re not already deep in debt to the Rothschilds after all the Christmas spending spree then you might want to check into my GoGetFunding site and add a bit more to it.

Most politically-minded folks around the world are now awaiting with baited breath the inauguration of Donald Trump as the 45th President of the United States of America and debating and wondering what his administration will do in order to improve the global situation which has been steadily growing darker and darker. Will it be the Zionist business as usual or something possibly dramatic and positive? Time will soon tell but the odds are not in the truth-lovers and peace-makers favour and so we must remain vigilant and strong and continue to sing the songs of freedom come what may.

God bless and keep us all.

 

Sincerely,

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

AND LEST WE FORGET

hatecrimelawbbccjc-copy

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 the Special Committee on Hate Propaganda in Canada [Also referred to as the Cohen Committee Report. A.T.]. It was this paper which the Defence introduced as part of the reasons for having Dr. Persinger testify.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 traveling to Ottawa, Ontario. Given the fact that I don’t fly this would be an additionally onerous undertaking that I’m not excited about. Therefore, speaking frankly, at this point in time I don’t find the prospect of years of more litigation a very attractive option for either myself or my wife who is dealing with serious medical issues that require urgent attention. This coming February I will turn 70 years old. That is also another factor which will affect whether or not I decide to enter into a further protracted legal battle which I can hardly afford to undertake considering the reasons given above. If wishes were horses then beggars would ride and I might be able to hand the reins over to a younger free speech warrior who could take up the torch and carry on to Ottawa with it but, unfortunately, wishes are not our four-footed friends.

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

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

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

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.)
 

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

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

behindthescene

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

By
Arthur Topham

September 25th, 2016

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

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

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

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

How the Ten Year Show Trial Played Out Behind the Scenes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gaywilsonlevasimage

Enter the Queer-Jew Connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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!