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

KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by the B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress By Arthur Topham

100thmonkeyhdr-copy

http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=628

KILLING THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY: The Battle for Control and Censorship of Canada’s Internet by the B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress
By Arthur Topham
January 4, 2008

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 by Arthur Topham

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

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

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

Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BIGOTSVILLE

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

by Prof. Tony Hall

Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 10.17.57 AM

To Dave Baker,

I am dumbfounded by the decision you delivered on behalf of some unnamed authority. To Ms. Monika Schaefer you write, “We have considered your application for a busking permit in Jasper. In light of your recently publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs we have decided to decline a permit to you at this time.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours Sincerely,

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

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

 We have considered your application for a busking permit in Jasper. In light of your recently publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs we have decided to decline a permit to you at this time.

 habitatvaluestatement2 (1)

Orlando Changes Everything By Brother Nathanael Kapner June 16, 2016

Orlando Changes Everything

By Brother Nathanael Kapner June 16, 2016 ©

orlandochangeeverything

AFTER THE MOURNING ENDS, and the clowns have all gone to bed, a new mourning begins for those who forsee the destruction of America.

One glance at the ‘Orlando statements’ by Jewish Lobbies spells trouble for those who assail homosexuality and gender confusion as an attack on the teachings of The Church.

The attempt to criminalize defenders of The Church breathes new life with Orlando:

SPLC – “It is not surprising that the LGBT community was targeted. This community has long been vilified by those opposed to LGBT rights and is too often the target of hate.” View Entire Story Here.

ADL – “We will redouble our resolve to fight against the forces of hatred and extremism that led to this act of hatred.” View Entire Story Here.

Homosexuals, lesbians, and cross-dressers are now ‘martyrs’ but those opposed to LGBT rights, that is Christians worth their salt, are “villains,” “haters,” and “extremists.”

Trump has hitched his pitch to the homo bandwagon announcing his “solidarity” with the LGBT community and declaring that Orlando “strikes at the soul of who we are as a nation, and is an assault on the ability of people to love who they want and express their identity.”

The queers and perverts have a whole new champion in Donald Trump. (Not to mention that the Orlando carnage was apparently neither a “terrorist” act nor a “hate crime” but a ‘gay-motivated’ crime since the killer was a known homosexual.

And if you buy into Trump’s “Make America Great Again” then he’s got to cough up exactly when in America’s history its citizens ever affirmed the ability of people to “love who they want” and “express their identity.”

For ever since the founding of America up until only a few years ago, the notion that men and women could “love” those of the same sex, was rejected; and the idea that males could “express their identity” as females, was refused. View Entire Story Here.

But the Jews who own the press, academia, and the courts, changed all that.

repealjewhomolaw

IF TRUMP REALLY wants to make “America Great Again” he must begin by repealing “Obergefell v. Hodges” which turned sodomy into law by four Jews and a lapsed Catholic on America’s highest bench.

But political correctness, I mean, “Jew-correctness,” which seeks the destruction of a White Christian power bloc, and its elemental force: the demise of the White Christian family, along with defaming its moral underpinning: the Holy Bible, wins the day.

Cuo bono? Jews. Christians become the bad guys, queers become the good guys.

And now that Trump is calling for “banning Muslims” from immigrating to America from “areas of the world where there is a proven history of terrorism,” the Jews will tell him that Iranians must be the first to be blacklisted.

And why Iranians, part of a centuries old culture, who are an educated and refined people?

Because, although they do not ’sponsor’ terrorism which is a Jewish lie, they are considered part of the Axis of Resistance that opposes the Zionist genocidal state of Israel.

How many statements has Trump already made against Iran that are Jew-pleasing? A zillion? He’ll fall right into Jewry’s trap.

WE’RE ALL A BUNCH of suckers now, and getting sucker punched by politicians itching to be president stings the unsuspecting.

Mourn for LGBTs today and tomorrow they’ll gag your mouth with their hate s##t.

They just stuffed their gag into the mouth of a Catholic priest in Spain who gave a homily denouncing homosexual sin, and now the virtuous priest has to defend himself in court vis-a-vis an LGBT lawsuit.

We can turn the other cheek and pretend it’s sympathy for the dead rather than the devil.

But boxers who lead with a left jab follow with a knockout punch.

If Christians don’t feel the left jab now, they’ll reel from the knockout punch tomorrow.

___________________________________

For More See: Night Of The Living Dead Click Here

And: Why Jews Push Gay Marriage Click Here

And: Are You A Boy Or Are You A Girl? Click Here

And: The Church In Same-Sex America Click Here

And: The ADL’s War On White America Click Here

And: What To Expect In 2016 Click Here

___________________________________

Come and Get Me, You Fairies! by Kathy Shaidle!

TAKI mag

Come and Get Me, You Fairies!

by Kathy Shaidle

5FeetFury

Screen Shot 2016-05-31 at 10.58.24 PM

Normally I wouldn’t subject you to two columns in a row about Canadian goings-on, but I see my new topic has already been deemed worthy of attention here, at “The Week That Perished.”

“Canada Proposes Imprisonment for Anti-Tranny ‘Hate Speech’” topped the list:

Trudeau is pushing a bill that would protect Canada’s eternally vulnerable transgender community by sending offenders to prison for up to two years if they dare commit the unpardonable sin of uttering “anti-transgender speech.”

(And before you scroll down to the comments to lecture me on your clearly overrated First Amendment, American readers should bear in mind that New York state, for one, already has similar laws on the books, and they carry fines of up to $250,000. And this Oregon “transmasculine” teacher got $60,000 because her colleagues wouldn’t refer to “it” as “they.”)

No, the Canadian law hasn’t been passed yet, but Trudeau’s Liberals have a majority in Parliament, so they can theoretically shove through any law they want to. The Grits’ priorities are weed, “green” bullshit, assisted suicide, and, well, another kind of “assisted suicide”: fighting on the “Allies” side in “World War T.” When it comes to chicks with dicks, the Libs are determined to dress on the right (that is, left) side of history.

“Soon we’ll all be obligated by law to say and think the same thing—or else. I choose door No. 2.”

(Then again, so are the Conservatives. At their convention last weekend, the party voted overwhelmingly to drop their official opposition to gay “marriage,” quoting—apparently without irony—their former nemesis PM Pierre Trudeau’s maxim that “the state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation.”)

More proof that we normals are losing this fight? Trannies are rewriting not just the laws of the nation(s) but of politics and other facets of society. You know the old saw about “a dead girl or a live boy”? Well, as Gavin McInnes reported here, the guy behind the North Carolina bathroom bill is a registered sex offender who “fondled a 15-year-old boy when he was 20.” And…Bruce Springsteen and his fellow state-boycotters either haven’t heard or don’t care.

A few leftists break rank and declare their exasperation with all things “trans.” Articles like “My Dad Was Transgender. Why I Still Think Gender Can’t Be Changed” appear with semi-regularity. Activists admit they’ve been pulling our every remaining dangling appendage this whole time:

“We know trans people are one of the most targeted groups. And they experience violence at a much higher rate than other people,” he said.

But because we don’t collect data, we don’t collect information on these circumstances, it makes it difficult to put in place any programming or training for police or communities that address these crimes.”

None of that matters.

Instead, Canada’s largest newspaper, and one major private broadcaster, have recently been celebrating this “transgendered dad” (and longtime human toothache) who “breastfeeds.” If you’ve got a dodgy gag reflex, you’d best skip over the “how,” although listening to the anchor declare, “It’s a wonderful story and I appreciate you coming on and telling us about it,” is just about as puke-inducing.

Soon we’ll all be obligated by law to say and think the same thing—or else. I choose door No. 2.

I’ve said for years that transsexuals are delusional amputation fetishists, and way too many are manipulative narcissistic bullies and liars, and often prone to violence.

That if they really do commit suicide in epidemic numbers, that’s because, well, they’re clearly insane.

Trannies were cute and funny when they were in movies once in a while—hell, I actually watch The Prancing Elites sometimes, because (I dare you) it’s kind of hard not to—but now they’re everywhere, and I’m sick of them.

I’d compare trannies to kudzu, but kudzu turns out to be mostly a rural legend, whereas trannies are a for-real creeping menace, spreading mendacity and extortion across the land and costing taxpayers untold millions.

To stick with the Southern Gothic metaphor, though, trannies are more like Max Cady in drag. The villain in Cape Fear skirts (pun intended) around the law relentlessly, never doing anything you can actually arrest (or better yet, kill) him for. His mission: to destroy a normal, law-abiding family—precisely because they are normal and law-abiding—in a twisted, selfish campaign for “justice.”

This is the part where I’m supposed to cuck out and put in that transsexuals are clearly mentally ill and deserve our compassion. That they’re being exploited as exotic human pets and fashion accessories by everyone from teenage weirdos on Tumblr (forgivable) to powerful media gatekeepers, greedy surgeons, and political power-grabbers (not).

Yeah, fuck that. I don’t care.

In order to ostensibly protect “transgender and other gender-diverse” individuals, the new Canadian law criminalizes “hate propaganda and hate crimes.” So how’s this?

I hate trannies. I think other people should hate trannies, too.

Does that work?

Hate is just a human emotion. If gays are allowed to tear apart and (ineptly) rebuild 5,000 years of civilization in the name of “love,” why shouldn’t I be allowed to stomp on their sand castles in the name of “hate”?

At this juncture, I’ll get lectured by conservatives that “we” don’t believe in breaking the law. That if we object to an unjust piece of legislation, we’re supposed to work diligently to overturn it blah blah soooo sleepy zzzzzzzz

The left has gotten every item on their agenda over the past 60 years through the “Rosa Parks” model. As my fellow Canadian blogger Kate McMillian likes to say, “‘Not showing up to riot’ is a failed conservative policy.”

I dare the police to arrest me first the day this law is passed. If they don’t do so spontaneously, then I challenge some chippy little tranny to press charges.

I can’t possibly plead “not guilty.” I won’t even insist that I was “just citing statistics” or “performing a thought experiment” or “being satirical.” Those are all typical (and irregularly effective) defenses in situations like this one. They also don’t apply here.

I have no defense. I don’t even want one.

Come and get me, you fairies.

When I get out, you’ll be able to stick me right back in again, because by then Justin & Co. will also have “outlawed Islamophobia.”

So let’s see if you have the balls.

——

SOURCE ARTICLE

PLEASE DONATE TO THE RADICALPRESS.COM LEGAL DEFENCE FUND

NewRPFundingAd

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
THANK YOU!

The Revisionists’ Total Victory on the Historical and Scientific Level By Robert Faurisson

TotalVictory copy

The Revisionists’ Total Victory on the Historical 

and Scientific Level

By Robert Faurisson

R.Faurisson

December 31, 2015

“The rising flood, particularly on the Internet, that is bringing to the world’s knowledge the spectacular achievements of historical revisionism is not suddenly going to halt its advance or return towards its source.”

~ Robert Faurisson

In France and in the rest of the world historians and specialists of “the Holocaust” no longer know what to answer to the revisionists’ arguments. And to speak only of my own case, which has been going on since 1978 (that is, for some thirty-seven years), never has my country’s justice system, despite the tireless requests by self-righteous associations to rule against me on the substance of my writings or statements, been able to note therein the least trace of any rashness, negligence, deliberate ignorance, falsehood, falsification or lying. My adversaries, rich and powerful though they may be, have never succeeded in getting our judges to convict me on the merits of the conclusions reached through my research work which, for over half a century, has focused on what is commonly called “the genocide of the Jews”, “the Nazi gas chambers” and “the six million (or nearly)” Jewish victims of the Third Reich. At most, at the end countless cases I have lost suits (whether as plaintiff or defendant) or been found guilty mainly 1) for a malevolence, supposed but not demonstrated, towards the Jews, 2) for breaking the gayssotine (the Fabius-Gayssot or Faurisson Act, legislation of convenience specifically targeting the findings of my research) or 3) by virtue of the “good faith” (sic) of individuals like Léon Poliakov or Robert Badinter, even though found to be at fault by the judges themselves.

For years Poliakov had well and truly manipulated the writings of SS officer Kurt Gerstein (who, having “repented” (?), then committed suicide (?)), when not fabricating outright fragments of text to attribute to him. But the judges granted the presumption of good faith to Poliakov. He had been, we were told, “animated by the passionate and legitimate desire to inform the public about a period and about facts of contemporary history that were particularly tragic”. It was therefore appropriate to forgive him for having “perhaps, on minor points [sic!!!], broken scientific standards of rigour without, however, it being permissible to state that he is a manipulator or fabricator of texts”. As for Badinter, in 2006 he claimed that in 1981, when he was still barrister for the LICRA and just before becoming Minister of Justice, he had got a court to rule against me “for being a falsifier of history”. A decision of 2007 restored the truth and held that Badinter had “failed in his evidence” to demonstrate my alleged dishonesty; but, the court hastened to add, he had been in good faith. For want of both money and a lawyer (Eric Delcroix having retired – not without being refused honorary membership of the bar), I did not appeal and was forced to pay the Socialist millionaire the sum of €5,000. But at least since then I have had the satisfaction of being able to speak of “Robert Badinter, my liar, my slanderer… in good faith”.

An astute observer will have noted that the more our opponents sense the game is getting away from them on the historical or scientific level, the more they feel the need to increase their propagandistic drum beating, and the repression as well. In France, at this very moment, they are putting all their hopes in having Parliament pass a supergayssotine. Good for them! A few weeks short of my 87th birthday, I have six cases pending, four against me and two others that I have had to instigate, albeit quite unwillingly. Will my judges finally decide, in 2016, to leave us, my wife and me, destitute? Or are they getting ready simply to throw me into a prison of the République? It is understood beforehand, is it not?, that if they were to carry things to such extremes it would only be on the grounds of the noblest républicain principles and in the name of human rights.

Let’s consider our current Prime Minister. One day, Manuel Valls, in full pomposity, his mouth, heart and left hand clenched, let fly: “I am, by my wife, eternally linked to the Jewish community and Israel”. He saw himself as “eternal”: a vast programme! But fervour was leading him astray. He ought to come back down to earth, reconnect with the ground, get treatment and stop deluding himself: the revisionists have, already as of now, won the match.

As early as in 1983-1985, Raul Hilberg, surrendering to the arguments of “Faurisson and others…” had to drop the pretension of explaining, on the basis of valid arguments and documents of his own, that the Third Reich had, with proper Germanic efficiency, designed, prepared, developed, organised and financed the killing of millions of European Jews. The eminent Jewish American historian ended up finding himself reduced to trying to have us believe that this gigantic massacre had come about by the operation of the Holy Spirit or, in his words, by “an incredible meeting of minds, a consensus-mind reading within a large bureaucracy” that had, on its own, spontaneously decided, it seemed, gradually to abandon written communication in favour of verbal or indeed telepathic exchange to such an extent that no written or material evidence bespoke the six million Jews’ (or, in Hilberg’s case, a bit fewer) had been systematically killed either on the Eastern Front or in the gas chambers, mainly at Auschwitz.

Screen Shot 2016-01-14 at 11.16.23 AM

A number of historians or researchers, such as Arno Mayer, Jean-Claude Pressac and Robert Jan van Pelt, have also capitulated, in a more frank and direct manner. The first has had to admit, among other bitter observations, that “Sources for the study of the gas chambers are at once rare and unreliable”. The second, a protégé of the Klarsfeld couple, came to understand that the dossier of the official story of the Jews’ extermination, “rotten” with too many lies, was bound for “the rubbish bins of history”. The third has concluded that “Ninety-nine per cent of what we know [about Auschwitz] we do not actually have the physical evidence to prove”; despite this, millions of visitors there have been and continue to be shown a “gas chamber” said to be in its “original state”, as well as ruins of other alleged “gas chambers”. As for the figure of “six million”, never subjected to the least scientific verification, it is rooted in the most sordid of realities: an old American publicity slogan used already before 1900 and up to the end of the Second World War to collect a windfall of cash especially from the Jewish community. The searing words amounted to the cry “Six million of our brothers are dying in Europe [by the acts, according to circumstance, of Poland, the Balkan countries, Tsarist Russia, National-Socialist Germany…]; we await your money for the victims of this holocaust [sic already in 1919]!”

Manuel Valls, our Prime Minister, and François Hollande, President of our Republic, devote themselves to launching, in several foreign countries, warlike crusades of the kind that have backfired horribly for us French this year. To proceed as they do, contrary to the Constitution, they dispense with the approval of Parliament, either in advance or within forty days from the start of operations. On top of their foreign wars, conducted in the most cowardly as well as the most comfortable conditions, they instil an atmosphere of internecine war at home. They call “cowards” certain enemies who, after all, are inspired on a grand scale by the practices of our glorious Résistants: “Hey, killers with the bullet and the knife, kill quickly!” If François Hollande has the stature of a pedalo admiral, Mr Valls resembles Picrochole, that character in Rabelais whose Greek name means “bitter bile” and who regularly gets all excited at the prospect of going off to war. Mr Valls began with a crusade against the Saracens of today and against the real or supposed enemies of Israel but he is also on a campaign against the revisionists, against “Dieudonné in peace”, against Marine Le Pen – even though she has pushed her own father down the stairs – and even against his friends of the Socialist clan. A good suggestion for him would be to calm down, take care of himself, try to laugh with Dieudonné, reflect for a moment with the revisionists, allow historians or researchers to work as they wish and, at long last, spare us the flag-waving frenzy, the bugle-blowing, the verse and chorus of the Marseillaise on the “day of glory”, the “impure blood” and the “ferocious soldiers”. As we know, it is, unhappily, all too easy to take the French in with that sort of thing.

Such, today, are the modest New Year wishes for 2016 that I allow myself to make for that person, for his victims, for the French and for the rest of the world. But is it perhaps already asking too much?

For their part, the revisionists know what awaits them: the confirmation in the mainstream media, sooner or later, that they have already won a total victory on the historical and scientific level. The political and media powers will indeed have to resign themselves to the facts: persistence in gunboat policies abroad and in those of gagging and censorship at home will only dishonour them a bit more. For nothing.

The rising flood, particularly on the Internet, that is bringing to the world’s knowledge the spectacular achievements of historical revisionism is not suddenly going to halt its advance or return towards its source.

The lies of “the Holocaust” are modelled on those of the First World War. All those “Nazi death-works”, like the ones at Auschwitz, are but a reprise of the myth of German “corpse factories” of 1914-1918. They were merely modernised by the adding of gas (Jewish-American version of November 1944) and sometimes of electricity (Jewish-Soviet version of February 1945). The good people, already generally not well disposed towards the practice of cremating the dead, were led to believe that Germany, a nation considered modern and known for having an abundance of engineers and chemists, had built structures containing, in addition to a cremation space, others called “gas chambers” (in reality, the “depositories”, Leichenhalle or Leichenkeller, technically designed to hold bodies awaiting cremation). Thus a certain propaganda has managed to persuade us that those Germans devils were dumb enough to house under the same roof, on one side, spaces full of a highly inflammable and explosive gas (the hydrocyanic acid or hydrogen cyanide contained in the pesticide Zyklon B, created in the 1920s) and, on the other side, crematory ovens that had to be laboriously brought to a temperature of 900° C.

Germar Rudolf

In 1943 some of the men in charge of British war propaganda deplored “this gas chambers story”. For his part, the revisionist Germar Rudolf sums up the subject rather well in his Lectures on the Holocaust (Chicago, Theses & Dissertations Press, 2005, 566 p., p. 82-85). Even Victor Cavendish-Bentinck, a senior official of the Intelligence Service in London ready to believe just about any nonsense said against the Germans, was to write: “I feel certain that we are making a mistake in publicly giving credence to this gas chambers story” (p. 83). The trouble was that the British, undisputed champions of lying propaganda during the two world wars, needed those fables. On February 29, 1944 their Ministry of Information sent the BBC and the Church of England a circular letter of the greatest cynicism, requesting their respective cooperation for the spreading of propaganda on the basis of atrocity stories either already in circulation or currently being concocted. It was a matter of forestalling the disastrous effect that the Red Army, an ally, was inevitably to bring about in Central Europe by real atrocities (p. 84)! On these inventions, these fabrications and the wide-scale dissemination of enormous tall tales, two books remain of great interest: Edward J. Rozek’s Allied Wartime Diplomacy: A Pattern in Poland, New York, Wiley, 1958 and, especially, by Walter Laqueur (a Jew born in Breslau in 1921): The Terrible Secret, London, Weidenfeld & Nicolson, 1980, 262 p., wherein we see Cavendish-Bentinck, him again, “Chairman of the British Intelligence Committee”, writing in July 1943 that “The Poles and, to a far greater extent the Jews, tend to exaggerate German atrocities in order to stoke us up” (p. 83).

Fifteen months ago, referring to the crisis that the historians of “the Holocaust” were experiencing, I wrote that there was “more and more water in their gas, and slack in their knotted rope”. Since January 2015 and the anniversary of the “liberation” of Auschwitz I have noted a sudden acceleration of the phenomenon. I have a whole file and a whole demonstration on the subject but the continuing judicial repression has not yet left me time to publish this information. In any case, for the historian, it has become captivating to observe the never-ending agony of the “magical gas chamber” (Céline in 1950). This agony is accompanied, as we have seen, by a redoubling of the repression of revisionism and a turning up of the volume of holocaustic propaganda. May our Picrochole refrain, then, from going on the stage and into a trance! He would have a stroke. He might even be cruelly snatched away from us. Who knows? He could precede in death a man who will be 87 years of age on January 25, 2016 and whom some have, thus far in vain, so often sought to kill, not for his ideas (he has hardly any) but for having wanted to publish the result of his research, which is summed up in a phrase of about sixty words. I repeat it here for memory, and to have done with it:

The alleged Hitlerite gas chambers and the alleged genocide of the Jews form one and the same historical lie, which has permitted a gigantic political and financial swindle whose main beneficiaries are the state of Israel and international Zionism and whose main victims are the German people – but not their leaders – and the Palestinian people in their entirety.

Note: For sources or references especially regarding certain points of this text one may consult the indices of the seven volumes of my Ecrits révisionnistes thus far published. On the Internet, for “The Victories of Revisionism” (11 December 2006), see robertfaurisson.blogspot.com/2006/12/victories-of-revisionism.html and for “The Victories of Revisionism (continued)” (September 11, 2011), see robertfaurisson.blogspot.it/2011/09/victories-of-revisionism-continued.html.

Aficionados of court rulings by imbeciles are invited to refer to pages 152-155 of the first volume, where there are some titbits from a decision handed down in 1979 by Dame Baluze-Frachet, judge of a Lyon police court. The good lady decreed back then that simply asking the question of the existence of the gas chambers was an affront not only to “good morals” but also to “the moral order”. The amusing bit of it is that by invoking “the moral order” she was advocating – although probably unawares – a value dear to count MacMahon, Marshal of France, President of the French Republic and perennial model of reactionary conservatism. “The moral order” was to return seventy years later on with… Marshal Pétain. As for the aficionados of behavioural curiosities, there is fare for them in the following two videos featuring the current head of the French government: “The left hand of Manuel Valls” and “Rally of March 19, 2014 – speech by Manuel Valls, Minister of the Interior”.

In preparation: 1) an article about an embarrassing secret of Serge Klarsfeld; 2) a study of the highly inflammable and explosive nature of hydrogen cyanide.

—-

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 4.51.44 PM

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

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham: Part 2

by Eve Mykytyn / November 14th, 2015

Read Part 1.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Screen Shot 2015-11-01 at 12.18.21 PM

ATEditorPic185

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[EDITOR’S NOTE: Please feel free to use whatever information is contained in this Report in order to spread the word further afield. Now that the first week of the trial has ended and there’s been no mention of it in Canada’s mainstream media, other than the local Quesnel Cariboo Observer, I believe it’s fair to assume that the mainstream news outlets in this country have collectively decided to censor the case in order that the Canadian public remains unaware of the importance of what’s occurring in British Columbia.

Given the importance of this trial to every citizen of the nation who values their constitutional right to freedom of expression and also considering the wide-spread media coverage over the years leading up to the final repeal of the Sec. 13(1) legislation as contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act in June of 2012, it’s highly unlikely that the msm is unaware of the fact that this trial is happening.

It’s therefore up to the alternative news media to do its best to cover this important historic event in Canadian jurisprudence and bring it to the attention of internet readers.

Because of the nature of the case and for obvious reasons of strategy I’ve kept the details of the proceedings to a bare minimum. Rest assured though that at the trial’s end which could be at the end of the coming week (November 6th) a more thorough analysis of the trial will be forthcoming.

Thank you.]

——–

 

To Alternative Media Sources 

Report on first week of 

Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham 

 by 

Arthur Topham

The Supreme Court “Hate Speech” trial of Arthur Topham and his website RadicalPress.com concluded its first week of deliberations on Friday, October 30th, 2015 in the small, central interior city of Quesnel, British Columbia.

Having elected to be tried by a jury of his peers rather than gamble on the Attorney General’s office selecting a potentially biased justice to oversee the proceedings and decide his fate the first order of business was to select twelve individuals from around the local community to sit on the jury. This process of selection meant that well over a hundred individuals were called to appear at the provincial government office on the morning of Monday, October 26th.

As well, and contrary to its normal behaviour over the past three and a half years, it was also at this time that Crown decided to initiate a rather Orwellian practise of setting up a RCMP screening process within the building which required every individual entering to have to go through a security check prior to gaining access to the courts. This entailed the removal of all of one’s personal possessions such as wallets, purses, cell phones, etc from their pockets and placing them in little plastic baskets and then walking through a scanner and having an RCMP officer go over your whole body with a hand-held wand to determine whether you might have a concealed weapon or possibly explosives(?) strapped to your body with the intent of committing an act of “terrorism”. Given the undue inconvenience of this intimidating process one can only imagine that it may have been designed by Crown to discourage the local citizenry from attending the trial and observing its proceedings.

Len Rudner copy

In addition, considering the fact that Crown’s star Expert witness was Len Rudner, former Director of the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), it was highly likely that the additional security measures were part of the conditions upon which Mr. Rudner consented to appear. This was further corroborated by the fact that while Mr. Rudner was in attendance he was constantly accompanied by a police bodyguard.

Meanwhile the crowd of potential jurors were forced to line up outside and wait in the snow and sleet as each one of them went through the onerous security process.

The Show Begins

Crown’s first witness was now retired Det. Cst. Terry Wilson who, at the time of my arrest and incarceration on May 16th, 2012, was the lead investigator for the BC Hate Crime Unit located in Surrey, B.C., a suburb of Vancouver. Wilson, along with his partner Cst. Normandie Levas and a team of other police officers, had, after investigating complaints from two individuals back in 2011 that I and my website RadicalPress.com were contravening Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada by “communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin” decided to charge and arrest me for the promotion of “hate propaganda”.

Wilson&LevasPhoto copy 4

The focus of Crown’s evidence consisted of four large binders of which Binder #1 and #2 composed the complete texts of the following online books which are posted on RadicalPress.com:

1. Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann

2. Israel Must Perish! (erroneously labeled by Wilson and Crown as a “book” rather than a satirical article)

3. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion

4. The Biological Jew by Eustice Mullins

5. The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling

Binder #2 was the complete text of Douglas Reed’s masterful historic analysis of political Zionism The Controversy of Zion.

The remaining two binders contained numerous posts and Editorial comments by Topham. The majority of material being that produced by authors other than the accused.

It wasn’t until the end of Wednesday, October 28th that Crown completed her testimony from former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson. The following morning, Thursday, October 29th at 10:26 a.m. Arthur Topham’s Defence Counsel, Barclay Johnson had the opportunity to cross-examine Wilson on his three day of testimony.

Court adjourned at 4:05 p.m. and Mr. Topham, his Attorney Barclay Johnson and a number of supporters, including Mr. Topham’s wife proceeded across the street from the Courthouse to the Billy Barker Hotel where all of the out-of-town visitors were staying to await the arrival of Topham’s Expert Witness Mr. Gilad Atzmon, who was due to arrive at the Quesnel airport at 4:00 p.m. that same day.

TophamLegalTeam

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

AtzBkCov

Day five of the trial began Friday, October 30th, 2015. Crown’s Expert Witness Mr. Len Rudner testified throughout the whole of the day. Cross examination of Mr. Rudner will begin Monday, November 2nd.

•••0•••

Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial that commences in one week on October 26th by making a donation.

Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address.

Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:

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

Arthur & the Jews The controversy over freedom of speech By Arthur Topham, Publisher & Editor RadicalPress.com

Arthur&TheJewsFINAL

Arthur & the Jews

The controversy over freedom of speech

By

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
RadicalPress.com

October 23, 2015

“And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.”

~ Jesus Christ, John, Ch. 8, Verse 32

“For nothing is secret that shall not be made manifest; neither any thing hid, that shall not be known and come abroad.”

~ Jesus Christ, Ch. 8, Verse 17

“If this book has any sombre look, that is the native hue of the story it tells, not the reflection of my own cast of mind. I have written with feeling: the feeling of a contemporary, participant, eye-witness and of a journalist thwarted in his calling, which in my belief should serve truth without fear or favour, not special interests. I have seen more of the events of our century and of the secret perversions of national purposes than most, and have discovered through this experience that it was not all chance, but design. Therefore I have written a protest, but it is a protest against the suppression of truth, not against life.”

~ Douglas Reed, The Controversy of Zion (1956), Epilogue, P. 568

 

Two days from the time of this writing, on October 26th, 2015, a trial in B.C. Supreme Court involving the case of Regina v Roy Arthur Topham will commence in the small city of Quesnel, located in the central interior of the province of British Columbia in an area known as the Cariboo.

In essence this isn’t just the trial of Arthur Topham based upon a politically motivated and spurious Sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada “Hate Propaganda” charge initiated by one of Canada’s largest Zionist Jew lobby organization, B’nai Brith Canada. It’s far more than that. What will be on trial from October 26th to November 6th is the legal entitlement of all Canadians to exercise their Constitutionally guaranteed right to freedom of expression, both on and off the Internet –  as written in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec. 2b which states that “Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication“.

The outcome of the trial will determine whether or not Canada is, in fact, a truly open and free democracy or a nation whose sovereignty and freedom has been compromised by the wilful, premeditated actions of foreign lobbyists inimical to the country as a whole. In other words Freedom of Speech will be on trial.

The charge itself ought to be clearly understood by everyone concerned about their rights and freedoms as Canadians. Thus we see that the charge under Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:

Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 28th day of April, 2011 and the 4th day of May, 2012, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Butler will preside and a jury of twelve men and women will make the final determination of guilty or not guilty.

EndHateCrimeLegislation 2 copy 2

Basically, to narrow it down to its core intent, I am being charged with willfully promoting hatred against people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin based upon the multitude of articles and online books which I have published on my website prior to and since April 28th, 2011 when the complaint was officially laid against me by Canada’s most controversial serial complainant in the history of the human rights industry. Within a month of the first complaint being laid a second individual, an agent working for the League of Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, also filed an identical charge.

Upon receiving the complaints, the head of the BC Hate Crime Team, former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson located in Surrey, B.C. along with his partner Cst. Normandie Levas, initiated an investigation into the allegations. What was unknown to me at the time was that all three of these individuals knew each other and had known each other in some cases for as long as fifteen years and all three of them were in the “business” of hunting down and attacking individuals and website owners who were being critical of the foreign Zionist state of Israel and/or its ideology known as Zionism.

In fact the two complainants in the Sec. 319(2) complaint were known to be friends and associates as far back as 2007 when one of the same complainants, a Zionist Jew working for B’nai Brith Canada first laid a similar complaint against my person and my website RadicalPress.com using the now repealed Canadian Human Rights Act legislation known as Sec. 13. In other words I have been attacked by this foreign Zionist lobby organization now for the past nine years and have been in a constant battle with them to retain my basic human rights.

The whole of Crown’s case rests upon the key terms “willfully” and “hatred”, which, in the case of the latter term “hatred”, any person of common sense will realize, is a word that, like its opposite, “love”, is imbued with multiple meanings, all of which are based upon subjective emotions of one type or another.

Now there are some serious problems that accompany an allegation which accuses a person of “hating” a whole “identifiable group” such as the “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin” based upon not only his own writings but also the written works of dozens of other writers, journalists, video producers, talk show hosts, artists, musicians and so on and these problems will undoubtedly come up during the course of the trial.

FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP copy 3

Without going into too much further detail surrounding the spurious nature of the charge of promoting “hatred” toward all the Jews of the world (an accusation arising from comments made to me by former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson during the time I was incarcerated after my arrest on May 16th, 2012) I would rather focus on letting readers know a bit about who I really am and what my life has been all about since at least the year 1967 when I first became involved in what is now commonly referred to as “political activism” or “social activism”.

I was twenty years old and in my second year of university at Simon Fraser University in Burnaby, B.C. in 1967. For those who were too young to remember the Sixties or weren’t born yet, it was a period of history not that different from the world we’re now living in. Wars were rampant then as they are now. Protests and civil rights and civil liberties were still in their nascent stages of development relative to today’s scene but people were demanding their rights in the Sixties just as they still are today. Police brutality and corporate crime and political corruption were as widespread then as they are now and the mainstream media in 1967 was basically just as controlled by the Zionists as it is today. The only fundamental difference really was the sudden and unexpected appearance throughout Western society of what became known as the Hippie Movement. It was that previously unheard of phenomenon that attracted me and countless others and became the focus of my life; one which has never ceased or abated since I first became involved with it.

The watchwords of the Hippie Movement were “Love” and “Peace” and our collective efforts to manifest those two positive, life-enhancing moral qualities throughout the war-torn society of our day were what inspired millions of my generation to work toward a world where violence and war and terror and hatred would end forever to be replaced by the fundamental Christian values and precepts taught by Jesus Christ, values that included learning to love each other and respect each other as well as caring for the Earth Mother that sustained us all. These were my guiding principles throughout my life and remain so to this very day.

With that in mind the accusation of the Zionist lobbyists, when it comes to dealing with their own hatred of anything or anyone who doesn’t support their ideological objectives or the actions of the foreign state of Israel and its parallel objectives, that every critic of their political agenda “hates” all the Jews in the world is utterly preposterous and beyond all comprehension. Having fashioned the term “hatred” into a twisted, Talmudic talisman of loathing and contempt through generations of endless propaganda emanating from their own controlled media and then inserting the word into Canadian jurisprudence via legal subterfuge and political influence, they now feel that they have the judicial wherewithal to attack their perceived enemies and somehow stem the unstoppable tide of political and spiritual awareness that was birthed in the Sixties and then embellished beyond comprehension and control in Nineties with the advent of the World Wide Web.

The controversy surrounding the Jews throughout history has now reached the point of culmination. Their mission to stop the truth from being revealed. whenever it applies to their own culpable actions, by using the criminal court system to attack the truth revealers is doomed to end in failure just as their efforts to stop the Internet from exposing their heinous acts of terror and murder and destruction perpetrated upon the defenceless Semitic people of Palestine has proven to be unstoppable.

The Age of Orwellian Censorship is coming to an end and it behooves all people of all races, nationalities, ethnicities and colour including the Jews to recognize that no single group of people has the right or the power or the ability to stem the tide of evolutionary consciousness that’s now happening on this planet.

It’s for these basic reasons that I have fought against the Zionist efforts to control our basic human rights over the past nine years. Now we will see if the country is willing to protect its most precious of gift – the freedom to speak one’s mind and express one’s views on whatever issues they deem of value to sustain our God given right to live in peace and happiness without fear and war.

I pray that God will grant us the wisdom to choose freedom over censorship and love over hate.

•••0•••

Please help out with my upcoming Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” trial that commences in one week on October 26th by making a donation.

Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ or else by sending cash, cheques or Money Orders to the following postal address.

Please make sure that any cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:

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

 

Alberta Al: Open your eyes fellow Canadians to the harsh reality facing you. By Al Romanchuk

ALBERTAALNEWHDR

 

Commenting first on the meeting in Edmonton where Dr. Kevin Barrett was giving a book presentation Alberta Al had the following to say:

Both of us were at that meeting Sunday night.  I never saw a hint of the presence of the hate speech squad twosome from the EDMONTON CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT.  Orwellian world, indeed!  We are now officially a POLICE STATE and our freedoms are being eroded daily by Harper, his clique, the opposition all being controlled by Zionist Israel and their subversive forces here in Canada.  I never heard ONE WORD of hate emanating from the mouth of Dr. Barrett.  All he did was give a review of his new book on Charlie Hebdo.  Yet the goon squad from our own police department in effect crashed the meeting to see if hate propaganda was being spread.  And no one would answer the question of WHO sent them.  Well, I can certainly read between the lines when the people at B’Nai Brith would not answer any questions nor return any calls to Dr. Hall.  I am appalled that under Harper’s new terrorist legislation we are ALL suspects and could be arrested and incarcerated for speaking freely in a free country.  Harper is spreading fear and hatred and is using the conflicts in the Middle East to invade their countries without invitation.  None of those countries have declared war on us, but also their hatred of our way of life and religion is well known.  Why we can’t leave well enough alone, I simply cannot understand.

As a Canadian of 79 years of age I have never seen nor heard of our own police departments surreptiously and cunningly enter a meeting and not answering the question of WHO sent them there.  When Harper, the hypocrite, talks about saving our freedoms what he means is that whenever B’nai Brith and its sister organizations complain about anyone delivering a so-called hate speech he really means that he is putting the shackles on those freedoms.  The video is a disgusting show of bullshit at its best.  He is fanning the flames of disorder and discontent and divisions within our country and no one is taking him to task.

Harper IS the false flag is ever there was one being waved.  He has garnered the disrespect of all kinds of nations around the world because of his ties to the USA and other western countries but most notably to Zionist Israel.  It is hard to fathom the villainous role we are playing on the world’s stage, a stage where at one time our virtual neutrality made us one of the most respected nations on this planet.  My how things have changed in such a short period!

If these incursions into public meetings, into the internet continue unabated you can rest assured that our right to bear arms will be safely guarded.

**** ****

Responding to a second set of emails from an associate where they sent Al the following online articles:

CSIS Eyeing Threat Of Growing Anti-Islam Movement Online

Quebec Bill Targets “People Who Write Against The Islamic Religion”

Al’s reply was:

Thank you for sending this to me.  Over the years I have read about anti-Islamic pronouncements and anti-semitic denunciations.  All of which prove one point:  THAT THE JEWS HAVE HATED THE ARABS/MUSLIMS SINCE BEFORE THE MIRACULOUS BIRTH OF JESUS CHRIST AND VICE VERSA.  This is a never-ending battle of ideologies and rabid religious fanaticism.  The Huff Post has some interesting articles.  The first one on your list is several months old and Bill C-51 has now become law and used here in my home town against a freedom loving American citizen.  The second is current and should scare the pants off the right-thinking Quebecois.

The Jews in Canada use deceit and cunning devices to influence Harper into taking action against the extremist Muslims.  The Muslims in Canada use similar tactics to get their message across against the Jews.  Tit for tat, as they say!  But let’s lay the blame for all this anti-semitism and anti-Islamism where it belongs:  IN THE LAST 9 YEARS AT THE DOOR STEPS OF HARPER!  It is he and his immigration Ministers who have permitted the wholesale entry into MY country of ultra right wing Jews fortified by Mossad, and more recently the emigration into MY country of the Muslims from the Middle East especially now from Syria.

As I have pointed out before Harper was able to find some $200 billion to purchase destructive weapons (bombs mostly) and unleash them against ISIS (if they could be found) but in the process have bombed the shit out of the Syrians killing innocent men, women and children.  That makes the Jews happy!  The Jews on the other hand will kill innocent Palestinians and blockade their country (what’s left of it) denying its people needed consumer supplies for their survival.  Neither side has any shame whatsoever in what they are doing.  Harper has no GD conscience but follows orders directly from Netanyahu and the Obama administration to name a few.

Canada has NOT been an independent, free-thinking neutral country, admired and respected around the world, for decades.  We are just as hated as the Jews and Yankees and Brits and French and Germans et al.  We portray the villains on stage and our roles are directed by the the Jews and Yanks who are pleased with our invasionary tactics into other countries on false flag issues, with which I’m sure you are familiar.  By the passage of the anti-terror bill WE, the true Canadians, will be spied on by, of all people, our OWN city and town police forces.  We can be arrested without charge for no valid reason other than being able to speak freely about issues that matter.  And with all the ultra right-wing nuts here in Canada I think Harper can be assured of another victory in October, thanks to the preponderance of power over the ROC in Ontario and Quebec.   In voting for Harper we have unwittingly given him unbridled power to do whatever the hell he wants…………and he does it without any accountability.  And it appears that the opposition agrees with almost everything he does making it appear to us stupid Canadians that they oppose him!  What utter nonsense.  By the same token if either the Lieberals or NDP were to gain power they would do the same thing.  THERE ARE NO CHECKS AND BALANCES IN CANADA AGAINST THE ABUSE OF POWER!

As for the two bills in Quebec proffered by Premier Couillard, which will be passed no doubt, Quebec will have officially become a FASCIST STATE governed by its Gestapo.  Giving the QHRC additional powers to arrest people WITHOUT any complaints being filed is the first step in becoming a fascist state, and the commissioner – by his very words – lusts for these new powers bestowed upon him and his kangaroo court.  But are the Quebecers concerned?  Not in the least!  Have you read anything in the MSM or social media from ordinary citizens critical of these two bills?  I haven’t.  Do Quebecers seem to care that their freedoms are being gobbled away not simply whittled away?  It appears not.  I surmise that the ordinary Quebecer simply wants to be left alone to his own devices: making cheese, harvesting maple syrup, paying 1/2 the tuition that university students in the ROC pay, enjoying the economic benefits of a lot of manufacturing and most of all being very pleased as the recipient of the largest proportion of EQUALIZATION PAYMENTS courtesy of Alberta and Saskatchewan.  Aaaah, what a life to be on the dole forever and a day at the expense of those of us who have to pay your way to idleness.  You Ontarians also enjoy the benefits of our generosity so don’t be smug about it!

You know, it was in 1966 that I received my private pilot’s license because at 30 years of age, on a scale of 1 to 10 on being CANADIAN, I was about an 8 and proud of it.  I was ready at that time to complete any pilot training to become a jet fighter pilot and shoot down those Ruskies who fly over our territory.  It didn’t take long for me to see the extreme changes going to happen in MY country since the election of PET in 1968.  Politicians refused to answer letters, phone calls and emails.  Their salaries and perks grew disproportionately to the work they were doing and we stupid Canadians did nothing about it – except me who railed against these exorbitant payments.  Why do you think we have so many people vying to be candidates for the various parties in the ridings?  They know they can sit back in their comfortable pews with their feet atop the government-owned desks and not bother to do anything except collect their pay cheques.   Today on a scale of 1 to 10 I’m about a 3 when it comes to being a true Canadian.  I would not take up arms to defend MY country given the type of leadership we have today which is undisciplined, immoral and corrupt ( with most of them being sinful church-goers).  I would take up arms to defend myself against any aggressor, and when I say any aggressor I mean state or otherwise!

Open your eyes fellow Canadians to the harsh reality facing you.  I’m too GD old to do anything about anything except write about what I see, read and hear.  If the young generation – those between 16 and 60 – don’t stand up and fight for what is right, what has been our traditions, our values then be prepared to forfeit what you own to the state with no compensation.  The choice is yours: do or die!
—-
Al can be contacted at: Al Romanchuk romanesq@shaw.ca

Canada’s B’nai Brith Moves to Outlaw Free Speech and Academic Freedom by Anthony Hall, Veterans Today

ATEditorPic185

Editor’s Note: The following article by Tony Hall is, overall, an excellent depiction of what happens to a free and democratic nation when it is surreptitiously invaded by a clandestine, foreign ideology and then its civil and legal infrastructure is perverted and diverted off course to the point where the government no longer represents the interests of the people but, instead, obeys the edicts of the foreign entity that has co-opted the nation. In this case it is the malevolent actions of Canada’s Zionist lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada which, as my readers will undoubtedly understand from many previous references throughout my own work, is the same organization that has been harassing me and intimidating me since 2007 and was directly responsible for having its agents accuse me under Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code of publishing and spreading “Hate Propaganda” toward Jews which led to my incarceration and the theft of my computers and electronic files in May of 2012 and since, a long and costly legal battle which will culminate this fall when a trial by judge and jury will commence in Quesnel, B.C. on October 26th, 2015.

Readers interested in the history and motives of this serpentine organization are strongly encouraged to read the following in-depth analysis of its sordid and dangerous past found at the following url http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1410 . 

Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 1.01.30 PM

In his article Dr. Anthony Hall refers to B’nai Brith as ” the oldest “Jewish services” organization in North America.” But this is far short of what this Jewish organization truly is when one delves into its hoary and shadowy past. What readers need to understand fully is that B’nai Brith International is a secretive, Jews-only Freemason Order that was created by the same Rothschild criminal cartel that now controls the Western world’s financial empire and was also instrumental in the creation of the false-flag entity that we all know as the “state” of Israel.

An additional article written back in January of 2008 gives yet another view as to this “service” organization’s secret agenda:

100thMonkeyHdr-copy

http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=628

As well, B’nai Brith Canada has played a crucial role in designing and implementing Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” legislation that they were successful in planting into Canadian jurisprudence after the end of World War II. 

But apart from B’nai Brith Canada there is one other serious error in Dr. Hall’s otherwise astute and truthful description of what has happened to Canada under the dictatorship of Stephen Harper and the Conservative government and that is his indirect reference to Germany during the period when it was ruled by the National Socialist government of Adolf Hitler.  In referencing the shooting incident in Ottawa on Parliament Hill on October 22, 2014 Dr. Hall states, “This event was used to justify Bill C-51, now the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015, which Rocco Galati and others have observed replicates much of the legislation supporting the fascist governments in Germany and Italy in the 1930s.” This statement is of course pure Zionist propaganda and should not have appeared as a metaphor for what is happening in Canada today or in any other democratic nation around the world where the Zionist Jews are hard at work spreading their lies and their hate and implementing their “Hate Crime” laws in order to cover up their own misfeasance and traitorous actions. 

Using the National Socialist government of Adolf Hitler as a comparison to what’s going on today globally is, in itself, a false flag. All of what we are witnessing now is a direct result of the actions of the Zionists and have nothing whatever to do with Adolf Hitler and the German nation but are perfectly in line with the actions of the former Soviet Union and the Communist system which has followed this type of modus operandi since it first overtook the Russian Empire back in 1917. If Dr. Anthony Hall is looking for an historical connection to the events of today all he needs to do is look at the Communist system that overran Europe beginning in the former Russian Empire and then spread its evil ideology throughout North America. Rocco Galati and “others” are wrong to equate the present political machinations of the Zionist Jews with Hitler and Germany and Dr. Hall is also remiss in having referenced them in connection with the Ottawa shooting.

—-

 

vt-logo2015b

hall

Is Harper’s Hate Speech Contaminating Canada?

Canada’s B’nai Brith Moves to Outlaw Free Speech and Academic Freedom
by Anthony Hall, Veterans Today
August 18, 2015

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/08/18/is-harpers-hate-speech-contaminating-canada/

As Dr. Kevin Barrett has reported, our recent book tour of Western Canada culminated in an attempt by the B’nai Brith to shut down our event on August 16 at the Rossdale Community League Hall in Edmonton, Alberta. Due in large measure to the principled fortitude of the community hall’s manager, Richard Awid, the event did take place.

Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 11.44.57 AM

The first half of the proceedings were monitored by two officers of the Edmonton Police Service’s Hate Crime Unit. The police officers may have been instructed to intervene in this way by officials of the B’nai Brith, the oldest “Jewish services” organization in North America.

The Canadian branch of the B’nai Brith is deeply intertwined with the federal government led by Prime Minister Stephen Harper whose current bid for re-election is arguably based on a steady and unrelenting stream of hate speech.

The Stephen Harper neocons are presently seeking a second majority mandate from the Canadian electorate by presenting themselves as the leaders of a anti-Muslim jihad campaign involving the Canadian Armed Forces, Canada’s heavily politicized police forces, together with the media empire of the New York-based Golden Tree Hedge Fund.

Paul Godfrey is the chief intermediary linking the Golden Tree investor group with the Zionist-dominated  Postmedia and Sun News outlets that dominate key facets of mass communications in Canada. The Postmedia newspaper chain was given its current extreme form of pro-Israel spin by former media mogul Conrad Black who initially hired Jonathan Kay.

Kay has authored a classic hate-speech diatribe including a calculated smear job directed at Dr. Barrett. Entitled Among The Truthers: A Journey into the Growing Conspiracist Underground of 9/11 Truthers, Birthers, Armageddonites, Vaccine Hysterics and Internet Addicts, Kay’s book was published by Rupert Murdoch’s media network.

Kay’s disinfo text received backing from the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies, a pro-Israel, anti-Iranian lobby group whose key membership is derived from the now notorious neocon think tank, the Project for the New American Century.

Stoking the Flames of Anti-Muslim Hatred Through Unsubstantiated Smear and Disinformation
I spoke to Richard Awid, the manager of the Rossdale Community League Hall close to the banks of the North Saskatchewan River in the capital of the oil-rich province of Alberta, now known widely as Texas North as well as Stephen Harper’s primary political base. In our conversation Mr. Awid explained to me that he is a Muslim whose Muslim ancestors arrived in Canada in 1901. Mr. Awid was somewhat dumbfounded that a small event at his community hall, “one of 100 such venues in Edmonton,” would elicit such an intense response from a very powerful organization in Toronto. He played back to me on his answering machine a recorded message he received at about 9 am on August 12 from Amanda Hohmann. Ms. Hohmann explained that she had received “a few complaints” about “Mr.” Kevin Barrett on the B’nai Brith’s “anti-hate hotline.” (1-416-633-6224; 1-800-892-2624)

Ms. Hohmann asserted that “Mr. Barrett is a known anti-semite conspiracy theorist, a Holocaust Denier, and 9/11 Denier and all sorts of other things.

Ms. Hohmann made no effort whatsoever to give background proof of her allegations or to identify the sources of the supposed “complaints.” Nevertheless she proposed to Mr. Awid that he should “cancel the event  and let Mr. Barrett know he is not welcome in Edmonton.”

Perhaps Ms. Hohman and her B’nai Brith colleagues have simply taken at face value the disinformation on Dr. Barrett published by Jonathan Kay in Among The Truthers. Apparently the B’nai Brith like Mr. Kay, one of the ghost writers of Justin Trudeau’s recent autobiography, felt it unnecessary to address the evidence of what did or did not happen on 9/11 before smearing those that have questioned various aspects of the now-thoroughly-discredited official cover story. Those that have taken the time to investigate the available evidence could rightfully conclude that the likes of Kay, Hohmann or the very unskeptical propagandist Michael Shermer, are the ones that best deserve deserve of the label, “9/11 Deniers.”

 

Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 11.45.11 AM

On the Genesis and Current Character of Mr. Netanyahu’s Global War on Terror
Mr. Awid explained how he felt compelled by the B’nai Brith’s alarming message to do due diligence in order investigate Ms. Hohmann’s unsupported allegations. He outlined for me how he did his own Internet research and contacted the Edmonton Police Service.

In discussing his own investigations Mr. Awid made it very clear that Stephen Harper and his Defense Minister, Jason Kenney, seem to be conducting their own hate speech campaign directed against Muslims as part of their electioneering.

Mr. Awid referred to the “ignorance” of top Conservative Party of Canada officials and their blanket targeting of Muslims generically as the “enemy” or as potential enemies. The inflaming and political exploitation of Islamophobia by the Canadian government’s reigning cabal is without a doubt wreaking havoc with the relative civil harmony that once characterized Canada before the election-fraud racketeers took charge in Ottawa.

Mr. Awid might have added that, by some calculations, about 4,000,000 Muslims have died so far from the so-called Global War on Terror, a psy-op fuelled by a toxic brew of hate speech disinformation.

Mr. Awid referred to the Tervor Aaronson’s The Terror Factory: Inside the FBI’s Manufactured War on Terror. That volume demonstrates that the FBI has played a major role in manufacturing and facilitating the very terrorism it claims to have pre-empted or solved. The manipulation of unstable individuals to provide the manufactured imagery of Islamic terrorism is the federal police force’s classic modus operandi.

As I have explained at length in an earlier article in Veterans Today, this type of manipulation by undercover agents in Canada (including the FBI?) probably formed the backstory to the shooting incident in Ottawa on Parliament Hill on October 22, 2014. This event was used to justify Bill C-51, now the Anti-Terrorism Act of 2015, which Rocco Galati and others have observed replicates much of the legislation supporting the fascist governments in Germany and Italy in the 1930s.

Screen Shot 2015-08-19 at 11.45.25 AM

As I wrote in “Witch Hunt on Terrorism,” my own article in We Are Not Charlie Hebdo: Free Thinkers Question the French 9/11, the Ottawa Shooting event of 10/22, (Oct. 22, 2014) initiated a series of apparent false flag events extending to Sydney Australia and then Paris France and then Copenhagen in Denmark.

The circulation of disinformation concerning such events to whip up anti-Muslim hysteria is itself hate speech of the most malicious kind giving sustenance to a kind of contemporary war against Islam whose major conceptual outlines can be traced back to the Jerusalem conference organized by Benjamin Netanyahu in 1979.

—-

Canadian Hate Squad cracks down on book talk by Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor with Anthony Hall

vt-logo2015bbarrett

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/08/17/canadian-police/

Canadian Hate Squad cracks down on book talk

by Kevin Barrett, Veterans Today Editor, with Anthony Hall

August 17, 2015

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

Edmonton, Alberta:-

The Edmonton Police Department’s  Hate Speech Squad has launched an investigation of a scholarly book that questions the War on Terror.

BANNED-IN-CANADA-427x640

On August 16th, two undercover EPD officers attended a book talk at the Rossdale Community League Hall in downtown Edmonton. The officers were investigating  We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo: Free Thinkers Question the French 9/11, which has apparently elicited complaints from B’nai Brith Canada.

Out of uniform and posing as ordinary audience members, the Hate Police officers watched my book talk.  During the intermission between my lecture and the subsequent presentation by University of Lethbridge professor Anthony Hall, the officers flashed their badges and identified themselves as members of the Hate Speech Squad. They said they had received a complaint referencing “conspiracy theories” and “anti-Semitism.” (How a scholarly book that includes essays by several highly accomplished and reputable Jewish contributors, as well as one by an even more Semitic Arab Muslim, can be called “anti-Semitic” is a mystery.)

The lead officer told me: “I didn’t see any problems with anything I heard during your lecture.” On behalf of the Department, he accepted an autographed copy of We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo dedicated “To the Edmonton Police Department Hate Speech Squad – thank you for thinking freely.” The officer said the book will be placed in the Departmental Library.

The Edmonton PD’s We Are NOT Charlie Hebdo investigation raises interesting questions. Are Canadian police departments now charged with giving a “thumbs up” or “thumbs down” to books and book talks? Are Hate Speech Squad officers getting training in literary criticism, investigative journalism and historiography so they can serve as competent peer reviewers and censors? Had the officers disapproved of the lecture, could they have arrested us? If they later read the book and dislike it, will it be banned in Canada? Conversely, if they like it, might they offer a blurb: “Terrific stuff! Certified 100% hate free by the Canadian hate police!”

But seriously, folks: Doesn’t the policing of books and book talks have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and academic freedom? And how and why did this particular book draw the attention of the Hate Police?

“The person who stated you were involved in hate crimes is Amanda Hohmann” emailed Joanne David, the Edmonton event organizer, to Anthony Hall. Amanda Hohmann is the Coordinator of the B’nai Brith Audit of Anti-Semitic Incidents.

Professor Hall was outraged: “They call themselves the B’nai Brith Audit of Anti-Semitism. Auditing! We live in an era of auditing fraud. The banksters are experts in disguising what’s going on through creative bookkeeping. It’s interesting that the concept of audit is now being applied to policing people’s ideas.”

So who was responsible for sending the Hate Police to our book talk? Anthony Hall was unable to get a straight answer:

“I called the B’nai Brith office but wasn’t able to speak to Amanda Hohmann. I asked to speak with CEO Michael Mofton and Senior Legal Counsel David Matas. I indicated it is a serious matter and that I have never been associated with a hate speech crime. So I want to know who complained, what is the nature of the complaint, is there  a text involved? It seems that someone said that our speaking was going to somehow be a violation of some hate speech principles. I wanted to know what the rules are, if there are any rules. Are people just free to snitch anonymously? Can people turn in their partner because they’re mad at him or her? It gets to the whole essence of the Global War on Terror, that people are subject to these repressions. They don’t know what they’re accused of, who is doing the accusing. There’s no due process. It’s an authoritarian police state atmosphere, an East German Stasi type of worldview. And this is creating maximum dissension, distrust and suspicion of one another. And this seems to be the agenda of neocon tyranny. Here we are right in the midst of an election. These issues are front and center. Bill C-51, now the Anti-Terrorism Act 2015, is like the Canadian Patriot Act. (Bill C-51 was passed in the wake of Canada’s 9/11, the Ottawa shooting of 10/22/2014.)

?ottawa-shooting-locations-620x330
The 10/22 false flag brought fascism to Canada

“The Anti-Terrorism Act empowers CSIS, the Canadian Security intelligence Service, to become a kind of Canadian gestapo. This raises the question: Is the B’nai Brith now an adjunct of CSIS? How are we to tell the difference between the B’nai Brith and the Harper government? And of course there’s so much irony, because the specious interpretations of 9/11, 10/22 (the Ottawa shooter event), the Charlie Hebdo event, and so on amount to hate speech! Their purpose is to generate hatred towards Muslims, and to whip up and instrumentalize and exploit Islamophobia for political gain to the neocons. So the agencies responsible for policing and arbitrating hate speech are deeply involved in generating a type of speech, and defending a type of speech, that creates great hatred towards Muslims.”

As of this writing, B’nai Brith has not returned Professor Hall’s phone calls asking for an explanation. Neither, for that matter, have the Edmonton Hate Police:

“I called the Edmonton Police Department. I couldn’t even find out the name of the officers. They gave me the phone number of the Hate Speech Unit. I called and left a message, but they haven’t gotten back to me.”

Richard Awid, manager of the Rossdale Community Center in Edmonton, said there had been several complaints asking him to cancel the event. The complaints were apparently vague and unsubstantiated. Awid, to his credit, stood his ground and allowed the book talk to proceed.

?IMG_0192-640x480
En route to Jasper with Anthony Hall

The Edmonton talk was the final episode of my five Canadian events with Anthony Hall. Two days earlier, our talk in Jasper was introduced by a forceful disclaimer disassociating the owner of the venue – the United Church of Canada – from the event.

Anthony Hall writes:
“This experience we went through in Jasper and especially in Edmonton seem to be a prelude to the kind of relationships  we can expect with the police, the government, and one another. This kind of thing is going to make the university as we’ve known it impossible. I can foresee security clearances for classes and Hate Police officers sitting in.”

In today’s Orwellian world, it seems that critical inquiry is being redefined as hate speech, radicalization, or even  terrorism.

The B’nai Brith Canada website states: “In the future, the League will explore further use of legal means to halt or disrupt the operations of known terrorist organizations with representatives in Canada. The B’nai Brith legal department will play a key role in this effort.”

Are scholarly books now considered a form of terrorism?

Anthony Hall adds: “I find it very troubling that there is this notion of ‘radicalization,’ that everyone just nods their heads assuming it means something. Are universities being defined as agents of radicalization, and professors considered their representatives?”

Hall adds: “The most extreme agent of radicalization in Canada right now is Stephen Harper and the cabal he represents. Imagine having a hate speech hotline when the Prime Minister is running on hate speech! The term he always uses (to incite hatred of Muslims) is ‘jihadism’.”

Fascism Comes to Canada: Stephen Harper One-Ups Leni Riefenstahl (watch this unbelievable video if you dare!)

Will anyone ever explain who sent the Hate Police to my book talk, and why? If those people made slanderous accusations, will they have to answer for them? Stay tuned to TruthJihad.com for updates.
—–

Let’s offend everyone all at once Public Service Announcement from RadicalPress.com

11822465_1011369455550260_3201501130005138086_n

Why are Canadians afraid to speak up? Heather Mallick

Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 3.17.51 PM

Opinion / Commentary
Why are Canadians afraid to speak up?

By Heather Mallick

Screen Shot 2015-06-03 at 3.17.21 PM
Canadians have grown quiet, afraid to speak up. Let’s change that.

 June 2nd, 2015

Canada is a less interesting place than it used to be. Or rather it is harder to be interesting in this country. It is harder to speak loudly or off-the-cuff, crack a joke, be wry, wear something other than grey trousers, use an unusual word, express a weird or even slightly fresh viewpoint, or discuss something not mentioned though often thought of.

Imagine a fabric map of Canada laid out over its entire landscape. I see a giant iron descending onto our nation, knocking chunks off the Rockies and planing the foothills. The Prairies are smoother than ever. The tall-poppy lopping machines have already been by. Ontario is being steamed and starched. Anyone who deviates or even pops their head up over the parapet with a bright remark will have it severed (“I’m crushing your head,” as Mr. Tyzik used to say on Kids in the Hall). The country is flatter than an airport runway. We are dull as dust, hiding under a groundsheet and waiting for better times.

Harper has put Canada into Silent Mode. Scientists are muzzled, the Supreme Court chief justice is openly attacked for bold notions that are not even that bold, the House of Commons is now a hallway that MPs shuffle through on their way to early pensions and corporate directorships, MPs and senators follow the party line, and Harper doesn’t take questions, not from the media, not in national debates, not anywhere.

And then there’s us. I’m not blaming all this on Harper. He is one of us; we elected him; he did not deceive us. We got the cunning, mean, anti-intellectual, resentment-choked, punitive, socially awkward man we knew him to be. Many of us found he had his uses.

I’ll happily take Thomas Mulcair or Justin Trudeau or a combination of the two, if only because they seem like normal, natural people who speak freely about where Canada should be headed, hopefully on high-speed trains. I understand Trudeau saying he’d support Big Brother Bill C-51 because he’ll just turn it into papier mâché once Harper’s gone.

But what if Harper doesn’t go?

With some honourable — and cherished — exceptions, journalists have been semi-chloroformed, the editorial process known as DullCheck having smothered the industry for years. I was astounded when a few journalists got a bit brave in their prose recently. Then I realized that they had taken a retirement buyout and the truth was rushing out. Where had they been hiding?

The crushing demand for sound bites and perfect behaviour throughout a politician’s life means that when a politician speaks honestly, he is pilloried. “Authenticity comes off as lunacy,” Jon Stewart said this week of the Beltway reaction to Democratic Senator Bernie Sanders’ perfectly reasonable economic proposals. Canada’s young MLAs are suspended for mistakes on social media, many of which are simply a hallmark of being young.

Noam Chomsky describes the state of things: “Either you repeat the same conventional doctrines everyone is saying, or else you say something true, and it will sound like it’s from Neptune.”

And then there’s shy watered-down Canadian journalism. We are warned never to bore readers and we do. It’s like homeopathy, the now-derided alternative treatment in which sick people are treated with tiny diluted doses of a substance that would in normal doses make a healthy person ill.

Lazy journalism and dull creative writing are homeopathic. If I may semi-quote the critic Julian Barnes, “homeopathic” is the word for “work whose artistic content is so dilute that it cannot have any more esthetic effect than a placebo.”

When you dilute your work in order not to offend the government, friends, editors and co-workers, you put your readers last, and journalism becomes less of a draw. Then it becomes a snore and then it dies.

There are many opinions worth offering simply for an airy sense of possibility. I dream of not dismantling the Gardiner Expressway but bombing the thing from the air or doing a controlled demolition — in which road crumples inward — followed by a fireworks display and a Berlin Wall-type Bacchanalia.

Free morning coffee for toddlers. Take a bulldozer to the RCMP. Close the Royal Military College. Offer free cargo bikes with the box in front (stable, and safer for children). Alter city zoning for architectural taste, for form as well as function.

New rules for media: a ban on cheap sentiment, bonuses for jokes, a mandated fresh angle on every story. We live in end times. Everything is up for grabs. So startle us. Write something unputdownable. Write something we can’t live without.

hmallick@thestar.ca

—–

SOURCE

Jews Continue Pressure for Internet Censorship by Andrew Joyce

FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP

ISRAEL-CENSORING

Jews Continue Pressure for Internet Censorship

Screen Shot 2015-05-19 at 10.57.08 PM

By Andrew Joyce @The Occidental Observer

May 19th, 2015

Back in March TOO came under sustained cyber-attack from the enemies of our people. This vital resource for truth was brought to a stand-still by a large number of bogus service requests, with Kevin MacDonald noting that one IP address in Israel “attempted to access the site 13,125 times within the span of three days.” Our mission of enlightenment and liberation is deeply loathed by those intent on bringing our race to its knees. The Occidental Observer is a truly unique site, and we can be sure that the commentary and research it continues to present is giving our enemies sleepless nights. I’m certain that TOO, and other sites sharing our goals and worldview, have a special place in the hateful hearts of the alien elite. They won’t stop until they have found a way to silence us. But cyber-attack is just one prong in this assault on truth and our right to self-determination. Another major frontline in the assault on our mission is the international legislative effort to permanently shut us down.

A few days ago the fifth biennial meeting of the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism convened in Israel. Run by the Israeli government, mainly its many-tentacled Foreign Ministry, the Global Forum makes a priority of fighting ‘cyber hate.’ A few days ago it issued statements recommending steps for international governments and major websites to radically restrict material critical of Jews and Israel. The Forum has also very cleverly presented the issue of restricting internet freedom as a moral imperative — our enemies are obviously playing to our weakness. A statement issued by the Forum on Thursday night read:

Given the pervasive, expansive and transnational nature of the internet and the viral nature of hate materials, counter-speech alone is not a sufficient response to cyber hate. The right to free expression does not require or obligate the internet industry to disseminate hate materials. They too are moral actors, free to pursue internet commerce in line with ethics, social responsibility, and a mutually agreed code of conduct.

The Forum should be seen as an exercise in the spread and influence of international Jewish power and activism. The number of representatives alone from various organizations totalled just over one thousand. That number also includes a number of non-Jewish representatives and delegates from governments under Jewish influence. The latest convention of the Forum, the largest of its kind in the world, included the Justice Ministers of Germany and Romania, the Education Minister of Bulgaria, the Mayor of Paris, and the Minister of State for Multiculturalism from Canada. More predictably, leaders from many of our most prominent opposition groups were in attendance, including the Anti-Defamation League; Simon Wiesenthal Center; American Jewish Committee; Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations; Conseil Représentatif des Institutions Juives de France; the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance; B’nai B’rith; World Jewish Congress; and the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy.

The ‘recommendations’ of the Forum include a demand to adopt “a clear industry standard for defining hate speech and anti-Semitism.” This, of course, would be a definition of ‘hate speech’ and ‘anti-Semitism’ that would serve Jewish interests most effectively. This definition would be sufficiently wide-ranging that it would preclude, under threat of severe punishment, any criticism of Jews or Israel. This effort cannot be seen as isolated but as part of a conscious broader, global strategy. In January I wrote in The Noose Tightens on Europe that:

The Guardian reports that European Jewish leaders, backed by a host of former EU heads of state and government, are preparing to call for pan-European legislation outlawing ‘anti-Semitism.’A panel of four prestigious international experts on constitutional law backed by the Orwellian European Council on Tolerance and Reconciliation (ECTR) have spent the last three years drafting a 12-page document on “tolerance”. In the wake of the Charlie Hebdo shootings, and in line with a renewed and intense Jewish drive for complete invulnerability, they are lobbying to have it converted into law in the 28 countries of the EU.

Efforts to enact legislation or enforce government policies that eliminate criticism of Jews and Israel are just another means to procure the immunity and special privileged status of Jews in our societies. To that end, the ‘cyber-hate’ activism is no different from more explicit efforts to criminalize anti-Semitism.

As part of its proceedings, the Global Forum hosted a panel chaired by “US special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism,” Ira Forman. Members of the panel included the head of the UK’s Cross-Government Hate Crime Programme, Superintendent Paul Giannasi, and anti-free speech academic Prof. Raphael Cohen Almagor. More importantly, the panel included Google’s Juniper Downs and Facebook’s Simon Milner. This mixture of law enforcement, academia, and internet behemoths points to increasing Jewish pressure in all of these areas, in addition to the continuance of pressure on governments to introduce laws against holding anti-Jewish attitudes. Indeed, Almagor openly called for ‘unity’ to combat ‘hate speech.’ The unity of whom? Not the White masses. He wants increased interactive efforts between governments, law officers, and anti-terrorism units, alongside companies and NGOs. He wants Big Brother to start watching you.

Attempting to provide some kind of context for this Brave New World, Jews are busily portraying themselves as being in grave danger. Anti-Defamation League National Director Abraham Foxman informed the Global Forum that current levels of anti-Semitism around the world are “the worst it’s been since the 30s. We’re living in an era where again anti-Semitism presents a clear and present danger to Jews in various communities. It’s global in its nature, and it’s endangering the lives of Jews—not just where they live or their livelihoods—and it has a dimension of terrorism, jihadism.” No mention from Foxman of the fact that jihadism in Europe and America is the product of Jewish efforts to open our borders to the alien refuse of humanity that perpetrate these foreign-influenced acts and murders on our streets.

In order to address this problem, Foxman said, it is necessary to provide “physical safety and security” for Jewish communities. I’ve already documented the level of safety and security given to this privileged minority (“The Return of the Protected Jewish Minority in Europe”), but note again the insatiable search for total immunity.

Foxman also wants to continuously encourage the narrative of Jewish victimhood. He was at pains to convince the conference of the need “to clearly identify and label both the perpetrators and victims.” He argued that “there is a reluctance to identify sometimes not even the perpetrators but also the victims. It’s a sort of political correctness,” Foxman said, citing Barack Obama’s reluctance to name those shot at the Hypercacher market in Paris as Jewish, calling them instead “a bunch of folks.” Bear in mind that this only works one way. Explicitly mentioning that a victim of a shooting is Jewish is something the ADL is crying out for — but explicitly mentioning the Jewishness of a fraudster, a Communist mass murderer, a serial killer, a degenerate pervert, or several usurpers of our society (see here, here and here) is something liable to put you behind bars in the near future. ‘Jewishness’ is a badge only opportunistically worn.

Jews are not content with the status quo of lobbying individual governments. They want the introduction of international laws and practices that leave no stone unturned, and no avenue for criticism left open.  They loathe the fact there is no unified global legislation, and that international fora provided by the internet continue to provide Whites around the world with the opportunity to come together and share strategies, information, and truths which may lead to their eventual rebirth.  The Global Forum has now called for the adoption of global terms of service prohibiting the posting of materials critical of Jews. Jews also want to ring-fence their narrative of Jewish casualties during World War II by introducing an international legal ban on “Holocaust denial sites.”

The Jewish plan to eliminate ‘anti-Semitism’ is comprehensive. Among the recommendations for combating anti-Semitism are proposals to:

  • adopt a formal definition of anti-Semitism applicable throughout the European Union and its member states under law including reference to attacks on the legitimacy of the State of Israel and its right to exist, and Holocaust denial as forms of anti-Semitism;
  • apply agreed standardized mechanisms for monitoring and recording incidents of anti-Semitism in all EU countries;
  • take urgent and sustained steps to assure the physical security of Jewish communities, their members and institutions;
  • direct education ministries to increase teacher training and adopt pedagogic curricula against anti-Semitism, and towards religious tolerance and Holocaust remembrance.

Further recommendations to governments include the establishment of national legal units responsible for combating ‘cyber hate’; making stronger use of existing laws to prosecute ‘cyber hate’ and ‘online anti-Semitism,’ and enhancing the legal basis for prosecution where such laws are absent. Make no mistake. Under the noses of the ignorant materialistic masses, the noose is tightening rapidly on free speech. Faced with unrelenting censorship and prison cells, the future of our movement is likely to be one driven further and further underground. This may or may not bode well for Jews since people pushed to extremes are rarely predictable, and often volatile.

But it won’t be the first time they have upped the ante with catastrophic results. Jewish history is repetitive and cyclical because this ostensibly intelligent people are seemingly incapable of learning from their mistakes. In the 1920s Jewish groups in Germany worked very hard to protect themselves against ‘hate speech,’ and even succeeded in the introduction of swathes of speech-restricting legislation and the total banning of the NSDAP. In Weimar Germany, insulting ‘communities of faith’ — Protestant, Catholic or Jew — was a punishable offence commanding up to three years’ imprisonment. The dissemination of ‘false rumour’ with the intention of degrading or showing contempt for other individuals could result in two years. Incitement to class warfare or acts of violence towards other social classes was also punishable by up to two years behind bars. These were all favorites of the Jewish community. Leading National Socialists such as Joseph Goebbels, Theodor Fritsch and Julius Streicher were all prosecuted for their utterances against Jewish influence. Streicher served two prison sentences.

Flemming Rose notes that “rather than deterring the Nazis and preventing anti-Semitism, the many court cases served as effective public relations machinery for Streicher’s efforts, affording him the kind of attention he never would have found had his utterances been made in a climate of free and open debate. Only weeks after Streicher was sentenced to two months imprisonment for anti-Semitism, the Nazis trebled their share of the vote at the state legislature election in Thuringia.” Bernhard Weiss, Vice-President of the Berlin police, regularly dragged Goebbels into court on charges of anti-Semitism. In all these cases brought against the future head of Nazi propaganda, the prosecution came out on top, yet according to one observer, in the public eye Weiss consistently ended up looking more like the loser, as Goebbels’ anti-Semitic invective found a platform in the public process. In the period 1923 to 1933, Der Stürmer was either confiscated or its editors taken to court on no fewer than 36 separate occasions. In 1928, the paper and its staff were the subjects of five litigations in the space of 11 days. These proceedings, however, gave the general public the impression that Streicher was more significant than perhaps was the case. Those instances where Streicher was sentenced to terms of imprisonment were a golden opportunity for him to present himself as a victim and martyr. The more charges he faced, the more he was admired. On those occasions on which he was sent to jail, Streicher was accompanied on his way by hundreds of sympathisers in “what looked like his triumphal entry into martyrdom.” In the Brave New World which may loom ominously in our future, we too may need to embrace the triumph of martyrdom as a price for ultimate victory.

Surveying recent developments in the bandit capital of Israel, we witness a further chapter in the incessant search of organized Jewry for total security. It is the same frantic search for peace that marks the thief or the murderer. Like the protagonist of Poe’s The Tell-Tale Heart, they are perpetually haunted by the prospect of discovery, resulting in that remarkable and notorious sensitivity. How apt the protestations of Poe’s madman: “True! Nervous — very, very dreadfully nervous I had been and am but why will you say that I am mad? The disease has sharpened my senses — not destroyed — not dulled them. Above all it was the sense of hearing acute. I heard all things in the heaven and the earth. I heard many things in hell. How then am I mad?”

Observe by comparison the curious sensitivity of Jewry. This people, enjoying unheard of wealth and power, remains troubled by the smallest sound of dissent — by the beating of its heart. The cry goes out ‘It must be extinguished!’

We won’t go quietly. Thank you for reading, for commenting, for continuing to support us in our work, and for holding back the day when our voice is silenced and a new stage in this ageless conflict is forced to begin.

••••88••••

 

FREE SPEECH ON TRIAL: Buddhist activist Brian Ruhe interviews RadicalPress.com Publisher Arthur Topham

Brian Ruhe interview A.T.

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 1 of 7
https://youtu.be/xA5juFE_F2g

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 2 of 7
https://youtu.be/R8jddUc9Z2U

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 3 of 7
https://youtu.be/4tp9hnpU-DM

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 4 of 7
https://youtu.be/zBOor3Gu2E0

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 5 of 7
https://youtu.be/RVbz4FuwVg8

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 6 of 7
https://youtu.be/eY7Ewjv5kCU

Arthur Topham’s Free Speech on Trial – 7 of 7
https://youtu.be/TjBMCf-p4zM

——-

 Full 2 Hour Video:

 

First they came for the Socialists… by Robby Porter

FreedomofExpressionPorterOCLA

Kourosh Ziabari Interview with Canadian Professor Denis Rancourt – Fars News Agency

KouroshInterviewRancourtHdr

RPEdNew400 copy

Editor’s Note: The following interview with Professor Rancourt is undoubtedly one of the finest contributions toward a greater understanding of how the West has been slowly taken over by the Zionist agenda. Whether we wish to view it (as Professor Rancourt appears to), as the American Empire using Israel for its own greater hegemonic agenda or whether we tend to see it as World Jewry’s take-over of the American government via stealth in order to commandeer its resources and exploit them for Zionism’s global conquest, Rancourt’s analysis of how this process has unfolded to the ongoing detriment of the Palestinian people is superlative.
 
The interview also succinctly explains the depth and degree of collusion which the various Zionist forces and their sycophants here in Canada went to in order to illegally remove Professor Rancourt from his academic position at the University of Ottawa and then to further exacerbate his unjust treatment by pursuing him with a defamation suit that basically bankrupt the man. Such extremely vexatious acts on the part of Allan Rock and the University of Ottawa, aided and abetted by Canada’s Zionist-controlled media, border on sadism and are a vivid reminder of just how cruel and criminal the Zionist cartel can be when it comes to protecting its own racket of death and destruction at any cost should Canadians have the audacity to exhibit their lawful constitutional right to freedom of expression. In this case Professor Rancourt’s only “crime” was to question the right of Israel’s ongoing genocide of the Palestinian people.
 
I suppose Denis Rancourt might be expected to consider himself lucky that he wasn’t also slapped with a sec. 319(2) Criminal Code of Canada “Hate Propaganda” charge on top of all the other woes he’s been subjected to by the Zionist-controlled judiciary here in Canada. I’m sure that they would love to send him to jail for a couple of years just as they are trying to do to me in order to reinforce their intimidation and threats to all of Canada’s academia never to question their authority or their evil designs.
 
Professor Rancourt has taken a courageous stand and like myself he needs your help in order to defend himself against all of these spurious charges that have resulted from his expressing his opinions on matters relevant to Canada’s democratic principles. For further information and contact please see:
Email contact: denis.rancourt@gmail.com

Funding campaign

Bio

————

KouroshPortrait copy 2

Kourosh Ziabari – Fars News Agency: A Canadian scholar and academic, who was fired from the university where he was teaching because of his pro-Palestinian viewpoints, believes the US government is funding and supporting Israel for its continued bloodletting in the Middle East.

According to Prof. Denis Rancourt, Israel’s plan in the Middle East is ethnic cleansing and the total obliteration of Palestine and its citizens in order to realize a colonial, imperial agenda backed by the US military, economic and finance empire.

“Israel’s program is to eradicate or neutralize all Palestinians who make claim to a home in Palestine. This is exactly what Israel has been doing since before its artificial creation,” said Prof. Rancourt in an exclusive interview with Fars News Agency.

“Israel’s program is planned incremental dispossession and an ongoing attempted genocide. This has been repeatedly and explicitly expressed by the Zionist architects and executioners,” he noted.

Prof. Denis Rancourt has also praised the resistance movement in the Gaza Strip for its steadfastness against the Israeli aggression during the past two months, maintaining that it was awe-inspiring that Hamas could kill some 70 invading Israeli soldiers.

Denis Rancourt is a former professor of physics at the University of Ottawa. In the fall of 2008, he was removed from all teaching duties under the pretext that he had granted A+ grades to 23 students in one course during the winter 2008 semester; however, it’s quite clear to everybody that his outspoken criticism of Israel and his pro-Palestinian activism had triggered his dismissal from the university. Prof. Rancourt’s classes were always attended by tens of students and he was considered as one of the popular university professors at the Faculty of Science.

Rancourt has published more than 100 academic papers. He was a member of Ottawa-Carleton Institute for Physics and the Ottawa-Carleton Geoscience Centre. He is the author of the book “Hierarchy and Free Expression in the Fight Against Racism.”

During the Israeli war on the Gaza Strip that just ended on August 26 following the victory of Hamas and the declaration of ceasefire between the Israeli regime and the resistance movement, FNA did an interview with Prof. Denis Rancourt on the influence of the Israeli lobby over the media, politicians and universities in the West, the history of Israel-Canada relations and the international reactions to the recent Israeli war on Gaza. The following is the text of this in-depth interview.

Q: What’s your viewpoint regarding the influence of the Israeli lobby on the universities and academic unions in the West, especially in the North America? The case of your dismissal from your position as a professor at the University of Ottawa was simply one of numerous instances showing that the Israeli lobby can easily manipulate the university officials in the West into making illegal decisions and expelling the disobedient academicians, just like the Prof. Steven Salaita who has been recently fired from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign for his comments criticizing the Israeli massacre in the Gaza Strip. How has Israel gained such an influence over the academic institutions in the West?

A: The Israel Lobby has the role of chief-whip for the US military-economic-finance empire; Empire, for short. That is, the Lobby ensures doctrinal discipline among Western, that is, US-aligned politicians, intellectuals, and the media, regarding the Empire’s Middle East policy. I mean “intellectual” in the broad sense of any professional who has influence, and “media” in the broad sense of anyone who communicates to others.

The Empire’s main geopolitical focus presently is the Middle East, where the Empire is dedicated to actively and continuously prevent liberation and coalescence of Arab nations, so as to keep control of the territory and the energy resources. To achieve this, the Empire’s main policy in the Middle East is Israel, which is charged with continual war and sabotage against all Middle Eastern entities that would vie for independence from the Empire.

Thus, the Empire, via Israel, is embarked on a vicious and murderous project without an end in the Middle East, and this unsavory project must be sold to the Empire’s home populations, including both managers and ordinary citizens. That is the role of the Israel Lobby; to sell Israel and the continuous and deliberate carnage as acceptable and unavoidable.

That is why the Israel Lobby is actively engaged is creating Islamophobia, in exaggerating anti-Semitism, in constructing Nazi-holocaust remembrance, in suppressing academic freedom, in suppressing freedom of the press, in “finding” and pursuing alleged “terrorists”, in developing anti-speech [or] “anti-hate” laws, in promoting cultural ties with Israel, in attacking Muslim associations, and so on.

As such, the work of the Israel Lobby includes hundreds of ongoing campaigns to intimidate, discipline, fire, and vilify academics who dare to be critical of Israel or of US Middle East policy. The list of shut-out and targeted academics is a long one and includes the well-known cases of Joel Kovel, Ward Churchill, Norman Finkelstein, James Petras, Terri Ginsberg, William Robinson, David F. Noble, Steven Salaita, Iymen Chehade, and many others. The more an academic is threatening to the Lobby, the more aggressively that academic is attacked.

My own case is also an example. I was a tenured Full Professor of physics at the University of Ottawa in Canada’s capital city. I am an internationally recognized researcher and I taught in both the Faculty of Science and the Faculty of Arts. I was publicly critical of the university president’s paid trip to Israel. I invited Palestinian speakers into my classrooms to talk about Gaza, and geopolitical analysts who were critical of Israel. These moves led to condemnation of me in the Zionist mainstream media, and to discipline, which was overturned. In 2008, a new university president – Allan Rock – who is a staunch and unconditional supporter of Israel and who had been Canada’s Zionist ambassador to the UN, became immediately motivated to fire me, tenure or not, and irrespective of my popular courses and my large science research funding.

A.RockMug

With the help of an entire team using specially-hired union-busting lawyers, after contriving for years including intensive covert surveillance of me using a hired-student spy to monitor my every spoken and written word and my every activity on campus and at other university campuses, the university finally settled on the false pretext for dismissal of alleging that I had improperly assigned high grades to all 23 students in an advanced physics course. They needed a “clean” pretext that they hoped would be supported by public opinion and that would not bring out all of their dirt. When public opinion and some mainstream media sided with me instead, a high-profile Zionist columnist at the New York Times suddenly wrote not-one but two articles to discredit me, and was invited to Canada to falsely defame me, regarding my teaching, on a trend-setting Canadian TV talk show whose producers are Zionists.

Even after I was fired, as I continued to be publicly critical of the institution, the university funded a large defamation lawsuit against me which, after almost four years, has entirely washed-out my personal savings, and over which I was ordered to pay a total of legal costs and damages in excess of one million dollars, that I can never pay. I am presently struggling to generate the funds to pay the costs of court-transcripts for the appeal that has been filed. My funding campaign is endorsed by the Ontario Civil Liberties Association, which also has a campaign that condemns the university’s unlimited funding of the lawsuit against me using public money.

Although the university had many and mixed unstated and illegitimate reasons for wanting to fire me – such as my defiance and outspokenness in several areas, my popular courses and public events, and my support of student and community activism, I have no doubt that I was fired because the new Zionist university president Allan Rock – former Ambassador to the UN, and former Canadian federal government minister – wanted me out and silenced at any cost, and knew that he could count on support from the Zionist establishment. Under cross-examination, the dean testified that the pre-dismissal lockout of my graduate students and I from our laboratory was directed from above by Allan Rock. This president knew my firing would be seen as a good deed by the powerful Zionist establishment that he is part of. Years before I was ultimately fired, it had already been pronounced in the media that my firing was necessary and was desirable because of the “anti-Semitic” nature of my courses, to the great dismay and protests of many of my students.

After I was escorted off campus in handcuffs by police and charged with “trespassing” while I was still a tenured professor, and since my firing in 2009, Allan Rock has been systematically transforming the University of Ottawa into an institutional instrument at the service of Canada’s accelerating “globalist” agenda, and at the service of legitimizing Israel’s role in that agenda — rather than actually prioritizing the learning environment for students in Ottawa, an environment that is in dire need of an overhaul.

Allan Rock needed me out of the way. The Empire needs critics of the Empire out of the way. And the Israel Lobby needs anyone who threatens the acceptance of Israel’s crimes out of the way.

Q: Why has the criticism of Israel become so costly in the West? Why are the academicians, media personalities and other public figures who dare to question the policies and practices of Israel being immediately vilified and denigrated as anti-Semitist? Moreover, why don’t the mainstream media in the West ever give coverage to the viewpoints critical of Israel or exposing its violations of international law?

A: The mainstream media is a highly perfected arm of the Empire’s propaganda apparatus, as are Hollywood, the music industry, video games, and so on. The barely-maintained illusions of freedom of the press and of artistic freedom only make the propaganda more effective.

The propaganda apparatus is an integral part of the Empire’s military structure. The Israel Lobby is an added structure for direct and forceful control of politicians and intellectuals concerning the role of Israel as the Empire’s main thug in the Middle East.

The Empire’s Israel-based violent control in the Middle East, in turn, gives control over energy and wealth, via both the energy itself and energy transportation routes, and helps to ensure that the US-dollar remains the petro-dollar and, thus, the World currency, which the US prints at will.

In this way, the Empire both maintains its main instrument of global exploitation, namely finance-extortion based on the US-dollar and enforced with military might, and suppresses the development of its main competitors by strategically controlling the energy market via sanctions, pricing, and directed profits. That is the Empire’s working theory, which is realistically achievable thanks to absolute military dominance.

Within this scheme, the Israel Lobby at home is in a symbiotic relation with the Empire. The two are inseparable as long as the Empire’s main geopolitical focus is the Middle East, and as long as the Empire’s main policy in the Middle East is Israel. This is why one finds a strong and visible Israel Lobby satellite in every Western nation that is aligned with the Empire: Canada, France, Australia, and so on.

The two elements that give the Israel Lobby its raison d’etre – namely, the Empire’s main geopolitical focus on the Middle East, and Israel as the Empire’s main policy in the Middle East – are not necessarily good for the Empire. But the Israel Lobby has gotten too powerful; to the point of being able to largely dictate the Empire’s geopolitical priorities, and the Empire’s goals.

Thus, the Israel Lobby has to a large extent overrun the US democracy. It is not presently possible for US politicians to objectively and freely discuss Israel’s role and the Empire’s foreign policy. Virtually no US politician has the backbone to do so. US critics of Israel who are sufficiently threatening are crushed, and the US establishment fully participates in these mobbings.

When the stakes are so high, it is impossible for the Israel Lobby to relax its aggressive stance against all ideological threats. The Lobby considers its intimidation campaigns to be necessary for its own survival. It uses bribery, extortion, and propaganda at every level to discipline all who need to be reminded of which peoples most need to be killed on the planet.

Q: Canada has usually been one of the major advocates and supporters of the Tel Aviv regime since its establishment in 1948, either financially, politically or militarily and has always justified its racist policies in the Occupied Territories publicly. Somewhere in a 2011 article, you noted that Canada does not have much significant trade ties with Israel, and is a net exporter of oil and gas itself. So, why do you think the Canadian politicians continue to offer their “unwavering support” to Israel and rationalize its atrocities against the besieged people of Gaza? Why does Canada always lobby to dissuade world countries from voting against Israel in the UN resolutions? In what ways does Canada benefit from backing Israel?

A: Interestingly, it was Allan Rock – the same man who engineered my firing from the University of Ottawa – who, in 2004, under Paul Martin’s Liberal government and as Canada’s Ambassador to the UN, changed Canada’s longstanding position on Israel from abstaining on human rights resolutions for Palestine to being one of the few countries in the World that vote with the US and Israel against UN human rights resolutions for Palestine.

The complete selling of Canada to the US started prior to Martin, notably at the hands of Conservative Prime Minister Brian “free trade” Mulroney who thereby destroyed the Conservative party for more than a decade. Martin continued the job of selling Canada. Paul Martin engineered a takeover of the Liberal Party of Canada from the last Prime Minister Jean Chrétien who was moderately independent, or wanted to appear to be, and Martin proceeded to wreck that party into oblivion, with the help of other Zionists such as Rock and Harvard-based import Michael Ignatieff who also wrote academic arguments to legitimize torture “in an age of terror”, and others. At present, all three major parties [of] Conservative, NDP, and Liberal are led by ultra-Zionists, which is no accident. Harper, in particular, vehemently demonizes Iran, in what can only be understood as a criminally irresponsible call for a war of aggression, in line with a well-known Israeli desire.

The reason that Canada gives unconditional diplomatic support to Israel is the same as with all states aligned with the Empire. There is no choice on that issue because Israel is a major component of the Empire’s World-domination apparatus. The Israel Lobby is existentially committed to keeping things that way. The widespread tolerance and political adoration of the anti-democratic Israel Lobby in the US suggests that it is now not unreasonable to entertain an analysis of the Empire as a US-Israel Empire, as though the elite-bosses that run the global military-finance exploitation enterprise had effectively merged across US-Israel lines.

The other main Western states vie to align themselves in order to be on the receiving side of the Empire’s global exploitation project. This alignment is the most disgusting and vicious enactment of global racism in human history – largely surpassing its immediate predecessor that was the British Empire – that directly targets indigenous populations in the developing and emerging world, whether or not these populations support resistance movements. In this regard, a color-coded world map of diplomatic stance regarding Israel is identical to a world map of the global exploitation by the states aligned with the Empire.

Canada, in particular, is more than aligned. Canada is truly a vassal state of the US, with virtually complete integration in the political, corporate, security, military, cultural, and intelligentsia spheres. It is not uncommon for high-ranking “Canadian” politicos to have been trained at Harvard. The entertainment and sports enterprises are seamlessly the same, except for Quebec to some degree. This deepening integration has been accompanied by a loss of Canadian nationalism, a dramatically increased Israel Lobby presence, a dumbing down of the provincial education systems, an abandonment of natural-resources ownership, a near-total loss of resistance to foreign corporate ownership, frightening mimicry in the cultural, political, statutory, military, police, etc., fields, and so on.

Years ago, as one personal anecdote, I was shocked to find that the airport security in Ottawa, for an internal flight in Canada, was being managed by a US firm, that the security employees were US citizens, spoke with heavy US accents, and did not speak French – Canada is bilingual, and Ottawa is its capital. I was on stolen Canadian soil being processed by US security personnel. That is now the norm. Canadian citizens have a lot of work to do if they want to effectively oppose US and Israeli crimes against humanity.

Of course the local Canadian establishment needs to benefit from Canada being a vassal state of the Empire. So your question of how does Canada benefit is a fair one. The first answer is that Canada is allowed to share in the plunder practiced by the Empire, to a limited and controlled degree. In addition, Canada is given a share of the Empire’s military economy, in terms of military manufacturing contracts, and is temporarily allowed to have a First World standard of living, even though it must permit its natural resources to be plundered.

Also, Canada is a major producer of oil from tar sands that are relatively expensive to exploit. Wars and imposed sanctions in the Middle East increase the price of oil, which serves the Canadian energy sector well, in terms of political benefits. The price of gas is also increased, which inadvertently serves Russia. Thus, Russia must be sanctioned and cut off from the European market. Enter Ukraine, etc. Energy is geopolitics and Canada, as a major energy producer, “chooses” to be on the side of the big guns.

Q: What do the ordinary Canadian citizens, and the young generation of Canadian people think about Israel and its ongoing campaign of carnage and genocide in the besieged Gaza Strip? Do they sympathize with the major Canadian parties, including the Conservatives, Liberals and the NDP in their unwarranted support for Israel?

A: Political participation in Canada is a farce. By statute – thanks to former Liberal Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau – all local political candidates must be approved and certified by the party leader. Therefore, unlike in the UK where local party members can choose their representatives and where parliamentary rule actually means something, there is no representative democracy whatsoever in Canada. It does not take a PhD in political science to understand this. The employment and career of each Member of Parliament depends on obeying party discipline, and the party bosses are selected and positioned by powerful private interests predominantly represented by the Israel Lobby.

Ordinary Canadians, young and old, understand that politics does not include them. Consequently, political participation is low. The smaller the citizen’s possible influence, the less [they] participate, logically. In Canada – like in most places where citizens do not feel overly threatened by their governments or by foreign influences or by war – effective political allegiance is hired directly using widespread partisan employment, by the government, the public institutions, the private corporations, the hired lobbies, and the non-government organizations. In addition, superficial popular acceptance of fake agendas is bought via disguised propaganda projected by the “educational” system, the media, and the hired “experts” from all sectors. This works brilliantly because most professional workers are fully indoctrinated into the system.

Among aware Canadians, however, there is great concern about Israel’s crimes in Gaza. This concern and resulting outrage are significant, as is evident from the massive media and public-relations counter campaigns to legitimize Israel’s war crimes.

Canadian civil society is recognizing and organizing against the Israel genocide that continues to unfold. There has been a significant backlash against the public positions of the leaders of the three major parties, and this backlash has caused the NDP in particular to do some damage-control. A Member of Parliament even resigned from the NDP over the issue, which is a first in Canada. Furthermore, in reporting the carnage in Gaza, the mainstream media was feeling the pressure to not completely follow the most absurd dictates of the Israel Lobby regarding media strategy.

The recent public demonstrations in support of Gaza, held in every major Canadian city, were massive, by Canadian standards. The pro-Palestine demonstrations that I attended in Ottawa had hundreds and thousands of participants and were among the largest that I have ever witnessed. More importantly, the demonstrators were from across Canadian society and were profoundly moved and committed, more than I have ever seen for any broad Canadian foreign policy matter. Consequently, the mainstream media was forced to report these demonstrations in a somewhat balanced fashion, under the threat of losing credibility.

Thus, there is a significant enough gap, between the extreme Zionism of the political party leaders and public opinion on Gaza, that it is possible that there could be a large and lasting popular backlash that would change the public political discourse and force the Lobby to be less overt. I more than hope that this backlash will be of formidable magnitude and that it will occur at an accelerated pace, in order to create and recover the dignity of Canadians, to bring Canadians into the World, and to bring maximum support to the Palestinian resistance.

Q: During its more than 50 days of incursion into the Gaza Strip, Israel continually bombed the civilian areas, hospitals, mosques and schools. The deliberate targeting of the civilians is a crime under international law. Why is Israel persistent on violating international law while its leaders know what they’re doing is not humane and defendable? Is it because Israel has been enjoying immunity from accountability thanks to the public diplomatic, political and financial support it receives from the United States?

A: It is criminally and morally disgusting that Israel continued to bomb Gaza during the negotiations for the agreement that led to a halt to further Israeli attacks for an “unlimited period”. It is utterly disgusting that Israel murdered the wife and a daughter and a son of the Hamas military commander Mohammed Deif during negotiations. Israel continued to murder Hamas opponents during negotiations. This is abominable. It is difficult to comprehend this degree of disregard by Israel for basic human decency, not to mention international law. This tells us that Israel never negotiated in good faith, and that the “negotiated” agreement cannot possibly represent any measure of interim justice.

The Palestinian resistance in Gaza is awe-inspiring, having killed some 70 invading soldiers that were part of one of the most technologically advanced militaries in the World, and Gazans having sustained unspeakable civilian death, displacement, and destruction. However, Israel is in fact mainly contained by the global political and popular reactions to its crimes. The US cannot afford to convince the World that it is a genocidal-maniac nation, whether it is or not. This would seriously impair the Empire, domestically, with allies, and in its arenas of exploitation.

This is why the Empire funds and supports Israel for the constant bloodletting in the Middle East, and covertly trains and funds proxy thugs wherever it cannot sell a direct intervention, such as in Syria. Make no mistake, the US runs a global empire, with over 1,000 military bases spread in every corner of the globe, but it cannot be perceived in Western circles as an outright purveyor of ruthless and unlimited terror. Just don’t ask Latin Americans what they know from lived experience.

In this regard, a reality that protects the world from US-Israeli ravages is the fact that, more and more, there are Muslim, Latin American, etc., populations in the US and in the aligned countries, such as the Muslim citizens of the UK, and the Latin Americans in the US. This, in turn, explains the growing government fixations on preventing immigration and systemically targeting profiled refugees for deportation. It also explains the police-state occupation and incarceration in the US of the Black and Hispanic less-integrated social classes.

Basically, all the survival, self-defense, and liberation struggles against and from-within the Empire share a common oppressor. These struggles can greatly benefit from Western middle class allies, and from Western middle class indignation. The elite management class has connections to the professional class, which is largely from the middle class, and so on. In this way, “public opinion”, beyond simply most members of the public having some superficial opinion, can pressure towards rejecting the most egregious abuses of the Empire.

Q: In response to Israel’s deadly military operation against the Gaza Strip, the United States simply said that Israel has a right to defend itself, and a right to exist. Are these rights, including a right to exist, contingent upon the destruction of the entire civilian infrastructure in a coastal territory that has been under siege for some 7 years, and the blowing up of its unarmed citizens? Do the US politicians really think this way or are pretending that they’re not aware of the realities of Gaza on the ground?

A: The “right to exist” and “right to defend itself” postures of Israel are ridiculous sophistries that a child can recognize as such. Israelis have a right to not be displaced arbitrarily without a just process. That process must weigh all the facts related to Israel’s long-term genocidal policies and actions of population cleansing and annexing of territory. It must also respect international law, and respect unrescinded UN resolutions. And, it cannot reward continued violations by Israel of the said UN resolutions regarding territorial lines.

The Israeli spin concocted to justify Israel’s gruesome crimes of war is so insulting to the intellect that in itself it could be considered a crime, a crime of language, if it made any sense to have such a category of crimes. Indeed, if it were advisable to condone the development of a criminal law for “hate speech”, then Israel’s spin, uttered in the context of its massacres in Gaza, should certainly qualify as “hate speech”.

As usual, Israel turns everything on its head. The Israel Lobby seeks “hate speech” laws to be enacted in all the aligned states, to prevent criticism of Israel, as being “anti-Semitic” speech of course. This explicitly exists in France, and persists in Canada, where one elderly Canadian citizen was sent to jail in Germany for years for printed publications denying “the” holocaust. Here, the Lobby finds allies in well-meaning middle-class advocates of purified language who wrongly and self-servingly believe that racism can and should be reduced by strict language and social behaviour codes.

If it were serious about discussing rights, Israel would admit the Palestinian rights of return and of self-determination. It would respect the right to life and liberty enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. It would respect the Geneva Conventions on military occupation. It would release all of its Palestinian prisoners. It would stop using its mass-killing machine against civilians, and so on. After that, it would also agree to be judged independently in making substantial reparations to all Palestinians, especially those occupied and the refugees.

Q: The United Nations has just appointed a fact-finding committee to probe into Israel’s possible war crimes during its recent military operation against the Gaza Strip. Do you see the political will and determination in the United Nations to really hold Israel accountable and investigate its criminal conduct in an impartial and fair way?

A: We’ll see. The more interesting question is whether citizens will provide a significant backlash if the commissioners do not properly do what must be done. And, will Israel and the Empire succeed in derailing this UN commission of inquiry into Israel’s war crimes?

Will this commission allow the UN to salvage some credibility? Will the Lobby succeed in its personal attacks against the commission’s chairman? Will anything significant on the ground come from the legalistic exercise?

Nothing significant has come from the UN in the past. This Gaza massacre was as criminal and as evil as the previous one. The only evolution has been the development of the remarkable Gazan military resistance, from killing three invading soldiers in the previous land incursion, to some 70 Israeli soldiers this time. We can only hope that this progression will continue, enough to deter Israel.

Q: What do you think is the reason for Israel’s obduracy in keeping the blockade of Gaza Strip in place and its continued refusal to lift it? Is the siege going to serve certain purposes, such as the demonization of Hamas and turning the residents of Gaza against it?

A: Israel’s program is to eradicate or neutralize all Palestinians who make claim to a home in Palestine. This is exactly what Israel has been doing since before its artificial creation. Israel’s program is planned incremental dispossession and an ongoing attempted genocide. This has been repeatedly and explicitly expressed by the Zionist architects and executioners.

Over 300 Nazi Holocaust survivors and their descendants recently signed an open letter, published as an advertisement in the New York Times, calling what Israel is doing what it is, genocide. Israel’s attempted genocide of Palestinians is also expressly cheered-on by many Israeli citizens and by members of the Zionist diaspora of all religions.

Therefore, the Israeli apartheid is not meant as a sustained apartheid. It is an increment in the attempted genocide that accompanies the racist pillaging of land and resources. The massacres in Gaza and the collective punishments against Gazans can be understood only in this context.

As such, Israel will continue the gruesome intimidations of all sorts, which are Israel’s history, and which are intended to cause Palestinians to flee from Palestine. Israel wants Gaza. And, Israel wants all Palestinians out of the greater Israel that it is creating.

The US accepts Israel’s crimes against Palestinians because the US “accepts” Israel’s conviction that this is necessary for Israel’s “security”. The US acceptance of the Zionist genocide is part of the negotiated understanding between the Empire and Israel. The US propaganda about seeking restraint is purely deflection and risk management for the Empire.

Furthermore, Israel knows that a real impediment to its greater design, its final solution, is Palestinian armed resistance, presently limited to Gaza. Israel, therefore, has an illegitimate military objective to strangle the armed resistance and to murder its leaders and closest enablers, and the Zionists willfully disregard international law to pursue this aim. It is a classic dirty war of extermination of popular armed resistance. If Israel cannot kill the armed resistance, then it plans to expel and kill the population that supports the resistance. In any case, it wants Gaza.

Within this criminal mentality, there is no way that Israel will voluntarily relax the blockade. The fight to dissolve the blockade, and even just to have Israel respect the general language of the ceasefire agreement to ease restrictions at the Gaza border crossings, will be continuous and arduous.

This is what Israel does. It strangles Palestinians. Only real pressures can slow Israel and, one day soon, turn it around. Things can happen. Populations can enforce democratic rule. Leaders can side with popular movements. Anything is possible when resisters everywhere become committed and determined. It happened in the recent past with liberation struggles everywhere when the British Empire was forced to retract, and with civil rights and democratized institutions in the 1960s. It’s happening in Latin America now. It’s happening on the streets. It can happen again and everywhere.

This interview was originally published on Fars News Agency.

——-

So-called “Hate Crimes” a Radical Press public service announcement

HateCrimesPosterFinal-800

An Open Letter to all Truth Deniers & Holocaust Believers By Arthur Topham

OpenLet2TruthDeniers&HolocaustBelievers

An Open Letter to all Truth Deniers and Holocaust Believers

By

Arthur Topham

August 22nd, 2014

 

RPEditor400

[Editor’s Preface:

What sparked this open letter to those who still believe in what historical revisionist and author Arthur R. Butz called “The Hoax of the Twentieth Century: The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry” (the title of his 1976 book that demolished forever the mythological basis for what, in my estimation, was, and remains, the most colossal and earth-threatening lie ever to have been told to mankind) was a comment from a person (Nick Inglis) on a post that I had submitted to a local Quesnel, B.C. Facebook group of which I was a member at the time. It was the standard “guilty by association” ploy that both Jews and their deluded gentile lackeys in the west perpetually use whenever they don’t have anything intelligent to offer to a debate. In this case the fellow who posted it appeared to be a member of the science faculty at a B.C. university in the southern region of the province. Given that the author of comment represented what might be called a member of Canada’s intelligentsia I felt it was time to inform those of his mindset of a few things that they were unwittingly overlooking in their efforts to sustain this massive falsification that has plagued the world since 1945.]

_______

Dear Nick Inglis, Truth Deniers & Holocaust Believers:

While out getting firewood yesterday I got to thinking about your August 16th comment on the WTF Quesnel FB group where you had remarked on a post of mine, “I wonder what Councillor Thapar would think about being used as a reference to support a Holocaust denier.”

Apart from the fact that your words were obviously meant to imply “guilt by association” between myself and Quesnel City Councillor Sushil Thapar, thus reflecting badly on the councillor, that aspect of your comment wasn’t what I was meditating on while falling the beetle-killed pines along the Cariboo roadside.

It appears (from clicking on your FB profile) that you have begun a new job with the Biology Faculty at Kwantlen Polytechnic University in Surrey, B.C.  It was this point that caught my attention and got me thinking further about your remark concerning the fact that I don’t believe in the 6 Million myth and therefore am a prime candidate for labelling as a “Holocaust denier” by the Zionist Jews and those like yourself who support their psychopathy.

As someone who appears to be involved in science it begs the question as to why you would be so quick to make such an accusation against me and also why you would be buying into the “Holocaust” fiction in the first place given that your profession rests, for the most part, upon reason, logic and provable facts rather than assertions, accusations, emotions and beliefs (as odd, inconceivable and incomprehensible as they may be).

As a scientist I’m certain you must be aware of the situation that the 16th Century Italian physicist, mathematician, astronomer and philosopher Galileo found himself in when he discovered (thanks to his newly designed telescope) that his predecessor Nicolaus Copernicus’ theory that the Earth and all of the planets actually revolved around the Sun rather than the opposite world view  – one that postulated the Earth was the center of our Universe – was, in fact, true.

You must also be aware of the persecution, ignominy and lifetime incarceration that Galileo underwent thanks to the machinations of the Roman Catholic Church when he refused to recant his position, all of which relates to this 20th century phenomenon that the Jews have, with wilful and intentional malice, forced upon the world via their monopolistic control of all major media sources coupled with their inordinate financial and political influence over western nations and politicians (as has now become so patently obvious during the latest round of genocide in Gaza wherein no western “leader” has shown the courage or fortitude to question and demand a stop to the needless slaughter of thousands of innocent men, women and especially children).

It was the Renaissance Nick that first gave birth to what we now call the Scientific Method – a time, after centuries of darkness and ignorance, when man’s inquisitive and skeptical mind and spirit of inquiry finally burst forth in open opposition to the then accepted Authority of the day. Without this method of approaching any hypothetical question and proving it with verifiable facts the world would still be held in throng to superstition and religious speculation rather than actual truth. Given this new reality that the world adopted over four hundred years ago I fail to understand how you, as a scientist, can equate (and justify) making ILLEGAL the questioning of anything; be it a scientific theory, an accepted fact of nature or, even the fiction of “6 Million Jews” having been gassed to death and then cremated in ovens in German occupied territory during WW2?

Cannot you see that, in this particular case, i.e., the 6 Million myth, you are being confronted with the ONLY exception to the scientific methodology upon which your profession and all scientific professions rest? Why is it that, in this one instance, you are somehow able to suspend your understanding of the scientific method of discovery and suddenly accept, on hearsay and proven contrived “evidence”, that governments, under the influence of one small religious cult, can actually legislate laws that make it an indictable offence to question this fiction or anything else for that matter? Where does freedom of thought and inquiry play into this diabolical farce? Where does common sense and the basics of scientific research come in? Where, in truth, does anything logical or reasonable come into play when anyone, be they a government or a religious group (as in the case of the Jews) or an individual, is able to make it illegal to question any matter of history or any event or anything that may be theorized, ranging from the scientific up through the branches of philosophy and art to even the spiritual pinnacle of theological speculation?

One would think (reasonably and logically) that if any statement, of all the myriad questions that mankind has considered throughout history, ought to meet such a criterion and be prohibited by law it would be the denial of God rather than a purported historic event that has countless loopholes in it which would prevent it from becoming accepted by the whole world (scientific or otherwise) as an unquestionable fact. In other words are we to remain free to question the existence of the Creator Himself yet unable to question, based upon scientific evidence or otherwise, the fraudulent claims of the Zionist Jews who, through cunning and conspiracy, plus the heavily weighted influence of their purse and their control of all aspects of our major sources of communication, have not only successfully foisted this lie upon mankind and then exacerbated it by programming successive generations of people to accept it as the gospel truth but have now managed to actually elevate it to the apex of juridical absurdity through the manufacture of actual legislation in certain countries that make it ILLEGAL to question what is undoubtedly, as researcher Arthur R. Butz clearly proved back in 1976, the greatest hoax of the 20th century?

Of course I know why you made that comment just as I know why the Zionist Jews and the state of Israel have been slaughtering Palestinians and stealing their land for over a century. It is, as the Jews so often have stated in the past with respect to their 6 Million myth, “manifestly obvious” that your intent is to discourage others from any association with those who, like myself, refuse to accept the unacceptable and fraudulent premise of the 6 Million and thus segregate and isolate our thoughts and ideas and opinions and years of intensive research so that no one will be tempted to investigate further what I or numerous others have to say about any of the related problems that political Zionism has created throughout the 20th century and which now, are coming to a head, in the early beginnings of the 21st.

Here is your modus operandi and the scenario that you would have others believe:

The primary purpose of labelling a person an “anti-Semite” or a “Holocaust denier” or a “hate monger” or any number of other similar epithets is, pure and simple, outright vilification. In other words if you can first create labels like those just identified and then instil their circumscribed and false meanings in the minds of the general public through mass programming (via the mainstream media which the Jews control), then once this is established it precludes having to establish any further solid proof to support whatever allegations you may wish to make about a person, group, organization or even government for that matter, which you intend to destroy by first defaming them in order to discredit either their character and integrity or their work (i.e. opposing views).

To return to your original remark let us see how this program of vilification would work should it actually be followed through.

I have lived in Cariboo region of British Columbia, Canada since 1970 which amounts to forty-four years (with some brief absences). From 1975 on I have lived here steadily working and raising a family and contributing to the local community in a number of ways. 

The Quesnel area has a overall population of about 30,000 people which is not a large number to get to know  or become known to over the span of nearly half a century. Because of my propensity for writing and my interest in politics and history I have been a regular contributor to Quesnel’s community newspaper, the Quesnel Cariboo Observer where, according to statistics, I earned a reputation for having contributed more “Letters to the Editor” to that publication than anyone else in its 106 year history of publishing.  As well I have been a paid columnist for the same publication.

My civil commitments to the local region have also been  substantial and fulfilling with years of community service in my own local community of Cottonwood which lies approximately 20 miles east of the city of Quesnel. I’ve worked in a number of different professions ranging from school teaching to that of a Park Ranger and Supervisor to being a log builder, the owner of a registered carpentry business  as well as owning and running a registered publishing business known as The Radical Press along with placer mining and being the Secretary of the Cariboo Mining Association.

On top of these activities I’ve been actively participating in local politics at the regional, municipal and provincial levels of government having at different times ran for the position of Councillor for the city of Quesnel as well as for the provincial MLA’s position for the Cariboo North electoral district.

In other words I haven’t been sitting idle over the past forty years plus. It is this legacy of community contributions and effort that you are attempting to destroy by your calculated and malicious attempt to discredit my life’s work using worn-out tactics of slander and libel and defamation, all of which are meant to malign my character and denigrate all of my efforts over the past four decades. 

But that’s not the worst of it. You would have your mean-spirited accusations and spiteful assertions carry over to all those with whom I’ve established relations with throughout my lifetime here in the Cariboo. In other words all of my friends and associates and those within my community who I’ve had social or business dealings with for decades are all to suddenly void their association with me because now I am a “Holocaust denier” and no longer the person I’ve been all my life. Are you not capable of intellectually grasping the enormity of what you are attempting to do via your spurious, and, yes, hateful slander?

You mentioned Councillor Sushil Thapar in your comment but you have failed to mention the rest of the many councillors and mayors of the city of Quesnel who I have known and associated with and befriended over the past forty-four years. Are they also expected to treat me as if I were suddenly a pariah and a leper because someone of your mental measure has  inferred that I am a “Holocaust denier”?

Why it wasn’t that long ago that I was speaking with one of the former mayors of Quesnel and he remarked to me, upon hearing that I had been charged with a “hate crime”, “Why Arthur how can this be? I’ve always known you to be a “peace and love” sorta guy, one of the old Hippies who’s always strived to bring  social justice and brotherhood and sisterhood and environmental sanity back to the world.” Were he and all the other public figures who I know to take your ill-intentioned and evil advice they would all, needs be, have to see me in a totally different light and accept that they had been wrong about me all their lives and that in reality I’m just a no-good, worthless, hate-mongering, Jew-hating anti-Semite and, horror of horrors, a “Holocaust denier”!

And that, Nick Inglis, is the long and the short of your intentions and your sleazy tactics. Rather than have to defend your libellous accusations made against my person by offering up substantial evidence to prove what you are alleging is verifiable truth it’s much easier to merely resort to the Zionist Jew’s deceptive deck of shitty smear cards in the vain hope that whatever ones you pull out will somehow stick to me and save you having to actually offer credible sources to support your surreptitiously motivated intentions.

Like I mentioned earlier in this article the definitive proof that the so-called 6 Million Jewish Holocaust is nothing more than a fabricated fraud is all contained in Arthur R. Butz’s book, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century. Once again I humbly suggest to you and all the rest of the truth-deniers and holocaust believers in the world that you obtain a copy of this book and read it carefully. Having done that and you are still convinced that you can disprove what Mr. Butz has shown to be the truth regarding this deception then please share your findings with the rest of the truth seekers of the world who have already determined the veracity of this indisputable document.

In Peace and Justice for All,

I remain,

Arthur Topham

___________

 

 

 

Open Letter to Canada’s 3 Zionist Stooges by Arthur Topham

[Editor’s Note: The following letter was sent to all three leaders of Canada’s main political parties this morning.]

RPEditor400

To the Dishonourable PM Stephen Harper,

By your words and your actions it is self-evident that as Leader of the Conservative party you are unfit to govern Canada. This applies as well to you Thomas Mulcair, NDP Leader and you Justin Trudeau, Liberal Leader.

Due to your avowed and combined support for the racist, terrorist, rogue state of Israel all three of you are guilty of treason and war crimes and should be removed from office forthwith.

Your stance that Canada should STAND WITH ISRAEL rather than with TRUTH, JUSTICE, HONESTY AND INTERNATIONAL LAW makes you all complicit in the war crimes that the state of Israel is undoubtedly guilty of; crimes that beggar the minds and moral consciences of Canadians everywhere.

Your combined actions have made Canada an embarrassment and a pariah on the global stage, shaming us as a nation and opening up our land and people to whatever reprisals may occur due to your misfeasance and collaboration with the Israel.

Were you men of honour you would willingly resign your posts and beg forgiveness of the people of Canada but, of course, being but sell-out sycophants of the Zionist Jew lobby and the state of Israel and, as such, cold-hearted aiders and abetters of the Machiavellian massacre of innocent men, women and children in Palestine, you will undoubtedly continue your efforts to pervert and destroy all the democratic ideals that Canada once stood for.

Your undisguised support of Israel makes of you an unholy trinity of evil and a direct threat to Canadian sovereignty.

May God show you no mercy and may the people of Canada finally wake up to your game plan and oust the three of you unrepentant Zionist puppets from the political stage forever.

 

Sincerely,

 

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

A Tribute to Jim Keegstra – Canadian Patriot and Truth Teller by Arthur Topham

A Tribute to Jim Keegstra – Canadian Patriot and Truth Teller
 
by
Arthur Topham
 
June 16th, 2014
 
Jim Keegsra
March 30, 1934 – June 2, 2014
 
    Rest in Peace
 
No, I never knew Jim Keegstra personally nor did I have any verbal or written communications with him during his lifetime. Nor did I personally know Ernst Zundel or have any contact with him either. But regardless of that we still share a common bond that unites us in the spirit of Truth and Justice and that connection is permanently and indelibly burnt into our souls and no amount of brainwashing propaganda and calumny and hate-filled screeds from the Jew media will ever alter the fact. 
 
We all have stood up to and faced the enemy and revealed him for who and what he was and is – the consummate epitome of lies and eternal infamy and the historic instrument of endless destruction, war, torture, rape, murder, bestial abominations, terror and fear. And for those reasons we have been attacked and vilified and called every conceivable epithet known to man and Jew.
 
One other thing that I and Jim and Ernst (and many other victims of the Jewish criminal cartel) share in common is that we all were blessed to have been the fortunate beneficiaries of the spiritual and legal largesse of the world’s foremost counsel and freedom of speech fighter, the late and great Mr. Douglas Christie, who, up until his untimely demise in March of 2013, worked tirelessly to prevent the courts of Canada from being overrun by the Jews with their insidious conniving and legal scheming designed to twist and pervert Canadian jurisprudence into a deviant variant of the former Soviet Communist Bolshevik “Show Trial” courts wherein “Hate Propaganda” (please read this as any negative criticism of the Jews or their diabolical agenda against the rest of the humanity embodied in their politically psychopathic doctrine know as “Zionism”) has superseded Truth and Fact and sound Common Sense.
 
 
D.Christie BattlingBarrister
 
It’s a fact of life in 2014 just as it was a fact of life back in 1914 that the vast majority of the media (what many today call the “mainstream media”) is, in reality, a Jew monopoly Media and they own it lock, stock and barrel with the exception of (Praise God!) the Internet. For this reason and this reason alone no individual will ever be allowed the freedom to criticize a Jew or their crimes in any fashion without incurring the rage and hatred and lies which their media outlets will call upon en masse in order to prevent “the people” from knowing what really is going on behind their digital curtain of deception.
 
Jim Keegstra was a Christian and a school teacher and a man of integrity dedicated to teaching truth and that is what he did when it came to revealing to his students what is undoubtedly the greatest lie of the 20th century and, in all likelihood, of recorded history itself – the infamous LIE of the “6 Million Holocaust” – a deluded and macabre fantasy of the Judaic priesthood which humanity has been unwittingly forced to endure since 1945; a falsehood the Jews concocted in order to threaten, brow-beat, intimidate, cajole and bewitch the world into believing via their media cartel in order to buttress unchallenged support for their surreptitious designs for global hegemony.
 
 
HoloTorture copy
 
For that one reason and that reason alone the full weight of the Jew media and the state came down upon Jim Keegstra just as it did for Ernst Zundel when he attempted to educate Canadians about the very same LIE. 
 
A Google search of Jim Keegstra quickly reveals a gaggle of Jew media outlets that all lead off their stories with the catch-phrase “Jim Keegstra, Holocaust denier”. Over and over and over ad nauseum these disseminators of deception predictably punctuate, perpetuate and puke up their obscene, immoral “holocaust” perjury bile in voluminous amounts in order to keep brainwashed Canadians believing their gargantuan “6 Million” LIE; one that American writer Arthur R. Butz permanently demolished back in 1976 in his classic book The Hoax of the Twentieth Century.
KeegstraGoogle1KeegstraGoogle2PM
Like voyeuristic opportunists the Jew media waits with lurid impatience for any opportunity to exploit their former victims in order to shore up the faltering foundations supporting their infrastructure of tyranny, better known to the world today as the New World Order. The “holocaust LIE” is the cornerstone of their temple of terrorism, deception and destruction and any chance they get to exploit it will create a media feast.
 
Jim Keegstra is now dead and his spirit is with all the other Truth seekers who, in the past, have stood up to and exposed the unconscionable atrocities that have been foisted upon humanity by this cult of evil Satanic vipers.  No less a Truth teller than Jesus Christ himself once said, “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the Synagogue of Satan.”
 
At the present moment I am the only remaining Canadian who is now before the Canadian courts charged with a sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” crime against the Jews and facing a lengthy and costly trial in the B.C. Supreme Court. The section I was charged under was created and inserted into the Canadian law books by so-called “Canadian” Jews in order to stop people like Jim Keegstra, Ernst Zundel, John Ross Taylor, Malcolm Ross, myself and many others from challenging their outlandish and glaringly heinous legacy of lies that has turned the world into a living hell. 
 
I’ll conclude this short tribute with a few lines from a friend of Jim Keegstra’s who send them to me via email. They basically convey the sentiments that I’ve been trying to cover in this short essay.
 
“Kanadian patriot and school teacher Jim Keegsta was prosecuted in 1983 under Kanada’s then existing Hate statute for claiming the so-called “Holocaust” was “Exaggerated”. He subsequently became the first nationally vilified martyr for Kanadian freedom of speech in Kanada. That claim was subsequently substantiated when the world Jewish Congress in conjunction with the Auschwitz State Museum in Poland lowered the number of gassing victims at Auschwitz from 4 million to 1 million in 1990. So for any apologist who says the numbers don’t matter, it did to patriot Jim Keegstra who lost his job as a teacher and mayor of the town he lived in and was continuously vilified and slandered by the national media ever since. As a result, he was defunctionalized socially, politically and economically. Like heretics in the middle ages who denied that the earth was the center of the universe, you don’t deny the state religion of the west and get away with it. The only difference between then and now is that they’ve found a more civilized way of burning people at the stake.
 
There were other Kanadian martyrs before Jim, people like my good friend and mentor John Ross Taylor from Toronto who spent a year in jail in the late 1970s for a telephone message talking about the Jews and their machinations, but Jim Keegstra was the first to really go national in a big way. I guess THEY figured at the time that Kanadians had been dumbed down enough that it didn’t really matter what kind of outrage was perpetrated against traditional freedoms, notwithstanding that those freedoms went all the way back to the Magna Carta, and they were right. In fact the Keegstra case was the first one to my knowledge where a Kanadian judge in his final address to the jury stated, “The truth is not an issue in this case”. If the truth is not an issue in a court of Law, then what the hell is? I still haven’t figured that one out and obviously Jim Keegstra hadn’t either.
 
The RCMP even stationed armed snipers on the roof of the Red Deer, Alberta, court house when Jim was being tried. Kanada it seems must be protected against heretics at all cost.
 
Jim Keegstra was a friend and patriot who went out like a man. He will be sadly missed.”  T.L.
—–
  
 

“Hate Speech” Laws Require Us to Accept Evil by Tony Blizzard

“Hate Speech” Laws Require Us to Accept Evil

May 19, 2014

 

homeland-jesus1

 

Historical background on “hate speech” laws

Veteran Patriot Tony Blizzard wrote this article for “The Spotlight” twenty years ago. It is just as relevant today. 

Because “hatred is based on love,” reasoned Aquinas, “it follows that hatred is a great power for good in man’s life. Hatred enables man to avoid the evils that would destroy him.”

 

By Tony Blizzard

 

“Hate-speech” laws are in reality a program to force us to accept the actions of those who hate Christian culture.

They allow the Illuminati to destroy everything the western world holds sacred while criminalizing anyone who defends our cherished way of life. In the U.S., as far back as the 1930s, the question of whether hate should be outlawed had been broached by the enemies of truth, due larg ely to the Nazi movement in Germany and the America First movement’s exposures of Talmudic drum beating for U.S. involvement in WWII.

Patriots who saw no reason for America to enter that war–except to save communism–were rounded up and tried for sedition in a soviet style political show trial.

While every effort was made to present the defendants as haters of America, it was their internationalist accusers who harbored real hatred for our national principles.

The propaganda barrage stigmatizing patriots as “haters” only escalated when the globalist United Nations came into existence after that destructive war, which did save communism utilizing American might.

Cardinal Spellman

In a 1947 publication approved by Cardinal Spellman of New York, Rituale Romanum, the anti-hate issue was put into proper perspective.

“The long-range effects of this campaign [to criminalize selected hatreds] are even now evident. It is producing the ‘spineless citizen,’ the man who has no cultural sensibilities, who is incapable of indignation, who faces moral disaster, political disaster and impending world catastrophe with a blank and smiling countenance. He has only understanding for the enemies of his country, nothing but kind sentiments for those who would destroy his home and family. He is universally tolerant, totally unprejudiced. If he has any principles he keeps them well concealed. He is a faceless, characterless puttyman.”

Real men of that generation despised such people as “gutless wonders.” Today they are praised as “politically correct.”

G. K. Chesterton, always ahead of his time, mused: “Modern toleration is really a tyranny. It is a tyranny because it is a silence. To say that I must not deny my opponent’s faith is to say I must not discuss it.”

B’NAI BRITH AND THOMAS AQUINAS

That is exactly the censorship objective of the Anti-Defamation League of B’nai Brith (ADL), as the creator and promoter of “hate speech” laws throughout the world. Those ADL conspirators work to nullify intolerance for evils they promote, arrogantly retaining for them- selves the right to be world arbiter of what will be tolerated a nd what will not, replacing the edicts of God and nature concerning right and wrong with their own total intolerance of anything in the way of their world conquest agenda.

In order to understand the true purpose of ADL written and lobbied “hate speech” laws, already in place in nations such as Germany, Canada and Britain–and scheduled by the ADL for every nation, it is necessary to understand something of the passion called “hate.”

St. Thomas Aquinas

Universally acclaime d deep thinker of the ages, Thomas Aquinas, recorded that all passions stem from the single passion of love. Hatred, the “contrary of love,” Aquinas contended, is simply passion against that which would threaten a love.

For instance, one’s hatred of poison is a reaction to love for one’s life.

Because “hatred is based on love,” reasoned Aquinas, “it follows that hatred is a great power for good in man’s life. Hatred enables man to avoid the evils that would destroy him.”

It is precisely the hatred for those evils now in the process of destroying western civilization which the ADL-written “hate crime” laws are designed to criminalize, neutralize and quiet, always in the name of undiscriminating tolerance. To thus “make putty” of the collective will for the defense of western man’s civilization is a necessity to the implementation of the new world order slave state of the global plantation. Those “plantation owners” are too few in number to conquer and rule without the manipulated cooperation of their victims.

THE REAL HATERS

No mainstream media mention is ever made that the same forces who write laws to stymie the hatred of evils they sponsor, are the world’s real haters, especially intolerant of anything concerning Christ and Christianity.

The reason for their intense hatred was given by the Pharisees when they demanded Christ’s crucifixion. Unless destroyed, they announced, he will “take away our place and our nation.”

Their intense love of their exalted position among the Israelites, with attendant perks, was threatened by the superior teachings of Christ, who was drawing the people away from their control, thus engendering their bitter hatred against him. That hatred has not waned to this day among the leaders of Judaism.

It has been written into the Talmud itself. Those revealing today’s fabrications indoctrinated into Jewish culture may definitely take away that leadership’s “place and nation,” thus the vicious, hateful attacks on historical attempts to update “holocaust” information, list crimes of the political Zionist movement, explode the “chosen people” myth, debunk Jews as perpetual victims, expose the substantial Jewish role in organized crime and in high level financial misdeeds, etc.

RUSE FOR CENSORSHIP AND TYRANNY

Even before the ADL existed, in 1908, New York City police commissioner, Theodore A. Bingham, in reference to an investigation of the ongoing white slave trade, remarked that 50 percent of NY crime was committed by Jews. Bingham’s career was destroyed and such remarks have been banned from the media since.

This event resulted in the creation of the powerful New York Kehillah, which instantly, in conjunction with the Amer ican Jewish Committee, saw to it that a national magazine discontinued its series on the white slave trade after its introductory article.

Likewise, major book publisher, George Haven Putnam, owner of Putnam and Sons, was forced, in 1920, to trash an already printed edition of the much maligned Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, heeding hardly veiled blackmail threats of bankruptcy from ADL member Louis Marshall, a forceful figure in New York politics as well as world Zionism.

The SPOTLIGHT has very recently informed readers of ongoing censorship by this same ADL gang, which today uses total cens orship power over all school texts, libraries and the establishment media, blacklisting all materials it will not tolerate, yet all the while blathering to the public how it must tolerate any affront on Western culture lest it offend some thin-skinned pervert.

Defense of family, community and nation against such evils is labeled “hateful” and outlawed. Yet, ongoing destruction of those entities by people who seethe with hatred for them is to be tolerated by “puttyman” or he will be jailed.

Such an arrogant, in-your-face, double standard requires your intense hatred and opposition, as it will, i f allowed to continue, destroy everything you love.