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.
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.
The peace they promise is never-ending war
BELIEVING WHAT YOU READ IN THE NEWSPAPER WILL LEAD YOU TO AN EARLY GRAVE
By John Kaminski
If there were such a crime as treason by ignorance, most Americans would be guilty of it. But the worst kind of treason comes from those who know the truth but don’t speak it.
Throughout its history, but even more vividly in recent days, the United States has revealed itself to be a warmongering liar, with a president who is a proven criminal directing a heartless staff of homicidal maniacs, invading one defenseless country after another, blaming others for crimes the U.S. commits, and wreaking destruction and chaos that kills innocent people in one-sided wars that never seem to end.
Our leaders, with deliberate intent paid for by foreign special interests, are destroying our own country, by implementing measures unquestionably harmful to the interests of American citizens, while simultaneously praised by writers with big salaries in quest of fame and fortune at the expense of the truth. The latest atrocity is an Army document that calls for snipers to shoot the principal organizers of dissident political rallies <http://www.globalresearch.ca/police-state-us-military-plans-to-crush-dissident-political-groups-target-leaders-with-sniper-fire/5398485> which mainstream media will never touch.
That the American people have not risen up and jailed these leaders who have deliberately destroyed the country is a sure testament to their mental incapacitation due to an array of debilitating processes that have not only lowered their IQs but undermined their will to challenge the lies they are constantly told. Even as the government steals everything they have, those who can recognize the scams being played on them are terrified into silence at the prospect of losing the meager possessions they still possess.
Intelligent or not, the average American citizen not only has no input or effect on what the U.S. government does, he or she has absolutely no way to meaningfully communicate with any department of the American government, failing the critical requirement of being able to place at least tens of thousands of dollars into the hands of some elected representative who will at least pretend to plead your case to his peers.
But even worse than that is the realization is that most Americans have no desire to even protest the criminal maneuvers that have eroded and polluted the quality of life they possessed when they were children. This paralysis has been made possible by famous TV talking heads who defend government lies and repeat false assertions concocted by spinmeisters while being paid handsomely to dupe the public and increase the bankers’ ill-gotten gain.
Due to the effects of electronic hypnosis through media, diminished brain function caused by debilitating chemicals in food and in the air, and the inestimable harm caused by a medical profession that values profits over optimal health — all reinforced by public media owned by the same people who are committing these crimes — Americans are no longer capable of distinguishing fact from fiction, or the truth from the lies that are now destroying all life on this planet.
How else can you explain the danger that our elected and appointed officials have put us in? Were those children in Sandy Hook actually killed? Did they ever really exist? Do you think you know the answer?
How else can you explain ISIS, funded by U.S. government money, run by an Israeli posing as a Muslim dissident, then bombed by the U.S. military as it pretends to defend the puppet government it installed in Iraq?
What perverse program enabled many thousands of Central American residents posing as homeless children to cross the U.S. border and be welcomed with open arms by a government that values their welfare far above that of taxpaying Americans who are suffering from the loss of jobs throughout the country? One school in Massachusetts reported that its new students from south of the border appear to be older than some of the teachers!
Tonight as you read this, the U.S. government is preparing to start World War III in the Ukraine over lies they have created that would never be believed by a society functioning at normal mental capacity. Today’s headline in USAToday accused Russia of lying about what it is doing in Ukraine, when the reality of the situation is that the USA started this extermination program, replaced the Ukrainian government with its own Israeli hit men, and now seems eager to start a war that would destroy much of the world, lying every step of the way about what is really happening.
How could normal Americans, if any remain, ever put up with this pathological behavior?
The hazards to your health have never been more serious, and the situations have been deliberately created by the people supposed to protect you.
It’s unsafe to put your children into public schools. If the poisoned medicines they are prescribed don’t ruin their lives, the deliberately misleading information they are taught will.
It’s unsafe to buy your food at the supermarket. Due to corruption at the highest levels of government food inspection and the takeover of virtually all farms by megacorporations who own the government, there is no incentive to provide healthy foods, only to seek healthy profits, and the result is the constant poisoning of the consumer, which benefits the following profession.
It’s unsafe to go to a doctor. The move afoot to ban vitamins and traditional medicines combined with the forced popularity of procedures known to be harmful such as radiation and chemotherapy guarantee that your life will be shortened and your wallet emptied by relying on allopathic medicine to maximize your longevity. Instead of curing diseases, mainstream doctors working for the government are busy inventing and perpetuating them for profit.
It’s unsafe to believe what you read in mainstream media. With all media outlets now owned by only six corporations, which are all owned by the same ethnic group, the chances of getting objective and healthful information from any one of them is absolutely zero.
It’s unsafe to challenge any public official for fear of reprisal, fear of attack by the IRS or private mercenary group. The government has quashed the Freedom of Information Act and conducts most of its business in secret so that members of the government might illegally profit from secret negotiations that are never revealed to the public. The highest art form of this technique occurs when the police are able to steal your property without ever charging you with a crime, which happens frequently in every state.
It’s unsafe to point out crimes by cops and the military. You can expect retaliation, discrimination and perhaps the loss of your life if you attempt such a maneuver.
And most critically, it is supremely unsafe to note the fact that Jews control every aspect of our society — TV, universities, book publishing, you name it — which is why all these other maladies have turned America from an open hearted compassionate society to a self-focused regiment of brain dead zombies ready to sell out their neighbors for a few bucks.
We are bludgeoned into keeping our mouths shut at the constant and increasing crimes by our government by a perverted phalanx of pathetic journalists who are compelled to assist the lies of a government intent on destroying the country.
Who are this nation’s famous journalists? In order to gain fame, they have to keep the secret that has destroyed this country and is destroying the world.
One by one you’ve seen those who try to tell the truth ridiculed and banished from the public eye. Helen Thomas. Rick Sanchez. Joe Sobran. Douglas Reed. Ezra Pound. Each of them ruined for trying to tell the truth. The suppression of the truth that they tried to tell you about has destroyed America, and has enabled the plastic, pre positioned politicians to work their sabotage on the republic.
When politicians say peace, they really mean war. The reporters and editors who repeat their words opposing the facts they know to be true are principally responsible for this confusion that has muddled the minds of Americans, and by their deliberately selfish actions have committed the worst kind of treason to humanity.
The choice of all writers is fame vs. truth. Truth brings poverty and disdain. Fame is bought by the lies writers choose to tell, lies that erode the stability of America.
The disease that ails America and infects the entire world with its ruinous double meanings and insidious corruption is Jewish influence, which has totally ruined the principles of honest dealings with our fellow human beings with this poisonous supremacist claptrap that it’s OK to screw your neighbor, kill your parents and prostitute your children as long as you make a lot of money out of the deal.
Tragically, this is what most people believe and it is why life on this planet is about to come to a sorry finish. The natural forces that have been unleashed by this malevolent bunch of kosher psychopaths to gather the wealth of the world into their own pockets and to hell with everybody else are about to cost every living thing on this planet the one thing they value most, and the one thing that they cannot replace under any circumstances.
Which in case you can’t figure that out would be your life.
For you to remain silent about the Jewish threat that has ruined the functional and rewarding lives that we have lived is akin to committing suicide, and the majority of the brain damaged American citizens appear intent on doing just that.
It would be a simple matter to stop this slide into ruin. Simply recognize what the Jews are doing to every society they can get their hands on, and stop them from doing it in a definitive and permanent way.
Otherwise, compassionate, sensible and thoughtful humans have no future whatsoever, only an endless stretch of the big sleep with their eyes wide open.
John Kaminski is a writer who lives on the Gulf Coast of Florida, constantly trying to figure out why we are destroying ourselves, and pinpointing a corrupt belief system as the engine of our demise. Solely dependent on contributions from readers, please support his work by mail: 6871 Willow Creek Circle #103, North Port FL 34287 USA.
COMMENTARY BY MICHAEL SANTOMAURO:
Most of us are mentally trapped to think Jewish!!
Actually, it is safe to say that virtually every mainstream publication or or other type of media organ is “nothing more than a screen to present chosen views.” The great battle over the last century has been a battle for the mind of the Western peoples, i.e., non-Jewish Euros. The chosen won it by acquiring control over essentially the complete mainstream news, information, education and entertainment media of every type, and using that control to infuse and disseminate their message, agenda and worldview, their way of thinking, or rather the way they want us to think. Since at least the 1960s this campaign has been effectively complete. Since then they have shaped and controlled the minds of all but a seeming few of us in varying degree with almost no opposition or competition from any alternative worldview. So now most of us are mentally trapped in the box the chosen have made for us, which we have lived in all our lives. Only a few have managed to avoid it or escape it, or to even sometimes see outside of it, and so actually “think outside of the (Jewish) box.” –Michael Santomauro
WAKE UP CANADA!
By Arthur Topham
The current global crisis in Gaza, Palestine, where the Israeli military is once again slaughtering the entrapped Palestinian people with willful intent and destroying the region’s infrastructure, has forced Canada’s major political parties – the Conservative Party of Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada – to reveal their hand in terms of where they stand with respect to the carnage being perpetrated against the Palestinian people.
Not surprisingly, for those who have been observing the persistent, aggressive, war (otherwise known as “ethnic cleansing”) against Palestine over the past sixty-six years, all three parties have opted to “STAND WITH ISRAEL”. This revelation has astounded and angered many decent Canadians who still clung to the old belief that Canada ought to remain either in a neutral position or take a more pro-active stance and speak out against the illegal and immoral actions of the state of Israel.
What the latest round of unwarranted attacks upon Gaza has resulted in for Canada as a nation is the irrefutable and unequivocal realization that all of our major political parties and their leaders are firmly in the grasp of the Zionist-Jew controlled forces working through what is euphemistically referred to as the “New World Order” (aka NWO) and their words and deeds are but the reflective mouthings of three Zionist-controlled Puppets suspended in conscience and dangling haplessly from the covert, occult hidden hand of a tyrannical and blood-thirsty power structure that is driving the world into a state of madness, confusion and soon-to-be, endless chaos and civil strife.
We Canadians have always been told that as a nation we tend to lag about a decade behind the USA in terms of our political policies and the present example of these three zio-stooges basically confirms this assertion.
In the October, 2001 edition of my former monthly tabloid The Radical (shown in the image below) I used the same bold header as I’ve done for the present article. Only the names have been changed. That edition (13 years past) was the first reaction to the events of September 11, 2001 when this same criminal NWO cartel pulled off what was, without a doubt, the greatest false flag operation since their 1917 coup in the former Republic of Russia when the Zionist/Communist/Marxist forces were able to mastermind the absolute take-over of one of the world’s largest and diverse nations. The world we’re now living in is but an extension and magnification on a global scale of what transpired 97 years ago.
If Canadians had any illusions as to their sovereignty as an independent nation those cherished dreams have now been shattered forever. All that’s left for Canadians who still desire peace and respect for the democratic principles that have fostered our growth and freedom as an independent nations up to the present is to accept the fact that we are no longer in control of our individual and national destinies and begin to take steps in the direction of redressing what’s happened to us a country since 911 and the advent of present global tyrannical situation that’s affecting the people and the planet as a whole.
The dilemma, for us as a nation, is having to accept the obvious fact that all of our major political parties are now controlled by the Zionist NWO. With a federal election coming up in 2015 this presents voters with a major conundrum in terms of who to vote for. Not voting is not an option but there’s still time for people to redefine their prerogatives and choose to support a party that WILL STAND FOR CANADA! It might be the Canadian Action Party or some newly formed party. The chances of the Green Party of Canada opting for pro-Palestinian, anti-Zionist policies that directly conflict with those of Israel are next to impossible yet, even there, miracles do happen.
So the final questions must be: Are we going to allow the overly preponderant power of the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada to dictate our domestic and foreign policy? Are we going to stand by submissively and submit to decisions emanating forth from Ottawa that conform, not to the wishes of the majority of Canadians, but to the Zionist-Jewish power elite that run our banking institutions, our economy, our media and our academic infrastructure? Are we expected just to give up hope that Canada will ever regain its former status as a respected member of the world community merely because of the subterfuge and deception that has allowed for the electorate to be bamboozled by the Zionist media into believing that the Conservative Party of Canada and its leader Stephen Harper would somehow STAND FOR CANADA instead of a foreign, apartheid country that treats its arab population as second-class citizens and is, in itself, the only racist, Jews-only nation on the face of the planet? Are we, in other words, willing to give up our collective rights and freedoms and bow down slavishly to the dictates of this dark and sinister New World Order or are we going to regroup, rise up and resist?
The choice for Canada is there still. If we don’t act soon though it may be too late.
God bless Canada. God bless Palestine. And God bless all who strive for freedom, love, peace and dignity.
We need a nation wide REFERENDUM…..like they are doing in Europe right now to take back our country before it is too late. The Conservative and Liberals have passed Bill S-7 Anti Terror Bill what does this mean for all Canadians? Days later Prince Philip received the Order of Canada.
All the corrupt politicians, bankers and lobbyists should be arrested and thrown in JAIL.
We should all be supporting constitutional lawyer Rocco Galati & the legal challenge of www.naturalhealthfreedomcanada.com against the sinister, corrupt – Health Canada, who take orders from Europe’s CAC CODEX. Without true HEALTH what do we have?
There must be CONSEQUENCES for these people’s actions…
Have any of you heard of Bill S-7 Anti Terror Bill…passed without the Canadian people’s consent last April 2013. ( I was in parliament when it was being debated by the NDP..they were furious and very upset- for good reason)
3.1 Billion dollars was allocated for public security and anti-terrorism funding read below:
Why no fuss by Canadians?
Days later Prince Philip received the Order of Canada.
How many know Prince Charles is the new honorary Commissioner of the RCMP?
What are Canadians going to do about this? Please share far and wide!
EVIL MEN LIKE IT WHEN GOOD MEN DO NOTHING……Edmund Burke
A public safety announcement from RadicalPress.com
January 27th, 2014
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,
Due to the nature of this particular Legal Update, i.e., it being recent events connected to my Preliminary Inquiry, the necessity arose for editorial commentary throughout the report wherever I felt it was warranted. It also meant that it would be a rather long article as well. The need to present a general overview of my case now that it’s finally reached this stage is the reason for its inordinate length.
January 22nd, 2014 marked the 616th day since my arrest on May 16th, 2012 for the alleged crime of “communicating statements, other than in private conversation, [that] willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.” The actual section of the Criminal Code of Canada reads:
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
In the Legal Rights section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under “Proceedings in criminal and penal matters”, 11(b) it states:
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
According to the stated legal rights of all Canadian citizens (as denoted in the above Section 11(b) of the Charter), one must assume that a wait of 616 days or 20 months plus should be construed as being a “reasonable time” in which to expect one’s case to be heard in a Canadian court of law. But of course 616 days is only the beginning of the arduous process of seeking justice within the Canadian court system. January 22nd, 2014 was not the day when my trial on these specious charges was set to commence; it was but the date set for the Preliminary Inquiry which is basically an opportunity afforded the accused wherein they are given an opportunity to dispute the actual evidence which precipitated the laying of charges based on the Crown’s allegations.
I will get to the actual proceedings but first I’d like to say a few words about this section of the Canadian Criminal Code (CCC) which is placed under the heading “Hate Propaganda” and exists as Sections 318(1) through to Section 320.1(1) of the Code itself. This vile, undemocratic section of the Criminal Code was inserted into law by Zionist forces operating within the Cohen Commission back in 1970 and remains the one critical section of Canada’s criminal code where the pro-Zionist elements within Canada – specifically the Jewish lobby organizations such as B’nai Brith Canada (BBC), the Canadian Jewish Congress (CJC), the Simon Wiesenthal Centre (SWC) and the most recently formed Jewish umbrella organization, the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs (CIJA) – are now focusing their combined effort in a last ditch, desperate legal campaign designed to censor and silence Canada’s Internet and prevent Freedom of Speech from occurring without fear of legal reprisals.
When the Zionist’s previous weapon of mass deception/censorship, i.e., Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, was repealed by the Parliament of Canada back on June 25th, 2012 there was already a frantic movement afoot to find some new legal avenue with which to threaten and intimidate Canadian citizens into fearing to publish and express on the Internet their opinions or ideas or the opinions and ideas of others on any matter pertaining to this particular element within Canadian society (the Jews comprising less that 2% of Canada’s total population). Having their tentacles firmly entwined throughout the federal judiciary the Jewish lobbyists, led by the likes of former Liberal Attorney General of Canada and staunch Zionist Irwin Cotler, were working overtime behind the scenes in order to formulate new policies within the Harper Conservative government; measures that would ensure that their Number One weapon – HATE – would continue to find a place of honour and litigation within Canada’s legal system and be available to this minority group to use in their ongoing promotion and defence of the Apartheid, Racist, Supremacist State of Israel and the promulgation of its contemptible political ideology known as Zionism.
Until Canada is free of all this Zionist Jew created “HATE” legislation we will never be able to say that we’re a democratic nation that values the one fundamental God-given right that must remain sacrosanct in order to retain all of our other inherent rights, that being the right to free and unfettered expression. All of it must be eliminated so that a level playing field will exist for every Canadian.
The Preliminary Inquiry – Day One
Back in November of 2013 the date, January 22nd, 2014, was set for a full day to hold a preliminary inquiry into my Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” case involving the two complainants – B’nai Brith Canada (represented by Agent Z) and Ricardo Warmouse, a lawyer involved in numerous former Sec. 13 cases prior to the law’s repeal in June of 2012. My former lawyer, Doug Christie, had requested that at least one week of time be set aside for the preliminary inquiry in order to challenge all the specious evidence that Crown had used in order to gain its illegal search warrant then used to invade my residence and steal all my computers and electronic files plus other hard copy materials which weren’t covered in the warrant. Crown at that time agreed to four days.
After the passing of Mr. Christie in March of 2013 Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston changed that time period to one day, telling the judge that in her estimation a single day was all the time necessary for Crown to – as Crown and Judge Morgan have been wont to say repeatedly, – “pass the Shepherd test” and move the case on to the trial stage. The “Shephard Test“, for those not versed in court legalese involved an extradition case back in the 1970’s out of which emerged a number of test arguments as to the degree of evidence required in order for a judge to determine whether or not to move the case forward.
Being self-represented and unaware of the machinations of Crown I ended up with one day in order to address all the issues including the sworn information of Cst. Normandie Levas provided to a Justice of the Peace in order to have the search warrant approved; information that contained numerous allegations which appeared to have been written by a Zionist script writer rather than by someone who was at the time relatively new to the controversial BC HATE CRIME TEAM and not versed in the whole array of research necessary to make expert commentary on issues dealing with what may or may not be alleged to be “hate” literature. All these allegations initially sworn in the Information regarding postings on the RadicalPress.com website were basically the same evidence that Crown was now introducing at the preliminary inquiry in order to convince Judge Morgan that there was sufficient evidence to commit my case to trial.
Initially Crown was planning to call a number of witnesses for the preliminary inquiry, the bulk of them being RCMP officers involved in the surveillance and later plunder of my home and theft of my computers and electronic files and firearms. The others were Barry Salt an expert in the field of forensic examination of computers and data and, of course, Det.Cst. Terry Wilson, the Lead Investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM located in Surrey, B.C. I had made application to the court to have the judge order Crown to subpoena the other crucial witnesses – the two complainants who had filed the vexatious complaints in the first place and Cst. Normandie Levas, the second member of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM who, as the Affiant swearing the Information, was responsible for the act that led to the granting of the illegal search warrant used to enter my home and steal all of my computer equipment and firearms. Judge Morgan did eventually direct Crown to have Cst. Levas appear but as she was on “holidays” at the time of the scheduled inquiry a later date of March 13th, 2014 was set for cross-examination.
During an earlier focus hearing on January 3rd, 2014 Judge Morgan mediated some concessions between Crown and myself, which I agreed to, regarding some of the witnesses being called in order to prove where I lived and what firearms I had in my possessions and so on; items that would cut down the time which would otherwise have been wasted giving evidence for incidental aspects of the case that I wasn’t intending to challenge. As a concession to this Crown agreed to reconsider the second firearms count involving unsafe storage.At the time, I informed Judge Morgan that I recently had taken the PAL firearms safety course and received 100% of the written test and 90% on the practical test and was now in the process of sending my application off. I also informed Judge Morgan that I was planning to purchase a certified gun storage locker in which to store my firearms properly. Crown then stated that if these preconditions were achieved that they would consider staying the firearms charge.
What was scheduled to be a one day inquiry, like all great plans of mice and men, turned out to be a horse of another colour. I had made arrangements with my two witnesses, Mr. Frank Frost and Mr. Lonnie Landrud, to be at the courthouse at 9:30 a.m. on the morning of Wednesday, January 22nd. When my wife and I arrived around 9:15 a.m. it was evident that my case was not going to be the only one scheduled for the morning. Now this is not an uncommon occurrence in the Quesnel Courthouse (or in many other smaller communities throughout B.C.) and it all stems from government ineptitude (or design?) that there are never enough judges and prosecutors and courtrooms available to handle the volume of cases awaiting address. Nonetheless, I did expect that for a formal preliminary inquiry time would have been arranged so that it could occur without needless interruption.
After approximately twenty minutes of lawyers and Crown attempting to reschedule times, etc. my case began and Crown called their first witness, Det. Cst. Terry Wilson, lead investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM. Det. Wilson informed the court as to his name and position within the RCMP and when Crown asked him about his involvement with RadicalPress.com he told the court that he been monitoring the RadicalPress.com website since April 28th, 2011. It was on that date he first received an email from Ricardo Warmouse who registered a Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” complaint against the site. I thought it was rather amusing given that it was right around the time of the last federal election (May 2nd, 2011) and I had just posted a long article on Harper only the day before on April 27th which I had titled “Hating Harper“. It’s possible that Warmouse didn’t appreciate the graphic header for the piece in question that caused him to lay the charge or it may have been my advice at the time to the Canadian electorate warning them of dire days ahead should Canadians hand Stephen Harper a mandate to govern the nation. Whatever it was, given the current controversy over Harper and his entourage of Zionist sycophant ministers and pro-Israeli band of Chabad Lubavicher controllers traveling at great taxpayer expense to the apartheid state of Israel and soiling Canada’s image as a sovereign nation with their unabashed grovelling and overt support for this criminal state, it was rather apropos that Warmouse would suddenly file a complaint against RadicalPress.com at that particular point in time.
Det. Wilson then went on to describe to the court how his unit has been investigating the website since that time (a period of approximately 32 months thus far) and in the process confirming to the judge that the articles and online books and links, etc. were available to the general public and that anybody could just go there and click on a link and read whatever they wanted without having to enter any passwords or penetrate any firewalls. I thought to myself as he was going on, “My goodness, an acknowledged alternative news site and all you have to do is click on the url to it and the home page or whatever document hyperlink you may have clicked on in the sidebar or the menu bar above just suddenly appears and you can actually view it and read it! What a genius that Arthur Topham must be!”
Det. Wilson also told the court that the website has been running and posting new materials on a regular basis ever since the original conditions of my bail were changed with the exception of a few days in November of 2012 when the site was transferred to a new host server.
It was at this point that Det. Wilson then set up his laptop and introduced the courtroom to a special computer software program that allowed him to show the judge, myself and Crown what appeared to be interactive video footage of my website that they had copied to the program. We all had our own individual monitor screens and sat there while Det. Wilson took us on a virtual journey around the RadicalPress.com home page explaining to the judge and Crown how the site operates. Given the fact that it operates as any normal WordPress program would it was like sitting through an introductory lesson on basic computer skills that one might offer a Grade 2 or 3 class of children. This went on for some time and we all observed with great interest as Det. Wilson clicked on a hyperlink in the Pages section on the side bar and lo and behold the article or book would suddenly appear right there on the screen! All of this was, ostensibly, being done to show that any person in Canada could easily access all the “hate” and “anti-Semitism” and “racism” toward the Jewish population that the Crown alleges is present on the RadicalPress.com website.
Having endured this little media sideshow the judge then called for a break at 10:15 a.m. after which court resumed and other cases once again intruded into the schedule. My inquiry ceased at that point. The lunch hour eventually came and when court reconvened at 1:30 p.m.for the afternoon session more cases consumed the time. It wasn’t until around 3:45 p.m. that the preliminary inquiry resumed. It was at this stage that Crown finally got down to the meat and potatoes of its argument. Det. Wilson was presented with a massive black binder that eventually was entered as Exhibit A in the proceedings. I had been given the same binder a couple of days prior to the inquiry as well and had time to peruse its contents beforehand so it wasn’t a surprise to me. What it contained was hard copy pages of four online books that are present on RadicalPress.com plus two articles of my own that were also on the site. Each was given a tab number and they appeared in the following order:
Tab 1: Germany Must Perish
Tab 2: Israel Must Perish
Tab 3: Protocols of Zion
Tab 4: The Biological [sic]
Tab 5: The Jewish Religion
Tab 6: Karen Selick: Just Another Hate-mongering Germanophobe Jew by Arthur Topham
Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston then proceeded to ask Det. Wilson questions regarding the 6 items posted on RadicalPress.com.
With respect to Tab 1 which was the online version of Theodore N. Kaufman’s book Germany Must Perish! Wilson went on to describe the book and what it was about. He gave a reasonable outline of its aim and purpose which was to spread anti-German propaganda against the National Socialist government of Germany and the German nation.
When it came to Tab 2 Wilson presented his views in a somewhat modified form than his original statements wherein he was very emphatic about the fact that I had actually written a “real” book bearing the title, Israel Must Perish! Now he was admitting that it was a reproduction of segments of Kaufmann’s book and that I had only changed certain words like “Germany” and “German” and “Hitler” to “Israel” and “Jew” and “Netanyahu” and the rest of the text was actually Kaufman’s. Crown then asked Wilson if he had read the Preface to this “book” which was written my myself. Wilson responded in the affirmative and said that he had read it. At no time though did he broach the issue of my assertion (contained in the Preface) that it was actually a satirical article based on Kaufman’s original hard copy book.
Tab 3 was, of course, the infamous book that the Jews have been attempting to erase from the screen of world history ever since it first appeared back at the turn of the 20th century. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion has been attacked as an “anti-Semitic” book from day one and as the writer/journalist Douglas Reed, author of the classic study of Zionism, The Controversy of Zion, wrote, more money has been spent on trying to prove this particular book to be a fraud than any other book in history. And for good reason.
Again, Det. Wilson’s assessment of the book was that it was a fraudulent attempt to promote anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jewish population and added that those who promote it see the book as a “roadmap” of the Zionist Jews’ attempt to “take over the world” and create a Jewish one world government. Crown asked Det. Wilson whether the book existed on other websites as well and he confirmed that it could be found on many websites besides RadicalPress.com.
Tab 4 was the online version of a book written by Eustice Mullins called The Biological Jew. Wilson then went on to describe the book as an anti-Semitic book that describes the Jews as “societal parasites”. It was also admitted that this book could also be found on other websites as well as on RadicalPress.com.
Tab 5 referred to the book titled, The Jewish Religion: It’s Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling. Crown asked Det. Wilson to describe the book and he testified that it was in his estimation “anti-Semitic” and then went on to describe how bad it was and how the author accuses the Jewish rabbis of terrible things like having sex with very young children and so on. Crown then asked Wilson whether or not the author of the book, Elizabeth Dilling, was a “real person”. Wilson’s response was, “I have no idea if the author is a real person”.
Tab 6 was a reference to an article that I had published on RadicalPress.com back on August 13, 2013 entitled, Karen Selick: Just Another Hate-mongering Germanophobe Jew . Finally, I thought to myself, we’re getting to something that I, personally, had penned and I was waiting for Det. Wilson’s assessment of how he felt my writing was such an example of “hate” that it warranted inclusion in the Crown’s arsenal of classic cases of such literature. Det. Wilson then went on to explain to the court that it was a graphic image which I had included in my article that he perceived to be proof that it was yet another anti-Semitic, “hate” piece. I enclose that example directly below for the reader’s consideration.
Following Wilson’s comments regarding Tab 6 Crown then asked him if all of these online books were still up on the website and Wilson replied that all of the books that he found on the website were still there and to his knowledge none had been removed since I was arrested back on May 16th, 2012. It was at this point that Det. Wilson stated, “This is a massive website.”
Crown asked a few other related questions about Det. Wilson’s role in the arrest and he explained that he wasn’t present at my home during the search and seizure of my computers and firearms but that Cst. Gill, the “Exhibit officer” has provided him with my property afterwards. It was then that Det. Wilson sent the computers and firearms for “forensic” analysis so that the RCMP could show the court that I was the actual owner of these stolen devices.
It was at this point that the day’s testimony concluded and we left the courthouse.
The Preliminary Inquiry – Day Two
Day two proved to be much more productive in terms of time and purpose although it got off to a bit of a rough start. One of my witnesses that I had subpoenaed to appear on my behalf, Mr. Frank Frost, had traveled down to Quesnel at his own expense to attend the Preliminary Inquiry. Given that I had been told I would get my full day in court I was not that impressed when I only had approximately an hour and a half thus far allotted for the process.
When we arrived at the courthouse on Thursday, January 23rd, at 9:30 a.m. the court list showed a number of other case listed for the morning. At that point I decided to challenge the court on the matter and when the judge entered the court room and began discussing the scheduling with Crown and other lawyers present I stood up indicating that I had something to say and the judge told me to take a seat momentarily and he would get right to me. I sat down and within a few minutes he called my name and I stood up and said to him, “Your honour, I notice again today the list is getting longer than even yesterday and I’m not getting my day in court. I see this as an attempt by the Crown to prevent my witnesses from testifying. My wife, who is Jewish, is greatly offended by these charges brought against me therefore, in the interest of fundamental justice I ask that the charges be dismissed with prejudice.”
Judge Morgan responded by saying that he was not about to dismiss the case and also stated that there was no design on the part of Crown to prevent my witnesses from testifying. He followed those comments with a short dissertation on the problems and challenges that small communities face where they don’t have enough time and resources to deal with the ongoing case loads and therefore have to juggle and schedule them in order to do the best they can. He assured me that my situation was no different than any of the others. I had made my point and didn’t pursue the issue any further. From then on matters began to unfold as they should and within a very short period of time I was able to begin my cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson.
Being self-represented since the passing of my former counsel Mr. Doug Christie I was now faced with the task of cross-examining the testimony the arresting officer, Det. Wilson, had given to the court yesterday. I had prepared a series of questions that I planned to ask Wilson plus also a number of other court cases which related to the inquiry process which I intended to use if Crown began to object to any of the questions I had for Det. Wilson. Due to the length of all the questions, many of them not relevant at this point to the update itself, I will focus on only those that I feel are important to a general understanding of the case as a whole. As well, readers should bear in mind that Det. Wilson (and most likely B’nai Brith Canada’s agent Agent Z) monitor the RadicalPress.com website on a daily basis and I don’t wish to divulge certain matters which I intend to use later should the case go to trial.
Cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson
[Editor’s Note: Please bear in mind that all of the exchanges between myself and Det. Wilson during my cross-examination are taken from my notes which I made at the time I was questioning him and they may not be 100% accurate. Once I obtain a written transcript of the inquiry I’ll know if I erred on any of the minor details but for the most part I’m only quoting the things that I wrote down immediately upon Wilson’s stating them. Readers should also bear in mind that during the questioning I asked Det. Terry Wilson to inform the court as to his level of education and he answered by stating that he had received an Honours Degree in History from the University of Guelph, Ontario.]
I began cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson by first reading out the following:
“Det. Wilson, I’m going to begin by taking you to the Criminal Code section under which I am charged. Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
‘(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of … an indictable offence … or an offence punishable by summary conviction.'”
I then asked Wilson the following question: “I believe you stated yesterday in your testimony that the BC HATE CRIME TEAM was formed in 2009 and that it consists of two people, yourself and your partner/assistant Cst. Normandie Levas. Is this correct? Could you please tell the court how many actual convictions your unit has successfully prosecuted under Sec. 319(2) of the CCC since the formation of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM.” Wilson’s reply was that to date his “Hate Crime Team” had not convicted a single solitary soul! He did say though that there were two cases pending, my own plus another investigation that’s still underway.
Given all the media hype about there being so much “hate” on the Internet it begs the question as to just how much this propaganda about hatred that’s being emphasize by Jewish lobby groups like B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs is merely Zionist PR designed to justify the spending of vast amounts of taxpayer money in order to create these provincial “HATE CRIME UNITS” across Canada that ultimately only serve the interests of the foreign lobbyists who exploit them in order to monitor, harass, intimidate and punish critics of the Zionist ideology, their global mechanisms and the criminal state of Israel.
Considering Det. Wilson’s concerted effort to show the court that RadicalPress.com was wide open to the general public and that anyone in Canada could easily access the website plus all its accompanying links to a vast assortment of online books and articles, I asked Det. Wilson if he had any evidence that the material on the website was actually viewed and read by anyone. His reply was “Yes”. Then he stated that both of the two complainants, Agent Z and Ricardo Warmouse plus himself had accessed the site. That was the sum total of his evidence. No shit! That was it!
So it was manifestly obvious that no one else in all of Canada had gone on to the RadicalPress.com website, found it to be “anti-“Semitic” and then registered a complaint against it with the BC HATE CRIME TEAM claiming the site was promoting “hatred” contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. Yet, because two pro-Zionist agents of the Zionist Jew lobby group B’nai Brith Canada (one of them an ethnic, duel-citizen Zionist Jew and the other a gentile lawyer who made it his business to lay “hate crime” complaints and in many cases profit monetarily from Sec. 13(1) convictions) had filed complaints, that, in the Crown’s view, were reason enough to monitor my website; the RCMP did helicopter and ground surveillance of my home and property; stalked both my wife and myself in the days prior to my arrest; flew the “BC HATE CRIME TEAM” up from Surrey, B.C. (a distance of approximately 600 km) at great expense to the taxpayers of the province; conscripted a number of local police officers as well; stopped me on my way to Prince George on business; arrested me; handcuffed me; terrorized my wife; hauled me off to jail, leaving my wife on the highway in the middle of nowhere; then waited for some justice of the peace on the lower mainland to sign a phoney, illegal search warrant so the police could eventually enter my home, scavenge and steal what they could of my computers and electronic files, and make off with all of my firearms.
Does this sound like the “free and democratic society” called Canada that we see enshrined in the Charter of Rights or Freedoms or is it more in keeping with the Marxist Communist Bolshevik dictatorship under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin where all it took was a single accusation from an enemy and you suddenly found yourself dragged before a tribunal of crooked, conspiring commissars where all your legal rights suddenly vanished, truth was no defence and you’re then subjected to humiliation and the abject opprobrium of the state and either sent off to spend your remaining years in some northern gulag wasteland or else escorted down into a dark dungeon to receive a bullet in the back of the head?
For those readers who’ve yet to experience such tactics by the state this may all sound a bit fantastic but let me assure you that if it’s happening to me and my family and has happened to other Canadians in the recent past it doesn’t bode well for any of you either as this form of systemic covert repression on the part of the state continues to grow more bold and audacious by the day, aided and abetted by the Jewish lobbyists who now so blatantly advertise their power and influence over Canada’s elected Harper government.
As I thought about the two individuals who’s actions had precipitated all the endless angst of the police and the court against myself and my family I pondered what percentage of the Canadian population this would be when we consider that 2 out of 34.88 million people accessed RadicalPress.com and alleged that the site contained “anti-Semitic” articles and books that wilfully promoted hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin. A quick calculation indicated that it amounted to 0.00000573394495 % of the total population of Canada.
103,000 Missing Emails
Another area of contention was the matter of all of my private email communications contained in the two computers that the police had taken from my residence. I had only recently received a thumb drive from the BC HATE CRIME TEAM containing what is purported to be all of my stolen emails just days before the Preliminary Hearing and to date I’ve not had the time to check to determine how many are stored on the 32 Gigabit memory stick. Crown was supposed to have returned these emails back in 2012 and it was only recently that Judge Morgan finally requested that CC Johnston contact Det. Wilson and ask him to return them. I had indicated to the judge that there was a large volume of relevant data contained in the emails which I needed for my defence and given that email communications are considered to be “private communications” and not admissible as evidence in Section 319(2) offences they should be returned to me.
It has always been my contention that Det. Wilson took my computers in order to access the information contained in the private communications between myself and my many associates and friends. When questioned on this matter Wilson stated that the police have the right to take an accused’s computer in order to search for evidence that would prove in a court of law that the accused was in fact the person posting to the website. When asked whether or not he or anyone else accessed and read the emails or shared them with anyone else Wilson did his best to deny having done so although he did concede that he saw some of them in the course of investigating the various articles and online books that were now being used to convince Judge Morgan there was sufficient evidence to warrant trying the case but that his main object was to verify the material now being presented to the court as Exhibit “A”. I should add that when I later cross-examined Cpl. Barry Salt he confirmed that when he did his initial analysis of my computers that he found 103,000 emails and 5,500 documents. As well, he stated that the number was closer to 107,500 by now. Unfortunately it didn’t cross my mind at the moment to ask him how he would be aware of any increase in numbers but that’s an issue to be investigated later.
There are very good reasons for me to suspect that Det. Wilson did in fact go through the private emails contained on my iMac computer. This came out when I questioned Wilson on the following:
Det. Wilson, I’d like to ask you a few questions about your own history with regard to these kinds of investigations.
Q: I understand that you once worked with the London Police Service. Am I correct in that regard?
[Wilson replied by stating that he had joined the police force in Ontario back in 1989 and the hate crime unit in 1995 and that he had moved out to B.C. in 2003 and eventually joined the BC Hate Crime Team in 2009. A.T.]
I also understand from the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Warmouse v. Kulbashian, 2006 CHRT 11, that while employed by the London Police Service, you executed a search warrant at the residence of James Scott Richardson, an individual suspected of uttering threats.
“ Mr. Wilson obtained a search warrant for the apartment in question, and executed it on September 28, 2001. Mr. Richardson was found in the apartment when the police entered and was arrested. He was charged with uttering threats against property and persons, and counselling the indictable offences of murder and of property damage…
 A police crime analyst specializing in electronic evidence was involved in the search operation. He seized a computer found in the apartment, and once back at the police station, made a mirror image of its hard drive and examined its content. Amongst the directories on the drive was one that contained the logs of Internet relay chats in which the user of the computer had participated…”
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
According to that same Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, you also executed an arrest warrant for Mr. Alexan Kulbashian, and a search warrant at the residence of Mr. Kulbashian’s parents:
 Mr. Wilson’s investigation eventually led him to conclude that “Totenkopf” and “Alex Krause” were pseudonyms for Mr. Kulbashian, and that he had also been involved in the publication of the September 14, 2001, Vinland Voice articles. Mr. Wilson therefore sought and obtained warrants for the arrest of Mr. Kulbashian (on charges similar to those filed against Mr. Richardson) and for the search of his residence at his parents’ home in North York. The warrants were executed on January 30, 2002…”
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Again Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
And according to that same Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, the criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian were later withdrawn:
“ In the end, the Crown prosecutor apparently decided to withdraw the criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian before going to trial. According to Mr. Wilson, the Crown concluded that there was no reasonable expectation of conviction on the charges laid against them.”
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Again Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
But despite the withdrawal of criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian, the evidence that you collected in the course of Criminal Code search warrants was later disclosed to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Wilson’s reply was that the evidence was disclosed to the CHRC but that it was divulged to them only after the commission had subpoena’d Wilson in order to get it. A.T.]
And that same evidence, collected by you in the course of executing Criminal Code search warrants was also disclosed to Ricardo Warmouse, an individual who pursued a complaint against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian.
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Wilson replied that the evidence had been disclosed to the commission itself and not specifically to Warmouse. A.T.]
Q: When you disclosed this evidence to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, did you know Mr. Warmouse?
[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
The Wilson/Warmouse Connection
Having established that Det. Wilson was involved with alleging and arresting and removing other individual’s computers from their homes over a decade ago I continued questioning Wilson as to his relationship with Ricardo Warmouse, the person who had first laid the Sec. 319(2) complaint against me back in 2011.
I asked Det. Wilson the following questions:
Q: When did you first establish contact with Mr. Warmouse?
[Wilson replied that he first connected with Ricardo Warmouse a year or two after he had joined the Ontario hate crime unit back in 1995 and that it was likely due to Warmouse having contacted the unit with a complaint. A.T.]
Q: Did you and Mr. Warmouse ever discuss the Section 13(1) complaint against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian?
[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: When did you first establish contact with Agent Z?
[Wilson replied that he first heard from Agent Z back in April of 2011. A.T.]
Q: Did you initially make contact with Agent Z or did he make contact with you?
[Wilson testified that it was Agent Z who first contacted him. A.T.]
Q: Were you aware, at the time you executed the search of my residence, that I was subject to a proceeding under Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act?
[Again Wilson affirmed that he was aware of my previous Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaint that Agent Z had filed against me back in 2007 but he attempted to downplay it by suggesting that his investigation focused on doing a whole new investigation separate from what was done (and still remains current) by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. A.T.]
Q: Were you aware that Agent Z was the complainant in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Were you aware of any involvement on the part of Ricardo Warmouse in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding?
[Here Det. Wilson states, “Yes, Warmouse was also a complainant in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding.” Of course, officially, Ricardo Warmouse was not a complainant in the CHRC complaint brought against myself and RadicalPress.com in 2007 although Wilson’s reply now ties in with evidence which I have suggested all along confirms the fact that he was involved but only in a clandestine manner. A.T.]
Q: Did you ever discuss the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me with Mr. Warmouse?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Did you ever discuss the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me with Agent Z?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Did Agent Z ever express to you that he was concerned that the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me might not be successful?
[Wilson’s reply was that during his investigation he had interviewed Agent Z and Agent Z had in fact mentioned his Sec. 13(1) complaint against me but that it was only in reference to Agent Z’s “fear” that this section of the Canadian Human Rights Act was likely going to be repealed. A.T.]
Q: Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with Ricardo Warmouse?
[Wilson says “No”. A.T.]
Q: Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with Agent Z?
[Again, Wilson says “No” but he then qualified that by adding it has been “just updated”, whatever that means. A.T.]
Q: Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with the Canadian Human Rights Commission?
[Wilson says “No”. A.T.]
Q: Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with anybody? If so, who?
[Here Wilson stated that only those directly authorized to be involved in the investigation have been privy to the evidence collected. A.T.]
Tabs 1 & 2 – Germany Must Perish! and Israel Must Perish!
At this point in my cross-examination I focussed on the first two tabs mentioned in Crown’s Exhibit “A”, those being the online book, Germany Must Perish! written by Theodore N. Kaufmann and my satirical article Israel Must Perish!.
I began my questioning by asking Det. Wilson if he was familiar with the term “satire” and, if so, could he define for the court its meaning. His response was that it more or less meant “poking fun at something”. I then went on:
Q: Did Agent Z ever suggest to you that the article Israel Must Perish! was a form of satire?
[Wilson’s response was that Agent Z hadn’t told him anything that would lead him (Agent Z) to believe it (Israel Must Perish! ) was satire. A.T.]
Q: Have you read the article Israel Must Perish!?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Are you familiar with the book Germany Must Perish!?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Were you, at the time you began investigating my website, familiar with the book Germany Must Perish!?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Throughout the course of these proceedings you and the Crown have consistently referred to the article Israel Must Perish! as a “book”. Could you please explain to the court why you have done so?
[Wilson basically dodged the direct question by saying that it was “sections of a book” meaning sections of Germany Must Perish! A.T.]
Q: Are you familiar with the acronym ISBN regarding book publishing? It stands for International Standard Book Number. Every book published has an ISBN that is unique to that particular publication. Do any of your records show an ISBN number for the purported book Israel Must Perish! ?
[Wilson’s response to the first question was “No” he wasn’t familiar with the acronym “ISBN”. As for the second part of the question Wilson looked again at the images of the article that were in the Exhibit “A” binder and then stated, “I don’t recall one.” A.T.]
Q: Did it ever occur to you that the article Israel Must Perish! might be a satirical reference to the book Germany Must Perish!?
[Wilson’s response to this question was very telling indeed. He simply stated, “No sir.” A.T.]
Q: When you were reading the article Israel Must Perish! on the RadicalPress.com website HYPERLINK http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=1313 did you also read the Preface to it which was posted along with the article?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Are you familiar with the defence contained in Section 319(3)(d) of the Criminal Code, namely that “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.”?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Do you accept that certain satirical material might fall within the protection of Section 319(3)(d) of the Criminal Code?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Tab 5: The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling
Q: In your testimony yesterday, regarding Tab 5: of the Exhibit Index File 25166 which dealt with the book The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today, Crown Counsel Johnston asked you whether or not the author, Elizabeth Dilling, was a “real person.” You responded by saying, “I have no idea if the author is a real person.” Given the fact that you claim to be the lead “hate crime” investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM Mr. Wilson did it not occur to you that you might take the time to investigate and find out whether Elizabeth Dilling was or was not a “real person?” I did a simple Google search of Elizabeth Dilling’s name last night after returning home from court and found a total of 211,000 results in less than 30 seconds listing the various works of the author plus biographical documentation from the Jewish-owned Wikipedia site, the free online encyclopedia, which verifies that Elizabeth Dilling was in fact a real person. Given the fact that in your professional opinion you have determined this book to be “anti-Semitic” and worthy of proof, in your estimation, that it constitutes “hate propaganda” or “anti-Semitic hate literature” could you please tell the court why you would not have taken 30 seconds of your time to check into this matter?
Before I was able to read out the whole question to Det. Wilson he interjected by grinning and saying that after yesterday’s court session he had checked and now was cognizant of the fact that Elizabeth Dilling was an actual author of the aforesaid book. He obviously had been caught off guard by CC Johnston’s question regarding the author. His reply to my question about why he didn’t take the time to check the authenticity of the author was that he was “more concerned with the content of the book than with authenticating whether the author was real or not.”
Q: Are you familiar with the defence contained in Section 319(3)(c) of the Criminal Code, namely that “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true.”?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Question Regarding the Search Warrant
Q: On Page 8 of the BC Hate Crime Team pdf it gives an explanation for Sections 320 and 320.1 Warrants of Seizure. These warrant of seizure sections pertain to the removal of hate propaganda written material. This includes hate propaganda that is stored on computer systems and made available to the public, including through the Internet. A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication or electronic material—copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises or on a computer system within the jurisdiction of the court—is hate propaganda, may issue a warrant authorizing seizure of the copies or order the custodian of the computer system to provide an electronic copy of the material to the court.
Now I was charged under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. That section of the criminal code does not allow for warrants of seizure. Could you please tell the court how you were able to gain a search warrant for the removal of all of my computers and electronic files when I wasn’t charged under an offence that permitted such actions?
[Wilson responded by stating “Our search warrant was executed under Section 487 of the Criminal Code of Canada not under Section 319(2).”A.T.]
Q: Do you accept that certain political commentary, even commentary which is extremely critical of an identifiable group of people, may fall within the protection of Section 319(3)(c) of the Criminal Code?
[Wilson replied “Yes”, he did accept that certain political commentary may fall within the protection of Sec. 319(3) of the Criminal Code “but not in the case of RadicalPress.com”.A.T.]
Q: Could you briefly explain your expertise in identifying speech which is prohibited by Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code and not saved by one or more of the defences listed in Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code?
[Wilson replied by stating that he had graduated from Guelph University in Ontario with an Honours Degree in History and that he had been working with “hate crime” units both in Ontario and in B.C. for the past 18 years. A.T.]
Q: Could you define for the court the term “hate”?
[Wilson responded by stating that his “HATE CRIME TEAM” uses the definition of hate that was originally used in the R v Keegstra case. A.T.]
Q: Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code includes an intent requirement. The promoted hatred must be wilful, meaning that the words must be intended to cause hatred. What causes you to believe that this is the case here?
[Without the actual transcripts I can’t state exactly what his reply was other than he started talking about Elizabeth Dillings book, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today and her descriptions of what the Talmud states regarding children, Christians and non-Jews, aka “goyim” or cattle, and how this is intended to cause “hatred” toward those of Jewish ethnicity. A.T.]
Q: Do you have any expertise in psychology which would qualify you to accurately assess my intent? [Wilson: “No.” A.T.]
Q: I put it to you that the evidence you have given with regard to the material on my website is not expert evidence. Would you agree?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: I put it to you that all of the evidence you have given is, in fact, unqualified opinion evidence. Would you agree?
[Here Wilson launched into the issue and began telling the court of his many years of investigative experience in the field of “hate propaganda” and “hate crimes” but rather than stating that he was an “expert” he preferred to refer to his work as “investigative knowledge”. A.T.]
Q: What makes your opinion on the material on my website more valid than that of myself, the author and publisher of the material in
[Wilson’s reply to this question was that his opinion was “no more valid than anyone else’s.” A.T.]
Hatred on SunNewsNetwork by Ezra Levant
This is just a screen shot. Please click on the url below to view.
Q: On November 11, 2012 I sent a private email to you and Cst. Normandie Levas and Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston titled, A Personal Appeal. In my letter I spoke about the then recent television interview between my former counsel Douglas Christie and SunTV News Network employee Ezra Levant, host of the show The Source. I explained to you that in the course of the interview, which was approximately six minutes in length, Ezra Levant, who is Jewish and a strong supporter of the state of Israel and the political ideology of that state known as Zionism, stated publicly the following about me:
“I call him an anti-Semite”
“I call Arthur Topham offensive”
“I don’t care much for Arthur Topham. He’s anti-Zionist. I think that’s code for anti-Semitic.”
“We’re showing you some screen shots from his website. I disagree with them. I find them gross. I find some of his comments repulsive.”
“I’m sure that Arthur Topham is motivated by a form of malice.”
“I see hate everywhere in Canada, especially in B.C.” [where I, Arthur Topham just happen to reside. A.T.]
“He’s a nobody”
“I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM”
“I think he’s an idiot. An anti-Semitic idiot”
“…right wing wackos like Topham”
Is this not inciting and spreading hatred toward myself in a manner far beyond that which the Crown is alleging RadicalPress.com is doing?
[Wilson’s response to this was that Ezra Levant didn’t break any law in stating what he did on national tv because he wasn’t communicating statements that wilfully promoted hatred against an “identifiable group”. In other words he was free to malign and smear and tell the whole world that he “hated Arthur Topham” but that didn’t count because I wasn’t a member of an “identifiable group”. I then said to Det. Wilson, “But I am a Christian and so I am a member of an identifiable religious group.” He had no further comment on that. A.T.]
Following this question to Wilson I then read out my letter to the court. Judge Morgan cautioned me that the letter did state that it was written “without prejudice” and that if I entered it into the record it could be used against me. When I told him that I never received a reply from any of the recipients that it was sent to he said okay, go ahead.
A Personal Appeal
Sunday, November 11th, 2012
Dear Jennifer, Normandie and Terry,
Yes, this is most likely very unusual for all three of you that someone whom you are determined to convict of a “hate crime” and strip of their constitutional rights would have the audacity to write to you directly but given the circumstances under which I am now placed, I would ask that you open your hearts and your minds, if just for a few brief moments, and take approximate 6 minutes of your time (if you haven’t already done so) to view this video of the television interview that my lawyer Doug Christie did with Ezra Levant on the SunTV News Network’s show, The Source, out of Toronto only a few short hours after our (yours Jennifer and mine) appearance in court on Thursday the 8th of November.
Whether or not you are aware of it that television show is broadcast across the nation and the world and the number of viewers who watched it exceed, by far, the number of readers who frequent my (as one of the mainstream media’s writers recently stated), “nasty little blog called Radical Press.”
Within the span of those six short minutes, Ezra Levant, who is Jewish and who also supports Zionism, publicly made the following disparaging statements about me and my website:
“I call him an anti-Semite”
“I call Arthur Topham offensive”
“I don’t care much for Arthur Topham. He’s anti-Zionist. I think that’s code for anti-Semitic”
“We’re showing you some screen shots from his website. I disagree with them. I find them gross. I find some of his comments repulsive.”
“I’m sure that Arthur Topham is motivated by a form of malice.”
“I see hate everywhere in Canada, especially in B.C.” [where Arthur Topham just happens to reside. A.T.]
“He’s a nobody”
“I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM”
“I think he’s an idiot. An anti-Semitic idiot”
“…right wing wackos like Topham”
If this is the sort of ‘impartial, objective and unbiased’ coverage that I can expect from Canada’s mainstream media throughout the upcoming trial do you find it that strange or unusual or unreasonable that I would want to hold on to my fundamental Charter right to be able to continue operating my website and posting my side of the story in my own defence for those who wish to have an alternative perspective to the one that the msm is now so blatantly broadcasting the minute that an Indictment has come down?
Do you not see the obvious slander, libel and defamation of my person and my motives and my work in these public statements? Do you not see how it already is prejudicing my chances for a fair and just trial? Does it mean nothing to you?
Is this what you, as professionals in the field of law and order and justice, condone and are striving to support in your apparent effort to take away my one means of defending myself from such open and mean spirited vituperation?
All I can say is that, in the stillness and quiet of your own inner mind and soul, you try to see and understand the injustice of what you are doing.
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
Q: Det. Wilson, are you familiar with Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Q: Section 11(d) of the Charter protects the presumption of innocence. I put it to you that this includes the idea that an accused person should not be punished for a crime unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you agree?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: Are you familiar with Section 11(e) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Q: Section 11(e) of the Charter provides that no accused person should be denied reasonable bail without just cause. I suggest to you that this means the state should not unreasonably interfere with the liberty of an accused person unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you agree?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: As of October 9, 2012, and to this day, there is no bail order preventing me from publishing content to RadicalPress.com pending trial. Is that correct?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: And in January 2013, this court specifically determined that it would not be appropriate to impose a bail condition prohibiting me from publishing on RadicalPress.com pending trial. Do you recognize this as a decision of this court?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: On November 21, 2012 I received an email from my then web hosting company Netfirms.com which contained an email letter which you had sent to Zach P of the legal department sometime between November 5th when the Indictment was handed down and November 21, 2012. In your letter you informed Zach P that I had been charged with a Section 319(2) Canadian Criminal Code offence, alleging that I had been distributing hateful speech and that you felt that the contents of my website (quote) “may in fact contravene” and be in breach of their policy. Is that correct?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: What was your objective in writing to NetFirms.com?
[Wilson then explained that he had written to my web host server “To notify them of a potential breach of their policy.” A.T.]
Q: By alleging that I had been distributing hateful speech and suggesting to Netfirms.com that you felt that the contents of my website “may in fact contravene” and be in breach of their policy were you not in effect asking NetFirms.com to do what this Honourable Court has been unwilling to do, namely shut down RadicalPress.com in advance of my trial?
[Wilson basically repeated what he’d just said about simply notifying them of a “potential breach of their policy.” A.T.]
Q: Do you think you allegations contained in your letter to Netfirms.com were appropriate in view of the presumption of innocence?
Q: Do you think your allegations were appropriate in view of the right to reasonable bail on just terms?
[Again Wilson basically repeated what he’d previously stated. A.T.]
Q: Your allegations, as stated in your email to Netfirms.com, resulted in my web hosting company giving me a 48 hour notice to remove all of the alleged “hateful speech” or else face having my website removed and losing seven years of publishing content. This sudden 48-hour ultimatum was impossible for me to rectify as Netfirms.com had no idea what the alleged offending articles were and as a further result of your allegations they were unwilling to even negotiate with me. I was faced with having to move the site to another host server in an extremely short period of time and in the process of doing so all the content on the website was damaged and hundreds upon hundreds of articles are now in need of editing to restore them to their original condition. Were you at all concerned that your allegations to NetFirms.com might result in the destruction of important evidence?
Testimony of Frank Frost and Lonnie Landrud
The final lap in the Preliminary Inquiry was the calling of two witnesses in my defence. Both Frank Frost and Lonnie Landrud are two of many individuals who have come to realize that the mainstream media no longer serves the general public when it comes to issues of social justice. Both these people have been through the wringer and the stories of the injustices that they’ve witnesses and been subjected to are nothing short of incredible.
The Lonnie Landrud story, should it ever receive the attention that it deserves, will undoubtedly go down in B.C. history as one of the most extraordinary and horrific examples of police corruption and government cover up ever to have occurred in this province. Mr. Landrud had the unfortunate fate in 1999 of witnessing the murder of a young woman by the name of Deena Lynn Braem in Quesnel by two RCMP officers, Cst. Paul Collister and Cst. Bev Hosker. When he called 911 and reported the incident it was the beginning of what is now 15 years of hell on earth for Mr. Landrud. He has had eleven attempts on his life since he first sought justice and at present the police have placed a $100,000 bounty on his head. Mr. Landrud has done everything conceivable to have his case investigated by an independent body and to date has had all of his honest and earnest efforts rebuffed by every level of government from the Prime Ministers office through to the RCMP Complaints Commission and the office of the Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark. During one attempt on his life by the RCMP Lonnie Landrud, in self-defence, shot his attacker Cst. Paul Collister with a 12-gauge shotgun, severely damaging the police officers left arm to the point where ample DNA evidence was left at the scene of the shooting to verify the fact that the officer had been wounded. The whole incident was covered up and denied by the investigating agencies and to date no one is willing to investigate and verify the evidence that still exists which will prove all of the allegations which Mr. Landrud has been desperately attempting to have examined.
When I finally heard about Mr. Landrud’s story and watched the videos where he had been interviewed back in 2007 I ran his story on RadicalPress.com in order to assist him in getting the truth out about what he had witnessed and suffered since the night he stumbled on the murder scene. Lonnie Landrud’s story is best told in his own words and writings and for this reason I’ve placed the url to his videos below and also the url to (yet another) letter which Mr. Landrud wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, NDP Opposition Leader, Thomas Mulcair, Federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, Federal Solicitor General, Rob Nicholson, Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia and Adrian Dix, NDP Leader of the Opposition Party on April 24th, 2013.
Mr. Landrud testified at the Preliminary Inquiry and told the court about his case and the urgent need for alternative media sites like RadicalPress.com that are willing to carry his story where no none of the mainstream media would do the job.
Click on the url below to view
Mr. Frank Frost also testified before the court regarding the importance of the social media and alternative news networks like RadicalPress.com. Mr. Frost is another individual who has been the victim of RCMP corruption and judicial misfeasance. Again, like Lonnie Landrud, Mr. Frost followed all the customary channels in an effort to expose the murder of a young child in Victoria, B.C. and was met with police and judicial cover-up every which way he turned. Framed and incarcerated for four months in the Prince George Regional Correction Centre where he was refused even a single phone call for FOUR MONTHS, Frank Frost has continued to take a pro-active position with respect to demands that the corruption that he’s exposing within the Ministry of Children and Family Development, the RCMP and the Courts be investigated and rectified. For further information on Mr. Frost’s case please watch his videos located here.
We have not heard the last from either of these two valiant, courageous individuals nor have we heard the last from RadicalPress.com with respect to the pervasive corruption within every level of Canadian government, the mainstream media and all levels of Canada’s judiciary.
This wraps up Legal Update #17 for January 27th, 2014.
Canada and Zionism: a dangerous matter that has long been overlooked, outright ignored or analyzed insignificantly. Jonathan Azaziah is joined by the the brilliant, brave and talented activist and Press TV journalist Joshua Blakeney of Calgary, Alberta for a fascinating, exhilarating discussion on this highly important geopolitical matter and what it means for the future of our world.
Dear Radical Reader,
This interview with Joshua Blakeney is one of the finest analysis of the take-over of Canada by the forces of Zionism that I have ever encountered to date. The show is riveting and packed with intelligent, insightful and informative information on how the Israeli government, acting through its Zionist lobby groups here in Canada, has virtually taken control of our nation away from the people and placed it in the traitorous hands of PM Stephen Harper and his seditious crew of Zionist sycophants. If you want to get the goods on what’s been happening to your country and how it is being turned into yet another satellite of the Rothschild Zionist NWO forces then it’s imperative that you listen to this broadcast.
On another note tomorrow, Friday the 13th of December I will be doing a pre-recorded interview with Joshua Blakeney on the issue of Canada’s anti-Free Speech laws, my sec. 319(2) CCC “hate crime” charge and their direct connection with the Zionist Jew Israeli lobby. I’ll send out further particulars on when it will be aired once I know the details.
I highly recommend listening to this interview with Joshua Blakeney and Jonathan Azaziah of Mask of Zion prior to listening to my interview.
The common definition of fascism involves the marriage of government and private corporations to exploit all available resources and – in pursuit of private profit – to repress populations. Long gone is the old (and brief) definition of fascism as ‘corporatism’ – meaning the concentration of all community powers to benefit “the nation”.
Repression of populations usually requires – at some point in the process – the use of police forces. They are transformed from being organizations of citizen protection – “keeping the peace” – to instruments of repression in the hands of the government/corporations alliance.
“RCMP hid cost of gun registry destruction from press” (Globe and Mail, Tues. Sept. 17, A10). Why? The Conservative government ordered the destruction of the federal gun registry data. The RCMP undertook the task, refused to report on it, refused to provide figures for eleven months, still refuses to speak on the matter … as a lap-dog taking orders from the Stephen Harper cabinet, renouncing even an appearance of independence. The role of police and policing in Canada is being politicized, militarized, deregulated and brutalized.
Concerned observers see politicization and militarization of police evident in large public events like the G20 brutality and the repression of Quebec students in the Maple Spring. But police actions against individual ordinary people on behalf of private corporations or as “biker gang brutality” also grows. As does the “deregulation” of police violence.
The nation itself is now under full-scale attack through assaults on (a) the rule of law, (b) the supremacy of parliament, (c) the sanctity of the individual, (d) the validity of Canada’s independent democracy and, therefore, the legitimacy of Canadians to decide – through their representatives – the primary policies of their country.
The attack is wide open. The present Conservative government led by Stephen Harper (a) destroys regulation, regulatory bodies, and information necessary to shape law. At the same time, it misinforms the public on legal matters. Stephen Harper himself declared the recent Robocall misuse undertaken to influence the Saskatchewan public against electoral boundary change … perfectly acceptable practice. (CP, Feb 6, 13)
He personally reviewed Senator Pamela Wallin’s Senate account and declared her spending appropriate. Elected Conservative MPs are bound and gagged. Appointed actors (cabinet, Senate, Conservative Party, and PMO) gibber rehearsed lines to surround repressive measures with distracting noise.
The present Conservative government undertakes (b) sovereignty-robbing foreign treaties executed without any relation to parliament and its members. In addition, it bulldozes through the House of Commons foreign corporation-serving bills of such magnitude and complexity the bills cannot receive democratic scrutiny. It loaded the Senate with political hacks, using taxpayers’ money to reward partisan work and to pervert the proper function of Senators and the institution.
The Conservative government destroys and/or vitiates entities protecting justice and the sanctity of the individual: the courts, the police, whistle-blower organizations, unions, and other citizen-protection groups. On two occasions of major importance – the BC Rail Scandal and the case taken in Alberta by Jessica Ernst against Encana Corporation and the Alberta government regulator for Fracking damage (still being fought) – the Conservative Minister of Justice promoted effective judges off the cases – in mid-legal process – to prevent, many believe, justice being done. Out of the BC Rail Scandal Stephen Harper appointed the man believed by many to be most central to the issue, former premier Gordon Campbell, to the position of Canadian High Commissioner in London, whisking him out of the province.
In both cases the role of the RCMP has been called seriously into question – as being less than impartial. The tip of the iceberg doesn’t show in cases that attract major public attention because they involve governments and large corporations. The tip of the iceberg is seen in what might be called small, individual cases where police wrong-doing and/or brutality is almost inexplicable.
In 2007 an innocent, unilingual, slightly confused Polish immigrant arriving at Vancouver International Airport, Robert Dziekanskli, was set upon by four RCMP officers, tasered five times, and died with police officers “restraining” him as he lay on the floor.
The RCMP as a body is alleged to have attempted cover-up and falsification of the facts. The Commissioner in Ottawa telephoned to sympathize with the officers involved. The premier of B.C., Gordon Campbell, expressed his sympathy to the top RCMP officer in B.C.
A witness film to the police action revealed the brutality of the police officers and the serious misreporting of the event. Much of the general public who watched the film believed a murder had been committed. A former RCMP and CSIS officer told me he expected criminal charges to be laid within days after the event.
The tip of the iceberg reveals the solidarity of the RCMP (and government), from the perpetrators of the act on up, to prevent full and fair legal action in a case generally believed to be a criminal case.
Going on seven years later, after millions of dollars have been spent on denials, and reports, and a Commission of Inquiry, and the appointment of a Special Crown Prosecutor who took almost a year to read the Commission Report, and a series of what I believe are pretend trials of the men involved in the death of Robert Dziekanski for … perjury (?) … the matter drags on and on and on, a hopeless mess and a travesty of law and justice. A disgrace to Canada ….
Many believe the RCMP proved it can violate the rule of law for years and years with impunity. Reform that has been demanded publicly is all but ignored in the RCMP head offices in Ottawa. At the same time the present Conservative government demands more and more control of the Force, insisting, for instance, that all statements by the Commissioner are first vetted by cabinet.
RCMP violence and violation of the kind observed in the Robert Dziekanski case is not rare. Rather, actions go unobserved because of the “unimportance” of the people violated or because of hasty, effective cover-up. In the Kelly Marie Richard Alberta dental malpractice case, the Lonnie Lundrud case in Quesnel, B.C., the Robert Erickson case in McBride, B.C., the Frank and Helen case in Chilliwack, B.C. and the RCMP “interference” in the Wiebo Ludwig case the Canadian public can see in only those small number of instances cited that the RCMP works against ordinary citizens dramatically and – in highest probability – criminally as well.
What of the larger picture – the one made up of public protests against corporate government, globalized repression, attacks on basic freedoms and the rule of law, and the growing movement to impoverish whole populations on behalf of the one per cent?
Carefully gathered, chilling information is present in a recent book published in Quebec. It is edited by Francis Dupuis-Deri and is entitled A qui la rue? or in English Who Owns The Street?
The reality behind the question of the title appears to be that action in the streets by citizens is more and more relevant and even necessary. That is so because of the consolidation of government and the private corporations and because of the sell-out of formerly independent bodies: press and media, the courts, and the Opposition political parties. Together, they join in the repression of public freedoms: freedom of assembly, freedom of expression, freedom of the individual, as well as the common responsibility of all citizens to the rule of law.
The book out of Quebec covers police behavior from the anti-globalization action in Seattle (Sept. 2001) to the student actions against educational inequality in Quebec in 2012 (“the Maple Spring”). Three Canadian matters are dealt with: the G20 summit debacle of 2010, the Quebec Maple Spring of 2012, and the annual March 15 demonstration against police brutality in Montreal, since 1997.
The astonishing figures for the last event, held annually, tell the story. Though the demonstration is never large compared to many others, from 2005 until 2013 the number of people arrested at the demonstration has risen from 5 in 2005 to 297 in 2013.
One might well conclude that the Montreal police – supported by “the law” in Quebec – wish to erase public criticism of Montreal police brutality.
The book edited by political science professor from the University of Quebec at Montreal, Frances Dupuis-Deri, demonstrates a dangerous and disturbing trend in Canada. Police actions – more and more – are becoming politicized. That means police do not appear at demonstrations “to keep the peace”. They arrive with political orders to target selected groups – however peaceable – to foment violence, and to make arrests. They deliberately break the law, knowing they will be protected by government, corporations, the press, and the courts.
Faking the need for police intervention, the police now engage in arrests of mass groups – all the members of which cannot, by any stretch of the imagination – be guilty of law breaking. In addition, the police engage in so-called “preventative arrests” – arrests of people the police claim might commit criminal acts. Law experts consulted have declared such arrests lawless and unconstitutional.
Individual police officers often use foul and insulting language in dealing with demonstrators – revealing open political prejudice. Example of Quebec, French-language, “street” (joual’ist) expressions may be linguistically amusing but they are, in fact, vicious and offensive.
The political intention of Canadian police is marked by their attempt in Quebec to charge (often) innocent demonstrators, to give them the chance of immediate release if they admit guilt and pay a municipal fine of (most recently) $637.00.
Many innocent demonstrators believe an arrest means an infraction of the law. It doesn’t. And long court trials often reveal that many, many people charged are innocent of wrong-doing.
The ruse of getting on-the-spot admissions of guilt from the innocent and levying fines against them has been put in place. Alexander Popovic, activist against police brutality, spent years fighting the ruse. He writes about the long campaign in A qui la rue?
His advice to demonstrators is to refuse admission of guilt and an on-the-spot fine. Demonstrators must fight for their innocence in large numbers, must crowd the punitive jails set up, and then self-defend in the courts – forcing them to observe the rule of law and just courtroom procedure.
If the court system becomes bankrupt as a result of lawless police action against large numbers of well-meaning citizens concerned for the good of Canadian society, then the bankruptcy of the courts might point to the bankrupt democracy in which such police behavior is permitted.
The history of government/corporate/police brutality revealed in A qui la rue/ Who Owns the Street? must teach additional lessons. Demonstrations against government/corporate/police oppression must grow in number and size. Demonstrators must self-educate about law and the courts. They must organize filming and other witnessing of police brutality. They must write immediate accounts of police lawlessness. They must gain political party, union, NGO, etc. support (or refusal of support) to make public.
Opposition party support for lawless police action must be exposed and attacked in order to protect the innocent.
In the largest sense, Canadians must realize they face police forces in Canada that are changing for the worse, that – apparently – welcome direction from above to engage in violent and lawless activity.
The name we give to such collaboration is “fascism”. That collaboration must be fought by Canadians with increasing awareness and increasing determination. Canadians must prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that the Canadian people own the street– not the police and not governments locked in the ugly embrace of private corporations.
Contact Robin at: Robin Mathews email@example.com
Traitors Without Borders
September 22, 2013
1. I’ve completely had it with Israel and its pernicious lobby in these United States. However, as angry as I am, I still enjoy laughing at our Canadian brothers and sisters, especially the ones who are afraid that the US will take over Canada. Not that they shouldn’t be worried, but the fact is, if the United States wanted to take over Canada it would have to first liberate Canada from Israel, an unlikely occurrence.
By the way, General Abdel Fattah Sisi is a Jew, but I digress.
Back to Canada.
All you them thar Canadiuns who want to try to take your country back might want to start planning for a huge demonstration on December 1, 2013. You see, The Israeli Prime Minister for Chanadian Affairs, Stephen Harper, is being honored by the Jewish National Fund of Toronto on December 1st, 2013 at the Metro Centre in Toronto. It will be a huge, lavish, Israel-firster affair during which Haper’s complete, total, 100 per cent ownership by Israel will be proclaimed as the greatest thing since someone got the idea and men should cut off the end of the dicks. It’s called the Negev Dinner 2013.
On, and thanks to Xymphora for noting this, to make matters even worse the, this same bunch of Israel-firsters is going to use 2013 Negev Campaign funds to build a bird sanctuary in Israel and they are going to name this sanctuary after Stephen Harper. Needless to say, all of the tuyuur at Mantiq al-Tayr are pissed. Really pissed.
According to the JNF Toronto website, you can call here to get more info. Canadians of the world unite! And call that number and tell them what you think.:
2. In the meantime, members of the US Congress continue to worship Israel and to sacrifice American interests at the alter of the “Jewish State.” There’s a little publicized outfit full of Israel-firsters in Congress called, and I’m not making this up, “The Congressional Israel Allies Caucus” (part of the Israel Allies Foundation) and it is up to no good, as one might expect. As I write these words these assholes are meeting in Jerusalem, Israel – that’s what they call it and you can see above, for a three day conference dedicated to kissing Israel’s ass.
“Thousands of Christians, along with lawmakers from around the world, will participate in an Israel Allies Foundation conference beginning Sunday.
“The 25 visiting lawmakers are leaders of pro-Israel caucuses in their countries, affiliated with the Israel Allies Foundation, founded by former tourism minister Rabbi Bennie Elon, and the Knesset Christian Allies Caucus.”
Here’s an interesting quote from their “About” page.
“Pioneered by MK Rabbi Binyamin Elon, the Israel Allies Foundation (IAF) works with Congress and parliaments around the world to mobilize political support for Israel based on Judeo-Christian values.”
Here’s another one. Note to Shas Party members, red highlighting is done by today’s guest editor, Noor al-Haqiqa or “Snip” as we call her in the chatroom.
Ms. Snip, guest editor
“The Foundation addresses a range of issues, most of which are spearheaded by the Caucus. These issues include moving the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s united capital, addressing Iranian nuclear ambitions, making sure US funding does not go to terror connected entities, fighting against the delegitimization of Israel, and holding the UN and UNRWA accountable. These issues are gravely important as US foreign policy has strategic bearing on our country’s security. “
Somebody ought to record the above and add a laugh track.
Go here to see if your congressman is a TRAITORS member.
A bunch of these dimwits in the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus (TRAITORS), have recently sponsored yet another bill to move the so-called US Embassy (which it isn’t) to Jerusalem.
These fuck heads are also on Facebook.
I find it interesting that when I come across articles about this conference we don’t seem to get the names of the politicians who are actually attending.
Instead of running around at Bilderberg conferences, I think our investigators in the alternative media need to be checking out the likes of The Congressional Israel Allies Caucus” and it’s mother organization the Israel Allies Foundation.
3. Okay it’s video time. First let’s take a look at the absolutely insane Trent Franks (Habayit Hayehudi, Arizona), co-chair of the Congressional Israel Allies Caucus and who just the other day said he intends to introduce legislation calling for war with Iran, as Franks talks of his devotion to a foreign power.
Now that you have endured that, here’s your reward. “Haddi Ya Bahr” by NaVil Mansour and Ronza Ismael.
“Nostalgia and hope meet in this song and remind us on the core of the Palestinian cause: the Right of Return.”
Paul Fromm on the Demise of Free Speech in Canada
By Kevin MacDonald
April 13, 2013
Paul Fromm, a pro-White activist who writes for his CAFE (Canadian Association for Free Expression) website, has an article on a recent ruling by the Canadian Supreme Court that once again indicates the power of the cultural left at the highest reaches of Western societies “The Whatcott Decision – A Grim Day for Christians and Freedom of Speech“). The case involves a $15000 fine (plus court costs likely to be north of $150,000) imposed on an evangelical Christian who distributed leaflets containing criticism of homosexuality based on Biblical teachings.
Some excerpts and comments:
The decision is pure cultural Marxism. It reflects the triumph of *Frankfurt School* social science which has captured most Western universities. While economic communism collapsed and was defeated, cultural communism was spread by the *Frankfurt School*. Basically, it sees the world divided up into two classes: oppressors – those would be White Christians, and especially sexually healthy White males – and the oppressed – those would be women, homosexuals, Jews, and certain other racial minorities. To overthrow the “oppressors” and to establish universal equality – not of opportunity but results – the *Frankfurt School* targeted loyalty to family, country and religion. There began a concerted campaign of “deconstruction” whereby political heroes, cultural heroes – the dismissal of traditional English literature as the writing of dead, White males – and traditional Christianity were mocked and attacked. These ideas have captured the upper echelons of Canada’s judiciary and bode poorly for freedom of speech.
The Whatcott decision holds that in human rights cases:
· Truth is no defence;?
· Intent is no defence;?
· No harm needs to be proven to have been caused to a “vulnerable” minority;
· A minority is designated as “vulnerable” not because of any evidence – the court admits concrete evidence is often lacking, but on the mere say-so of a human rights commission or court;
· Christians are not protected from hatred as they are not a “vulnerable minority.”
The Court depicts Mr. Whatcott as having the power to intimidate homosexuals. The reality is far different:
Well, where’s the evidence that in the decade since Mr. Whatcott handed out his flyers critical of homosexuals, that “dialogue” was shut down and homosexuals were unable to respond? For nearly 20 years, the powerful homosexual lobby has been pushing for same sex marriage – a revolutionary anti-family retreat from tradition. In 2001, Parliament overwhelmingly voted to endorse the traditional definition of marriage – one man and one woman. The lobby continued its pressure, apparently not intimidated or silenced by the lonely Mr. Whatcott’s leafleting. A cowardly Jean Chretien referred the “question” as to whether the traditional definition of marriage, accepted by almost all but the fringiest elements of Christianity, and by Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism, was “discriminatory” to the judicial revolutionaries on the Supreme Court. They collapsed and gave the homosexual lobby what it wanted. Canada has same-sex marriage.
Despite being a Catholic, Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty of Ontario forced even Catholic schools to promote the homosexual agenda in the schools and have Gay-Straight Alliance Clubs, even though the practice of homosexuality violates Catholic teaching. (So much for religious freedom!) The homosexual agenda has triumphed in almost every battle. It successfully pressured to have “sexual orientation” added to the privileged groups protected by Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code, Canada’s notorious “hate law.” In fact, there’s no evidence that Mr. Whatcott’s pathetic little leafleting operation ever intimidated any homosexual from promoting his cause. The only one excluded from the debate is Mr. Whatcott! Mr. Whatcott and strong critics of the homosexual agenda are all but excluded from the mainstream media. Pro-homosexual commentators bray their views from the CBC and the Globe and Mail is virtually a mouthpiece for the homosexual lobby. The only voices marginalized are critics of the homosexual agenda.
Fromm targets the Frankfurt School, a Jewish intellectual movement discussed in Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique:
Despite calling themselves a “School of Social research,” the Frankfurt School feared any objective research that might challenge their ideology. Like the Supreme Court, they defined the world ideologically, and facts would not be allowed to get in the way:
The Frankfurt School never set out to find out the truth about human behavior and institutions. Instead, its members viewed empirically oriented social science as an aspect of domination and oppression. Horkheimer wrote in 1937 that “if science as a whole follows the lead of empiricism and the intellect renounces its insistent and confident probing of the tangled brush of observations in order to unearth more about the world than even our well-meaning daily press, it will be participating passively in the maintenance of universal injustice.” Rather than find out how society works, the social scientist must be a critic of culture and adopt an attitude of resistance toward contemporary societies.
The unscientific nature of the enterprise can also be seen in its handling of dissent within the ranks of the Institute—a trend that is a common feature of Jewish intellectual and political movements Erich Fromm was excised from the movement in the 1930s because his leftist humanism opposed the authoritarian nature of the psychoanalyst-patient relationship. This was not compatible with the pro-Bolshevik stance championed at the time by the Horkheimer-Adorno line: Fromm “takes the easy way out with the concept of authority,without which, after all, neither Lenin’s avant-garde nor dictatorship can be conceived of. I would strongly advise him to read Lenin…I must tell you that I see a real threat in this article to the line which the journal takes. (See Chapter 5 of The Culture of Critique.)
One of the most shocking revolutionary conclusions of the Court is that truth should not be a defence, at least in human rights cases: “The lack of defences is not fatal to the constitutionality of the provision. Truthful statements can be presented in a manner that would meet the definition of hate speech, and not all truthful statements must be free from restriction. …
Fromm emphasizes the Jewish role in this decision:
Finally, and this is a delicate topic in oppressive, minority-ruled Canada, let’s look at the makeup of the six judge panel who heard this crucial case about the rights of Christians. Three, yes three, or fully one half of the panel were Jews. Under the regime of employment equity, a Canadian version of anti-White “affirmative action”, invented by, guess who? Madame Justice Rosalie Silberman Abella, who was on the panel, “systemic discrimination” is evidenced by an over-representation or under-representation of a group. It must be remembered that Jews, at about 310,000, constitute less than one per cent of Canada’s population, but made up half of panel in Whatcott! Did their personal views interfere? Ironically, had Justice Abella applied her own “employment equity” she’d have removed herself from the panel in Whatcott as her minority was already heftily over-represented.
The author of this freedom trashing opinion was Mr. Justice Marshall Rothstein of Manitoba. His biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “He served as an adjudicator under the Manitoba Human Rights Act from 1978 to 1983 and as a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal from 1986 to 1992.” In other words, he was, for more than a decade, part of the whole repressive “human rights” industry he was now being invited to critique. In his case, there was more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.” Perhaps, no surprise he found state censorship and strong criticism of privileged minorities perfectly justified in a “free” [do words mean nothing!] and “democratic society.”
At least two Liberal senators, Robina Jaffer and Jim Munson (a former journalist happily at ease with state censorship), in speaking against Bill C-304, which would repeal Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act quoted Justice Abella and her emphasis on“vulnerable minorities”: to wit: “In a 2009 speech entitled Human Rights and History’s Judgment, Justice Rosalie Abella said: We were supposed to have learned three indelible lessons from the concentration camps of Europe. First, indifference is injustice’s incubator. Second, it’s not just what you stand for, it’s is what you stand up for. And third, we must never forget how the world looks to those who are vulnerable.’” Justice Abella was also part of the human rights industry having served on the Ontario Human Rights Commission. Her biography on the Supreme Court website notes: “She married Canadian historian Irving M. Abella on December 8, 1968.” Irving Abella is a past president of the Canadian Jewish Congress, a pro-censorship intervener in Whatcott. The CJC has been a long-time and strident supporter of anti-free speech “hate laws”. Again, one might wonder why Justice Abella did not recuse herself from this case is there is more than a “reasonable apprehension of bias.”
It is certainly true that the organized Jewish community has been a strong voice supporting laws curtailing free speech, not just in Canada, but throughout the Western world (see “The Hate Crimes Prevention Bill: Why Do Jewish Organizations Support It?“). Irving Abella’s book was cited in my chapter on the Jewish role in promoting immigration. Although the chapter emphasizes the Jewish role in altering U.S. immigration policy in favor of non-Whites, the Jewish community played a similar role throughout the West, including Canada:
In the case of Canada, Abella (A Coat of Many Colors: Two Centuries of Jewish Life in Canada; 1990, 234–235) notes the important contribution of Jews in bringing about a multicultural Canada and, in particular, in lobbying for more liberal immigration policies. Reflecting this attitude, Arthur Roebuck, attorney general of Ontario, was greeted “with thunderous applause” at a 1935 convention for the Zionist Organization of Canada [dedicated to a Jewish ethnostate] when he stated that he looked “forward to the time when our economic conditions will be less severe than they are today and when we may open wide the gates, throw down the restrictions and make of Canada a Mecca for all the oppressed peoples of the world” (in M. Brown 1987, 256).
Abella also co-authored a book, None Is Too Many that was critical of Canada for not admitting Jewish refugees in the World War II era. The title comes from a statement of a senior Canadian immigration official that summed up Canadian policy.
Thus we have Jewish activists involved in academic research on Jewish issues. And perhaps more importantly, Jewish activists are involved in court decisions that reflect consensus views within the Jewish community on issues related to free speech, multiculturalism, and immigration. The hostile elite in action.
Fracking. The One Per Cent. Collapsing Canadian Courts. Jessica Ernst of Rosebud, Alberta. by Robin Mathews
Fracking. The One Per Cent. Collapsing Canadian Courts. Jessica Ernst of Rosebud, Alberta.
by Robin Mathews
April 6, 2013
The One Per Cent, we know, control ‘the banks too big to fail’ and the corporations too powerful to regulate – which includes (among other things) fracking enterprises worldwide. The Canadian courts, we are beginning to know, operate – increasingly – outside the Rule of Law in matters concerning The One Per Cent … and fracking.
All over the globe fracking is fouling drinking water, lowering water tables, and endangering agriculture in the search, especially, for what is called “natural gas”. It is doing that in the area of Rosebud, Alberta, where Jessica Ernst makes her home.
All over the globe people are being affected, waking up alarmed, calling for investigation, research, regulation, laws to control fracking. Jessica Ernst, scientist, oil patch operative, has been doing that for … for going on a decade. Jessica Ernst has a 33 million dollar lawsuit against Encana*, Alberta Energy Regulators, and the Alberta government, a suit being propelled forward (very, very, very slowly) by the law firm called Klippenstein of Toronto, Ontario.
The fight is tough. The Alberta Regulator – The Energy Resources Conservation Board (ERCB) has argued it’s immune from lawsuits and has “no duty of care” to citizens complaining of groundwater contamination. That indicates the ‘style’ of the conflict about fracking: just who is working for whom?
As if to underscore that “style”, a sort-of shake-up is going on in Alberta energy regulation. A new chair of Alberta energy regulation has been named: Gerald J. Protti, fifteen year officer at Encana and its predecessor PanCanadian Energy. Deborah Yedlin of Calgary Herald uses this phrase about his appointment: perhaps, she says, “putting the fox in charge of the hen house” (April 2, 2013). That doesn’t quite describe the appointment: the fox, after all, wants to eat the hens. Maybe the poetic image should be “putting the Mafia chief in charge of criminal investigations”. Whatever, Mr. Protti is not believed by many to be an objective choice. Par for the course.
Which takes us to the court and the astonishing (I don’t like to say it), almost unbelievable behaviour in the Court of Queen’s Bench, Calgary. (Par for the course?) To put the matter in very simple terms, I believe the administration of justice – in relation to Jessica Ernst’s case – is being brutalized and shredded by a combination of forces including the Stephen Harper forces in Ottawa and the Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench (with, doubtless, a cheering section from Alberta government and “the industry”).
The people behind the behaviour of Stephen Harper and Queen’s Bench are not openly visible. You might say they’re The One Per Cent.
In brief, the judge on the Case Management process, Justice Barbara Veldhuis, about to rule on whether Jessica Ernst can sue the government regulator, was promoted from the Court of Queen’s Bench to the Alberta Appeals Court, removed, and prevented from making a finding. By the merest chance, the Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Neil Wittmann volunteered to take over the matter. And has done so.
All that, I suggest, is probably fraudulent behaviour.
To begin, the promotion of Barbara Veldhuis stinks to high heaven. Why did she need to move? She didn’t. Who moved her? The only person in Canada who could move her is Rob Nicholson, minister of justice, Ottawa – by which we may say Stephen Harper. Why would Stephen Harper want to reach into the Alberta higher court system and move Barbara Veldhuis?
The answer can only be, I suggest, someone feared that she was about to rule against the interests of The One Per Cent.
The promotion of Barbara Veldhuis, we may say, was ridiculous, unnecessary, and timed to destroy her work on the Jessica Ernst case. We may say more.
Members of either of the senior Alberta courts mentioned – Queen’s Bench and Court of Appeal – are ex officio members of the other court (if the Wikipedia material on the Alberta courts is correct). Members of those courts are – at the very least – able (at the direction of the Chief Justice) to work in the other court. And so Barbara Veldhuis could be promoted to the Alberta Appeals Court and could also make the ruling on the Jessica Ernst application in the Court of Queen’s Bench.
The whole business of promoting Justice Veldhuis and moving her and preventing her from making the ruling is … I suggest, sham, smoke-and-mirrors, a fraud. The shifting of judges on sensitive cases must be seen for the dangerous activity it is.
Remember that in British Columbia in 2010 a similar action occurred. That action directly connects the Alberta Jessica Ernst case with the B.C. Supreme Court BC Rail Scandal case. And … Neil Wittmann, Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, is involved in both events.
Supreme Court of B.C. Justice Elizabeth Bennett was swiftly removed from the BC Rail Scandal trial as a result of her promotion, by Stephen Harper, to the Appeals Court. She was replaced by Madam Justice Anne MacKenzie who, some allege, was placed there to protect premier Gordon Campbell, his team, and all the powerful private operators who are alleged to have corruptly transferred BC Rail to the CNR.
There is more. Anne MacKenzie was, within weeks, raised by Stephen Harper to the position of Associate Chief Justice of the B.C. Supreme Court. And then in some months she was raised by Stephen Harper to the B.C. Appeals Court.
A key fact of her time as judge on the BC Rail Scandal (Basi, Virk, and Basi) case, was that she permitted in her court a Special (Crown) Prosecutor who she was told, formally, was appointed to his position in flagrant violation of the legislation governing the appointment of Special Prosecutors.
Such appointees have to be completely objective and wholly unconnected to political power and civil service officers. But the Special (Crown) Prosecutor, William Berardino, was appointed to the case by a ministry of the Attorney General in which the Attorney General had been his partner and colleague for seven years, and the Deputy Attorney General had been his partner and colleague for eleven years.
The evidence of the Special Prosecutor’s illegitimate appointment was so stark that I wrote to the Chief Justice, the Associate Chief Justice and the judge on the case – on two separate occasions, formally reporting the illegitimate appointment. They answered, refusing to act.
Two of the accused were cabinet appointed aides reporting to cabinet members and acting on their behalf. And so the appointment of the Special Prosecutor, as I say, was in flagrant violation of the legislation governing such appointments. He was simply too connected (in fact and in perception) to the Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General to have been appointed. There is not the slightest question about that.
Unsatisfied with the replies I received from the top judges of the B.C. Supreme Court, I decided to address a complaint to the Canadian Judicial Council – the highest body in the country. I made a formal complaint of misconduct on the part of Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie in the matter of knowing the Special Crown Prosecutor in her court was there by illegitimate appointment. She was conducting herself as if he was a legitimate appointment and so she was sullying the administration of justice.
The Canadian Judicial Council elected to have the Chief Justice of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Neil Wittmann deal with my complaint. On his behalf (as is standard practice) his agent on the Council replied to me. He declared that Chief Justice Neil Wittmann concluded that the conduct of Associate Chief Justice Anne MacKenzie (which I had pointed out) was a not matter of conduct. He dismissed my complaint.
I allege that his action supported an illegitimate trial, supported the major wrong-doers in the BC Rail Scandal, and supported the action of Stephen Harper in ‘conveniently’ promoting Justice Elizabeth Bennett, making way for Justice Anne MacKenzie.
That is the same Chief Justice Neil Wittmann who did not protest when Justice Barbara Veldhuis was promoted, did not exercise his discretion as Chief Justice to permit her as ex officio of both courts to make a finding on the Jessica Ernst application, and who volunteered himself to take over the Jessica Ernst action in Case Management with what must be deleterious results.
If he decides to re-hear arguments on the application that were presented in Calgary court in January 2013, he will be choosing to force Jessica Ernst to exceptional expense and delay. If he chooses merely to read the transcripts of the arguments presented, he will be placing Ms. Ernst at risk of being misunderstood in the presentations made both for her by her lawyers and against her by those opposed to her
A fundamental convention of such cases is that judges are not changed – for the obvious reason that they carry all the information forward as the case develops. Plainly, Chief Justice Wittmann is at sea on this case, wallowing, and is going to have, somehow, to start afresh, causing anxiety, financial cost, delay, and stress to Jessica Ernst. But, for all we know, that may be precisely (with Neil Wittmann’s and Stephen Harper’s cooperation) what The One Per Cent (who seem to be in charge of this case) want to have happen.
Chief Justice Neil Wittmann can’t help being suspected by many people of simply being a “plant” on the case to make certain that justice will never be done. The strange, sudden, and unusual shifts in the case bring the administration of justice into disrepute, even in the unlikely possibility that they are honest shifts. For all we know, additional facts calling Neil Wittmann’s role into question may well surface in the coming weeks and months.
What Canadians have to see clearly in these two important cases is that, I allege, the Stephen Harper forces in Ottawa interfered with the administration of justice in a manner that prevented justice from being done. I believe they interfered intentionally to pollute the administration of justice.
Canadians must also see clearly that all the other judges of the higher courts in British Columbia and Alberta – and the Law Societies of both provinces – consented (by inaction) to the pollution – even when they were not a material part of it. We are witnessing the collapsing Canadian courts … and the eroding Canadian legal system.
We are witnessing here, in particular, what I take to be a highly organized and concerted attack upon Jessica Ernst and her case by the federal ministry of justice (directed by Stephen Harper) and by the most powerful officer of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench -with the silent assent of legal experts who should be protesting loudly and publicly at the attack on the most basic foundations of democratic society.
* ENCANA CORPORATION. Annual General Meeting, April 23, 2:00 p.m. Hotel Arts Spectrum Ballroom, 119 – 12 Avenue Southwest, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Contact Robin: firstname.lastname@example.org
Canada’s Israel Lobby
Peyton Vaughan Lyon
Professor Emeritus, Political Science, Carleton University
D. Phil., Oxford
This article is an update of a study of the Canada Israel Committee (CIC) published in the Journal of Canadian Studies, 1992-3. It benefited by extensive comments from Professors John Sigler, Joseph Debanné, David Farr and Diana Ralph, and Rt. Hon Robert Stanfield, Ian Watson, and Bahija Reghai. I have discussed the Israel Lobby with about 20 foreign affairs officials, 2 former Prime Ministers, 3 former Secretaries of State for External Affairs, 8 Members of Parliament, 6 Senators, and 3 officials of the Canada-Israel Committee.
Dr. Lyon is Professor Emeritus Political Science, Carleton University. He was a Rhodes Scholar, and obtained his D.Phil. from Oxford University. He served in the RCAF from 1940 to 1945.
He held posts as Foreign Service Officer, Department of External Affairs in Ottawa, Canada and in Bonn, Germany. He is the author of five books on Canadian foreign policy, trade and defence.
Canada’s relations with the Arab/Muslim world are second in importance and difficulty only to its relationship with the United States. The one serious threat to Canadian citizens now stems from the mounting anger of Arabs and other Muslims, fomented largely by Israel’s long-standing occupation of Palestine. The Mid-East conflict has for sixty years been the principal issue on the agenda of the UN General Assembly, a body in which Canadians like to shine. Trade with the Middle East, while modest, is largely in manufactured goods, the sort favoured by Canadian exporters.
Canada’s foreign policy, however, fails to reflect these concerns. Its votes in the UN General Assembly and other international bodies are closer in support of Israel than those of any other nation apart from the United States and its five Pacific satellites. Prime Minister Harper’s personal statements are more biased towards Israel than those of any other leader(1) This imbalance does not accord with the advice of the men and women employed by Canada to determine and implement its interests in the Middle East. It is also opposed by an increasing number of churches, unions, and other bodies concerned with peace and justice in Palestine.
Who makes Canada’s Mid-East policy? A ranking of influence by a panel of foreign affairs officials placed the Canadian Jewish Community first at
- compared to 5.40 for each of the Prime Minister and the Department of External Affairs. The Canadian/Arab Community at 1.80 was ranked sixteenth out of the eighteen estimated influence inputs. (2) Although the Arab Community has become better organized in recent years, interviews with senior officials and case studies suggest that there has been little change in this ranking.
There is of course nothing illegal or immoral about lobbies, even those operating in the interest of foreign entities. A significant number of ethnic groups do in fact lobby for their countries of origin. (3) Canada’s Israel lobby is simply by far the most powerful and effective. It has become customary to refer to it as “the Lobby”, and I shall follow that practice. The Lobby claims to act on all Canada-Israel matters on behalf of an estimated two- thirds of the three hundred and fifteen thousand Canadians of Jewish origin.(4)
For obvious reasons, the American-Israel lobby is far larger, more powerful, and better known than its Canadian counterpart. (5) There are further significant differences and I shall begin with them. American Jews number about three percent of the population whereas the Canadian equivalent is a more modest one percent. American Jews, having arrived earlier in North America, are more integrated into the general population and less united in support of their government’s Mid-East policy. Canadian Jews, in the words of Professors Taras and Weinfeld, “are more Jewish.” Other authorities have said they are more conservative. (6) “Is there,” asked Gerald Caplan, another prominent Jew, “any act of Israel that will shame the leaders of Canadian Jewry into saying enough is enough?” (7)
The biggest difference in the tactics followed by the two lobbies lies in their degrees of openness and use of threats. Because the role of Congress in making foreign policy is much greater than that of Parliament, and party discipline is weaker, the American lobby focuses on individual members of Congress, none of whom can take refuge behind a party line. Because cabinet solidarity matters more in Ottawa, the Canadian Lobby makes a greater effort to focus on every minister. Lobbying, moreover, is more acceptable in the American political culture and can be more open and hard hitting. A reputation for wealth, ruthlessness and success is in fact an asset whereas in Canada lobbies operate more discreetly and soft- pedal their influence. American elections are more frequent than in Canada; this makes raising funds more difficult, thus increasing the vulnerability of candidates to lobby pressure. Lobbying in the United States, however, is subject to greater legal restriction than in Canada. One authority goes so far as to say that, because of tighter organization, it is more effective in Canada. (6)
All in all, lobbying in each country is probably about equal in effectiveness. Elections afford each Lobby the greatest opportunity to exercise influence. Although most Jewish Americans have voted Democratic, and Canadian Jews Liberal, neither are formally aligned and votes can be swung if a party adopts what might appear to many Jews to be an anti-Israel approach. Jimmy Carter, in making an exceptional effort to bring peace to the Middle East, angered Israel and its American Lobby. As a result, Carter lost almost half his Jewish vote between 1976 and 1980, a loss which contributed to his defeat in the 1980 election. Sydney Spivak, chairman of the Canadian Lobby’s 1998 policy conference, threatened a similar outcome when Joe Clark, then Secretary of State for External Affairs, criticized Israel’s suppression of Palestinian rights.
A particular triumph for the American lobby was the defeat in 1984 of Charles Percy, chairman of the powerful Senate Foreign Relations Committee. As Tom Dine, executive director of AIPAC (the American Israel Public Affairs committee) — the predominant US-Israel lobby — boasted to a Toronto audience, “All the Jews in America … gathered to defeat Percy. And the American politicians got the message.” (8)
A comparable Canadian case was that of Dr. Frank Epp, an outstanding scholar and President of Waterloo University. In 1979, Epp ran as a Liberal in what was considered the safe Liberal seat in Waterloo. However, his desire for a more balanced approach to the Israel-Palestine conflict was falsely depicted by the Lobby as “anti-Semitic” – a charge the Lobby frequently uses to discredit critics of Israeli government policies. In Epp’s case, the attack culminated in a full-page advertisement on election eve. In a constituency containing several thousand Jews, Epp was defeated by a mere 155 votes.
In the Toronto riding of Saint-Paul’s, with about 20,000 Jewish voters, the 1979 election featured a Conservative promise to move the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The Conservative candidate, Ron Atkey, won. In the election the following year –after Prime Minister Clark had abandoned his promise to move the embassy– the seat swung back to John Roberts of the Liberals.
In 1984 a Manitoba court ruled that unfair lobbying could have caused the defeat of Conservative candidate Luba Fedorkiw in Winnipeg North. Fedorkiw accused the Jewish advocacy group, B’nai Brith, of having defeated her by suggesting she was anti-Semitic and levelling the false charge of “Jew-baiting” against her. She was awarded $400,000 in damages.
The Lobby concentrates on the ten constituencies where most of the Jewish and Arab/Muslim populations are located. Proportionally more Jews, however, go to the polls and are more likely to make a difference. It should also be noted that a substantial minority of the Arabs are Maronite Christians who are indifferent to the fate of the majority of Arabs.
Here is the Url to the show: http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/4/445/show_4445021.mp3
Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech everywhere,
On Thursday, February 21st, 2012 I was privileged to be able to go on Mark Glenn’s BlogRadio show hosted by his site The Ugly Truth.
Mark is an excellent host and speaker and is extremely well versed in the Zionist issues of today and yesterday. As such his preliminary commentary on a number of issues that precedes my actual interview is well worth listening to.
The show lasted for an hour and forty-eight minutes so it will take some time to listen to but I highly recommend that you do.
The one thing that struck me most deeply as I listened to Mark speaking was the fact that in the United States the founding fathers had the forethought to insure that the people of that nation would take their freedoms seriously and therefore guaranteed that the foremost freedom, that of freedom of speech, would be enshrined in their Constitution. Were it so in Canada.
Here we are facing the pernicious machinations of the foreign state of Israel and its B’nai Brith lobbyists, compounded by the fact that these same inimical enemies of freedom also control our country’s media and have gained an extremely critical foothold both within the office of the Prime Minster of Canada Mr. Stephen Harper and within our judiciary. Their dangerous influence upon our government and our democratic institutions, exemplified by the self-created “hate crime” laws which they surreptitiously slipped into our legal system over time, stands as the most clear example of seditious actions aimed at undermining and subverting our government.
Hiding behind their mask of “mainstream” media propaganda they are in full attack mode and out to repress and control Canadian’s right to free expression and freedom of speech on the internet. Without our ability to talk freely about Israel and its sayanim, Fifth column organizations like B’nai Brith and its ideology of Zionism and to offer our perspectives and our criticisms on this most dangerous and diabolic political device ever known to humankind we are severely handicapped in our efforts to educate people as to its true design and motives and thus initiate measures to protect our own Constitutional rights and freedoms.
Thus the need for further and greater education on these matters. Please take the time to listen to this broadcast and remember that feedback to me is always welcome and necessary. I can be reached at email@example.com .
Here is the Url to the show: http://blogtalk.vo.llnwd.net/o23/show/4/445/show_4445021.mp3
Canada’s Controlled News Media and the Vilification of the Idle No More movement
January 28, 2013
For those writers, publishers and artists working in the alternative news media in Canada it comes as no surprise that the mainstream media (msm) would eventually begin attacking the grassroots movement known as Idle No More. It was a foregone conclusion.
For decades past this same media has been attacking any and all individuals and movements who dared to espouse or act upon views be they on the ground, in publications or on the Internet. Examples abound but in the case of First Nations and the current Idle No More movement two prime illustrations of this predictable reaction on the part of the msm are the Oka Crisis of 1990 in Quebec and in BC the Gustafsen Lake stand off in 1995. As well are numerous other examples of environmentalists and natives battling with multinational forest and mining companies over clear-cutting and protection of habitat be it air, water or otherwise. In all of these instances it has always been the case that when push came to shove the government of the day could always count on their number one ally, the mainstream media, to come to their defence with their usual phalanx of sycophantic journalist shills and pundits (talking heads) leading the charge all in the name of a prevalent mindset that had already been instilled in the minds of the average Canadian by their very own news media. In term of attitude the msm always presumes that its interpretation of events is the only gospel in town.
I ought to know. Having been on the receiving end of their media smear campaigns for the past fifteen years for publishing articles and opinions related to crimes against First Nations and for having committed the unpardonable sin of criticizing the Zionist Jewish state of Israel for its racist ideology and its supremacist, apartheid terrorist attacks upon the indigenous Arab people of Palestine I’ve been dragged through the Canadian court systems, both quasi and Crown, again and again in a vain effort to silence their planned agenda of global governance and the destruction of all democratically elected nation states.
Most recent of course (in my case), was my May, 2012 arrest and imprisonment while on my way to work where I was charged by the RCMP’s “B.C. HATE CRIME TEAM” for willful promotion of hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.” Using Canada’s sec. 319(2) of the criminal code these same Zionists, hiding within their lobby front groups like B’nai Brith Canada, are now testing out the waters of Canada’s criminal court system to see whether or not it will serve them in their personal vendetta to relentlessly censor free expression on the Internet and thus allow their own mega-corporate media monopoly free rein to vilify whomever they so choose with impunity. Yesterday it was me. Today it’s Canada’s First Nations. New day, same old horse feathers as the saying goes.
Even the msm’s foot soldiers are the same. After six months of being relieved of all of my computers, firearms and my fundamental right to post my writings on the Internet or operate my website, a formal indictment was finally handed down by the assistant deputy minister for BC’s Attorney General on November 5, 2012. When I made my first appearance in court in Quesnel, B.C. on the 8th the Zionist run msm was Johnny on the spot with their smear and fear campaign vilifying my name, my website and my motives for printing the truth about Israel across the country’s news media, both print and television. No sooner was I out of the courtroom than Ezra Levant was beaking off on the Sun News media’s “The Source” with his belittling epithets and lies accusing me of endless misdeeds all of course in the interests of freedom of speech. Finally, unable to restrain himself (again, in the interests of free expression) he blurted out to the world “I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM!”
Years of litigation and battling with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and its attendant Canadian Human Rights Tribunal over the issue of freedom of speech on the Internet has only reinforced the fact that Canada’s so-called mainstream media is in truth a cold-blooded, lying, mendacious mechanism of mind control whose sole purpose is to keep the vast sea of Canadian viewers and listeners misinformed and prejudiced against any individual or any group who might at some point attempt to assert their sovereignty, be it over their basic human rights or, as in the case of First Nations, their legally instituted treaty rights, signed, sealed and delivered to them by the federal government of Canada.
Now that First Nations across Canada have finally been backed up against a brick wall of prejudice, deception and endless legal wrangling in the federal courts over their treaty rights (for what appears to be the last time), who but the Custer-style msm mercenaries should come riding to the rescue to reinforce the Harper government’s sleazy, disingenuous political agenda, one that would see their fundamental, inherent human and treaty rights cast aside in favour of a corporate, free-for-all land and resource grab. After all, to allow such open and honest refusal to this “business as usual” approach to First Nations issues by the people thus affected to go beyond their acceptable norm not only poses a direct threat to the Harper government as a tool of the corporate elite but also to their own decades long complicity in colluding with each and every former federal party that has prolonged and perpetuated any final resolution to the age-old treaty problem.
Too many Canadians today still suffer under the misconception that the msm is somehow an independent, unbiased, and as SunNews media would have you believe, a “free enterprise” communications corporation that presents only the facts and both sides of any issue of importance. This sort of myth-information being passed on to Canadians via the msm’s radio, tv and newsprint media is as far from the actual truth as First Nations treaty rights are from being resolved.
Sun News network, with their flagship “CanadianTvFirst.ca” which they are currently pushing like hell to get implanted into every living room across the nation so they can continue to misinform and brainwash Canadians into believing all the Zionist propaganda that comes to them straight from Israel and the Mossad is a prime example of how deliberately deceptive Canada’s msm truly is. More to the point would be the spoof ads below adapted from their own propaganda site which would show their honest agenda if they were in the least truthful to their viewers and listeners.
Fortunately those within the movement were quick to twig on this media approach and are already going on the counter attack. The must. They literally have no choice left if change is come in a peaceful, meaningful way. Like all the other underhanded, surreptitious, slight-of-hand gestures and broken promises that the Harper Conservatives have been meting out to First Nations the time has come when these fabrications and falsehoods need to be exposed and those who are perpetrating them via their media cartel need to be call to task for their glaring, prejudicial approach to resolving First Nations issues.
With the likes of all the Ezra Levants and the National Post and the Sun News media and the CBC talking heads coupled with Zionist lobbyists like B’nai Brith Canada spearheading the “hate crime legislation” that penalizes open and honest debate it doesn’t take too much head scratching to realize that the issue of the controlled mainstream media along with its pro-Harper propaganda campaign of hate against First Nations is one that is bound to grow bigger and longer and hairier legs as the days go by.
What the alternative news media has been attempting to alert mainstream Canadians to for decades has now suddenly, with the advent of the Idle No More movement, been given an incredible boost. Let’s hope that we can all learn to work together for the betterment of the nation as a whole and for our common right to speak our our minds and defend our common ground, common air and water and our common principles, values and rights that will allow us all to live in peace and harmony with each other and the Earth Mother.
CAN IDLE NO MORE SAVE CANADA?
January 13, 2013
Will Idle No More save us from environmental collapse? An environmental collapse that could very well result from the full implementation of the Omnibus Bill? Oh, sweet Earth Mother of us all, I hope so. Because nothing else in our social or political structures, including environmental action groups, have been up to the task of alarming and energizing the public around the absolute destruction of environment protections of Canada’s land and waters as that contained in the Omnibus Bill.
In the face of the Idle No More movement sweeping the land, how is Harper to defend himself and his government? By trying to change the focus. By trying to convince the public that Idle No More doesn’t really have anything to do with the Omnibus Bill and is just the usual whining complaint from aboriginals who can’t be satisfied no matter what the government does. Rescinding the Omnibus Bill, Harper says, is not on the table.
Well, we’ll see. Because if the Omnibus Bill isn’t rescinded, what will become of Canada? With no protections for fish bearing streams, lakes, and rivers what will become of the fish? With no protections for what is left of Canadian forests what will then become of our parks and wild animals? If no protections for watersheds, what will become of our drinking water? If no protections against mining, fracking, pipe lines and off shore oil and gas exploration, what will become of the land and oceans? Will Canada become like Haiti?
Yes. This could definitely be in the not too distant future for Canada if the Omnibus Bill isn’t rescinded. Why is Haiti such a mess? Because Haiti was completely deforested by the French. Oh, the French government didn’t send loggers to Haiti to cut down the valuable old growth forests; they made the Haitians do it themselves. Why would the Haitians do such a thing?
In order to pay for their freedom. They had been slaves; they revolted. The French on the ground said okay, you win, and the French government said okay, you can have Haiti but you have to pay. We want your forests or we’ll send in the French Navy. The Haitians, valuing their freedom over the trees, complied. And then, as the trees were all they had, the rest of the forests went to build government and civil services. Corruption rampaged. The result is a nation of vast mud holes. When the rains come, there is nothing to hold back the water. Haiti is being dubbed a “failed state”. (Read “Collapse” by Jared Diamond)
Through the Omnibus Bill Stephen Harper has ordered that henceforth there will be a “lay waste to the land” policy for Canada. But why would Harper do such a thing? Harper’s Omnibus Bill is less understandable than the French’s disgusting ecological rampage of Haiti’s forests. After all, Stephen Harper is not only the Prime Minister of Canada, he lives here. He doesn’t live in another country while making an order to sack some distant more primitive country. Stephen Harper, through the Omnibus Bill, has ordered the sacking of his own country. He has ordered the ecological collapse of his own nation for no good reason. We, collectively, have put into power over us, over Canada’s people, lands, waters, and animals a man who for no good reason, has in his heart and soul, the desire to destroy what is living. There is a name for this. It is called necrophilia.
Okay, so we have a necrophiliac for a Prime Minister who has gathered other necrophiliacs round him. And our side? Who do we have? Besides Idle No More? A whole bunch of good people, good people who are the vast majorly of Canadians. Anything else? Yes, the law. The law? How can I say that when the law has all but crucified me along with thousands of other Eco-protesters in British Columbia for trying to do the same thing that Idle No More is doing? For trying to protect the land and waters of Canada?
Because it’s true. First Nations have the power to transform not only the environmental laws of this country, but to transform the rule of law as it is practiced. Specifically, First Nations have the power to transform the way in which injunctions are given out by the courts to protect corporations who lust after resource profits at all costs. And that this may be starting to happen is suggested to me by a recent article in the National Post.
In the newspaper article (reported Jan. 8, 2013 by Blatchford) on a recent rail blockade by the Chippewa of Sarnia First Nation (Ontario) Judge Brown remarked concerning the refusal of the police to arrest the protesters by order of an injunction: “This kind of passivity leads me to doubt that a future exists in this province for the use of court injunctions in cases of public demonstrations”.
Furthermore, Judge Brown said when asked, given that police have the powers of arrest already, “Why does the operator of a critical railway have to run off to court to secure an injunction when a small group of protesters park themselves on the rail line bringing operations to a grinding halt. I don’t get it.”
I don’t get it, either. I never have. Even if the group of protesters is a large one, police already have the power to arrest. But the reason First Nations can succeed where I and thousands of other protesters failed is because even if First Nations are charged and even convicted under an injunction, reserve aboriginals cannot have liens filed against their communal property (which is one reason Harper wants to privatize the reserve lands). The right thing, the fair thing, the just thing, of course, would be to do away with the use of injunctions for crowd control entirely. Either way, First Nations people have the upper hand in the matter.
What can a judge do if he or she doesn’t want to clog the jails with Idle No More people protesting the environmental destruction of Canada (which would make Canada a pariah internationally) and can’t even levy a lien against reserve property? Make them pay a fine? With what money? Cut off their government money? Let them starve? Freeze to death in the cold? I don’t think so.
I was first introduced (in prison) to the practice of starting every Healing Circle meeting with a smudge (the BC Liberal government has since cut off an elder coming into prison to hold the ceremonies). Sweet grass and sage is burned in a shell and the smoke wafted over different parts of the supplicant’s body who asks that as the smoke cleanses, that they be helped by the ancient grandmothers and grandfathers to walk in healing ways. This is a silent prayer and the only words spoken out loud are at the very end of the ceremony: “And for all of my relations.”
At first I thought “And for all of my relations” meant human relatives. But it doesn’t. It means all the non-human creatures of the world that haven’t the language to speak for themselves. This is the idea still deeply engrained in many First Nations peoples that has remained, despite all the atrocities against them; the idea that yet may save Canada from ecological collapse. The belief is that humans are responsible for the protection of the earth and her creatures.
I believe this, too. Are we not all human? Are we not all responsible for the health and protection of the earth and waters and skies? The choice is ours. We as Canadians can put our collective weight behind the Idle No More movement or hang back. But I strongly believe that if the Idle No Movement hangs tough, and the rest of us stand with them, then Stephen Harper will rethink the Omnibus Bill, start dismantling it, and give back the protections that that belong to a decent, orderly, environmentally secure nation. It’s up to us.
Canada Falls Firmly Under the Jewish Supremacist Heel
Canada has become even more dominated by Jewish Supremacists than the United States—if that is possible—even to the point of signing a new “aid” package to the racist Zionist state of Israel in the face of world opinion.
According to a report in the Canadian Globe and Mail newspaper, Canada and Israel have drawn up a pact to work together on international development and aid projects, “further strengthening ties between the two countries at a time when Israel faces increasing international isolation.” Quoting Daniel Carmon, head of Israel’s agency for international development, and Julian Fantino, Canada’s International Co-operation Minister, the newspaper announced that the new agreement has been signed this week.
The deal will, apparently, “encourage the two countries to share strategies for international development and could lead to partnerships on specific projects.”
Canada previously backed Israel’s use of air strikes in Gaza last month and campaigned against a vote to give Palestine status as a non-member observer state at the United Nations.
That vote passed 138 to nine, leaving Canada part of a minority of countries that voted with Israel.
In an announcement circulated by the Israeli embassy, Mr. Fantino is quoted as saying the two countries share a “bond of friendship and are allies in the democratic family of countries.” That statement, coming from Israel which is the most racist state in the world, and Canada, which has an unsurpassed record of persecuting political dissidents and suppressing freedom of speech, was only one of the more astonishing moments of hypocrisy in the turn of events.
Possibly the most outrageous comment that the agreement would “contribute to a more secure and prosperous world.” That obviously does not include the Palestinians, of course.
canadian environmental and political commentary
Laureen Harper’s Big Opportunity
Posted by awreeves ? December 29, 2011
Even though it has been Ottawa’s worst kept secret for years, the rumour (which in all likelihood has some truth to it) that Laureen Harper has moved out of 24 Sussex Drive and into the Chateau Laurier has been making the rounds yet again. The rumour also suggests not only that the Prime Minister’s wife has moved out because of marital difficulties, but insinuates that Laureen has also taken up with a female RCMP officer, and that her (rumoured) homosexuality forms the bulk of their marital discord.
Though it might seem a silly question to any American reader who would naturally wonder why on Earth a rumour that the family values-based, Conservative Prime Minister’s wife might have moved out because she is a lesbian, the question remains: why did this come up now?
In short, because the Globe and Mail pulled a piece by Canadian journalist Norman Spector in which Spector hypothesized why Laureen joined the Prime Minister in his end of year interview on CTV, and insinuated that it was an effort to portray the Harpers as a loving couple with few marital difficulties, when in reality they were, for all intents and purposes, separated. The Globe claimed that the story “fell short of The Globe and Mail’s editorial standards with respect to fairness, balance and accuracy,” and yanked it.
(Spector posted the full content of the piece on his website, and the harmless article – which never names names – can be read here.)
Spector himself was responding to a piece in the Ottawa Citizen from several weeks ago in which another Canadian journalist and journalism professor, Andrew Cohen, noted that,
In Ottawa, tongues have been wagging for two years about trouble in one political marriage. One of the partners is now said to have left the nest. It hasn’t made the newspapers, at least not yet.
Spector, like Cohen, put two and two together and suggested in the Globe that Laureen’s surprise visit in the CTV interview had less to do with paying homage to a departing CTV broadcaster in Lloyd Roberston, and more to do with presenting a united front. That if, in fact, the Harper’s were the political marriage that tongues had been wagging about for years, the rumours were baseless.
When asked about their marriage on camera, Harper was quick to jump in and answer for he and Laureen stating that,
“Well, you know, we have a strong relationship,” said Mr. Harper. “I think, to be frank about it, I mean the demands are all on Laureen. Laureen is a very giving person. Laureen allows me to concentrate as fully as I do on the job and then on other things. She doesn’t put a lot of demands on me.”
For Spector’s effort at shedding light on the issue, his piece was pulled. Cohen received the same treatment in the Citizen – Cohen’s broken URL can be seen here.
I like that Canada’s media has respect for our political leaders to allow something personal like this to fly under the radar. The odds of this personal matter spilling into the political realm and clouding the stern and authoritarian Prime Minister’s judgement is slim enough that the success (or failure) of the Harper’s marriage is no business of the Canadian people’s, despite their both being public figures. If Mrs. Harper is happier outside their marriage, without or without the company of another person, same-sex or otherwise, Mountie or no, then she deserves to have that happiness the same as any other citizen, public or private.
That said, I think the Canadian public deserves to know what is going on with this. And here’s why: notwithstanding that I still firmly believe everything said in the previous paragraph, she has a right to live her life in the open. While no one has the right to out another human being if they do not wish their sexual preferences made public (the state having no place in the bedrooms of the nation and all that), Laureen has a tremendous opportunity to tell Canada that she has left the Prime Minister and why, in addition to helping convince others that there is nothing wrong with being yourself, and that that often takes more courage than lying through the sin of omission.
Forget that the Prime Minister’s head would explode if the knowledge became confirmed in the public eye, and that a majority of his extremely right-wing caucus would have a field day with the news. What more courageous act could she do than inform Canadians not only that she is more than a political appendage of her Conservative husband and entitled to her own happiness, but that if she is gay, that there is nothing wrong with this. In fact, that it is worse for them to be pretending and putting on airs when the country is already in on the news. It is like pretending the other actors onstage cannot hear your Shakespearean aside because it is intended only for the audience – they only pretend not to hear you because it’s in the script.
But Laureen has a chance to go off script, to deviate from what her socially conservative husband and his socially conservative supporters would want and do a tremendous good for herself, for young people struggling with their sexuality who may look up to her, and for the country. It would be leading by the kind of example that Rick Mercer recommended gay public figures do by outing themselves, insisting they are “not allowed to be invisible anymore” with the rate of gay teen suicide in Canada what it is.
We have long wondered what such a wonderful, intelligent, and caring woman has seen in Stephen Harper, anyway. Finding out she is in a sham marriage and having the courage to leave it publicly would only increase our respect for Laureen…and make Stephen seem slightly more human.
Chief Spence exclusive interview CBC December 18, 2012
Click HERE to watch interview
Published on Dec 18, 2012
In an interview with the CBC’s Chris Rands, Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence talks about her hunger strike and why she wants to meet with the prime minister. The bottom line for Chief Spence is the treaty relationship that First Nations people have with the Crown, and she will not stop until she meets with the PM and representatives of the Crown
Comments disable due to continued and persistent racism and intolerance being expressed. Let us join with Chief Spence in calling on the Prime Minister and the Governor General to meet with her to begin serious talks aimed at improving the lives of Aboriginal people in Canada.
Idle No More starts new era – December 28, 2012
From 2011: Justice for Aboriginal Peoples — It’s time
What’s at stake for First Nations communities involved in the Idle No More movement – December 27, 2012 Good overview of the treaty issues involved in Bill C-45
Pressure mounts on Harper as hunger-strike chief’s protest enters third week – December 27, 2012
Relations with Ottawa sour – December 27, 2012
We all have stake in success of aboriginals – December 27, 2012
Idle No More: Indigenous-Led Protests Sweep Canada for Native Sovereignty – December 26, 2012 EXCELLENT OVERVIEW
NDP MP urges Harper to meet with Spence, end hunger strike – December 26, 2012
Idle No More is a Christmas gift to us all – December 25, 2012
HARPER WATCH — SPECIAL IDLE NO MORE EDITION (Dec. 21-25, 2012) A collection of articles, letters
Chiefs of Ontario Open Letter to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth – December 20, 2012
Amid holiday feasting, Chief Spence keeps hunger strike aimed at Harper – December 26, 2012
Why is Stephen Harper afraid to look this woman in the eye? – December 23, 2012
‘This is deadly serious,’ says Atleo as Idle No More flexes muscles once again (with video)
December 22, 2012
Please pray for my mother: Spence’s daughter – December 21, 2012
Quiet Theresa Spence has mobilized a nation – December 21, 2012
Idle No More action historic in Indian Country – December 21, 2012
Chief Theresa Spence Now in 9th Day of Hunger Strike
“Not Well and is Weak” December 19, 2012
Idle No More gains momentum across Canada – CBC’s The Current, December 19, 2012
Chief’s hunger strike – December 18, 2012
Derek Nepinak of the Assembly of Manitoba Chiefs talks about Attawapiskat Chief Theresa Spence’s hunger strike that draws attention to First Nations issues.
Send a letter to your MP and to Prime Minister Harper to tell them to meet with Chief Spence.
Send a letter to the Governor General David Johnston
Send a letter to Queen Elizabeth
Send a tweet to Queen Elizabeth @BritishMonarchy
News & Politics
Standard YouTube License
EDITOR’S NOTE: A friend brought this article to my attention pointing out that it’s yet another example of what is becoming common place in Canada under the Zionist controlled Harper regime where anything and everything goes when it comes to the actions of the state of Israel.
Given the facts surrounding the incident it’s incomprehensible that these Zionist interlopers would be allowed to censor the crimes of Israel and tamper with Canada’s historical records so as to not put PM Stephen Harper in a bad light with respect to his Chabad Lubavich controllers.
As one writer put it after reading this story, “I am especially impressed with Harper’s patriotism in how he blames the victim for interfering with trajectory of the bombs by standing in their way, while profusely thanking the administrators of the Jewish state for their kind cooperation in whitewashing the truth.”
Thank God the Legion got wind of the story or else it would have disappeared forever leaving yet another blood sacrifice to the Israeli gods who rule over the Conservative party of Canada.
DND removes report on killing of Canadian soldier by Israeli forces
By David Pugliese, Ottawa Citizen December 25, 2012
Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three other United Nations observers were killed in 2006 when the Israeli military targeted their small outpost with repeated artillery barrages as well as an attack by a fighter aircraft. (Photo: Courtese CTV)
The Defence Department has quietly removed from the Internet a report into the killing of a Canadian military officer by Israeli forces, a move the soldier’s widow says is linked to the Conservative government’s reluctance to criticize Israel for any wrongdoing.
Maj. Paeta Hess-von Kruedener and three other United Nations observers were killed in 2006 when the Israeli military targeted their small outpost with repeated artillery barrages as well as an attack by a fighter aircraft.
IN early 2008, the Defence Department posted on its website a 67-page report from the Canadian Forces board of inquiry into the killing. The board found Hess-von Kruedener’s death was preventable and caused by the Israeli military.
But less than a year later, the report was quietly removed from the DND website and has since remained off-limits to the public through official channels.
Hess-von Kruedener’s widow, Cynthia, told the Citizen that the decision to remove the document from the public domain was made by DND and the government in an effort to protect Israel’s reputation.
“They don’t want people reading about it,” she said. “It’s embarrassing to the Israelis and, as we know, Prime Minister (Stephen) Harper has given his unconditional support to the Israelis.”
The circumstances surrounding Hess-von Kruedener’s death and the attempts by DND and the Canadian Forces to limit access to the board of inquiry report are outlined in an article in the new edition of Legion magazine, an Ottawa-based publication sent to members of the Royal Canadian Legion.
DND originally refused to provide the magazine with the previously public board of inquiry report, claiming the publication needed to use the access-to-information law to obtain a copy.
Legion magazine obtained a copy of the report by other means. It has now posted the report on its website.
In an email sent to the Citizen, DND confirmed it had removed the board of inquiry report from its website in early 2009 for security reasons “after it was discovered that some of its content is considered protected information.”
That explanation, however, doesn’t stand up to scrutiny as Legion magazine compared both the 2008 version and the 2012 copy issued under the access law, discovering that the latest version actually contains more information than the original.
The Legion article also raises questions about the disappearance from DND of a United Nations report into the killing. The document was used by the Canadian Forces for its board of inquiry and the UN report is cited in the Canadian report. But DND’s access to information branch claims it has done a thorough search of records and no such report could be found.
DND could not comment on claims by defence sources that hard copies of the board of inquiry report were also removed from military libraries.
The death of Hess-von Kruedener, a UN observer assigned to the Israeli-Lebanon border, has largely been forgotten.
The Israeli attack on the UN outpost began shortly after noon on July 25, 2006, prompting the UN deputy secretary general to almost immediately call the Israeli ambassador to the UN and complain.
Several hours later another artillery barrage hit the outpost. That was followed by another 16 artillery rounds hitting the base, destroying most of the buildings above ground and blowing the door off the underground bunker where Hess-von Kruedener and his fellow peacekeepers had taken refuge.
At one point, a general in charge of UN operations in Lebanon called the Israeli liaison officer and told him, “You’re killing my people.” Previously, the Israelis halted such attacks when protests were received.
Later that day, an Israeli fighter pilot directed a precision-guided bomb through the door of the UN bunker. The blast from the massive bomb killed the four men.
Gen. Rick Hillier, then the chief of the defence staff, later described the major’s death as a “tragic accident.”
Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener told the Citizen that the Canadian Forces didn’t inform her of her husband’s death. Instead, she learned he had been killed from a television news report.
The Legion article notes the Israelis had deliberately targeted the base. The base had been included in the Israeli military’s “targeting list” which they acknowledged was an error on their part.
Cynthia Hess-von Kruedener also takes issue with some of the remarks made by Harper about her husband. At the time of the killing, Harper questioned what Hess-von Kruedener was doing at the UN outpost.
She said the answer is simple: He was doing his job as ordered by the Canadian Forces and government of Canada. “Instead of asking why this happened, (Harper) turned it onto an innocent UN peacekeeper,” she said.
On Sept. 19, 2006, then-Israeli prime minister Ehud Olmert wrote Harper, expressing his deep regret. Harper wrote back on Nov. 20, 2006, thanking Olmert for his “expression of condolences, for the Israeli government’s rapid investigation of the incident and for information provided to Canadian officials.”
However, the Legion magazine article noted that the Israelis refused to answer questions from Canada about the attack.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen