FREEDOM TO OFFEND EVERYONE BUT THE JEWS By Arthur Topham

FREEDOM TO OFFEND EVERYONE BUT THE JEWS

By
Arthur Topham

January 25th, 2017

Fake News sites come in all sizes, shapes and flavours during these heady days of Alternative vs Zionist media wars. And one of Canada’s top deceptive “Fake News” sites has to be TheRebel.Media run by “Rebel Commander” Ezra Levant, Zionist Jew and self-chosen saviour of Canada’s dumbed down goyim ‘christians’, assorted atheists, Germanophobes and most recently Islamophobes.

Ezra loves to think of himself as Canada’s Number One defender of “Free Speech” and has been active in the free speech movement for a long time. In fact it was the issue of freedom of speech that first brought him to my attention a decade ago when the Zionist Jew lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada first filed a Sec. 13 “hate speech” complaint against me with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in the summer of 2007 and I suddenly found myself the latest member of that exclusive Canadian association known as the “Anti-Semitic, Racist, Jew-hating, Neo-Nazi, Hate-mongerer’s Club.”

Of course I wasn’t alone any longer in my then ongoing struggle to bring forward to the Canadian public the facts surrounding the true nature of political Zionism and the ongoing conspiracy by this Rothschild created Apocalyptic Beast to wreak havoc not only in the desert sands of middle eastern Arab nations but around the globe in their relentless quest to create a new world order under the iron heel of Talmudic totalitarian despotism. As is evident in the graphic below I was now amongst the former luminaries of Canada’s modern-day revisionists who, ahead of me, had already solved the ancient riddle known as “The Jewish Problem.”

Initially, because Ezra Levant had also been accused of a Sec. 13 “hate crime” by an Islamic organization here in Canada prior to my own case, a mutual acquaintance attempted to connect us up in the vain hope that we might work together but Levant’s immediate response was to label me an “anti-Semite” and therefore one of the untouchables.

Since that time I’ve covered a number of Levant’s serpentine adventures in the mainstream media, including the example of when he has used his position on national television back in 2012 to libel and vilify me personally via his former position with Sun News media and his tv show “The Source.”

Levant’s modus operandi is to hoodwink gullible goyim Zionist Christians and other assorted small “c” conservatives, atheists and regular tv watchers and mainstream newspaper readers and fill their minds with hatred toward Muslims and Germans and anyone else who might display the chutzpah to criticize the Zionist ideology or the racist actions of the state of Israel or anything remotely related to enterprises that the Jews have their fingers and their shekels invested in.

A couple of other related articles on this zio-wolf in sheep’s clothing that readers might wish to take a look at are the following:

?http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=5722

http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=6000?

A recent article by one of Commissar Levant’s lieutenants, the young, pretty naive and zealous Faith Goldy, a self-confessed “fearless journalist and devout Catholic who stands up for family values, freedom, and firearms” titled, FREEDOM TO OFFEND: Support free speech, not sharia! caught my attention as its title obviously calls out to all those who value the God-given right to be able to speak one’s mind openly and freely without fear of the state or some special interest group laying a “hate speech” complaint against you.

In her article, embellished with a glitzy video presentation to enhance her Islamophobic argument, Faith Goldy slams the Liberal government’s “anti-Islamophobia initiative”; one that was brought on by a petition to the government calling “upon the House of Commons to recognize that terrorists are not real Muslims by condemning all forms of Islamophobia, with no exact definition of what they meant by the term.”

Faith was vehemently outraged by the fact that the petition had gained unanimous consent of Canada’s MP’s. She was also incensed by the Liberal’s tacitly implied proposal to introduce further draconian legislation to prohibit Canadians from “offending” Muslims; legislation that would most likely fall into Canada’s current Criminal Code “Hate Propaganda” sections 318 to 320, the very same legislation that the foreign Zionist Jew lobbyist organization B’nai Brith Canada used to indict me back in 2012 under their spurious claim that:

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

Faith sums up her angst with the Liberals by stating:

“In short: The Canadian government is preparing to silence anyone who criticizes Islam.

Their anti-Islamophobia motion (which will, in all likelihood, be voted on during this parliamentary session) resembles a kind of blasphemy law in favour of one preferred religion above all others. If this motion passes, Canadians can be persecuted for expressing any criticism of Islam, even when warranted.

This unfounded anti-Islamophobia legislation flies in the face of our Constitution and its embedded Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Sharia law and it’s related speech codes are not a reasonable limit on my freedoms.

According to our charter of rights and freedoms — we’re all equal. Every individual (not a belief system or ideology) is equal before and under the law. We all have equal protections and benefit equally from the law.

Muslims do not get special treatment or protections.”

Enter the Bigots and Hypocrites

Allow me now to repeat what I did on my website with Theodore N. Kaufmann’s book, Germany Must Perish! in a satire of it that I titled, Israel Must Perish! and change but a few salient words of what Faith wrote so it now reads:

“In short: The Canadian government is preparing to silence anyone who criticizes Judaism.

Their anti-Semitism motion (which will, in all likelihood, be voted on during this parliamentary session) resembles a kind of blasphemy law in favour of one preferred religion above all others. If this motion passes, Canadians can be persecuted for expressing any criticism of Judaism, even when warranted.

This unfounded anti-Semitic legislation flies in the face of our Constitution and its embedded Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Talmudic Jew law and it’s related speech codes are not a reasonable limit on my freedoms.

According to our charter of rights and freedoms — we’re all equal. Every individual (not a belief system or ideology) is equal before and under the law. We all have equal protections and benefit equally from the law.

Jews do not get special treatment or protections.”

Now either Goldy the intrepid and fearless journalist is extremely naive when it comes to Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” legislation or else she’s intentionally avoiding the fact that these laws were knowingly and specifically introduced into Canadian jurisprudence by the Jewish lobbyists here in Canada in order to first and foremost protect the Jews and the actions of the foreign state of Israel. There’s no other reasonable explanation for why she would make such a ludicrous statement that the Liberal’s “anti-Islamophobia motion resembles a kind of blasphemy law in favour of one preferred religion above all others.” Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws are precisely that; laws that “favour of one preferred religion above all others” and that religion just happens to be Judaism, whether Goldy likes it or not.

Surely, as a Roman Catholic, Faith Goldy must have a very clear understanding that the Catholics and Christians in general certainly don’t warrant any protection under Canada’s current “Hate Propaganda” laws. Canadians are free to criticize, vilify, malign, libel and hate Christians as much as they like. As a Christian I can verify the veracity of this statement. The same goes for any other religion, with the one exception – Judaism – and that’s why the Zionist Jew mainstream media here in Canada has been attacking the Muslims with a vengeance and with impunity ever since Israel and its Mossad secret service, in collusion with the Zionist infested White House in Washington, D.C. and its Zionist controlled CIA, pulled off the greatest caper of the 21 century when they orchestrated 911 and then blamed it on the Muslims in order to justify their planned, pre-emptive wars with any Arab nation not willing to bow down and kiss the ass of either the Zionist state of Israel or its global bully the USA.

If Faith Goldy is the “fearless journalist” that she professes to be then she would display that professed trait by looking fearlessly into the politics of Canada’s media and research the involvement of the Jew lobbyists like B’nai Brith Canada, the former Canadian Jewish Congress and the more recent umbrella org know as the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs and the roles they’ve played in corrupting and poisoning Canada’s justice system so that it consistently and inevitably favours only one religion, that of the Jews.

But alas, I fear that this seemingly narrow-minded, glib-tongued Roman Catholic is not about to face the truth about Judaism and its bastard satanic, atheistic son Zionism any more that she’s about to face the truth about Ezra Levant and his goy-seducing “Rebel” disinformation site that she’s now using as a soap box to promote the Zionist agenda of spewing forth endless hatred toward Muslims, all of which is designed with the long range goal of inciting yet another major war between the Christians and the Islamic nations; one that will, as all the wars inevitably do, solely benefit the Jews and their sinister plans for global hegemony.

The double-edged sword

Allow me to conclude this critique of Faith Goldy and Ezra Levant with a general explanation as to why the Zionist Jew media and their lobbyists here in Canada were so fervently opposed to Sec. 13 and its “hate speech” provisions as contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act and why, when that draconian legislation was repealed in 2012, they didn’t then proceed on to ridding the country of the far more dangerous, Orwellian and freedom-denying legislation contained in Sec. 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code known as the “Hate Propaganda” laws.

For many years the Jewish lobby groups in Canada used the Sec. 13 legislation to attack anyone who criticized either Israel or its political ideology known as Zionism. Then, the Muslim organizations here in Canada realized that they too could wield this same legislation in order to prohibit the Jew mainstream media from spreading hate and lies about them and so they set out to do just that. They laid complaints against Ezra Levant for publishing the insulting and degrading images of their spiritual leader Mohammad as well as Mark Steyn; two Canadian Jews who had been vilifying and promoting hatred toward the Muslims and their Islam religion for years. On top of that Steyn was a regular contributor at Maclean’s Magazine and suddenly it found itself embroiled in the Sec. 13 “hate speech” complaint. That was when the Zionist Jews in Canada finally saw the light and realized that the sword they’d inserted into the Canadian Human Rights Act right after 911 was double-edged and could be used against them too. Oi veh! they exclaimed. Such a deal! This law has to go. And it did. It took a number of years of promoting it via the Jewish media establishment and on social media and blogs around the country but eventually enough awareness was raised and political pressure applied that the Conservative government under Harper finally buckled under and decided they had to get rid of Sec. 13.

I, like many others, fought long and hard to have the legislation repealed. Of course I had a vested interest in seeing it thrown out. I was being forced to run the gamut of both the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal where “Truth” was no defence and the only outcome of appearing before the dreaded Stalinist tribunal was to be found guilty and have one’s rights to freedom of speech squashed along with the strong possibility of incurring exorbitant fines and restrictions on using the internet and ever publishing one’s views again. And I wasn’t alone. There were dozens of others who had already suffered and were still caught up in this vortex of madness that the Zionists had created thanks to their narcissistic, power-crazed delusions of power and grandeur. When the legislation was repealed there was great rejoicing amongst those who had been caught up in the merciless machinations of this Talmudic-driven censorship machine that had been running over our Constitutional and Charter rights for so long.

By the time the repeal occurred I had already come to the conclusions stated above and realized that the chances were not likely that the same forces who had brought to bear enough political and media pressure upon the government to repeal Sec. 13 were now going to do the same for Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws. And for obvious reasons. The “Hate Propaganda” laws had taken painstaking years of Jewish lobbying in order to get them implanted in the Criminal Code and it was understood by the Zionists that these laws were their last refuge and defence against having their long-range, secret agenda exposed to the general public on the internet. Without these Bolshevik-inspired laws to stem the inevitable tide of “anti-Semitism” that would automatically and naturally begin to rise once the public began realizing what the bigger picture was all about and their game plan was unravelling on the Internet they knew damn well that in order to keep the gullible goyim in their place and restrict the truth about their conspiracy they had to keep those “Hate Propaganda” laws intact and protected.

No sooner had Sec. 13 been repealed the same B’nai Brith Jewish lobbyists who filed their Sec. 13 complaint against me did an about turn and filed a Sec. 319(2) criminal code “hate complaint” against me in order to perpetuate the harassment and intimidation and legal torture that had finally ceased with the repeal of Sec. 13. When my trial came up in the fall of 2015 none of the former “rebels” and “free speech warriors” who I had worked with on the Sec. 13 campaign were to be found. Former allies in the fight for “freedom of speech” scurried like rats off a sinking ship. The likes of the great “free speech” fighters like Ezra Levant and Mark Steyn suddenly pulled a disappearing act. Others, like Marc Lemire, whose Sec. 13 battle was the final spike driven through the draconian heart of the Sec. 13 legislation and who I had worked tirelessly to assist, were now as silent as lambs when it came to Regina vs Roy Arthur Topham. Mark and Connie Fournier who had run the conservative website and forum known as “Free Dominion” and, ironically, had won the George Orwell Award from Lawyer Doug Christie’s Canadian Free Speech League after labouring for years to have Sec. 13 repealed also faded into the void when the trial of Arthur Topham was reported across the country in the Zionist media. All of my efforts to help them during their tribulations proved fruitless. Instead of standing up for Canada and going the extra mile required in order to destroy these “Hate Propaganda” laws once and for all they chose instead to betray the country and their fellow partisans in favour of Israel, Zionism and Judaism. Hypocrites, one and all, they will go down in history as being little more than Zionist sycophants who enabled the destruction of the nation’s Charter rights to freedom of expression.

God have mercy on their tormented, deluded souls.

As for Faith Goldy there appears to be little Hope and no Charity for the Islamic nations of the world. It appears that Goldy has traded her Bible in for a copy of the Babylonian Talmud and is now in total denial of the words of Jesus Christ, her supposed Saviour, who once so prophetically stated in Revelation 2 verse 9: “I know the blasphemy of them which say they are Jews, and are not, but are the synagogue of Satan.”

——

Ben Gadd: Pea-brained Propagandist for Zion’s “6 Million” Holohoax Lie by Marcus

victoryinend-copy

“In the end Victory stands!”

Ben  Gadd: Pea-brained Propagandist for Zion’s “6 Million” Holohoax Lie  

by Marcus

atrpeditor300

[Editor’s Note: The following commentary by Marcus on on the post “A Reply and Challenge to Ben Gadd  By Monika Schaefer” was so on point that I decided to publish it as a stand alone article.]

“Are the police and courts “haters” when they accuse the Mafia of crimes?”  I suspect in Ben’s pea sized brain, the answer is no. It’s only a crime when Jews are accused of something.

This little rat doesn’t know his backside from his elbow, but goes on talking about the so-called holocaust as if he’s an expert.  Who knows what thoughts that little brain he has contains, but if he swallowed everything the Jews said, then he also believes the Germans made lampshades from Jews skin and soap from Jews fat and believes that the “NAZIS” killed four million Jews at Auschwitz.  Does he even know that the Jews and the allies have already been exposed as liars for all three of these accusations.  The soap and lampshades stories have been discarded by historians as false (that means the allies and Jews lied) and the authorities at Auschwitz reduced their atrocity claim from four million to one million.  That was obviously a lie too.  They had no evidence (still don’t) and they smeared the German people with that lie.

This double talking guttersnipe works to spread the most vile and hateful things about the German people and he calls others the “haters”.  The Jews and idiots like Ben (or perhaps he is one himself) have made doublespeak a centerpiece of their narrative.  Myself, Monika and all Germans must accept the lies peddled by this Jew or in their twisted minds we are the “haters”.

6milben

I wonder if this know nothing, commie looking draft dodger knows that Jews founded and ran (completely dominated the murderous USSR government by being 80 to 85 percent of it) the most murderous regime in history.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7bSAB5OPkwQ

Does this liar know (or recognize) that this has been completely hidden from the public, with the media keeping it out of their reporting for almost 100 years now and that Jews were the leaders of the Soviet government that burned down Russian churches, raped nuns and murdered priests, oversaw the deliberate starvation of millions of Ukrainians and mass murder of millions of politically suspect Russians. The German government knew it and that is why they called it Jewish Bolshevism.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vKOBWz0_4Y

And while world Jewry was making the strongest efforts possible to push the world into WW II by spreading hateful, atrocity propaganda, Germany was at peace before the war broke out in 1939 and Germany’s relatively small Jewish population was safe, with Jews from Poland actually trying to stay or get into Germany.

Yes, those poor, innocent Jews.  Don’t people know that “anti-semitism” has “resulted in the hate-sparked deaths of millions of people over many hundreds of years”?  Ben Gadd sounds like a sayanim and the worst form of propagandizing Jewish liar there is.  The kind that Polish ambassador to the US, Jerzy Potocki was speaking of when he reported back to Warsaw on his observations of the American political scene in 1938:

The pressure of the Jews on President Roosevelt and on the State Department is becoming ever more powerful… The Jews are right now the leaders in creating a war psychosis which would plunge the entire world into war and bring about general catastrophe. This mood is becoming more and more apparent. In their definition of democratic states, the Jews have also created real chaos; they have mixed together the idea of democracy and communism, and have above all raised the banner of burning hatred against Nazism.

This hatred has become a frenzy. It is propagated everywhere and by every means: in theaters, in the cinema, and in the press. The Germans are portrayed as a nation living under the arrogance of Hitler which wants to conquer the whole world and drown all of humanity in an ocean of blood. In conversations with Jewish press representatives, I have repeatedly come up against the inexorable and convinced view that war is inevitable. This international Jewry exploits every means of propaganda to oppose any tendency towards any kind of consolidation and understanding between nations. In this way, the conviction is growing steadily but surely in public opinion here that the Germans and their satellites, in the form of fascism, are enemies who must be subdued by the ‘democratic world.’ (February 9) and then reported back to Warsaw again in January 1939:

The feeling now prevailing in the United States is marked by a growing hatred of Fascism and, above all, of Chancellor Hitler and everything connected with Nazism. Propaganda is mostly in the hands of the Jews, who control almost 100 percent radio, film, daily and periodical press. Although this propaganda is extremely coarse and presents Germany as black as possible—above all religious persecution and concentration camps are exploited—this propaganda is nevertheless extremely effective, since the public here is completely ignorant and knows nothing of the situation in Europe. …

The prevalent hatred against everything which is in any way connected with German Nazism is further kindled by the brutal policy against the Jews in Germany and by the émigré problem. In this action, various Jewish intellectuals participated: for instance, Bernard Baruch; the Governor of New York State, Lehman; the newly appointed judge of the Supreme Court, Felix Frankfurter; Secretary of the Treasury Morgenthau; and others who are personal friends of President Roosevelt. They want the President to become the champion of human rights, freedom of religion and speech, and the man who in the future will punish trouble-makers. These groups of people, who occupy the highest positions in the American government and want to pose as representatives of ‘true Americanism’ and ‘defenders of democracy,’ are, in the last analysis, connected by unbreakable ties with international Jewry.

For this Jewish international, which above all is concerned with the interests of its race, to portray the President of the United States as the ‘idealist’ champion on human rights was a very clever move. In this manner they have created a dangerous hotbed for hatred and hostility in this hemisphere, and divided the world into two hostile camps. The entire issue is worked out in a masterly manner. Roosevelt has been given the foundation for activating American foreign policy, and simultaneously has been procuring enormous military stocks for the coming war, for which the Jews are striving very consciously.

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2014/volume_6/number_2/the_jewish_hand_in_the_world_wars_part_2.php

Meanwhile, in Britain “innocent” Jews (read “warmongering”) were bribing Winston Churchill to start a world war against Germany:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jc9ltEIwpo

And the “innocent” Jews continue to operate today, as they did in the 1930’s and I suspect as they always have.  Here is the “number one contributor to the Republican Party”, casino mogul Sheldon Adelson.  In this speech he says Iran should have a nuclear bomb dropped on it if it doesn’t do what the US says:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sCW4IasWXc

Adelson knows and met each Republican candidate who took the money he offered them and promised to carry out his wishes – every one of them.  Trump refused the money at first.  I’m not sure if he eventually accepted it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LFAlloGYiSw

The Jewish push for WW II began immediately upon Adolf Hitler taking office as chancellor of Germany.  They immediately began holding atrocity propaganda rallies in New York and international Jewry declared a worldwide boycott of German goods within two months.  Just as in the USSR, the Jews were leaders of the communist party in Germany.  They were violent and had overthrown the Bavarian gov’t shortly after WW I and these were the Jews that were arrested.  There was no terror.  That would come later, as the Jews continued to push for war.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myh-dqvUgYA

In 1936 a Jew named David Frankfurter murdered the Swiss National Socialist politician Wilhelm Gustloff in cold blood.  Two years later the Jew Herschel Grynszpan murdered the young German diplomat Ernst vom Rath in cold blood.  Vom Rath left his wife and young children behind.  This murder kicked off what became known as “Kristallnacht” in which an estimated 91 Jews were killed (not six million or six trillion).  But of course the Jews made the most they could out of it, as they had been lying since Hitler took office.  Compare that to the number of Russians and Ukrainians Jews were murdering at the same time in the USSR.

In 1940 the Jew Theodore Kaufman published his book “Germany Must Perish!” in which he put forth a detailed plan to sterilize the entire German population to kill the Germans off.  His book received rave reviews in the top US media outlets, including Time Magazine.

screen-shot-2017-01-13-at-7-41-32-pm

screen-shot-2017-01-13-at-7-42-18-pm

http://www.ihr.org/books/kaufman/perish.shtml

And this was in the US, a country thousands of miles from Europe that had no business in European affairs.   Charles Lindbergh pointed out the “innocent” Jews as one of three groups (the others being the FDR administration and Great Britain) pushing the US into WW II.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_F48oaOskI

Here is FDR, one of the biggest liars in history, making a speech based upon a phony map and making ridiculous accusations against Germany, claiming it wanted to take over South America and then presumably march on to Washington, D.C, all while the German army was already fighting for its life in the USSR.  FDR justifying the US entry into WW II.  This speech was made a month after Lindbergh’s speech.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ak61DaD32Ww

How the phony map speech came about:

http://www.ihr.org/jhr/v06/v06p125_Weber.html

Meanwhile, in Poland and the USSR the Germans noticed that wherever Jews made up a significant part of a population, that is where atrocities against Germans would take place (Bromberg) or partisan attacks on German soldiers or European Nationalists from other countries would be carried out.  The partisan war had begun.  It would end with the Soviet Jew propagandist Ilya Ehrenburg calling for the mass rape of German women, which the Soviet army (and the Americans and British to a much smaller degree) carried out, gang raping two million German women, ranging in age from 8 to 80.  Today that Jewish animal Ehrenburg is honored and buried in Israel (while Germany continues to persecute 90 year old nurses or clerks that served Germany).

Hopefully the bigot Ben Gadd will read this.


In the interests of public justice and truth should anyone wish to contact Ben Rudd his email address is: Ben@bengadd.com

What will the New Year bring for Canadians? By Betty Krawczyk

newyear4canadians

What will the New Year bring for Canadians?

By Betty Krawczyk

betty-k-photo

What will the New Year bring for Canadians? I think the western world lead by the US, and including Canada, is losing its collective mind. It’s as if the US is telling itself fairy tales and getting very angry when any collection of individuals or even one individual, who says, by way of resistance “but wait…I personally do not believe the bull excrement you are shoveling onto my doorstep (and into my airways)”. Not that any important media, or important person, for that matter, at least recognized by Canada, is trying to do this. But I personally rebel when the Canadian press and media, following the US story line, tries to persuade me, and millions of others, that Hillary Clinton lost the election because Putin personally elected Trump as US president by hacking into the American voting machines. I have to say they are lying through their expensive implanted teeth.

screen-shot-2016-12-30-at-11-32-32-pm

The US accusers can’t offer any proof of their accusations of Putin hacking because there isn’t any. I ask, did Putin also hack the machines that put Republicans back into the Senate? And also hack into the House of Representatives voting machines? The cabal of international interests that push austerity onto the people of the world while sucking the economy itself dry says it does. With the help of the Russia Today TV programs of course. The cabal claims that Putin, through RT, plays evil, insidious propaganda lies that are also very powerful and causes strange things to happen in America. Many US lawmakers are calling for the US to outright ban RT being broadcast in and into America. So much for freedom of speech. So do I watch RT?

I do, and I don’t even have television. I get RT through my computer. I also tune in to other alternate news casts but none have the constantly growing ratings of RT. I recommend RT to everyone. Of course they are presenting the Russian point of view which the Russians say is the purpose of the news shows. Why would the Russians have a television show of Russia Today if not to present the Russian point of view? How can Canadians and Americans make up their minds about anything if they only hear one side? That’s all we hear in most of the news programs that service the cabal (the side that CNN and 90 per cent of the other US broadcasting and our very own CBC) wants us to hear. Shouldn’t we also hear the other side? Shouldn’t we all hear honest debate on how “the liberation of Aleppo” in The Russian media becomes the “the downfall of Aleppo” in the American media? Even the government of British Columbia seems to think so.

20-russia-today

The province of BC is now advertising on the Russian channel. The BC provincial government has been running a large, chatty video showing and explaining how wonderful British Columbia is to countries everywhere through the RT channel. Christy Clark knows how many people worldwide watch RT. Other Canadian businesses are beginning to catch on, too. I think it is too late to shut RT up. The cabal is trying to distract the people who are slipping out of the middle class, and even out of the working class, into abject poverty by blaming their economic and physic woes on the bogyman Putin instead of their own blood sucking policies which will eventually fail. However, I think a “hard rain has to fall” before the US and Canada comes up with economic programs that allow all in our countries to prosper, not just the banks, and without prosperity being based on war. But war with Russia is exactly what the US is conditioning the western world to accept by constantly presenting Putin as being beneath the consideration of civilized nations; of being inhuman. The US headed cabal wants war with Russia in the New Year. And apparently, listening to the CBC, Canada is willing to tag along.

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

100thmonkeyhdr-copy

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

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

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 by Arthur Topham

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

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

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

Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tenure’s End: Foreign Israeli Lobby B’nai Brith Attacks Canada’s Longstanding Academic Tradition to Safeguard Freedom of Speech

Tenure’s End: Foreign Israeli lobby B’nai Brith Attacks Canada’s

Longstanding Academic Tradition to Safeguard Freedom of Speech

By Arthur Topham

The foreign, Jew’s-only, secret Masonic lobby organization B’nai Brith Canada and its ADL-ed component the League for ‘Human Rights’ of B’nai Brith are on a rampage through Cyberspace in their ongoing attempts to destroy Canadian’s constitutionally guaranteed Charter right to freedom of expression.

One of the most recent, egregious examples by this traitorous, Israel-sponsored, Fifth Columnist organization is their  despicable attempt to destroy Canada’s longstanding tradition of academic Tenureship via their relentless, underhanded attacks upon tenured Professor Anthony Hall of the University of Lethbridge, Alberta.

Using every dirty trick in their bag of lies, this traitorous “benevolent society” of Zionist Jew, duel-citizens  have been falsely maligning Professor Hall both in their Zionist-controlled mainstream media and via Canada’s legal system through their misuse of provincial “Human Rights” organizations.

The usual plethora of slander, lies, vilification, ugly epithets and guilt by association, coupled with copious amounts of arrogant innuendo, are their standard psycho-weapons of destruction and in the case of Professor Hall they’ve pulled out all the stops.

I have been covering Professor Hall’s plight for some time and observing how this Public Enemy #1 of Canadian sovereignty, B’nai Brith Canada, has been viciously libeling Hall in their Jewish publications both here in Canada and in the foreign state of Israel’s  media outlets as well as in the mainstream media.

It’s well beyond time that Canadians WAKE UP and smell the kosher coffee that’s been brewing beneath their noses for decades and realize that this subversive agent of the foreign state of Israel is quickly destroying the underpinnings of Canadian culture through their blatant attempts to dismantle and subvert every level of the nation’s government, media, judiciary and, now, academia.

Watch the above video and listen carefully to the words of Professor Anthony Hall and TAKE HEED! If this apocalyptic beast hidden with the Trojan Horse called “B’nai Brith Canada” isn’t collared and put on a leash soon all hell will be breaking loose as our rights and freedoms dissolve and we shift into either a state of anarchy or totalitarian dictatorship.

Please share this article with your friends and associates and if you can, write to those persons listed below and tell them how you feel about this deplorable affront to Canada’s freedom.

Those concerned about the B’nai Brith’s assault on Professor Anthony Hall can contact Lethbridge University President Mike Mahon. Email: mike.mahon@uleth.ca and cc contactmeliorist@gmail.com  program@ckxu.com  antoniusjameshall@gmail.com

Write, fax, or phone: Mike Mahon President & Vice-Chancellor A762 University Hall, University of Lethbridge, Lethbridge, Alberta, Canada  T1K 3M4. Phone: (403) 329 -2201. Fax: (403) 329-2097.

There is also a Petition that’s been started where you can help support Professor Hall and our rights and freedoms. Here’s the link:

https://www.change.org/p/kurt-e-schlachter-kurt-e-schlachter-step-down-as-chair-of-the-board-university-of-lethbridge

As the old saying goes, “JUST DO IT!” The time for hesitation is long past. Let’s put our country’s freedoms ahead of our own petty and personal agendas for a change and start standing up for CANADA instead of kowtowing to the interests of a foreign, racist nation!

—–

Canada’s illegal witch-hunt: Arthur Topham trial continues Monday By Denis G. Rancourt

rancourtvtisraelgazaattack2014

In a shameful display of state hubris, Canada is using illegal concocted provisions of its Criminal Code to prosecute a citizen for innocuous postings on a personal blog (The Radical Press). The provisions allow a maximum 2-year prison sentence, where the state prosecutor (“Crown”) does not need to prove intent to harm or any actual harm to a single person. Intent and actual harm are not even relevant legal considerations in the proceeding. Both harm and intent are presumed.

The said Criminal Code provisions are straight out of the playbook of a totalitarian state.

The show trial was separated into two parts, despite the objections of the accused. In the first part the accused was found criminally guilty, for one blogpost, while not guilty for the other blogpost of the Crown’s charge. In the second part, which is scheduled to start tomorrow Monday October 3rd, the constitutionality of the law is being challenged on limited grounds. Any sentencing will be decided after the ruling on constitutionality.

The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.

The process of thus dividing the show trial into two parts is equivalent to first determining that the witch is guilty of blasphemy or worst, followed by a hearing to determine if burning at the stake in the town square is still within the bounds of community standards, rather than evaluating the legitimacy of the law at the same time (and before the same jury) that the nature of the “offense” is evaluated.

Meanwhile, the “defendant” was gagged from identifying the original complainants (the usual crew) but allowed to continue blogging about the process until a conviction is finally secured, and has mounted a funding campaign for the expensive constitutional challenge.

These kinds of show-trial proceedings and the associated media assaults are attempts to create a false impression of a victimized Israel, to shield the apartheid state from international condemnation for its on-going violations of the Geneva Conventions, illegal annexation, constant violations of human rights, and mass-murder “mowing of the grass” in Gaza. Israel wants a free hand to continuously expand by the same criminal methods it has used for decades. Therefore, when successful, the domestic show trials (most prominent in Canada, France, and Germany) are geopolitical in character by virtue of Israel’s leading role in US interference in the Middle East, with Canada and France as lead accompanying sycophant states.

Canada’s Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) has defended Arthur Topham against the state’s attack on freedom of thought and expression with several interventions. OCLA applies the principle that those who’s views are most at odds with orthodoxy and who are most aggressively attacked using the state apparatus are those most in need of civil defense.

The OCLA’s 2014 on-line petition to the state authority gathered over 1,400 signatures. OCLA also, in 2015, intervened by letter against other “civil liberties” associations that adopted a statement that harmed Mr. Topham’s case.

This year, OCLA intervened prior to the constitutional part of the trial by sending a letter directly to the trial judge, with all the state actors in cc. OCLA’s letter, reproduced below, spells out the illegal character of the criminal law being used in this particular show trial and witch hunt:

January 13, 2016
The Honourable Mr. Justice Butler, Supreme Court of British Columbia

Your Honour:

Re: Unconstitutionality of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry)

The Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA) wishes to make this intervention, in letter form, to assist the Court in its hearing of the defendant’s constitutional challenge of s. 319(2) of the Criminal Code (“Code”), to be heard in the Supreme Court of British Columbia.
The defendant submits that s. 319(2) of the Code infringes on the s. 2(b) guarantee of freedom of expression contained in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and is not saved by s. 1 of the Charter.[1]
The Supreme Court of Canada has determined and reaffirmed that the Charter must provide at least as much protection for basic freedoms as is found in the international human rights documents adopted by Canada:[2]
“And this Court reaffirmed in Divito v. Canada (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), [2013] 3 S.C.R. 157, at para. 23, “the Charter should be presumed to provide at least as great a level of protection as is found in the international human rights documents that Canada has ratified”.”[Emphasis added.]
Canada has ratified the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (“Covenant”). Article 19, para. 2 of the Covenant protects freedom of expression:[3]
“2. Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any other media of his choice.”
Further, the U.N. Human Rights Committee, in its General Comment dated 12 September 2011, has specified that any restrictions[4] to the protection of freedom of expression “must conform to the strict tests of necessity and proportionality”:[5]
“35. When a State party invokes a legitimate ground for restriction of freedom of expression, it must demonstrate in specific and individualized fashion the precise nature of the threat, and the necessity and proportionality of the specific action taken, in particular by establishing a direct and immediate connection between the expression and the threat.” [Emphasis added.][6]
The impugned provision in the Code does not require the Crown to prove any actual harm, and no evidence of actual harm to any individual or group was presented in the trial of R. v. Topham. There is no “direct and immediate connection” between Mr. Topham’s expression on his blog and any threat that would permit restriction of his expression.
The OCLA submits that the current jurisprudence of the Covenant, including the 2011 General Comment No. 34, represents both Canada’s obligation and the current status of reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, in relation to state-enforced limits on expression. The process and the jury-conviction to date in the instant case establish that s. 319(2) of the Code exceeds these limits, and is therefore not constitutional.
Furthermore, s. 319(2) of the Code allows a maximum punishment of “imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years”. The Code punishment of imprisonment exceeds the “strict tests of necessity and proportionality” prescribed by the Covenant.
In addition, in paragraph 47 of General Comment No. 34, it is specified that: “States parties should consider the decriminalization of defamation and, in any case, the application of the criminal law should only be countenanced in the most serious of cases and imprisonment is never an appropriate penalty.” [Emphasis added.] In the penal defamation envisaged in the Covenant, unlike in s. 319(2) in the Code, the state has an onus to prove actual harm.
And in relation to state concerns or prohibitions about so-called “Holocaust denial”, paragraph 49 of the said General Comment has:
“Laws that penalize the expression of opinions about historical facts are incompatible with the obligations that the Covenant imposes on States parties in relation to the respect for freedom of opinion and expression.”
Finally, the OCLA submits that the feature of s. 319(2) that gives the Attorney General direct say regarding proceeding to prosecution (the requirement for the Attorney General’s “consent”)[7] is unconstitutional because it is contrary to the fundamental principle of the rule of law, wherein provisions in a statute cannot be subject to arbitrary application or be politically motivated or appear as such. The fundamental principle of the rule of law underlies the constitution.[8]
For these reasons, the OCLA is of the opinion that s. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code is unconstitutional and incompatible with the values of a free and democratic society.
If the Court requests it, the OCLA will be pleased to make itself available to provide any further assistance in relation to the instant submission.
Yours sincerely,

Joseph Hickey
Executive Director
Ontario Civil Liberties Association (OCLA)

[1] Defendant’s “Memorandum of Argument Regarding Charter Issues”, R. v. Topham, Court File No. 25166, Quesnel Registry.
[2] Saskatchewan Federation of Labour v. Saskatchewan [2015 SCC 4], at para. 64.
[3] International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 19, at para. 2.
[4] Ibid., Article 19, at para. 3, and Article 20.
[5] General Comment No. 34, UN Human Rights Committee [CCPR/C/GC/34], at para. 22.
[6] Ibid., at para. 35.
[7] Criminal Code (R.S.C., 1985, c. C-46), s. 319(6).
[8] For a recent example where unconstitutionality arising from the rule of law was the main issue before the court, see: Trial Lawyers Association of British Columbia v. British Columbia (Attorney General), 2014 SCC 59 (CanLII); and see Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 SCR 139, 1991 CanLII 119 (SCC), p. 210 (i).


SOURCE ARTICLE

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

amhertribune

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

 

halllibelhdr

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


rafiq

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

behindthescene

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

By
Arthur Topham

September 25th, 2016

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

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

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

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

How the Ten Year Show Trial Played Out Behind the Scenes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

gaywilsonlevasimage

Enter the Queer-Jew Connection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

preludehdr1000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Section 318 reads as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

May Truth and Justice prevail.
_____

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

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

THANK YOU!

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

Zionist B’nai Brith Lobby Firmly in Control of Green Party of Canada & Its Puppet Leader Elizabeth May By B’nai Brith Canada

http://www.bnaibrith.ca/dimitri_lascaris_turfed_from_green_party_shadow_cabinet

Dimitri Lascaris Turfed from Green Party Shadow Cabinet

Published : Sep 14, 2016

 

sotelluselizabeth

The Green Party of Canada has fired its outspoken justice critic, Dimitri Lascaris.

dimitri-lascaris

In a statement, the Green Party announced that Lascaris was removed, along with Lisa Barrett and Colin Griffiths, from its Shadow Cabinet because they publicly criticized the leader of the B.C. Green Party, Andrew Weaver. Weaver was critical of his party for considering a policy endorsing Boycott, Divest and Sanctions (BDS). B’nai Brith Canada had proactively reached out to Weaver as early as July 8, calling on him to publicly oppose the boycott motion.

B’nai Brith also had previously urged Green Party Leader Elizabeth May to dismiss Lascaris as justice critic after it exposed that he advocated on behalf of a terrorist who murdered three Israeli civilians in Jerusalem. Lascaris submitted the anti-Israel boycott motion to the Green Party’s Annual Convention in August and was among its main proponents.

Last week, B’nai Brith divulged in a release that Lascaris, while speaking in Toronto at a “town hall meeting” about Green Party policies, suggested Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu should be barred from entering Canada.

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5

Lascaris repeatedly referred to Netanyahu as a “fascist” during the meeting. In the release, B’nai Brith CEO Michael Mostyn strongly criticized Lascaris.

“The removal of Lascaris and his colleagues from the Green Party’s Shadow Cabinet is a welcome development from a party that has faced months of criticism over what many members of the Jewish community viewed as policies that unfairly targeted them,” said Amanda Hohmann, National Director of B’nai Brith’s League for Human Rights. “Lascaris has gone on record repeatedly in recent weeks expressing his support for the BDS movement — which the Canadian Parliament condemned earlier this year — and his removal is a positive sign that the Green Party is treating this matter with the seriousness that it deserves.”

May, who has said that she personally opposes the anti-Israel boycott movement, has called a Special General Meeting of the Green Party in Calgary for December 3-4. B’nai Brith, in the aforementioned release, quoted Lascaris as saying the motion to repeal the charitable status of the Jewish National Fund (JNF), may be revisited at the December meeting.

——

Additional Reading:

Embracing Truth: Elizabeth May, Green Party of Canada, 9/11 and the Politics of Denial by Monika Schaefer with Preface by Arthur Topham

Gestures of Obeisance: Canadian Green Party Leader Elizabeth May Bows to Israel

So You Thought the Green Party was Different from the rest, eh?

The Zionist Metis in the Tipi by Arthur Topham

Bad Moon Rising: How the Jewish Lobbies Created Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” Laws

B’nai Brith Canada: Still Beating the ‘anti-Semitic’, ‘Hate’ Drum

Bellicose Bromberg Plays the B’nai Brith Hate Card Again

 

 

Whatcott hit with $104 million lawsuit by Toronto Gay Pride Queer Lawyer By Bill Whatcott

Screen Shot 2016-08-13 at 9.52.51 PMScreen Shot 2016-08-13 at 11.25.37 PM

QueerLawyerWhatcott

I hope this class action lawsuit against me and those who choose to stand with me wakes Christians and others up to the reality of what is happening in the West. As homosexual activism and other libertine and anti-Christian movements gain power in Canada, freedom and truth are dying and those cherished principles are being replaced with falsehood, censorship and tyranny.

I have no intention of divulging the identities of anyone who has chosen to help me. My advice for my Christian friends is be wise and courageous. Pray and do what you can to stand against this tyranny. Also if you sent me some cash, offered me a bed, or helped make a Gospel condom, keep your mouths shut if these vengeful homosexual activists come snooping. Ask your friends to keep their yaps shut too. If the Ontario courts are corrupt enough to go along with this and if they put me in jail for not cooperating with this witch hunt, just send me the occasional $20 for prison canteen, so I can enjoy some potato chips and continue to write God pleasing commentaries from my jail cell. As much as possible, I don’t want anyone to make it easy for these homosexual activists and lawyers to silence debate or attain any sort of a financial reward at my or my friend’s expense.

Sincerely,

Bill Whatcott


$104-million lawsuit filed against Toronto Pride parade crashers

Bill Whatcott and his ‘gay zombies’ face possible legal injunction

Published on Fri, Aug 12, 2016

http://www.dailyxtra.com/toronto/news-a … ers-203986

Prominent gay lawyer Douglas Elliott has filed a $104-million class action lawsuit against anti-gay activist Bill Whatcott for crashing the 2016 Toronto Pride parade.

Elliott is also seeking an injunction from the court to prevent Whatcott and his associates from crashing anymore Pride parades in Canada.

Whatcott and several unidentified allies suited up in neon green body suits and disseminated anti-gay literature at the July 3 Toronto parade, calling themselves “gay zombies.”

The lawsuit seeks in part to determine the identities of those who marched with Whatcott and those who financially supported the political stunt through subpoenaed documents.

“Those who paid for his airfare or donated Aeroplan miles to get him to Toronto, those who put him up in Toronto, the people who paid to print the pamphlets: anyone who helped him in any way could be on the hook for $100 million dollars.” says Elliott, whose firm Cambridge LLP is handling the lawsuit.

Screen Shot 2016-08-13 at 11.16.36 PM

Bill Whatcott and his assistants wore green bodysuits to sneak into Toronto’s Pride parade on July 3, 2016. 

The two main representatives of the class action suit are well known in the gay community, Christopher Hudspeth, who owns Pegasus Bar in Toronto’s gay village, and former MPP George Smitherman, Ontario’s first openly gay provincial representative and first openly gay cabinet minister.

Both marched in the parade on July 3, 2016 — and in the case of Smitherman have marched in every parade dating back to 1986. Smitherman says he joined the suit to “do all we can to stamp this hateful individual out.”

“Too often, religion is used as the justification for the vilest of homophobia. From my life on the inside of the fundamentalist movement, I know that promoting homophobia is a great way to raise money from other fundamentalists,” explains Hudspeth, who was raised in a fundamentalist Pentecostal home and spoke of the experience at the Aug 12 press conference in Ottawa announcing the lawsuit.

“There is no doubt in my mind that some fundamentalist group, either here or in the United States, is backing these activities. We need to smoke them out.”

As a gay father, Smitherman says he is deeply offended that Whatcott is once again equating homosexuality with pedophilia.

“My outrage and disgust at the duplicitous means by which Whatcott and his so-called zombies will go to to interrupt this place where love is supposed to be safe and to use the most defamatory statements possible, to regurgitate the most untruthful and disgusting stereotypes with respect to gay and lesbian people, means this [lawsuit] is the right thing to do,” Smitherman says.

Screen Shot 2016-08-13 at 11.15.49 PM

Toronto Homosexual Pride Parade in the 1970s. Sodomite activist George Smitherman sues Bill Whatcott, accusing him of speaking falsehoods and stereotypes, yet the Toronto shame parades prove what Bill is saying is true!

“We need to get right to the heart of the matter, which is the financial resources that allow for this disgraceful person to continue his act, which is hurtful to the thousands and thousands that it has impacted.”

When reached by Facebook, Whatcott tells Daily Xtra that he should have been welcomed into the Pride parade, not sued for participating.

“I just read the statement of claim. It seems to me the poor homosexuals are angry at God and the Gospel. They should have welcomed me in their parade as a much needed truth teller and indeed I was far less disruptive than BLM [Black Lives Matter]. Not sure why the homosexual activists aren’t suing them,” Whatcott writes.

DSCF2629_zpsifcywhen

Angry at God and the Gospel: A Homosexual in the 2016 Toronto sodomite parade 

puts Jesus on his crotch and has profanities directed at Jesus on his behind

If the class action is certified, Elliott says he intends to ask for a summary judgment.

“Where a case is clear cut, there is no point in going through the expense and delay associated with a trial, [so we can] bring a motion to the court for a summary judgment and get it over with, quickly and inexpensively,” Elliott says.

However, they still need to serve Whatcott who, without a permanent address, has been difficult for them to track down, the plaintiffs say.

Whatcott is well known to courts and tribunals in Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia as an anti-gay activist for previous protests, both at parades and on university campuses.

In 2013, the Supreme Court of Canada upheld part of a 2005 Saskatchewan Human Rights Tribunal against Whatcott, for distributing flyers targeting gay and lesbian Canadians.

Before infiltrating the Toronto Pride parade in 2016, Whatcott had similarly faked his identity in 2014 to march along with the Vancouver Pride parade, that time under the disguise of fictitious Calgary Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, to distribute anti-gay leaflets disguised as condoms.

pic16_zps4de50e2b

Whatcott disguised as Matthew Davidson, the “gay” high priest of the Calgary Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster giving hugs and delivering thousands of desperately needed Gospel condoms to homosexuals and their messed up allies, telling them to keep their pants on and turn their lives over to Jesus so they can have their sins forgiven.

Whatcott told Daily Xtra that he and six of his supporters distributed 3,000 flyers at the Toronto Pride parade, including to parade goers, that warned of risks allegedly associated with gay sex.

20160703_162445_zps7cjsnrra

A Crack Christian Commando from the top secret Christian Truth Activist Gospel Counter Intelligence Unit disguised as a “gay zombie” in a tutu poses with an unsuspecting leatherman at the Toronto Homosexual Shame Parade

The two-page flyer featured graphic photos of anal warts and a dead body described as an “AIDS fatality.” A second page criticizes the “homosexual activism” of Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne and former Liberal defence minister Bill Graham.

They, among other Liberals, are being listed as a subclass to the class action suit, as having been targeted by the content of the pamphlets and singled out for their political affiliations. The two main classes of the suit are those marchers who legitimately signed up and marched in the Pride parade, and those who received copies of the flyer at the parade.


To see the flyers that were distributed at the Toronto homosexual shame parade by the “Gay Zombies” and to stand in solidarity with Bill Whatcott and further distribute these truthful “Zombie Safe Sex” messages before the homosexual activists get them banned download them here!

Front of Flyer

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Ol-X … sp=sharing

Back of Flyer

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B_Ol-X … sp=sharing

file.php.jpg

Bill Whatcott

Administrator

 

Escape From The Holocaust Lie by Arthur Topham

EscapeHoloHdr

Escape From The Holocaust Lie

By
Arthur Topham

“The first and most important value is the freedom to debate, the freedom to think, the freedom to speak and the freedom to disagree. This prosecution, has already had a very serious effect on those freedoms. If it were to result in a conviction, I suggest to you that a process of witch-hunting would begin in our society where everyone who had a grievance against anyone else would say “Uh-huh, you are false, and I’ll take you or pressure somebody else to take you to court and force you to defend yourself.”
~ Douglas Christie, Barrister & Solicitor from his Summation to the Jury
in the Ernst Zundel Trial, February 25, 1985

I chose the above quote from Douglas Christie, the greatest defender of freedom of speech Canada has ever produced. Doug, more than any other person I know (and I knew him personally for seven years right up to the time of his death in March of 2013), epitomized the spirit of Truth, intelligence of Heart, the noble Grace and indefatigable Courage and Integrity of a free man all combined with an adamantine faith in God.

DouglasHChristiecopy_zps43b1b5c0

It was due in great part to the efforts of Doug Christie during the trial of Ernst Zundel that he, like the biblical Moses of old, was able to lead the captured consciousness of Truth Seekers of the 20th Century out of their mentally-induced prisons into the fertile lands of freedom of speech and expression.

tazebook_dees-1-copy

Ernst Zundel had been charged under Section 177 of the Criminal Code for having knowingly “published false news that was likely to be injurious to the public good” when he began dispensing a small booklet titled Did Six Million Really Die? – one which he hadn’t written himself but felt expressed his views on the alleged Jewish Holocaust. It was Zundel’s trial that finally brought to a head the (then) forty years of Canadians wondering aimlessly through a cognitive “6 Million” wilderness of deception not knowing that all the while they were being psychically manipulated and conditioned to believe the greatest LIE ever told to humanity.

Awhile ago I typed out and digitally recorded on RadicalPress.com Doug Christie’s Summation to the Jury which first appeared in booklet form not too long after the trial ended and I highly recommend that anyone in the least concerned about this massive experiment in mind control read it. If nothing else it will vividly show you the brilliance and logic (and levity) of the lawyer who honestly earned his handle “The Battling Barrister”.

ZundelTrialFreeSpeechDC800 copy

Doug Christie put the issue of Ernst Zundel’s concerns before the jury in the following manner:

“The booklet Did Six Million Really Die? is more important for German people than it is maybe for others, because there is a real guilt daily inculcated against German people in the media every time they look at the war.

The German people have been portrayed for forty years in the role of the butchers of six million.”

In Christie’s Summation to the Jury at the culmination of the trial he recapped much of what was revealed to the court through weeks of mind-bending cross-examination, regarding this one fundamental LIE that has superseded all other interpretations of what took place during WW 2 in German occupied territories in Eastern Europe.

During the Zundel Trial Christie literally demolished the illusions of the “gas chambers” and the “6 Million Jews” myth that the Crown and its Expert Witness Raul Hilberg had attempted to foist upon the Jury and, by extension, the nation and the world as a whole. The final results showed that the much-touted, world renowned “holocaust expert” Raul Hilberg’s testimony (the Jews considered Hilberg to be their No. 1 man) ultimately proved to be nothing more than unsubstantiated bluff.

As Doug Christie put it in his summation:

“Who denies Dr. Hilberg the right to publish his views? Who denies that he should be free to say there was a Hitler order to exterminate Jews? Not my client; not me; nobody in society denies him that right. Who denies anyone the right to publish their views? Well, it’s the position of my client that he’s obliged to justify his publication. And I suggest he has….”

“Has Dr. Hilberg proved a single thing here to be false? No, he hasn’t. He says he had documents. He produces none. He talks about the train tickets and schedules. What train tickets and schedules? If we’re talking about a criminal case we should have evidence. There isn’t enough evidence here today to convict one person for murdering one other person. But they want you to believe that six million died, or millions died, and that this question mark is false. Where is the evidence to support one murder by one person? There is no Hitler order; there is an alleged order somewhere by somebody alleged to have heard it from somebody else. There’s no evidence.”

RaulHilbergPic

And the Beat(ing) Goes On

Now, seventy-one years later (thirty-one years after Doug’s summation) we’re still witnessing the relentless, malicious efforts of the Zionist Jews (and their sycophant zombie clones) to brow-beat, bludgeon, bedazzle and intimidate Canadians into accepting as FACT everything that the Ernst Zundel trial legally established as mere FICTION.

I am specifically referring to the current mainstream media uproar of feigned sound and fury that’s overtaken not only the local media in Jasper, Alberta The Jasper Local, and the Canadian Edmonton, Alberta media but has even extended itself to the state of Israel’s Haaretz newspaper since one of Jasper’s better known residents and peace activists, Monika Schaefer, published a short video denouncing the alleged “6 Million Jewish Holocaust”. The video in question was titled, Sorry Mom, I was wrong about the Holocaust.

MonikaSchaeferSorryMomHdr copy

No ifs ands or buts, it’s intentional mind-control on the same level as that of MKULTRA.

No ifs and or buts, it’s intentional mind-control on the same level as that of MKULTRA. Canadians, like people everywhere, have been unwittingly under the hypnotic, sorcerer’s spell of Jewish controlled “mainstream media” since the end of World War 2. They have surreptitiously endured a lifetime of brainwashing and mendaciously motivated mind control and for many today they still have little or no clue that the alleged “6 Million Jewish Holocaust” was and is the BIGGEST and most pervasive LIE ever foisted upon the world.

Of course that’s how it was intentionally designed to be when the perpetrators of this fantastic fiction first formulated, then forecast for use on such a massive scale, their serpentine “6 Million” siren song purposely meant to entrap the masses into subconsciously entering a Zionist-induced cognitive gulag or concentration camp strikingly similar to their own Talmudic Rabbi’s historically induced ghetto consciousness that forms the superstructure upon which Zionism’s atheistic ideological edifice rests.

Back in 2009 I wrote an article titled Israel’s Wall: For Palestinians or Jews? where I try to show the similitude between the wall that the Israeli government constructed on stolen Palestinian land and the mental/emotional wall that the Talmudic Rabbis built around their own tribe in order to control the minds of each successive generation of Jews and keep them trapped in the Talmudic oral “law”; an alleged law that purported made them especially chosen by God to rule over the world and because of that exclusiveness therefore separate and a step above the rest of humanity. It was a thesis first put forward by the British author and journalist Douglas Reed in his monumental classic, The Controversy of Zion.

The final point thought that needs to be restated again and again is the fact that down through history and right up until the 20th Century the most astute observers of civilized development in the West continually questioned and criticized the actions and motives of the Babylonian Talmudic tribe of Pharisees whenever they began to meddle too deeply in the affairs of other nation states but beginning with the take-over of the majority of the media in the West around the turn of the 20th century this practise began to cease and in its place there began renewed efforts on the part of the Zionist Jews to attack any and all critics of their ideology and their actions with the endless epithets of “anti-Semite” and “racist” and “Jew Hater”, an enterprise that has today reached such epidemic proportions that critics of present day Zionism lay wasting away in dungeons and website owners, university professors, researchers and writers everywhere are being accused of “hate crimes” throughout most, if not all, western nations.

Monika Schaefer’s case is the latest in that long and disgusting list of Truth Revealers who Jewish lobby organizations like B’nai Brith Canada and the new viper on the holohoax block The Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs (CIJA) along with all their trance-induced toady followers are attempting to smear and degrade and destroy in order to keep the BIG LIE from being questioned.

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5

What to do?

The longer this travesty of injustice goes on the more insanely vile and blood-thirsty the Zionists are becoming. Their desperation has grown almost exponentially over the past decade as they wend their way through the corridors of Canada’s justice system plying their rag-tag “hate crime” laws in order to safeguard the collusion they’ve made with the Devil.

No better example of just how demented it’s becoming was the latest attack upon Monika Schaefer that occurred but a day or so ago in Jasper. When Monika Schaefer moved to Jasper, Alberta busking (i.e. the playing of an instrument on the public streets) was illegal. Bearing that in mind, in communication with Monika over this matter  she told me the following:

“The irony of the fact is that it was me who brought the issue of busking to town council already a few years ago, made a presentation (at least on one occasion, and have raised it a few times since…) to support busking in town. You see, it has always been illegal to busk in Jasper. Yes, you read correctly Arthur. Anyway, so you see the irony – I have been pushing for busking for a long time. This summer is the first time it is legal. So when I went yesterday to get my busking license, my senses already went up. Dave wasn’t there, but the woman who was there (whom I have also known for decades – it’s a small town) was behaving very cagy. Then I left a phone message, text message, and email message with the person who was supposedly in charge (someone else, not even Dave). Today my gut feeling of yesterday was proven correct when I received Dave’s message.”

And here’s the rub for those who haven’t read the article. Dave’s message read: “We have considered your application for a busking permit in Jasper. In light of your recently publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs we have decided to decline a permit to you at this time.”

“publicly proclaimed non-inclusive beliefs” !!!???

As one commenter on RadicalPress. com wrote in reply to the article, Surely you guys are making this up! because no one can possibly be dumb enough to actually write and publish that sentence – NOT, in Canada, no f’n way!”

Unfortunately for Canada someone in an official position with the municipal government of Jasper, Alberta DID write that sentence and sent it to Monika Schaefer.

Since my own arrest, incarceration and criminal case began back in May of 2012 after I was charged with “communicating statements” that did “willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code” I’ve been doing my damnedest to warn Canadians of the extreme danger of these so-called “Hate Propaganda” laws that the Zionist Jew lobbyists created and are using with increasing fervour and zeal to censor any and all criticism of their deeds both here at home and abroad in the state of Israel. And of course the kicker is the fact that they used the “6 Million” holocaust lie in order to justify the inclusion of these Orwellian anti-free speech laws into Canadian jurisprudence.

Given the current Prime Minister of Canada, Justin Trudeau’s, longstanding indoctrination on the holocaust deception and his unabashed public display of obeisance to the perpetrators of this hoax there’s little chance that we will see him do what Conservative PM Stephen Harper did with the equally nefarious Sec. 13(1) legislation formerly contained in the Canadian Human Rights Act; that is, repeal the law. But that is the only and final solution to this “hate speech” madness that’s slithered like a snake from out of that den of vipers known as the Canadian “Jewish Lobby”.

RepealHateLaws-1000 copy 2

The issue must be taken from Cybespace’s Facebook and the Alternative media and transposed down onto the streets and turned into a public spectacle that the mainstream media cannot refuse to cover. Instead of focussing their attention on Gay Pride festivities it’s time that the Jewish-controlled media was forced to recognize that the fundamental rights of ALL Canadians are being jeopardized by these draconian “hate speech” laws and the only way this is going to happen is if normal, law-abiding citizens of Canada get their act together and begin to openly PROTEST this blatant act of sedition by these foreign lobbyists against Canadians’ lawful right to freedom of expression both on and off the Internet.

The time to organize this is NOW. Their game plan is so in our face obvious and the people know it. All that remains is for concerned Canadians to stand up, take to the streets and say ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!

If we want our basic freedoms we’re going to have to fight to hang on to them one way or another.

______

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

BIGOTSVILLE

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

by Prof. Tony Hall

Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 10.17.57 AM

To Dave Baker,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yours Sincerely,

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

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

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

 habitatvaluestatement2 (1)

Traitorous, Zionist Secret Masonic Jew Lobby group B’nai Brith Canada Bitching & Whining and Complaining About Elementary School Teacher’s Support for Palestine By Jillian D’Amours | MEE

Traitorous, Zionist Secret Masonic Jew Lobby group B’nai Brith Canada Bitching & Whining and Complaining About Elementary School Teacher’s Support for Palestine

Pro-Israel group claims Shoufani called for ‘violence against Israelis’ when she said Palestinians had right to resist occupation.

By Jillian D’Amours | MEE | July 15, 2016

Screen Shot 2016-07-22 at 5.56.48 PMTORONTO, Canada :– A Toronto-area school board and Toronto city police are investigating an elementary school teacher after pro-Israel lobby groups complained about comments she made during a rally in solidarity with Palestinians.

The teacher, Nadia Shoufani, addressed a downtown Toronto rally on 2 July, marking al-Quds Day, an annual event held around the world to support Palestinian rights and to protest Israel’s occupation of the Palestinian territories.

“Silence in situations of oppression and injustices is a crime against humanity,” Shoufani said in her speech at the rally, in which she condemned the Israeli occupation and Israel’s policies of home demolitions, land confiscation and arrests of Palestinians.

Shoufani also quoted Palestinian writer Ghassan Kanafani, an important figure in the left-wing Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP), who was assassinated by Israeli Mossad agents in a car bombing in Beirut in 1972.

“We say no, no, no to the occupation. We are here to tell the world that Palestinians are not alone,” Shoufani said:

 

Pro-Israel lobby involvement

CanadaBBLOBBY3 copy 5

On its website, pro-Israel group Bnai Brith Canada accused Shoufani of “glorifying terrorists” in her speech.

“We are greatly concerned that an individual who espouses open support for terror and praises terrorist groups is teaching Canadian youth,” the group’s CEO, Michael Mostyn, said in a statement.

The group also accused her of “calling for violence against Israelis” by saying that Palestinians had a right to resist the Israeli occupation and its policies.

The Dufferin-Peel District Catholic School Board told Middle East Eye it is investigating Shoufani after the speech was brought to its attention by various sources, including Bnai Brith Canada and another pro-Israel group, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Centre.

ProPalHateCrime? copy 3

Shoufani teaches at an elementary school in Mississauga, a large suburb of Toronto, school board spokesperson Bruce Campbell said in an email. “We are actively investigating the issue brought to our attention,” Campbell said.

“In order to conduct a comprehensive investigation we are unable to place a definitive timeline on determining the results of an investigation at this point. However, given the serious nature of the issue, we would look to reach a resolution as quickly as possible,” he said.

 

Police launch investigation

Tyler Levitan, campaigns coordinator at Independent Jewish Voices-Canada, a group that supports Palestinian rights, said organisations like Bnai Brith Canada and Canadian Friends of Simon Wiesenthal “are shills for Israel”.

“Ms Shoufani was speaking passionately in support of the Palestinians’ right to defend themselves against an occupying power,” Levitan told MEE in an email.

“Under international law, those living under military occupation and a system of colonialism have the absolute right to resist. Ms Shoufani spoke as a defender of the rights of an occupied and besieged people to resist an obscenely violent and criminal military occupation over their lands.”

Meanwhile, Caroline de Kloet, a spokeswoman for the Toronto Police Service, told MEE on Thursday that a complaint was filed with police on 6 July about “comments made at a rally”.

De Kloet would not disclose which specific comments were subject to the complaint, or which and how many individuals were under investigation. She also would not disclose who filed the complaint.

“I can’t tell you who filed the report or what’s being looked into, or any of the specifics,” she said, “But right now there is a report on file and it’s being looked at.”

Shoufani could not immediately be reached for comment.

 

‘Put a chill’ on organizing

Recently, pro-Israel lobby groups in Canada have launched several campaigns targeting groups and individuals supporting Palestinian rights.

Bnai Brith Canada lauded a parliamentary motion passed earlier this year condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which seeks to hold Israel accountable under international law.

In March, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs accused Canadian law professor Michael Lynk of demonstrating a pro-Palestinian bias and of being involved in “anti-Israel advocacy”. The accusations came after Lynk was appointed as the new Special Rapporteur on human rights in the occupied Palestinian territories.

Pro-Israel groups have also urged Canada to maintain funding cuts on the United Nations agency that supports Palestinian refugees, UNRWA.

They are also pressuring the Green Party of Canada to dismiss two motions, set to be debated at a party convention in August, that would strip the Jewish National Fund of its charitable status and endorse BDS.

“I know from past experience that Bnai Brith would be using every means possible to try to shut down the al-Quds rally,” said Ken Stone, treasurer of the Hamilton Coalition to Stop the War and another speaker at the al-Quds Day rally in Toronto this year.

Stone told MEE that Bnai Brith Canada has taken the comments made at the rally out of context and distorted them in an effort to shut down the annual event and silence Canadian supporters of Palestinian rights.

“What they’re trying to do is … put a chill on people like Nadia Shoufani,” he said.

“[And] put a chill on people who might be tempted to get up at an al-Quds rally and declare their support for the Palestinian cause.”

—-

This article was originally appeared on Mid East Eye.

My Love Affair with Justin Trudeau et al. is Over By Betty Krawczyk

trudeau

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau shaking hands with Latvian President Raimonds Rejoins. Trudeau is “pleased”  Canada will send troops to Latvia as part of a NATO force to threaten aggression against Russia. 

My Love Affair with Justin Trudeau et al. is Over

By Betty Krawczyk

Betty-K-Photo-copy

Okay, so my love affair with Justin Trudeau et al. is over. I voted for him but I wouldn’t do it again even though he has already fulfilled some of the election promises he made. Why? I turned away from the NDP in the last election because of their “balanced budget” that seemed more of the “same ole”. I did worry about Trudeau’s youth and inexperience in international matters, but I felt comforted that he had Jean Chretien to advise him. Remember Jean Chretien? When Prime Minster, how he was under enormous pressure from the Bush administration to join the US and Britain to help invade Iraq? And how he refused and kept us out of the horrible, disgusting illegal mess of invading Iraq?

Well, I don’t know where Chretien was when Justin just caved to US pressure and decided to imitate the role UK’s Tony Blair played in the murderous invasions and bombings of Iraq. Trudeau has become the new lap-dog on the block by sending Canadian troops and military equipment to Latvia. Blair will forever be remembered as the lap dog of the US. And I think Trudeau seems to be taking on this role although a damming report has just been released in the UK on Blair’s role in the deaths of so many people in Iraq. Yes, our lovely young handsome prime minister has caved to Obama’s pressure and agreed to send troops and military equipment to Latvia.

Does Trudeau know that Latvia is smack on Russian’s borders? And that he has just dedicated Canadians to join in a war mongering that could very well bring on World War Three? This at a time when countries like France, Italy and Greece are reducing their own NATO spending? They see the senselessness of threatening Russia who has few military bases outside its own country (in previous Soviet Union countries) while Republican Ron Paul in the US presidential debate (2011) said that the US military was in 130 countries and has 900 bases around the world. How did Justin Trudeau come to the decision to send Canadian troops to Latvia? Has he fallen in love with his own Hollywood image? Does he want to help play John Wayne with nuclear weapons? My God, I am disappointed in him.

CANADA: The New Sodom and Gomorrah? By Arthur Topham

 

CANADASODOM?

CANADA: The New Sodom and Gomorrah?

By
Arthur Topham

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

UpYoursTrudeauJr

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

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

FREEXPRESSIONLOCKUP copy 4

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

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

5FeetFury copy

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

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

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

EyeOnFreeSpeech600

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

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

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

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

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

JewShitter

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

Bill-Whatcott-Image

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

Conclusion: What’s coming next?

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

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

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

Time will soon tell.

——

SUPPORTFREEDOMOFSPEECH

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

––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––––

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

TAKI mag

Come and Get Me, You Fairies!

by Kathy Shaidle

5FeetFury

Screen Shot 2016-05-31 at 10.58.24 PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of that matters.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, fuck that. I don’t care.

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

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

Does that work?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Come and get me, you fairies.

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

So let’s see if you have the balls.

——

SOURCE ARTICLE

Young Canadian Truth-revealer Evalion has her You-Tube channel ‘liquidated’ by Joogle’s Zionist-Bolshevik Hate Commissars by KIN KARASIN FOR MAILONLINE

EvalionCensord

Angel-faced Youtuber, 18, is kicked off the site after sharing racist views and singing Happy Birthday to Hitler – with swastika CUPCAKES
By EKIN KARASIN FOR MAILONLINE
PUBLISHED: May 20th, 2016

••• 88 •••

An official YouTube spokesperson said: ‘That channel was terminated by us because it violated policies against hate speech.’

JEWSLOSINGPOSTER

Screen Shot 2016-05-22 at 11.48.15 AM
An 18-year-old woman, known as Evalion (pictured above) was banned from Youtube for posting videos where she praised Hitler and condemned Jews

A racist vlogger has been booted off YouTube after she sang happy birthday to Hitler and called black people ”niggers’ in her videos.

The woman, known as Evalion, caused outrage by calling Hitler a ‘brilliant’ and ‘compassionate man and condemning Jewish people.

Her true identity isn’t known but she is believed to be 18, living in Canada and well spoken.

Evalion’s channel was suspended after a profilic YouTuber, called Leafyishere uploaded a video about her entitled ‘The Most Racist Girl On The Entire internet’.

In Evalion’s videos called Why Hitler Wasn’t Evil and How Feminists Supported Rape by Causing the Migrant Crisis, she shared her support for Hitler.

There was shock when she made swastika cupcakes with birthday candles and sang happy birthday to a picture of the Fuhrer – who was behind the execution of six million Jewish people during the Second World War.

AdolfQuoteImage

Evalion insists that the leader of the Nazis was a good man whilst also admitting to being a Holocaust denier.

The baby-faced blogger is openly anti-Semitic by opening her videos with lines such as ‘Do you despise the Jews as much as I do’ and ‘Do you want to know how to spot a Jew.’

She also went on to use racist language by saying: ‘Don’t you hate those lazy niggers who are never satisfied even after they are given reparations.’

Screen Shot 2016-05-22 at 11.41.13 AM

Evalion caused outrage after she made Swastika cup cakes with birthday candles and sang happy birthday to a picture of Hitler

She also holds contempt for feminists blaming them for the migrant crisis and singling out criticism for Labour MP Jess Phillips.

The banning of Evalion has sparked intense debate on social-media with some people outraged at YouTube’s decision to censor her.

Disturbingly Evalion had over 40,000 subscribers before she was exiled.

One Twitter user called Spanky the Monkey said: ‘If you love free speech, then you have to allow ALL people to speak!’

And @Polite-Critical said: ‘I don’t support what Evalion says, but I defend her right to say it.’

Screen Shot 2016-05-22 at 11.43.06 AM

Teen YouTuber sings happy birthday to Hitler in shock video
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3600710/Angel-faced-youtuber-18-kicked-site-sharing-racist-views-singing-happy-birthday-Hitler-swastika-cupcakes.html#v-7373024103982284359

However other people agreed with the Google owned video platform’s decision.

@HeroticTV said: ‘YouTube has every reason to ban Evalion from YouTube.’

And Craig Ewen added: ‘I think Evalion deserved it. At the end of the day YouTube is a place kids 5+ can go to.’

An official YouTube spokesperson said: ‘That channel was terminated by us because it violated policies against hate speech.’

Young EvalionSpeaks

In Evalion’s videos called ‘Why Hitler Wasn’t Evil’ and ‘How Feminists Supported Rape by Causing the Migrant Crisis’ she describes Adolf Hitler as a ‘brilliant’ and ‘compassionate man’


SOURCE ARTICLE

Multicultural Revisionism and the Falsification of Canadian History by Ricardo Duchesne

Multicultural Revisionism and the Falsification of Canadian History
by Ricardo Duchesne

Official Coat of Arms of the Dominion of Canada

Official Coat of Arms of the Dominion of Canada

The falsification of the historical record for the purpose of creating a past that fits with the ideological goals of the present has been a common characteristic of revolutionary regimes seeking to legitimize themselves by portraying their actions and goals as if they were continuous with the aims of history or the venerable beliefs of the past.

Perhaps the most egregious example of “illegitimate historical revisionism”, as contrasted to the legitimate re-assessment of the past on the basis of improved evaluation of records, is the complete re-writing of the history of Russia by the Communist Party of the Soviet Union; particularly during the reign of Stalin in the mid-1920s to early 1950s; history was not only written according to the “correct” Marxist theory, but state officials commonly went about erasing major historical figures from documents, books, and even photographs (PDF) the moment they were deemed to be “enemies of the people”.

This illegitimate revision of the historical record is also happening in Canada, but in a way that is difficult to detect, for it does not involve any book burning, outright denials of certain events, or use of forged documents. It is taking place in a rather calmed, reasonable way; the protocols of “verifiability”, “peer review”, and “openness to criticism” appear to remain intact.

This reasonable falsification is particularly visible in regards to the books I have in mind, that is, general surveys of the history of Canada, which are intended to be summations of the existing state of knowledge, not polemical exegeses, but overviews for undergraduate courses, rather than books concentrating on specific topics, or openly about subjects that are inherently ideological such as women’s history, history of the head tax, or the history of Indian reservations. Still; these surveys cannot escape the dominant leftist culture, however neutral they may appear.

“Discourse Analysis”

Basically what has happened in the writing of general histories of Canada is that historians have been acculturated to view the older narrative in which Canada was seen as an Anglo-Saxon nation, or as a nation of two founding peoples, as an “imposed monolithic mythology”, to use the words of John Ralston Saul, the putative philosopher of Canada. “Monolithic” means that it is bad, and “mythology that it is not true. Portraying Canada as “richly diverse”, a “complex cultural mosaic” from its origins, means that one is a historian who can grasp complexities, one is “subtle” and “nuanced”. Academics love to use these words whenever they describe their ways of thinking. Writing that Canada was fundamentally a British nation is an indication of crudeness and rigidity.

What about the facts? Well, historians have further learned from the more ideologically oriented social scientists that the “old style of history”, which took for “granted” Canada’s Anglo identity, was a discourse “socially constructed” by the dominant Anglo men of Canada. The “facts” narrated by these dominant white male historians cannot be seen independently of their efforts to construct Canada’s history in a way that suited their racist inclinations. Now historians know better. They are more “sensitive” to the long suppressed diverse voices of Canada’s past, and, in this vein, they have constructed a new discourse that better captures the “complexity” of Canada as “multicultural nation” from its beginnings.

This concept of a “discourse”, with its notion that the way we think about history and social reality cannot be understood in the language of the natural sciences, because thinking is always a product of the “disciplinary structures of knowledge and power”, is quite ambivalent as to whether the new history of Canada, as a multicultural nation-in-the making, is really a more accurate portrayal of the past, or simply an effort to re-conceptualize the past, however fictional that past may be, for the purpose of bringing forth a new historical reality, a multicultural Canada, that will no longer be a fiction.

The methodology of “discourse analysis” (PDF), in the true spirit of postmodernist theorizing, really wants to have it both ways; on the one hand, it wants to portray the “old historical narratives” as mythological discourses expressing the power of certain elites, rather than the actual historical record, but, on the other, it is always ready to fall back on the notion that there are no facts outside a system of “disciplinary structures of power”, whenever someone points out that the facts don’t support the new discourse. If someone presses them about their own current “disciplinary power”, they will reply that their aim is to liberate former oppressed minorities from the structures of the past and create a better, more diverse, tolerant, and free Canada.

Nevertheless, while historians are operating within this matrix of postmodernist ideas about the discursive nature of reality, they themselves, particularly when writing surveys, tend to avoid the convoluted postmodernist discussions of their social science colleagues. The overall pro-multicultural atmosphere that pervades every institution and media has had a more straightforward impact upon them. They want to be good citizens working for, rather than against, a harmonious multicultural society in which, as the Government of Canada instructs us, “the value and dignity of all Canadian citizens regardless of their racial or ethnic origins, their language, or their religious affiliation” is affirmed in the historical experience of Canada. The thought of emphasizing the overwhelming influence of Anglo Canadians, or French Canadians in Quebec, strikes them as impolite, inconsistent with the goal of encouraging “all citizens” “regardless of race” to “take pride in their ancestry”.

Accordingly, Canada’s history has now been thoroughly redefined as a history of “diverse immigrants”, with the Anglo and the French portrayed as immigrants with the same historical status as other immigrants. The true founders are the “First Nations”, or, Aboriginals, English, French, “other Europeans”, West Indians, Asians, Africans, Sikhs, Chinese…all immigrants, since, after all, as Pierre Trudeau once said, we should not view Canada as a nation fixated in the past but as a fluid nation always in the making through the arrival of new peoples.

“Canada’s Diverse Peoples”

Canada's Diverse Peoples

J.M. Bumsted, Canada’s Diverse Peoples

I will offer two examples of this illegitimate revisionist writing. First, a book by the well-known historian, J. M. Bumsted, Canada’s Diverse Peoples (2003). Intended to help readers “better appreciate” diversity to enable “all of us to interact more effectively” with multiple races, Bumsted opens the book questioning the claim that Europeans “were the first to discover this land and the first to settle it”.

From the very beginning of human settlement of this continent…North America was sheer diversity. This land was a veritable quilt of peoples and tongues. The ultimate arrival of Europeans complicated, but did not really alter, this pattern.

He uses quotation marks in reference to “the French and the English as the ‘founding peoples’ of Canada” on the grounds that it “completely ignores the previous presence of the Aboriginals”. He bemoans the restrictive racial immigration policies, and then sets out to construct a new narrative of Canada as a nation progressively moving toward a multiracial society in which everyone is accorded full equality, concluding:

By the year 2000 it was abundantly clear that Canada had won its campaign to impose the concept of multiculturalism upon the nation.

This passage comes from the last chapter revealing titled “The Future”, which announces:

From the very beginning, the land that became Canada was a multiracial place, the destination of a constant flow of new immigrants of varying ethnicities.

Canada’s “Political Nationality”

A Brief History of Canada

Roger Riendeau, A Brief History of Canada

The next book is by Roger Riendeau, A Brief History of Canada (2007). Not so brief at 400 pages, Riendeau, Vice Principal of Canada’s historic Innis College at the University of Toronto, opens his book asking “What is Canada? What is a Canadian?” Amazingly, he cites a few words that George-Étienne Cartier, who played the key role in bringing French Canada into Confederation, expressed in 1865, in which he envisioned, apparently, Canada as a “political nationality” open to peoples from all religious backgrounds, races, and nations in the world. Riendeau cites Cartier’s statement that with Confederation Canada “would form a political community with which neither the national origin, nor religion of any individual, would interfere”.1

From this statement alone we are supposed to believe that Canada was always meant to look like Chinese-dominated-Richmond and South Asian-dominated-Brampton. This is a misinterpretation bordering on falsification. Cartier meant that Canada would be a confederation of provinces with their own local institutions, rather than a single legislative union like Britain or a British Dominion in which French Canadiens would be compelled to assimilate.

It is very anachronistic for Riendeau to say that “since 1867” Canada’s inhabitants, “whether they are descended from the Aboriginal, French, Anglo-Saxon, other European, Asian, African, or Latin American cultures” have shown an inclination to see themselves as members of a common “political nationality”, or have “survived as a distinct national community”, a nation based solely on political values regardless of race and culture. It is also quite fictional to describe the native landscape before Europeans arrived as “multicultural and multilingual”, as well as to say that the peoples of Canada have always felt that what made them Canadian was not their ethnicity or culture but the mere fact that they were “bound by a common experience” as inhabitants of the same country.2

By “common” he means that all the inhabitants were somehow forging a sense of political identity that transcended their ethnicity and culture. Yet, as is evident from his own narrative, the entire history of Canada prior to the 1970s goes against this notion of a common political nationality. Not only were the British well aware of their Britishness, and for this reason preferred Anglo-Saxon immigrants, which Riendeau otherwise knows disapprovingly, but the actual “common” experience of the nation was overwhelmingly British/European outside Quebec. This is what the statistics say. Riendeau’s own demographic and ethnic proportions cannot hide this reality. He observes, for example, that whereas prior to the late 1960s “almost 90 percent of immigrants were of European origins, by the early 1970s [suddenly] about half came from other regions including the West Indies, Africa, South America, and Asia”.3

This is not a historian who invents facts and alters photographs. His acts of manipulation are more “subtle”. What he wants students to believe is that Canada’s past already contained the seeds of its current multiracial trends. “Canada has always been a multicultural society”.4 He enjoys writing about the “changing racial composition of Canada” in relation to the influx of non-French and non-British European immigrants.5 He does not enjoy saying Canada was still 96 percent racially White as late as 1971, when multiculturalism was officially announced.

He would rather blame the government in the early 20th century for “inculcating British-Canadian beliefs in citizenship, democracy, and the Protestant ethic”. He thinks they should have started promoting multiculturalism from the beginning. Canada was “universally racist, inasmuch as the concept of a multicultural society still lay…in the future”.6 Canada became what it was always meant to be inasmuch as immigration restrictions against non-Europeans were abolished in the 1960s, the Multiculturalism Act of 1988 was legislated, and the ceiling on immigration was raised from 100,000 to 250,000 in the late 1980s.

It never occurs to Riendeau to ask why academics across the Western world are making exactly the same argument about how the “political nationality” of Britain, France, Belgium, Sweden, Italy, Greece, Ireland, Norway…was always meant to be about the creation of multiracial nations from the beginning? That Canada has always been uniquely diverse is not unique to Canadian historians; it is now a pervasive fabrication among historians across European-created nations. They want all European natives to believe that the current diversification is continuous with the very origins of their nations.

This is not your Stalinist form of falsification, but it is the biggest falsification of history ever promoted; the complete denial of nationality to all Europeans in their own homelands!


Footnotes:

[1] Roger Riendeau, A Brief History of Canada, 2007, p. xv
[2] p. 385
[3] p. 332
[4] p. 382
[5] p. 331
[6] p. 229

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN CANADA IS STILL UNDER ATTACK! HELP ARTHUR TOPHAM DEFEND CANADA’S CHARTER RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF SPEECH

SUPPORTFREEDOMOFSPEECH

ATEDITOR0216

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech,

After a somewhat welcome hiatus in this seemingly endless struggle to retain our basic rights and freedoms; one that commenced after the trial in mid-November, 2015, the next stage of battle is about to begin.

On March 29, 2016 I will once again be appearing in the Quesnel Supreme Court to hopefully “fix a date” for the upcoming Constitutional challenge to Canada’s censorship laws contained in Sec. 318 to 320 of the Criminal Code.

When the actual date will be set is yet to be determined but it is necessary in the interim time period proceeding the hearing to raise an additional $2,000.00 in order to pay for an Expert Witness to appear on my behalf when the Charter issue is argued.

If there were a mere 200 Canadians willing to part with $10.00 the problem would be solved in short order but things don’t always turn out to be that easy.

Given the new Liberal government’s pro-Israel stance and its recent “condemnation” of individuals and groups who are supporting Palestine via the BDS Movement it doesn’t look like there’s going to be any changes in the government’s position with respect to “standing with Israel” on any matters dealing with human rights abuses, international law or ridding the nation of these noxious “Hate Propaganda” laws that were insinuated into Canada’s jurisprudence over the past half century of Zionist Jew lobbying on behalf of the state of Israel.

The upcoming challenge to this legislation will determine once and for all whether or not Canada will adhere to the spirit and intent of its Charter of Rights and Freedoms or continue to bow down to foreign interests and sacrificing its citizen’s fundamental rights.

Please try to assist in this process by making a small donation to the cause. My GoGetFunding site can be found here: http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/

Standing for Canada and our democratic ideals I remain,

Sincerely,

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

FREEDOM OF SPEECH IN CANADA IS STILL UNDER ATTACK!

CANADIAN PUBLISHER FACING JAIL FOR POLITICAL WRITINGS NOW PURSUING A CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE TO CANADA’S NOTORIOUS “HATE PROPAGANDA” LEGISLATION!

Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms under Sec. 2b of the Charter states:

Fundamental Freedoms

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

((b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Dear Free Speech Supporters,

My name is Arthur Topham and I am the owner, publisher and editor of the online alternative News site RadicalPress.com which has been operating in Canada since 1998. Since 2007 I have been involved in legal battles with the Canadian government – first the Canadian Human Rights Commission (2007) and now the federal legal system (2012) over alleged offences that purportedly violate Canada’s “Hate Propaganda” laws (Sections 318 – 320) of the Canadian Criminal Code (CCC).

On May 16th, 2012 I was charged with a Sec. 319(2) ccc “Hate Propaganda” violation. I was arrested and jailed and my home was entered illegally by the RCMP’s “Hate Crime Team” who proceeded to steal all of my computers and electronic files. Since that date I have been involved in a protracted and onerous legal battle, first with the British Columbia provincial court and now with the British Columbia Supreme Court.

My trial, known as R v Roy Arthur Topham, finally got underway Monday, October 26, 2015 in Quesnel, B.C., twelve hundred and fifty-eight days (1258) after my arrest on May 16, 2012. The Indictment stated that I, Arthur Topham, did “willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.”

I was charged on two separate occasions using the same section of the criminal code (Sec. 319(2)) and after a 14-day trial ending on November 12th, 2015 – presided over by Supreme Court Justice, Mr. Bruce Butler and consisting of a 12-member jury of my peers (8 women and 4 men) – I was found Guilty on the first charge (Count 1) and Not Guilty on the second charge (Count 2).

Given that both counts were based upon the same section of the criminal code, i.e., Sec. 319(2) the dual and conflicting verdicts pose a serious legal problem which will be challenged in the days ahead.

What this now means is that I am moving on to the next stage of the legal battle by challenging the Constitutional legitimacy of the actual section of the Canadian Criminal Code (Sec. 319(2) now containing the infamous “Hate Propaganda” legislation which threatens freedom of expression for all Canadians.

The future of Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code will depend in part on the outcome of the planned Constitutional challenge. On March 29, 2016 I will be attending court again to “fix a date” for the upcoming legal challenge. It could be set for sometime in April or May or possibly even further into the year. In the interim period leading up to that challenge I remain free to publish and carry on with soliciting for funding in order to persevere in my efforts to have this unconstitutional section of Canada’s Criminal Code repealed.

The next crucial step demands additional funding to defray the cost of paying an expert witness to appear (via video) at the planned Constitutional challenge. I must raise an additional $2,000.00 in order for this to happen and time is of the essence.

Should the challenge to Sec. 319(2) fail then the next step will be an appeal of the guilty verdict in Count 1.

I continue to have the support of the Ontario Civil Liberties Association. Please see here Ontario Civil Liberties Association and here http://ocla.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/2014-09-24-Letter-OCLA-to-AG-of-BC.pdf and here OCLA writes to Attorney General Anton on September 24, 2014

For the most recent account of the proceedings regarding the trial and future plans to undertake a Constitutional challenge please go here:

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 December 4th, 2015

I NEED YOUR ASSISTANCE STILL IN ORDER TO WIN THIS CASE. The purchasing of the court transcripts of the trial and now carry on with the challenge to the legislation require me to ask for further financial support in order to win this battle to protect Canada’s Constitutional Rights and Freedoms as contained in the Charter.

Please try to donate online using the GoGetFunding site but if you are unable to do so then try helping out by sending either cash, a cheque or a Money Order to the following postal address. Please make sure that all cheques or Money Orders are made out to – Arthur Topham – and sent to:

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

Thank You so much!

THE TRIAL: REGINA V ROY ARTHUR TOPHAM

TheTrialHEADERFINAL copy

ATEditorPic185 copy

Editor’s Note: With the exception of the final Charge to the Jury by B.C.S.C. Justice Butler the full transcript of the trial proceedings in the case of R V ROY ARTHUR TOPHAM from October 26, 2015 to November 12, 2015 are contained in the following pdf files.
It is suggested that these files be downloaded for future reference and in the interest of securing a permanent record of this important free speech trial in Canada.
Sincerely,

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

_________________________________

PROCEEDINGS AT TRIAL (Excerpt – Opening Remarks by Court and Crown and Testimony of Terry Wilson) (DAY 1)

DAY2-173249.Oct 27 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY3-173249.Oct 28 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY4-173249.Oct 29 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY-5173249.Oct 30 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY-6173249.Nov 2 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY7173249.Nov 3 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY8-173249.Nov 4 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DAY9-173249.Nov 5 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

D10-173249.Nov 6 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

DII-173249.Nov 9 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

D12-173249.Nov 10 15.Trial.Excerpt.Electronic copy 2

D13-173249.Nov 11 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

D14-173249.Nov 12 15.Trial.Electronic copy 2

Anti-BDS Motion – Why Does Canada Sanction Other Countries for Human Rights Violations but Not Israel? By Julie Lévesque Global Research

BDSCANADAVOTE

http://www.globalresearch.ca/anti-bds-motion-why-does-canada-sanction-other-countries-for-human-rights-violations-but-not-israel/5510386

Anti-BDS Motion – Why Does Canada Sanction Other Countries for Human Rights Violations but Not Israel?

By Julie Lévesque

Global Research, February 26, 2016

BDS-Logo-Israel-Boycott-400x242

 

The international community, speaking through the United Nations, has identified three regimes as inimical to human rights – colonialism, apartheid and foreign occupation… Israel’s occupation of the West Bank, Gaza and East Jerusalem contains elements of all three of these regimes”. – John Dugard, UN’s former Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territories.

This week, the Canadian Parliament overwhelmingly voted in favour of a motion condemning the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel.

The motion, passed on February 22 by a 229-51 vote, states:

“That, given Canada and Israel share a long history of friendship as well as economic and diplomatic relations, the House reject the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which promotes the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel, and call upon the government to condemn any and all attempts by Canadian organizations, groups or individuals to promote the BDS movement, both here at home and abroad.”

First, there is no such thing as “friendship” between states. States have no friends, they have interests and nothing else.

Second, the BDS movement does not promote “the demonization and delegitimization of the State of Israel,” as the motion puts it, in a very unfactual and questionable manner. The BDS movement promotes international law and Palestinian rights and condemns Israel’s total lack of respect for both.

Despite its emotional and propagandist wording, the motion completely fails to hide the fact that it condemns criticism of human rights violations by Israel. This calls for some explanations.

By condemning a peaceful movement that tries to bring Israel to account, Canada expresses its total disregard for human rights and international law and its sheer hypocrisy when faced with human rights violations.

There are currently 22 states targeted by Canadian sanctions, several of them for human rights violations. And Israel, being Canada’s “friend”, is not one of them, even if the sanctioned countries’ misdeeds pale in comparison to the death and destruction Israel has imposed on Palestinians for decades.

While not one sanction has been imposed on Israel for its war crimes and crimes against humanity, some countries have been sanctioned by Canada simply for “misappropriating state funds.”

There are no words to describe the scale of this hypocrisy, but, we don’t need any since the facts speak for themselves. Before looking at the list of sanctioned countries and the reasons behind their sanctions, it is worth mentioning only a few facts about Israel.

As mentioned in the quote above, Israel’s policies and practices violate the most fundamental human rights of the Palestinians. The Hebrew state has been the subject of at least 77 UN resolutions since 1955, and has been criticized in at least 26 resolutions for its violations of U.N. Security Council resolutions.

In July 2015, a report by Amnesty International found “compelling evidence of serious violations of international humanitarian law by Israeli forces” as well as “strong evidence of war crimes and possible crimes against humanity” during Israel’s 2014 assault on Gaza.” Evidence of war crimes and crimes against humanity were also found during Operation Cast Lead in 2008.

Of course, most reports from the U.N. as well as the ones from human rights organizations mentioned below pretend to be “balanced” by equally blaming both sides, the Israeli army as well as Palestinian militias. If opinions can be “balanced”, facts, however, cannot, and the scale of death and destruction doesn’t lie. Most, if not all the damage and loss of life occurs on the Palestinian side. Every single time.

These few facts about Operations Cast Lead in 2008 and Protective Edge in 2014 prove it:

Cast Lead:

[B]etween 1,385 and 1,419 Palestinians were killed during Cast Lead, a majority of them civilians, including at least 308 minors under the age of 18. More than 5000 more were wounded. Thirteen Israelis were also killed, including 3 civilians.

According to the UN, 3,540 housing units were completely destroyed, with another 2,870 sustaining severe damage.

More than 20,000 people – many of them already refugees, some two or three times over – were made homeless.

Protective Edge:

At least 2,100 Palestinians were killed, of whom the United Nations identified more than 1,500 as civilians, and approximately 11,000 people, mostly civilians, were injured. The tens of thousands of Israeli attacks caused the vast majority of destruction during the fighting, which left uninhabitable 22,000 homes, displacing 108,000 people, and left hundreds of thousands without adequate water or electricity.

Attacks by Palestinian civilians injured 61 Israeli settlers in the West Bank as of October 31, the UN reported. In addition to the three Israeli teenagers who were killed in June, nine Israeli civilians were killed by Palestinians.

How many dead Israeli civilians compared to Palestinian civilians? How many housing units destroyed in Israel? How many homeless Israelis? Let’s be honest. A truly balanced report would reflect the facts and not try to equally blame both sides. The forces in this conflict as well as the damage done are anything but equal. They are completely disproportionate.

That being said, Israel’s contempt for international law is legend and with this motion, Canadian Parliamentarians have just proven one more time they are bought and sold.

It is now worth taking a look at the countries against which Canada has placed sanctions and why, since all of them, without exception, pale in comparison to Israel’s bloody record.

The list clearly shows how Canada has no credibility whatsoever when it comes to condemning states for their lack of respect for human rights or people who protest against criminal states, for that matter.

Here is the list of the countries sanctioned for human rights reasons. It should be noted that several, if not all, background explanations provided on the Canadian Government web site (in brackets) are totally biased and simplistic, when not pure propaganda.

Belarus: “[D]eteriorating human rights situation.”

This includes “widespread harassment and detention of opposition party campaign workers, the physical assault of senior opposition figures, arbitrary use of state powers to support the incumbent president, pressure on state workers and students to support the President, restrictions on the ability of opposition campaigns to communicate with the electorate, and control of the state media to severely restrict access by opposition candidates.”

What happens it the Occupied Territories is much worse, yet no sanctions against Israel.

Burma: “[G]ravity of the human rights and humanitarian situation…, which threatened peace and security in the entire region.”

Libya: “[V]iolence and the use of force against civilians.”

Day-to-day in the Occupied Territories.

Russia: “Activists were beaten, kidnapped and tortured [in Ukraine]. The Russian government encouraged, and supported, these measures.”

Meanwhile, more and more “Palestinian children [are] beaten and tortured by Israeli security forces while in detention.” Read also Israeli NGO B’Tselem’s report Backed by the System: Abuse and Torture at the Shikma Interrogation Facility.

Sudan: “[H]umanitarian crisis and widespread human rights violations resulting from the conflict in Darfur region”

Syria: “The Syrian Government’s violent crackdown on peaceful protesters led to many civilian deaths and injuries. Thousands of civilians were detained arbitrarily and there were credible reports of summary executions and torture.”

Israel arbitrarily detains Palestinians on a regular basis, including children, and summary executions and torture and common.

According to B’Tselem: “At the end of Dec. 2015, 422 Palestinian minors were held in Israeli prisons as security detainees and prisoners, including 6 administrative detainees.”

According to Human Rights Watch:

“Israeli security forces continued to arrest children suspected of criminal offenses, usually stone-throwing, in their homes at night, at gunpoint; question them without a family member or lawyer present; and coerce them to sign confessions in Hebrew, which they do not understand… As of October 31, Israel held 457 Palestinian administrative detainees without charge or trial, based on secret evidence. Israeli prison authorities shackled hospitalized Palestinians to their hospital beds after they went on long-term hunger strikes to protest their administrative detention.”

Last year, Amnesty International has condemned “what it called a ‘clear pattern’ of… summary killings… as the number of Palestinians killed by Israeli forces this month [October 2015] rose to at least 61. )

Ukraine: “Activists were beaten, kidnapped and tortured.”

Zimbabwe: “marked escalation in human rights violations and violence directed at the political opposition, a stolen election, the denial of a peaceful democratic transition and a worsening humanitarian situation.”

Other reasons for which Canada has sanctioned countries include:

– “political crisis and conflict” (Yemen, Somalia);

– “violations of ceasefire and hostilities” (Ivory Coast, Democratic Republic of the Congo);

– “misappropriated state funds” (Egypt, Tunisia);

– “heavy loss of human life and widespread material damage resulting from a conflict” (Eritrea, Somalia);

– “nuclear program” (Sanctions on Iran, which has a nonexistent nuclear program, but none on Israel, which is known to possess between 200 and 400 nuclear warheads.)

– “invasion” (Sanctions on Iraq for the invasion of Kuwait… but no sanctions for the U.S. which has illegally invaded Iraq, among other countries, and of course, no sanctions on Israel for decades of occupation);

– “continued escalation of hostilities” (Lebanon)

– “support for the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra Leone” (Liberia)

– “violation of the constitution and international law” (Ukraine).

– “conducting a test of a nuclear weapon” (North Korea)

– “acts of violence and the increase in acts of piracy and armed robbery at sea against vessels” (Somalia)

– “engaging in violent conflict, much of it along ethnic lines” (South Sudan)

As you probably noticed, none of these countries has been accused of war crimes or crimes against humanity.

Canada imposes sanctions on countries for misappropriated state funds, but regards war criminal state Israel as a “friend” which deserves that it condemns its own citizens for protesting against its supreme crime.

Parliamentarians need to explain this nonsense.

As a member of the United Nations, Canada should, as stated in the U.N. Preamble, “reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and… establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained.”

By voting in favour of this motion, Canadian Parliamentarians have failed to honor their obligations.Miserably.

—–

The original source of this article is Global Research

Copyright © Julie Lévesque, Global Research, 2016

TO FIND OUT HOW YOUR MEMBER OF PARLIAMENT VOTED PLEASE GO TO THIS LINK

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

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

CanRound Final

 

911, TPP & THE NDP: OPEN LETTER TO TOM MULCAIR – LEADER By Monika Schaefer

HDR4MS1000

911, TPP & THE NDP: OPEN LETTER TO TOM MULCAIR – LEADER

By Monika Schaefer

MONIKA300 copy

“911 is the litmus test… You cannot plead ignorance, almost 15 years later, as a politician. “

~ Monika Schaefer

Dear Tom Mulcair,

It is right and good that you are opposing the TPP. I agree, it is a terribly undemocratic, secretive, and harmful so-called trade deal and it seems insane that any government serving its own people would sign on.

Here is the key – who is really in charge, and to whom do our MPs have allegiance?

I have learned that all of the MPs in the government of Canada serve an alien power. How do I know that? None of you are willing to talk about what really happened on 9/11 and who really did it. It is practically common knowledge now that the official story is patently false, and yet, none of our representatives will address this false flag, the seminal event which triggered the “War on Terror”. This proves to me that the perpetrators of 9/11 carry the power, and our MPs are merely their puppets.

 NDPBldg7?

There have been many false flag events since 9/11, and the frequency of these provocative deceptions is increasing. I realize it is not a good career move to talk about 9/11, but when we are on the brink of World War 3, how can you, in good conscience, still be complicit by maintaining your silence on the seminal event of our century?

9/11 is the litmus test. History will judge us by how we responded when we learned that 9/11 was not what it was made out to be. You cannot plead ignorance, almost 15 years later, as a politician.

The same Zionist cabal that brought us 9/11 are bringing us the TPP. This is the New World Order, and we the people are not interested in this One World Government which seeks to enslave us.

It is time to stop this insanity!

Sincerely,

Monika Schaefer
Jasper, Alberta

——————

To: monika_schaefer@hotmail.com
Subject: Liberals sign job-killing TPP
From: thomas.mulcair@parl.gc.ca
Date: Mon, 8 Feb 2016
While the Trudeau government has gone ahead and signed the controversial Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, there remains many uncertainties about what’s in store for Canada.
 
The Harper government first negotiated this deal in secret. Now we have the Liberals agreeing to a deal that can’t be renegotiated! Any concerns or changes raised in futureconsultations won’t matter.
 
We do know that the TPP will:
 
– put thousands of good paying jobs at risk
– add hundreds of millions of dollars to already soaring drug costs in Canada
– handcuff Canadian innovators and creators by giving the United States the upper hand on intellectual property
– weaken family farms
– accelerate foreign control of our businesses
– hamper Canada’s ability to legislate in the public interest due to Investor-State Dispute Settlement mechanisms
 
New Democrats will not stand still while the Trudeau government fast-tracks massive changes leading to pink slips for our workers. Please join us in stopping the TPP:http://www.ndp.ca/tpp 
 
Let’s work together to protect our shared interests and values.
 
All the best,
 
 
Tom Mulcair
Leader, Canada’s New Democrats
——-