THANKS TO MAIKERU OF FREEDOMINION.COM FOR THIS APT IMAGE
A New Day or the Same Old Shit?
By Arthur Topham
October 1, 2009
The decision on September 30th, 2009 by the Canadian Human Rights Commission to obstinately forge ahead with the Harry Abrams & B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com sec. 13(1) “hate crime” hearing was, given all the past machinations by this quasi-judicial state policing organ, practically a foregone conclusion.
Still, one member on www.FreeDominion put it into a rather succinct and poignant context by posting the above image; one which basically symbolizes the mindset of this government appointed bounty-hunting group who, over the past decade or so have ridden roughshod over the sacred rights of all Canadians in their endless quest to appease the politically correct crowd of foreign lobbyists such as B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress better known today, thanks to Ezra Levant and the blogosphere, as Canada’s “Official Jews” or “OJs” for short. Sort of brings to mind OJ Simpson for some reason.
I suppose one could also have used the album cover from the old British rock group “Blind Faith” as well as it too exemplifies this pig-headed, mulish refusal to recognize the obvious fact that Canadians are not in the least impressed with government agencies and highly suspect legislation that strips them of their fundamental Charter rights to freedom of speech, especially legislation that with the recent Hadjis decision of September 2, 2009, clearly shows that sec. 13(1) is an unreasonable infringement of Canadians’ rights to freedom of speech as written into our Constitution.
The Commission’s dogged refusal to see the light on sec. 13(1) is reason enough to expect Canadians to grit their teeth and growl in indignation. Such chutzpah on the part of these Bolshevik Cheka baboons to expect approval from the public for their highly suspect actions given the recent Hadjis decision in the Warman v. Lemire case.
Some recent comments from other victims and commentators on this draconian, unconstitutional legislation include:
“P.S. Here’s proof of how malicious the CHRC is — and how disrespectful they are of Hadjis, Lustig and the CHRT. They are still prosecuting section 13 cases, even though the law has been declared illegal. They are literally using a law that is not functional, to censor Canadians in disregard of our Charter.
That’s malicious prosecution territory; that’s abuse of office territory; that’s piercing the corporate veil and suing Lynch and her mob personally territory. I have no idea who has given them that legal advice, but if I were a section 13 victim still being hounded by Lynch, I’d sue her and every staffer involved personally for illegal conduct. Here’s what I mean: [quotes Poulin's letter of Sept. 30. Ed.]
Disgusting. And as a former member of the B’nai Brith Youth Organization and a former camper at Camp B’nai Brith in Pine Lake, Alberta, I’m embarrassed that an organization I once loved would be party to such an un-Jewish, un-Canadian, illiberal prosecution. Jews using the state to bully their political enemies into silence: are they trying to take the bookburner title away from Burny and the CJC? Book burners: they’ve already got the right initials. I can’t think of a more effective way to promote hatred against Jews than to have Jews as the public face of bullying censorship. All this, after B’nai Brith itself tasted, first-hand, the unfairness of HRC censorship complaints at the hands of radical Islam.
Fire. Them. All.
And then Sue. Them. All.”
“What strikes me as interesting here is that the CHRC seems to take the position that HadjisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s decision in Lemire was strictly with respect to the unconstitutionality of s. 54(1)(c). Certainly HadjisÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ words can be construed in that manner:
However, I have also concluded that s. 13(1) in conjunction with ss. 54(1) and (1.1) are inconsistent with s. 2(b) of the Charter, which guarantees the freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression. The restriction imposed by these provisions is not a reasonable limit within the meaning of s. 1 of the Charter. Lemire
Whether that is what Hadjis actually meant is a whole other question. His analysis of Taylor turns on the remedial and conciliatory assumption made by Dickson in Taylor. As I wrote earlier, the Warmanization of the Commission, its transformation into a prosecutorial entity when it came to Ã¢â‚¬Å“hate speechÃ¢â‚¬Â cases, lies at the root of Hadjis decision.
But what is equally interesting here is that the Commission seems to be signaling that it will not appeal Lemire but rather try to brazen it out in Topham.
Which will be interesting as Topham and the intervenors are like to raise the constitutional issue at every turn.”
[In comments section writes:]
“You are right CHRC is a 4 letter word now, however we have to drive a stake through Section 13′s heart as Jenny is in full Vampire Zombie mode.”
Upon receiving word from Daniel Poulin, Counsel for the damned CHRC, I wrote the following reply which was sent off to the Tribunal and all parties very early this a.m. It basically summarizes my position with respect to both the Commission and the Complainants. Please pass this information along to your friends and associates. Thank you.
October 1,Ã‚Â 2009
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Dear Nancy Lafontant,
RE: Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of BÃ¢â‚¬â„¢nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com
File Number: T1360/9008
In an email to all parties sent September 30, 2009, Commission counsel Daniel Poulin states:
Ã¢â‚¬Å“Dear Tribunal and Parties,
We write further to the correspondence that has been exchanged by the parties in regards to the impact of the Warman v Lemire decision recently rendered by the Tribunal.
It is the position of the Commission submits [sic] that the Tribunal should proceed on hearing the matter pending before it in the present case. Consequently, the matter should neither be adjourned sine die or simply dismissed.
In Warman v. Lemire, the Tribunal found that the penalty provision in s. 54(1)(c) was not a reasonable limit on freedom of expression under the Charter.Ã‚Â In the instant case, the Commission will no longer be seeking a penalty under 54(1)(c) of the Act as was originally included in its Statement of Particulars.Ã‚Â The Commission therefore respectfully submits that the Tribunal ought to proceed with a hearing of the Complaint to determine if section 13 has been infringed, and if so, to exercise its discretion under s. 54(1)(a).
Canadian Human Rights CommissionÃ¢â‚¬Â
Allow me to state to the Tribunal at this pivotal juncture in the current proceedings that the decision by the Commission to pursue this case in the face of the recent Hadjis decision of September 2, 2009 concerning Warman v. Lemire, although it comes as no surprise to the Respondent, nonetheless is still a shocking indictment of the maliciousness of this quasi-judicial organization.
There are definite reasons why the Commission is persisting in its attempt to carry on with this case which need to be addressed again at this time.
The peculiar and possibly precedent-setting nature of the Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of BÃ¢â‚¬â„¢nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com complaint makes it an extraordinary benchmark case and is therefore being assigned significant importance by both the Commission and the Complainants. It is the sense of the Respondent (expressed to the Tribunal on numerous previous occasions) that the outcome of this particular case will have far-reaching effects upon any future cases of its kind should the now discredited section of the CHR Act continue to remain in force.
Of paramount importance to the Complainants, who it must always be recognized are acting not on behalf of Canada but on behalf of a foreign nation-state, i.e. Israel, is the critical need to establish in Canadian law a special precedent that will potentially prohibit every Canadian from publishing on the Internet any material critical of the Zionist policies of the Israeli state;Ã‚Â policies now recognized around the world as being fundamentally racist, supremacist and apartheid in nature.
This malefic condition, contained in the actual wording of the complaint itself, where it is clearly stated Ã¢â‚¬Å“and/or citizens of Israel,Ã¢â‚¬Â is vital to the BÃ¢â‚¬â„¢nai Brith International agenda now being fervently and feverishly pursued throughout all Western democracies under various guises. Its tell-tale identifying mark is detectable by the common thread of Ã¢â‚¬Å“hateÃ¢â‚¬Â linking them all together.
In essence, this case reflects not only BÃ¢â‚¬â„¢nai Brith CanadaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s determination to maintain their present (unwarranted) status within Canadian society as one of its most powerful foreign Zionist lobbyist groups (again exemplified in the pro-Zionist foreign policies of the current Harper Conservative government) but of even greater importance for them, of fulfilling their hidden, seditious agreement with this foreign nation to maintain and enforce, via this now unconstitutional section of the Canadian Human Rights Act, their longstanding ability to control the essential freedoms of all Canadians presently guaranteed by CanadaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Constitution Act of 1981.
The whole of the content on RadicalPress.com complained of by BÃ¢â‚¬â„¢nai Brith Canada exemplifies the position that I have steadfastly maintained regarding the extremely dangerous, supremacist political ideology known as Zionism. It is for this reason and this reason alone that BÃ¢â‚¬â„¢nai Brith Canada is using and abusing sec. 13(1) of the CHR Act in order to accomplish what they obviously believe to be a political fait accompli based upon this despicable, anti-democratic, anti-Charter legislation.
In a truly free and democratic society (one not dominated by these special foreign Zionist lobbyists), those supporting and professing to believe in such a heinous, racist ideology would be forced to defend their position via logic, reason, intellect, open debate and actual evidence rather than resorting to such unscrupulous totalitarian tactics as feigning being Ã¢â‚¬Å“minorityÃ¢â‚¬Â victims of Ã¢â‚¬Å“hateÃ¢â‚¬Â and Ã¢â‚¬Å“anti-SemitismÃ¢â‚¬Â and attempting to use the now discredited sec. 13(1) of the CHR Act to escape the necessity of defending their political doctrines via a free exchange of ideas by having the state intervene on their behalf under false pretenses.
The Commission, by its overt, stubborn refusal to acknowledge the obvious, i.e., the unconstitutionality of sec. 13(1), has revealed itself to be what most critics of this section have deemed it to be Ã¢â‚¬â€œ a willing, colluding, malicious participant and supporter of the harshest, most repressive piece of legislation ever to have graced CanadaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s once proud legal tradition of fair and just jurisprudence. This revelation alone ought to give the Tribunal cause to pause and reconsider the CommissionÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s unfortunate, misguided and unconstitutional decision to persist in its frivolous folly.
The Hadjis decision has made it abundantly clear for all reasonable Canadians that sec. 13(1) is unjust, irrational, anti-democratic, vindictive and counter to CanadaÃ¢â‚¬â„¢s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I trust that when the Tribunal rules on my motion to dismiss this vexatious, spiteful attack upon my basic human rights that it will see fit to rise above the transparent, ill-conceived and antiquated arguments of both the Commission and the Complainants and rule in favour of true democracy and freedom of speech in the same honorable and expedient manner as that displayed by Member Hadjis.
If there is any further formality that you require, please let me know as soon as possible.
Arthur Topham pro se
Arthur Topham is the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com. He is currently involved in a free speech battle with the League for Human Rights of BÃ¢â‚¬â„¢nai Brith Canada.
He is also in extremely dire need of financial support to sustain this battle with the forces of repression and censorship as he is not able to work during this period of intense litigation with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the CHR Tribunal. Any donations therefore would be most welcome. Please see the following url on the Home Page (upper right hand corner) http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=657 regarding donations. Also there is a Ã¢â‚¬Å“DONATEÃ¢â‚¬Â button there for Paypal or here at https://www.paypal.com/cgi-bin/webscr?cmd=_s-xclick&hosted_button_id=4466120 . Feel free to use any of them if you can help out. Thanks.
Arthur welcomes all feedback to his articles and can be reached at email@example.com .
For the Full Monty on the complaint case involving RadicalPress.com and BÃ¢â‚¬â„¢nai Brith Canada please see: http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=995