IS IT ANTI-SEMITIC TO DEFEND PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS? Edward C. Corrigan, BA, MA, LL.B.

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/PalestinianChristians

August 31, 2009

Editor’s Note: Considering the fact that Harry Abrams and B’nai Brith Canada are currently using sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act as the basis to allege that myself and RadicalPress.com are committing an “anti-Semitic” “hate crime” by posting articles critical of the foreign state of Israel and the ideology known as Zionism in their Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com, File Number: T1360/9008 Canadian Human Rights Commission complaint now before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, it behooves all those involved in this matter to take a serious look at the following article submitted to the The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism http://www.cpcca.ca/home.htm by Edward C. Corrigan, a lawyer certified as a Specialist in Citizenship and Immigration Law and Immigration and Refugee Protection by the Law Society of Upper Canada in London, Ontario, Canada.

To my knowledge, thus far, I have not seen a more comprehensive and cogent compilation of Jewish sources that respond in such an overt fashion to this false premise being promoted by certain Israeli lobby groups in Canada such as B’nai Brith and the Canadian Jewish Congress. While there are certain aspects of Mr. Corrigan’s opinions on specific matters related to the overall question of political Zionism and why it has risen to such a lofty and powerful and influential height in societies and governments around the world these are incidental to the question of “anti-Semitism” as it is here presented. I therefore strongly urge all of those receiving this post to take the time to carefully read through what Mr. Corrigan has offered to the CPCCA and to pass this article to friends and associates.]

—————————–


Here is my article published by the The Canadian Charger. 

Ed Corrigan

http://www.thecanadiancharger.com/page.php?id=5&a=111

The Canadian Charger, August 26, 2009

IS IT ANTI-SEMITIC TO DEFEND PALESTINIAN HUMAN RIGHTS?

Edward C. Corrigan, BA, MA, LL.B.

(This article was submitted to The Canadian Parliamentary Coalition to Combat Antisemitism http://www.cpcca.ca/home.htm )

“There is clearly a wide range of opinion on Zionism that exists within the Jewish community. This fact needs to be recognized. We also need to reject specious arguments and reject false allegations of racism and anti-Semitism. We need to fight for freedom of speech, academic freedom, critical inquiry and democratic debate, at all universities and colleges, in the media, in the halls of political power and all across North America. Individuals should be allowed to decide for themselves questions about Zionism and the Palestinians based on open debate, the facts and informed opinion not on suppression of debate, intimidation and censorship.” ~ Edward C. Corrigan

All across Canada and in the United States, there is an organized campaign to suppress criticism of Israeli policies toward the Palestinians.

The campaign is especially strong on university campuses where many voices have been raised in support of human rights for the Palestinians.

One such example is the attempt to suppress the Public Interest Research Group, founded by Ralph Nader, at the University of Ottawa for their support for Palestinian human rights.

Similar anti-Palestinian campaigns have occurred at many universities in Canada including the University of Toronto, the University of Western Ontario and York University.

An attack against a student group that was sympathetic to the Palestinians occurred at the University of Western Ontario in 1982. The student group was refused official recognition because of its support for the Palestinians and for sponsoring Palestinian and Arab speakers. After this refusal a complaint was made to the Ontario Human Rights Commission.

After a long battle, and with the support of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and its General Counsel Alan Borovoy, and a supportive editorial in The Globe & Mail, the Ontario Human Rights Commission compelled the University Students Council at the University of Western Ontario to issue a statement of regret and to ratify the student group. The refusal was deemed discriminatory against Palestinians and persons associated with Palestinians. (See “The Palestinian Question at the University: The Case of Western Ontario,” American-Arab Affairs, Summer 1987, pp. 87-98.)

Despite this successful legal precedent at Western Ontario there have been many attacks against individuals and groups across Canada and the United States because of their support for human rights for Palestinians. Over the last few years there is a concerted attempt to suppress discussion of the Palestinian issue in North America.

There also is a campaign to punish those individuals who have spoken out in support of the Palestinians by cutting funding and by denying them tenure and even getting them terminated from their positions of employment.

[Read more...]

The Hadjis Decision – Sept. 2, 2009 Warman vs Lemire

[Editor's Note: RadicalPress.com learned today that the long-awaited decision in the Warman v. Lemire hearing has finally reached its conclusion. The following information came from Mark Fournier co-owner of FreeDominion.com .  See  http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=122614 Please read and take note.]

The Hadjis Decision – Sept. 2, 2009
Warman vs Lemire

Almost a full year after the closing arguments were heard in the CHRC/Richard Warman vs Marc Lemire case, chairman Hadjis will be releasing his ruling this Wednesday morning. According to a communication from Katherine Julien, the Registry Officer of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal:

The Tribunal will be releasing its decision in the matter of Richard Warman v. Marc Lemire at 9:30 a.m. (Ottawa time) on Wednesday, September 2, 2009.

This is a ruling heavily weighted with legal and political significance. If the tribunal finds Marc Lemire guilty a constitutional challenge to Section 13 launched by Mr. Lemire will continue its way through the process, but the challenge will be scuttled if Hadjis rules in favour of Lemire. If the tribunal ruling is for Lemire, he has a wide open case of abuse of process against just about everybody involved in the five year long case pressed against him. The CHRC/CHRT may also decide to use this opportunity to throw Richard Warman under the bus.

There are several other cases on hold, in a variety of venues, pending the ruling in CHRC/Richard Warman vs Lemire. This is a big one.

Green Eggs and TopHam with a side of kosher FreeDominion.com

August 28, 2009

Dear Radical Reader,

It’s been awhile since I’ve posted any articles. My apologies to those who wait with great anticipation for more information on either the Abrams v. Topham complaint or materials on the Zionist Beast.

Apart from having to be away from home for awhile I’ve also been spending a lot of time over at http://www.FreeDominion.com enjoying all the lively discussions taking place since Harry Abrams finally registered on their forum and has been fielding all sorts of questions from FDers related to sec. 13(1).

Of course I am only an observer there as I’ve been banished from the forum for quite some time but even though I cannot speak, thanks to regular FD member fourhorses, who posts my legal documents for FDers to study and comment on, the Abrams v. Topham complaint is getting a lot of free coverage. For that alone I owe the owner, Connie Fournier, a debt of gratitude for allowing such discussion to proceed. Considering that FD considers itself to be the number one website in Canada in terms of support for the Zionist state of Israel and for all things Jewish this is indeed a generous and open-minded position for her to take.

This is the main reason for this post. I wanted to alert readers to the discussions taking place there and also encourage those willing, to possible register and join in the debate. The least that would happen would be to get banished like I did but a reading of the threads should illustrate the fact that they aren’t as narrow-minded as one might think and their humour is also something to be appreciated. Some of the recent cartoons depicting Harry as the Kosher Saviour of Hate Speech legislation are quite funny. Whether Harry eventually retaliates against them is of course another story. :-) But even if you don’t join in, just reading the various threads and studying the positions taken is, in itself, guaranteed to be an eye-opener in terms of gaining a broader perspective on how other Canadians perceive both sec. 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act and the actions of Harry Abrams and B’nai Brith Canada. Most questions are cogent and the issues are wide-ranging.

Here are the current threads where section 13(1) and the CHRC and CHRT are being given a thorough working over:

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=121507
Free Dominion – battleground in Abrams v Topham case

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=121449&sid=a3aced58daa797751d8702300312bd2e
FD thread: Richard Warman attempting to seize elderly couple’s home

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=121889
FD thread:  Ezra bitch-slaps B’nai Brith

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=122021&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0
FD thread:  Harry Abrams, Classical Liberalism vs. Human Rights

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=122246
Innuendo: A Harry Proposition

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=122393
FD thread: Abrams v Topham – the next novel approach

I would encourage all readers to check out these discussions. Also, please try to pass this message along to your associates.

Shine your Light for Love, Peace & Justice for All,

Arthur Topham
Publisher/Editor
The Radical Press
Canada’s Radical News Network
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″
http://www.radicalpress.com
radical@radicalpress.com
——————————-

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 B’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 “DONATE” 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 radical@radicalpress.com .

For the Full Monty on the complaint case involving RadicalPress.com and B’nai Brith Canada please see: http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=995

CAFE Granted “Interested Party” Status to Intervene in Arthur Topham/Radicalpress Internet Free Speech Case

PFrommOceanLg
PAUL FROMM – CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION (CAFE)
_________________________________________________________________________

August 10, 2009

[Editor's Note: RadicalPress.com is extremely pleased to announce the positive decision by Tribunal chairperson Karen Jensen to grant Interested Party status to the Canadian Association for Free Expression. Direct Paul Fromm and I have been working together on issues for close to a decade now after first meeting online while I was printing my hard copy edition called The Radical.

Mr. Fromm's many years of experience in battling the good fight to retain freedom of speech and expression for all Canadians makes his participation in this present struggle with B'nai Brith Canada over the Section 13(1) issue one of vital importance. As Paul states in his application one of his goals is to focus on this unusual position by the Complainants of trying to make citizens of foreign countries (i.e. Israel) a part of those protected by Canada's "hate speech" laws. This is one issue that readers will know is of major concern to many Canadians who have been following this latest Show Trial regarding Freedom of Speech on the Internet in Canada.

And so, from RadicalPress.com and all those supporting the abolition of Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, a hearty welcome to the show Paul!]

——————–

CAFE Granted “Interested Party” Status to Intervene in Arthur Topham/Radicalpress Internet Free Speech Case

Canadian Human
Rights Tribunal

BETWEEN:

HARRY ABRAMS AND

THE LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF B’NAI BRITH CANADA

Complainants

- and -

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION

- and -

ARTHUR TOPHAM

RADICALPRESS.COM

Respondents

- and -

CANADIAN FREE SPEECH LEAGUE

Interested Party

RULING

MEMBER:

Karen Jensen 2009 CHRT 23

2009/08/07

[1] The Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE) has applied for Interested Party status in the matter of Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of the B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com

[2] CAFE’s mandate is to work toward the maximum latitude of the freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of belief provisions of s. 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms

Founded in 1981, CAFE has published material in support of these goals, made representations to various levels of government and obtained intervenor or Interested Party status in a number of cases.

[3] CAFE is especially concerned about efforts to restrict the Internet, which it sees as an inexpensive and accessible medium to persons of modest means who might otherwise be excluded from some of the older more established media.

[4] CAFE has participated as an Interested Party in a number of Tribunal cases involving s. 13 of the CHRA.

[5] The Respondents Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com support CAFE’s motion. The Commission and the Complainants take no position on this motion.

[6] Section 50 of the Canadian Human Rights Act gives the Tribunal discretion to grant interested party status. The onus is on the applicant to demonstrate how its expertise will be of assistance in the determination of the issues. Interested party status will not be granted if it does not add significantly to the legal positions of the parties representing a similar viewpoint:

Schnellv. Machiavelli and Associates Emprize Inc., [2001] C.H.R.D. No. 14 at para. 6 (C.H.R.T.) (QL); Nkwazi v. Canada (Correctional Service), [2002] C.H.R.D. No. 15 at para. 22 (C.H.R.T.)(QL); Warman v. Lemire 2006 CHRT 8.

[7] In a previous ruling, the Tribunal granted interested party status to the Canadian Free Speech League (CFSL) (Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress 2009 CHRT 12). That organization is also interested in matters touching upon freedom of expression.

[8] In his communications dated July 17, 2009, Paul Fromm, on behalf of CAFE, stated that while CFSL and CAFE “share a similar libertarian approach to Charter freedoms, CAFE has had considerably more experience as an “interested party” and agent in s. 13 Tribunals and brings this expertise to these proceedings”. In addition, CAFE has special concerns about an effort by the Complainants to expand even further the list of protected groups. It wishes to present the view that the Complainants are seeking to make criticism of a foreign government (in this case Israel) a  “discriminatory” practice.

[9] Mr. Fromm indicated that CAFE wishes to make written and oral submissions as well as to cross-examine witnesses in this matter.

[10] Without making any comment on the merits or relevance of the issues raised in this motion, I am satisfied that CAFE will bring a unique perspective and body of experience to the issues in this matter; it will add significantly to the legal position of the parties.

[11] Therefore, CAFE’s request for interested party status is granted. CAFE’s representative will have the right to cross-examine witnesses and to present oral and written submissions. CAFE should consult with the Respondent and the CFSL to ensure that there is no duplication in their efforts.

“Signed by”

Karen Jensen

OTTAWA, Ontario

August 7, 2009

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS TRIBUNAL PARTIES OF RECORD

TRIBUNAL FILE: T1360/9008

STYLE OF CAUSE: Harry Abrams and The League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com

RULING OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED: August 7, 2009

APPEARANCES:

Marvin Kurz For the Complainants

Daniel Poulin For the Canadian Human Rights Commission

Arthur Topham For himself and Respondent RadicalPress.com

Douglas H. Christie For the Interested Party, Canadian Free Speech League

———–

Paul Fromm can be contacted at: paul@paulfromm.com

Petition to Repeal Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act

RepealSec13(1)
[Editor's Note: The Canadian Free Speech League, in regard to section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, has decided to initiate a petition, (below) which they would like all concerned citizens to take as their personal commitment to communicate with the Honourable Rob Nicholson at the House of Commons in Ottawa.

It is the CFSL's proposal to have section 13(1) of the Act abolished. There is a growing awareness that this is a possibility, but Mr. Harper seems to think that he needs the constituency that supports 13(1), and he therefore is not likely to respond except to overwhelming public pressure. CFSL hopes that you will take the time to educate your friends, get them to sign the petition and then forward it immediately to Mr. Nicholson, but also send a copy to the Canadian Free Speech League so they know how many he has received. 

The CFSL will then be able to publish the results of this petition, which they hope gives overwhelming support for the abolition of sec 13(1) so that the government will at last pay attention.

Please copy the petition and paste it into a file such as Word and print it off. Add your own ruled and lined second page with the Name (Print), Address and Signature. Please then send or fax a copy to the Canadian Free Speech League. See address and fax number below.

Here's an opportunity to do something concrete to try and help Canada retain its fundamental right to freedom of speech. Please help out.]

——————

To:

The Honourable Robert Nicholson, P.C., Q.C.
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada
284 Wellington Street
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada  K1A 0H8

Dear Sir:

Re: Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act

Whereas Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act has been amended since the Taylor case as a result of the anxiety created on September 11, 2001.

And whereas Section 13(1) now applies to the Internet and all forms of communication on it, whether within Canada or not, whether true or not.

And whereas Section 13(1) now applies to all mainstream media on the Internet and all commentary on controversial issues.

And whereas the use of the Internet to receive and transmit alternative or dissident ideas and views is vital to prevent a monopoly by mainstream media.

And whereas the Internet is voluntarily accessible and must be searched to retrieve dissident messages and is imposed on no one.

And whereas the majority of Canadians are able to think for themselves and are otherwise entrusted in a democracy with many onerous choices, such as voting, abortion, religious affiliation or non-religious affiliation, driving, walking, reading, speaking, and thinking for ourselves, and are responsible for our own children to this point in time.

And whereas Section 13(1) allows no defence to an offensive statement, a bona fide religious opinion, or an honest comment based on true facts, and allows no right to expression of a defence of another ethnic or religious group, all of which are provided as defences in Section 319(2) (hate speech) of the Criminal Code of Canada.

Wherefore, the undersigned adult, tax-paying citizens of Canada are resolved and agreed that Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act constitutes an insult to our intelligence, and delegates to a government bureaucrat of unknown political persuasion, the ability to decide for us questions, issues, and information we are quite capable of judging for ourselves. We are agreed this insult to our intelligence is open to abuse and has been abused by the bureaucracy of the Commission and its present and past employees, and no mere amendment of Section 13(1) could remedy this clear and present danger to our freedom.

Therefore, we hereby agree and demand that you, as Minister of Justice, should immediately, or as soon as possible, introduce legislation to repeal Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act as an unreasonable limit on our inherent and solemn rights of freedom of expression and contrary to our democratic and free society.

Name (Print)                                  Address                           Signature

Please forward a copy of this completed petition to its sponsor,
The Canadian Free Speech League
Box 101, 255 Menzies Street
Victoria, B.C. V8V 2G6
Fax: 250-479-3294

Responding to the Repressive Sec. 13 Anti-Free Speech Law by Arthur Topham

Sec13DeadlyEnemy
[Editor's Note: The following lengthy piece is my response to the Complainants' second, amended Statement of Particulars which they submitted to the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal on July 12, 2009. In it they attempt once again to allege all sorts of nonsense about myself and my website in a further attempt to smear me as a hatemonger and an "anti-Semite" and racist and so on.

For those who have been following this Show Trial from the start I would recommend reading this reply to see the sorts of subterfuge that these folks resort to in order to meet the demands of the notorious Section 13 entrapment legislation under which they operate.]

Harry Abrams and The League For Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada

v.

Arthur Topham and RADICALPRESS.com

File Number: T1360/9008

REPLY BY RADICALPRESS.COM TO ABRAMS/B’NAI BRITH CANADA AMENDED STATEMENT OF PARTICULARS OF JULY 12, 2009

August 3, 2009

Zionismnothealthy radlogosmall

Nancy Lafontant
Registry Officer
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Nancy.Lafontant@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca

Dear Nancy Lafontant,

RE: Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com
File Number: T1360/9008

Please find enclosed my reply to further distortions, misrepresentations and erroneous suppositions contained in the Complainant’s Amended Statement of Particulars of July 12, 2009.

For purposes of explanation please note that I will be going through the Complainant’s Amended Statement of Particulars in the order that it was presented and making comments where deemed applicable.

[Read more...]

Is Your Government Breeding Bolsheviks?

BreedingBolsheviks?

Is Your Government Breeding Bolsheviks?
B’nai Brith’s brazen attempt to hardwire Hatred and Censorship into the Canadian Psyche

By Arthur Topham

August 8, 2009

In his 2006 book, The Synagogue of Satan, the British writer Andrew C. Hitchcock has a lot to say about the house of Rothschild. In fact his book is a revelation of our times; the chronology of a crime syndicate that began in 1760 when Mayer Amschel Bauer took over his father’s money lending business in Frankfurt, Germany and changed his name from Bauer to Rothschild, a German word meaning “Red Shield” and hung the symbolic hexagram that now adorns the Israeli flag above his door.

The last 250 years is basically a record of the Rothschild’s devastating effects upon the people and the planet; one that has now brought our 20th Century civilization to the brink of either global disaster, or, should we awake in time to this imminent end and act accordingly, the final dismantling and dissolution of this infamous house of hell that’s been the root cause of humanity’s discontent for the past two and a half centuries.

Andrew Hitchcock’s book[1] in some respects parallel’s the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion in that it too is a road map like the Protocols only one that can lead us out of the wasteland of the present times rather than further into a gloomy and foreboding Big Brother future such as the Protocols reveal.

While Hitchcock’s first and foremost purpose is to document the accomplished deeds of this Rothschild house of horror as they pertain to global finance, politics and media, his particular expose of the secret masonic society of B’nai Brith, one of the many Rothschild enterprises designed to assist in its agenda for world domination, should be of special interest to Canadians; especially those Canadians who have managed to break free to some degree from the mind-numbing influence of the Rothschild controlled mainstream media and are relatively able to view, somewhat objectively, the ongoing machinations of this organization; one initially set up and funded in order to present to the world a viewpoint fundamentally Talmudic, cabalistic and atheistic in scope, nature and purpose.

In the USA when Americans think of B’nai Brith they automatically think of the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) the now powerful, aggressive arm of B’nai Brith International originally formed in 1913 by the Rothschild Jews in reaction to a Jewish business man who was convicted of raping and murdering one of his young employees and actually put in jail for his crime.* This was considered an outrage by the then nascent Zionists and so they conspired to come up with an organization that would eventually become the Goliath of gutter journalism, spewing forth volumes of vituperative slander and malignant lies upon any individual, group or organization that ever dared to challenge the tendentious tenets of the Rothschild empire.

I believe Noam Chomsky, Professor of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, put it rather succinctly when he once described the ADL as “…one of the ugliest, most powerful pressure groups in the U.S…. Its primary commitment is to use any technique, however dishonest and disgraceful, in order to defame and silence and destroy anybody who dares to criticize the Holy State (‘Israel’).”

[Read more...]

Motion to Stay Proceedings in Abrams v. RadicalPress.com

MOLLY'SRADICAL
HOOKED WALL HANGING OF “THE RADICAL” BY MOLLY MURPHY, 2000
_________________________________________________________________________

Harry Abrams
and
The League For Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada

v.

Arthur Topham
and
RADICALPRESS.com

File Number: T1360/9008

MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS

JULY 30,  2009

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press
4633 Barkerville Hwy
Quesnel, B.C. V2J 6T8
Email: radical@radicalpress.com

July 30,  2009

Nancy Lafontant
Registry Officer
Canadian Human Rights Tribunal
Nancy.Lafontant@chrt-tcdp.gc.ca

Dear Nancy Lafontant,

RE: Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com
File Number: T1360/9008

Please find enclosed a Notice of Motion to Stay proceedings in the above complaint case.
In the interest of all parties in this complaint and with due respect for the judicial system of Canada I feel it is my democratic duty that I ask the Tribunal to consider staying the proceedings in this case. I do so with good reasons and not merely as an attempt to circumvent any of the concerns of the parties involved.

Based upon all the effort thus far expended by the parties in proceeding with this complaint and the fact that it continues to proceed at a pace which would indicate it may extend some months in advance of the present, it is my reasoned opinion that judicial economy would demand that a question, such as this complaint comprises and one which is basically synonymous with that of the Warman v. Lemire case, should not be litigated while the same question is under reserve in a forum of concurrent jurisdiction.
Analysis of the constitutional issue requires a factual foundation, which demands that the proceedings not be bifurcated. To proceed in part saves nothing and is in fact very costly.

It would therefore be unjust and unreasonable to put myself, Arthur Topham, the Respondent, to the needless expense of defending a complaint which may have been brought under an unconstitutional law.
With due consideration to the fact that this complaint has now interfered with and prevented me from earning a living for over a year and a half because of the demands for legal research and the fact that I am unable to afford legal counsel, I feel it behooves the Tribunal to give their reasoned attention to the hardship currently being imposed upon the Respondent to fulfill his obligations when there exists another reserved decision which might dispose of the matter.

As an example of a case which illustrates the pragmatic correctness of my position I would cite the judgment of April 2, 2007 by the Honourable Madam Justice Heneghan in that of Warman v. Kulbashian Tribunal File No. T1073/5405 in the Federal Court; one which stayed a judicial review pending the outcome of Warman v. Lemire.

[Read more...]

The Managers, The Messiahs and the Masses by Douglas Reed

Photobucket

DUST COVER FROM ELIZABETH DILLING’S 1936 BOOK EXPOSING ROOSEVELT
__________________________________________________________________________

The Managers, The Messiahs and the Masses

By Douglas Reed

From: The Controversy of Zion, Chapter 37

Amid jubilant scenes in Washington and Berlin on two successive days (March 4 and 5, 1933) the two twelve-year reigns began which were to end at almost the same instant in 1945. Today an impartial historian could hardly compute which reign produced the greater sum of human suffering. At the start the two men who appeared on the central scene were both hailed as Messiahs. In America a Rabbi Rosenblum described President Roosevelt as “a Godlike messenger, the darling of destiny, the Messiah of America’s tomorrow”; there spoke a political flatterer in words intended to “persuade the multitude”. In 1937, in Prague menaced by Hitler, a Jewish acquaintance told me his rabbi was preaching in the synagogue that Hitler was “the Jewish Messiah” (a pious elder who sought to interpret events in terms of Levitical prophecy). All through these years the masses in both countries (and for that matter in Russia too) had their particular “premier-dictator” depicted to them in such terms, or in those of “Big Brother”, “Papa”, “Uncle”, “Beloved Leader” or the fireside-loving “Friend”. The apparent antagonists, Mr. Roosevelt and Herr Hitler, both in different ways promoted “the destructive principle” in its three recognizable forms: revolutionary-Communism, revolutionary-Zionism and the ensuing “world government to enforce peace”.

Mr. Roosevelt’s reign began with a significant deception. He used a wheeled chair but the public masses were never allowed to see him, in flesh or picture, until he had been helped to an upright position. His infirmity was known; nevertheless, some directing intelligence decreed that the false picture of a robust man must to his last day be presented to the multitude (and even afterwards, for the sculptor who later made his London monument had to depict him in this sturdy pose).

Mr. Roosevelt created precedent by having his cabinet sworn in the hand of a distinguished Jew, Mr. Justice Cardozo, who was a committed Zionist, having yielded in 1918 to Mr. Brandeis and Rabbi Stephen Wise, with the despondent-sounding words, “Do what you please with my name”; he then received his Supreme Court judgeships, Rabbi Wise requesting them for him, first from Governor Al Smith of New York State and then from President Herbert Hoover. Thus the shadow of “dual allegiance” fell on Mr. Roosevelt’s administration at its start (as on Mr. Wilson’s, from the figure of Mr. Brandeis).

[Read more...]

The Rise of Zion Ch. 4 from Somewhere South of Suez by Douglas Reed

DurbanSunsetSSmith

PHOTO BY SNOWY SMITH, DURBAN, SOUTH AFRICA faircivillaw@yahoo.com
_______________________________________________________________________

PART THREE

BEFORE THE MILLENNIUM

CHAPTER 1

BALCONY OVER DURBAN

By Douglas Reed

(From his book, Somewhere South of Suez, 1950)

For a year, from a high tower over Durban, with the bright city and blue ocean below, I sat back and watched the whirling world spin like a grindstone, and the sparks fly from it as the political banditti of the twentieth century whetted unassuageable knives. After pressing my nose against the great events of the last thirty-five years I was glad for a while to sit in the gallery, among the enfants du paradis. A high place and far vista constantly remind the beholder that this planet is small and a stage at that; that the strutting terrible ones and their victims alike are merely players and that the run is short. Behind the scenes of each new melodrama another is ever in rehearsal. There are no final curtains, only the eternal play.

The current melodrama,  a heavy one, plainly approaches its third act and climax. It might be entitled Judas is an Honourable Man, or The World in Fetters, and will be concluded, I think, before the century’s end. Whichever ending it reaches, the villain’s triumph or his undoing, another play will follow; the human comedy does not finish, and put in its right proportions is finally comedy. The timeless universe contains some two thousand million stars, the nearest about twenty-five million miles from this earth; there are thousands of other universes and the Astronomer Royal holds that life exists in several other worlds. The white men form a minority of the little earth’s population and if the present melodrama took them back to the caves, to start again, that would be but another beginning. These proportions of the matter looked clearer than before, from a balcony over Durban, and in this spirit, not in that of any gloomy scribifax or chapfallen oracle, I watched the unfolding shape of the play.

CHAPTER 2

FULL FIFTY YEARS

Within our unimportant scheme of things, the year 1950 appears important. Like a ruled line, it closes a half-century of large events (by our standards) of which a sum may now be made. They crowded on time’s traveller like mountain peaks, too near and massive to be separately comprehended while he was among them. Now that he may look back on the great range, its form and proportions begin to assert themselves.

There were two great wars; they were the storms which obscured his vision as he went along but now he may turn and survey the landscape they have left. From it arise two shapes which were not visible at all when he set out in 1900: Communism and Zionism. All else has been laid low or reduced. These two beanstalks, though neither is Russian, sprang from a common root in Russia. Before the first war they germinated secretly in the cellars and ghettoes of Russia. They appeared above ground together in 1917, when the alien Communists were helped to usurp power in Russia and the Zionist ambition was espoused by a British Government. Through the second war, the Communist area was stretched by the mid-century to include half of Europe and nearly all of China, while the Zionist State was set up in Arabia and foreseeably would spread from there. These achievements were brought about through arms, money and political support given by American and British politicians, wielding wartime powers. They were not final, but marked the end of the second act, as the appearance of the two new forces in 1917 concluded the first.

[Read more...]