SCRAP SEC. 13! B’nai Brith Canada: Lettin’ it all hang out (in a queer sorta way)
SCRAP SEC. 13!
B’nai Brith Canada: Lettin’ it all hang out (in a rather queer sorta way)
By Arthur Topham
June 27, 2009
“This petty attempt on the part of the Complainants, using the legal sophistry embodied in section 13 of the CHR Act, to stifle and smother a much-needed, nay, an essential dialectic concerning the usefulness, not only from an ethical or moral perspective but also from a practical, logical, reasonable and necessary sense of urgency, of permitting political Zionism to exist as it is now structured is the most fundamental problem facing the global community today and overshadows all of humanity’s efforts at achieving world peace and universal freedom.”
– Respondent Arthur Topham in a Motion to Dismiss the Abrams v RadicalPress.com complaint case, June 27, 2009
[Editor’s Note: As stated above section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is likely the greatest threat to Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms that ever was devised and for the past year and a half I’ve been held hostage to its nefarious intentions fighting every step of the way to prevent it from censoring my free and alternative news media site, RadicalPress.com.
The principal villain in the drama is B’nai Brith Canada, a front organization working within the structure of Canadian society to promote the interests of a foreign, racist state called Israel.
Now possibly it’s karma or retribution or possibly it’s the old adage that what goes around comes around but in the case of B’nai Brith Canada’s B.C. representative Harry Abrams the wheels of fortune have suddenly hit the reality of the pavement and clouds of smoke and flame and the stench of burning rubber are everywhere.
After 19 months of endless litigation and mind games with the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal and an impending “hearing” or Show Trial over charges laid against myself and RadicalPress.com that I contrive “to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel” the news emerges that the person who took it upon himself and his organization to cast their evil spell upon a free and independent alternative media, has now been found responsible for committing the very same type of “hate” crime that he and his organization, B’nai Brith Canada, have alleged that I am guilty of!
It’s a fascinating and convoluted story of blog postings, alias, insinuations and downright naked, unabashed and very queer events. Every day it seems new revelations regarding this dreaded legislation appear in the media and in the blogosphere warning of its dangers and exposing the culprits who are insisting that such dictatorial measures are just fine and in fact more are required in order to police and control Canadians.
Please read on.]
——————-
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 the initial allegations, unfounded assertions and misconceptions contained in the June 23, 2009 letter to the Commission and the Tribunal from the Complainants regarding my June 16, 2009 Statement of Particulars.
I will, in a separate response, reply to the remainder of the comments by the Complainants but for purposes of this Notice of Motion I must, needs be, focus specifically on the opening statements of Mr. Abrams regarding his and his co-complainant’s attempts to dismiss, disparage and negate all of my detailed, justified criticisms of the actions and the motives of the foreign Zionist lobby group B’nai Brith Canada of which he is British Columbia’s representative.
Through the typical (and worn-out) Zionist practice of virulent vilification and slander, using meaningless, illogical epithets such as “antisemitic slurs and canards” and “racist expression” as per its ‘Handbook for Contrary Opinions’ contained in the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and elsewhere; primarily designed and calculated to employ subterfuge and deception in order to avoid dialogue and discussion, Mr. Abrams, in response to my June 16, 2009 Statement of Particulars, makes the following fabulous and pusillanimous statements:
“Before framing the substance of our response, it bears mentioning at this stage of the proceedings, that to date, nearly all of the communications and correspondences received from Mr. Topham continue to include multiple forms of vituperative racist expression, and not simply directed towards Jews, Israelis or the complainants in this action, either.
We must protest Mr. Topham’s disgraceful insults, taunts and verbal abuse targeting both Ms. Lafontant and Mr. Poulin for the fact that English is not their first language.
Meanwhile, and as per usual, Mr. Topham’s response contains more antisemitic slurs and canards.”
As mechanical and predictable as a cog within a piece of manufactured machinery Mr. Abrams attempts right from the start to shroud the Tribunal within the usual plethora of negative proscriptions designed to create the illusion that my whole purpose in life is merely to expound as much vituperation toward Jews and Jewish Israelis and others as possible.
Apart from being a preposterous lie and an unfounded and absurd allegation based upon slanderous, libelous intrigue for which his organization is well-known globally, such an overt, opening statement, designed with such motives in mind, is yet another glaring example of the manner in which his organization uses such techniques to mask their political objectives; those being, the censorship of any and all criticism of the political ideology known as Zionism and/or criticism of the political policies of the foreign nation known as Israel.
In this regard one might wonder whether Mr. Abrams and his organization truly comprehend the nature of the allegations which I have been bringing to the attention of the public over the past number of years respecting their political philosophy and the deleterious effects it has been having upon the global body politic.
What immediately becomes apparent to any reasonable, open-minded person is the practiced, contrived nature of the Complainant’s response to anything that is offered in the way of explanatory, contrary opinion or fact which contradicts their own odious actions and agenda.
This petty attempt on the part of the Complainants, using the legal sophistry embodied in section 13 of the CHR Act, to stifle and smother a much-needed, nay, an essential dialectic concerning the usefulness, not only from an ethical or moral perspective but also from a practical, logical, reasonable and necessary sense of urgency, of permitting political Zionism to exist as it is now structured is the most fundamental problem facing the global community today and overshadows all of humanity’s efforts at achieving world peace and universal freedom.
Yet, like water off of a duck’s back, all counter arguments to their historically primitive, self-centered, supremacist, chauvinistic Zeitgeist: one premised on a self-inflicted, misleading persecution complex instilled over centuries of ghetto-like existence by Talmudic rabbis and further exacerbated beyond anything logical and reasonable during the current tenure of the foreign Zionist state of Israel – which, I would add, they so highly praise and defend – simply roll off their preconditioned mindset and are treated as either irrelevant, scurrilous, threatening, demeaning or false.
Blinded by the distorted reflections of their own image of assumed power and control over others and unable to discern the greater reality within which the vast majority of Canadians live, Mr. Abrams and his Iraeli/Zionist sponsored lobby group B’nai Brith Canada decided back in 2007 to pick up the first stone and cast it in my direction assuming that it would shatter the window of perception through which I view the world. In doing so I suggest that they not only desired to blind and censor me but the general public as well into continuing to believe their ongoing lies concerning the true nature of Zionism and the true nature of their own political motives in positioning themselves as watchdogs, not for the well-being of Canada and its democratic ideals but for a foreign state; one which, I can unequivocally say at this point in history, is rapidly losing all its credibility in the eyes of the world thanks to its government’s malevolent, racist, violent, terrorist actions directed against the true Semitic people of the Middle East, the Arabs.
Mr. Abrams would have the Tribunal buy into the Complainant’s belief that all of my efforts to explain a contrary position to that posed by political Zionism are merely an excuse to furiously regurgitate endless vile, racist expressions and “antisemitic slurs” and therefore ought to be disregarded outright. Such is the simplistic, puerile and blatant purpose for his opening statements and, as such, I would caution the Tribunal to do its utmost to interpret Mr. Abram’s libelous remarks for what they are.
With respect to Mr. Abrams’ transparent protestations concerning my fictitious writings containing Ms. Lafontant and Daniel Poulin wherein he makes reference to “Topham’s disgraceful insults, taunts and verbal abuse targeting both Ms. Lafontant and Mr. Poulin for the fact that English is not their first language” further comment is required.
Predictably, as in all Mr. Abrams’ accusations, he’s unable to distinguish between literary devices, levity, freedom of expression and malicious intent. As such, and based upon Mr. Abrams’ own record of behaviour in regard to matters of this nature, I find it rather strange that he would be raising this issue at all. It certainly is a classic example of the kettle calling the pot black. Allow me to further embellish that comment with the following corroborative evidence that will show the hypocrisy and disingenuousness of Mr. Abrams’ feigned outrage.
To get down to business let us begin with Harry Abrams’ business in Victoria, B.C. known as HI-RISE ADVERTISING one which he has been involved with there since 1984.
On his website under the heading “About Us” he has, in part, displayed the following:
“We’re in the business of getting you noticed …Over the years, Harry’s developed a reputation for his humour and originality ….
… Let’s design an ad campaign together! It’s so much fun, and the results are often very rewarding!
Hi-Rise Elevator Display Advertising…It’s always worth a second look!”
Now right from the start we’re informed that Harry has a reputation for his humour and originality and so the obvious question that arises is, how does Harry goes about expressing his “humour and originality,” either off or on the internet.
Well, as is clearly obvious from what is quoted above in his opening attack upon me and my motives, Harry loves to accuse me of being guilty of writing and publishing material which contains “disgraceful insults, taunts and verbal abuse.” That, I might add, on top of all the rest of the pejorative insinuations contained in the CHR Act’s sections 3.(1) and section 13.(1).
The first of these two sections deals with prohibited grounds of discrimination and states:
3. (1)” For all purposes of this Act, the prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, age, sex, sexual orientation, marital status, family status, disability and conviction for which a pardon has been granted.”
And, as all parties are now fully aware, the second section 13(1) contained under the heading “Hate messages” states:
13. (1) “It is a discriminatory practice for a person or a group of persons acting in concert to communicate telephonically or to cause to be so communicated, repeatedly, in whole or in part by means of the facilities of a telecommunication undertaking within the legislative authority of Parliament, any matter that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
Bearing these two sections in mind let us now look at some of the writings which Mr. Abrams is posting on the internet which might easily be construed as falling within this same entrapment legislation now being used against myself, the Respondent and RadicalPress.com.
I will first make reference to the statements contained in the pdf file which I have enclosed with this letter to all parties. The file is a screen shot of a “YAHOO! GROUPS” page for a site called VicWNBR which stands for “Victoria World Naked Bike Ride!” and is dated Tuesday, May 24, 2005.
Now in that page under the heading “formal attire” is a posting by Mr. Harry Abrams, who, as we all now know, uses the alias “brian_esker” when posting on the internet. He writes:
“Yo!
I’ve had extensive reconstructive surgey[sic], which happened after my sexual reassignment. Should I wear something to cover the scars or forget about it and let it all hang out?
Brian”
Now the online free medical dictionary http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+reassignment
defines “sexual reassignment” as:
Now the online free medical dictionary http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/sexual+reassignment
defines “sexual reassignment” as:
“a change in the gender identity of a person by legal, surgical, hormonal, or social means.
Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 8th edition. © 2009, Elsevier.
Sexual reassigment:
Transsexual conversion, sex change, sex conversion. The constellation of surgical and medical therapies intended to physically change a person from one sexual phenotype to the other;…
McGraw – Hill Concise Dictionary of Modern Medicine. © 2002 by The McGraw - Hill Companies, Inc.
In reply to “Brian” two other posters, the first “Rebecca,” wrote:
“Hi there. I think that depends entirely on how you feel about people being like “woah!” But in my experience, people aren’t exactly checking out the genitalia…”
The second, “Michael” said:
“Brian – I think that being able to come out and be naked especially in light of your recovery is remarkable. If anything people who know will want to wish you…”
Now at the bottom of this same Yahoo! Page, albeit an “Over 18” one, under “sponsor results” is the following (and I apologize to anyone reading this for the obscene nature of the language):
“Hot, Horny, Slutty Women Want Sex
AdultFriendFinder.com – Find a Fuck Buddy for Free Sex in Your Area at AFF.”
Again, keeping in mind the fact that Mr. Abrams, aka “Brian_Esker,” has announced to the world on the internet that he’s undergone a “sexual reassignment” or a transsexual conversion, he now states on the website Anti-RacistCanada http://anti-racistcanada.blogspot.com/2009/06/free-dominion-sure-pays-awful-lot-of.html under the thread heading “Free Dominion Sure Pays an Awful Lot Of Attention To Us:
“I wouldn’t be surprised if Connie [Fournier. FD site co-owner. A.T.] wakes up in the middle of the night wondering if “beating up on Warman” was maybe not such a good idea. I suppose that will be one of the questions in her cross examination in a court room one day. Connie’s reference to my penis stems (pun intended) from a humourous posting to a yahoo group I did some years ago joking about a nude bicycle riding event. This should be most frightening for her, because it shows I have a sense of humour too….”
At this point I think it behooves the Tribunal, the Commission and all the parties involved in this complaint to stop and consider what is really going on here.
Mr. Abrams, aka “Brian_Esker,” after accusing me and my website of committing grave offenses under section 13.1 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, has himself, even prior to his complaint against me to the CHRC, gone on record as having committed a discriminatory practice by communicating via the internet a matter “that is likely to expose a person or persons to hatred or contempt by reason of the fact that that person or those persons are identifiable on the basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.”
In this case Mr. Abrams has clearly discriminated against persons based upon their “sexual orientation:” to wit, transsexuals, for the purpose of taunting, insulting and mocking, all of which exposes this identifiable group to hatred and contempt. Now that having acted in this reprehensible manner by writing comments which are hateful and show contempt for the transsexual community across Canada and his actions discovered and exposed in all their naked intent, he is vainly attempting to salvage his own credibility by offering in his defense the pretence of merely having posted a “humourous” remark about transsexuals.
I beg to differ with Mr. Abrams on this point and I hope that the Tribunal and the Commission as well will do likewise. Discrimination against individuals in Canada based upon their sexual orientation is indeed a serious matter and one which statistics show tends to breed a higher degree of hatred and contempt and subsequent violence toward homosexuals than anything even remotely related to similar comparisons involving alleged “hatred” toward Jews which the Complainants are contending I am guilty of committing.
In this regard I would also like to bring to the attention of the Tribunal and Commission the fact that I don’t condone in any fashion the actions of Mr. Abrams. During the early period of my publishing career (June 1998 to June 2002), I put out a hard copy 24-page tabloid known as The Radical. The newspaper benefited from the eclectic nature of its content as well as from the diversity of its contributing writers and artists.
One such contributor was a homosexual person who wrote under the nom de plume of “Randy Buckerman.” His regular column was entitled, “Back Country Cruising.” Mr. Buckerman’s monthly column’s delved deeply into all aspects of the “queer” lifestyle and helped readers to get a better understanding of the various problems and challenges that the homosexual community faces in Canada. His writings also helped to exposed the ignorance and the hatred with which the transsexual community is met by the straight public. This is why I feel that Mr. Abrams’ concept of what is “humourous” belies another agenda; one which I contend is contrived to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable by their sexual orientation.
Now what this whole exercise illustrates or ought to illustrate to any sensible, reasonable, clear-thinking person, is the fact that this section of the Canadian Human Rights Act (section 13) is an extremely dangerous, highly contentious and dramatically undemocratic piece of legislation, open to any and every form of abuse possible. It is therefore my sincere contention that such a volatile, opaque, confusing, open-ended and unjust example of legislation has absolutely no place within a free and democratic society.
As one can easily see from the example of Mr. Abrams, what he may have perceived to be nothing more than having a little “fun” at the expense of the queer community (not unlike my own enjoyment in portraying, fictitiously, Ms. Lafontant and Daniel Poulin in their actual dialectic enunciation of the English language), under this egregious, blundering ‘law’ known as section 13, he too, potentially, is liable to the very same entrapment by it as anyone else. In fact no one is safe from its nebulous, lethal wording and everyone is susceptible to charges of one form of hatred and contempt or another. It’s like a web of hate that sticks to anyone who brushes up against it either intentionally or not and just one of many good reasons why it must be removed from the CHR Act. It is the logical and inevitable conclusion to the concept of “Political Correctness” when taken to its maximum extreme; one which cannot, due to its inherently flawed logic (as is section 13) eventually result in any other end.
Now while I cannot condone Mr. Abrams’ actions, his reaction to having his own butt exposed, as he professed to be contemplating in his Yahoo! Group message of May 24, 2005, is understandable. But whether or not he’s able to extrapolate from his situation to that of mine and all the other innocent individuals who have suffered mental, emotional and financial abuse because of this legislation, is extremely dubious under the present circumstances. It would of course be my preference that now Mr. Abrams is receiving his own just deserts based upon his own actions that he would see the light in terms of his vexatious actions against my person and website and drop this complaint forthwith. Barring that possibility I would therefore ask that the Tribunal, given its mandate to consider new evidence before it, give sober consideration to doing so and in the process set a positive and noble example for all of Canada; one which the vast majority of its citizens would most jubilantly welcome.
If there is any further formality or motion that you require, please let me know as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham pro se
Publisher/Editor
The RadicalPress.com
Cc:
Anita Bromberg, Co-complainant
Marvin Kurz, Complainant Counsel
Harry Abrams, Complainant
Daniel Poulin, Commission counsel
Douglas Christie, Intervenor, Canadian Free Speech League