Tzar Nicholas II and his family. The Tzar acted constitutionally and abdicated on March 5, 1917. He and his family were kept prisoner at Tobolsk and guarded by a Russian commandant and Russian guards. In April, 1918, after the Jewish regime gained controlled, he was transferred along with his family from Moscow to Ekaterinburg in the Urals. All the Russians were replaced by Bolshevik Jew Cheka members who, on July 16, 1918, woke the Tzar and his family and took them into the basement and shot and bayoneted them and then took the bodies to a disused iron pit and and cut them up and burned them and then dissolved the parts with 400 lbs of sulphuric acid. Afterwards the ashes and fragments were thrown down a mine shaft and covered up. Thanks to the fact that the White Armies captured Ekaterinburg the truth was found out.
______________________________________________________________________
The Seven Pillars of Zionist Subterfuge
by Arthur Topham
July 5, 2009

Preface

The struggle for freedom of speech in Canada continues. It’s has now been over 19 months since the Zionist organization nominally referred to as B’nai Brith Canada registered a formal complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the premise of which was the contention that I and my website RadicalPress.com were contriving to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.

Since that day back on November 20, 2007 it has been a continuous gong show of legal assaults in one form or another directed toward myself; first coming from the Commission and then, after they decided the case warranted proceeding to the next stage, from the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, all seemingly in tandem with the Complainants’ own submissions.

Whenever I submit a document or letter or make a motion in my own defense the immediate reaction is to be met with counter arguments and legalese from either Mr. Daniel Poulin, counsel for the Commission or Marvin Kurz, of the law offices of Dale, Streiman & Kurz of Brampton, Ontario. Kurz of course is a longstanding member of this Rothschild created secret society known as the Independent Order of B’nai Brith and is also head counsel for the Canadian branch of B’nai Brith International better known to the public as simply B’nai Brith Canada. Kurz is representing the two B’nai Brith Canada executive members, Harry Abrams and Anita Bromberg, who laid the complaint against me and my website.

As is standard practice with the Zionists, whenever it comes to attempts to silence dissenting opinions, they do their damnedest to discredit whomever they are out to censor. In my case they attempt to do it via legal channels and throwing every bit of muddy legal “precedent” that they can dig up at both me and the (theoretically independent) Tribunal in order to get the Tribunal to rule on inapplicable case law that would prevent me from presenting the overwhelming evidence which now exists that refutes all of their worn-out allegations of “anti-Semitism” and “racism” and “hate-monger” and which also conclusively shows that Israel is, in fact, a racist, terrorist, apartheid state and likely the most undemocratic nation in the world of those who profess to be such.

As such their latest attempt to have the Tribunal lend its quasi-judicial ear to the seven points contained within their June 23, 2009 letter to the Tribunal represents in some ways an indication of their desperation in trying to stop the flow of information that counters all of their propaganda concerning both political Zionism and the actual politics of the state of Israel.

Employing the legal procedure known as “Judicial Notice” which Black’s Law Dictionary defines as, “The act by which a court, in conducting a trial, or framing its decision, will, of its own motion, and without the production of evidence, recognize the existence and truth of certain facts, having a bearing on the controversy at bar, which, from their nature, are not properly the subject of testimony, or which are universally regarded as established by common notoriety, e.g., the laws of the state, international law, historical events, the constitution and course of nature, main geographical features, etc.” the Complainants are attempting to convince the Tribunal that all of their standard Zionist propaganda which has been forced upon the general public over the past century by a compliant, controlled Zionist media, must now be recognized as being universally accepted as fact.

As far as chutzpah goes this latest move on their part has to be considered as one of the more blatant examples of arrogance and chauvinism to ever have been offered up for public consumption.

The substance of the article below is therefore my (relatively) short response to the seven points they have submitted to the Tribunal. Bear in mind as well that the whole issue of section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act is, in essence, tied directly to this latest ploy by the Zionists. In keeping with a semblance of literary flavour in all of these otherwise dry and dusty proceedings I’ve chosen to refer to the seven points as the seven pillars of Zionist subterfuge.
—————

REPLY TO ABRAMS AND B’NAI BRITH CANADA’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE BY THE RESPONDENT AND RADICALPRESS.COM

July 2,  2009

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 response to the Tribunal respecting the Complainants’ Judicial Notice contained in their June 23, 2009 letter to the Tribunal in reply to my June 16, 2009 Statement of Particulars.

I will begin on a positive note by thanking the Complainants for bringing to the attention of the Tribunal and the Commission the fact, as originally expressed by Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada in their initial complaint to the Commission, that they do contend that I and my website are posting “articles and items . . . extremely likely to incite hatred and contempt against Jews and citizens of Israel.”

All the recent backsliding and denial and obfuscation emanating from Mr. Daniel Poulin, Commission counsel, rejecting outright my claims that the wording of the Commission in their Statement of Particulars of March 11, 2009 had been altered to the point of being so abstruse as to be illogical and meaningless has now been reaffirmed by the Complainants themselves. As such I would hope that the Tribunal might reserve a special place within their memories for this fact and that they not forget their own complicity in lending, however tacitly it might be construed, their support to the contentions of the Commission regarding the manner in which Mr. Poulin expressed his interpretation of the ‘ISSUES” in this case.

Now that we have established once again that it is “Jews and citizens of Israel” who are at issue here rather than “Jews and non-white[sic]” I will move on to the next contentious issue; that being the Complainants’ latest attempt to control and manipulate the terms of reference of the Tribunal and the basic right of all Canadian citizens to a fair and open hearing via the subterfuge of a “Judicial Notice” designed to forestall and prohibit the introduction and analysis of any and all pertinent data relevant to the aforesaid complaint.

Under said notice the Complainants, after clarifying the Commission’s erroneous Statement of Particulars of March 11, 2009, begin by stating:

“In order to facilitate and expedite the proceedings and not spend needless hearing time re-arguing hateful themes for which there are already ample precedent, we wish to remind the Tribunal of the Claude Pensa interim decision of May 25, 1998 in Citron V. Zundel  http://www.rudemacedon.ca/0305/030519-HRT.html

“…That the dignity of the complainants and the proceedings should not be diminished by allowing the Respondent to prove or test the truth of inherently offensive comments…”

This ruse on the part of the Complainants, by any other wording, would still smell as malodorous as it does in its present context and is an affront not only to natural law and common sense but also to every conceivable and cherished notion of what constitutes freedom in a democratic society. It is, I suggest, the absolute hallmark of all that is most malicious, repugnant and, yes, contemptible, in the long litany of willful attempts on the part of the political Zionists to deny, discredit, demean, malign and devalue their opponent’s facts and arguments and thus, by contrary, indirect association, disassociate and isolate their particular and peculiar perspective on human events, be it historic or otherwise, in a disingenuous attempt to place their prerogatives and opinions in some form of exclusive, elite, chauvinistic classification beyond either reproach or question.

What’s plainly evident in this recurring theme of pleading as though innocents whose “dignity” is somehow being “diminished” by the threat of possible exposure to the truth (as first suggested when the issue of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion mysteriously disappeared from the files of the Commission) is nothing more than an unabashed, blatant, arrogant and transparent attempt to disparage not only the Respondent in this case but the democratic principles upon which our justice system itself is founded.

To suggest, as the Complainants obviously are attempting to do in this most recent judicial move, that my perspective on the issues here are not worthy of consideration is the height of chutzpah and needs to be taken as such by any impartial observer in this complaint, which, it is assumed, the Tribunal is.

This isn’t a case, as the Complainants would have the Tribunal believe, of someone questioning the location of Vancouver, B.C. or Toronto, Ontario. Nor is it a question of whether or not the sun will rise tomorrow or when the Tzar and his family were massacred in the basement of a house in Ekaterinberg, Russia by Bolshevik Jews. These facts and events are established by common notoriety and need not be rehashed for the purpose of establishing their occurrence and their location in both time and space.

What the Complainants would have the Tribunal believe to be “hateful themes” are in fact, the evidence of centuries of censorship which those responsible for such restriction of thought are now desperately trying to prevent from reaching the light of day. Why this phenomenon should be occurring at the current stage of history is a complex problem in itself but for the purposes of this pithy reply it must suffice to say that Western civilization over the past century and longer has for the most part depended upon the Zionist-controlled media for its information on matters pertaining to history, science, literature and general cultural trends, etc. It was only with the advent of the Internet and the sudden access to information which had formerly been suppressed by the Zionist media cartel that the controversial subjects now being ferociously and violently attacked by the Zionists are making headway and gaining increase credence at a pace hitherto unheard of or conceivable prior to the freedom of the world wide web. In this sense we are living in propitious times  marked by quantum leaps in information, much of which, prior to now was unable to surface for lack of an independent and free medium.

This was the thesis contained in my initial article which accompanied my formal Response to the charges which the Complainants laid against me and website. That article, Killing the Hundredth Monkey, clearly delineated what is happening around the world today. It’s poignant point was that it’s too late now for the censors, aka the Zionists, to think that they will continue to control information vital to a greater and more holistic understanding of how the world works. It’s as impossible as it is for the rising sun to suddenly stop its predestined course across the heavens. Yet, I suggest, this is precisely what the Complainants are attempting to do here in their efforts at hijacking the hearing process by this suspect ploy of enjoining the Tribunal to lend a sympathetic ear to their machinations.

It is my purpose to present the facts and the truth that the Zionist media refuses to publish. When I first set out upon a publishing career back in 1998 I was ignorant of political Zionism and presupposed that it was just the vested corporate interests who withheld vital information. But, following the old adage that states perseverance in whatever one is seeking, is good and will further one in their quest for greater knowledge, I continued to study and research and observe and listen and contemplate all the data and perspectives which crossed my mind’s questing vision. Such a process eventually led me to the threshold of a greater understanding of world events and a growing prescience of who the movers and shakers were behind global occurrences otherwise presented to an unwary and believing public as merely innocuous players unrelated to any formal or distinct political philosophy.

Still, I persisted in my efforts to grasp the underlying, hidden factors which affect world events and eventually the light broke and the pieces fell into place and the puzzle no longer presented a fragmented, confusing image. On the contrary it now was crystal clear what the world was facing regardless of whether those perpetrating the massive fraud and deception felt such a realization represented “hateful themes” or otherwise. As such, it became my duty, as it is every man’s duty, to speak the truth as they know and understand it to be.

That said I will now devote the rest of this reply to the 7 points which the Complainants have asked the Tribunal to give judicial notice to, going through them in sequence. I would first though like to preface my comments by stating that what I intent to write is but a thumbnail sketch. All of these points mentioned by the Complainants plus many others are the main thrust of my overall arguments to be brought out during the hearing itself and therefore cannot be gone into in great detail at this stage of the pre-hearing process.

1.  “The Holocaust, that is: the systematic industrial-scale genocide of  millions of European Jews during World War two is a historical fact.”

This complaint against myself and the Radical Press is not about a holocaust. Mr. Abrams and B’nai Brith are looking to have a judicial note created by the Tribunal that elevates European Jews to a higher status than any other group.  Mr. Abrams would have you establish that by the wording of his judicial note request, that there was only one holocaust, which occurred in WWII and that that holocaust would be defined by the death of millions of European Jews.  This, I suggest, is outrageous, prejudicial and discriminatory. The genocide referred to herein, was not exclusive to European Jews.  It included millions of non-Jews, including Catholic Christians, Protestant Christians, Coptic Christians, Orthodox Christians, atheists, Buddhists, Sheiks, Muslims, Hindus, etc., as well as non European Jews. To decree, via judicial note,  that the “holocaust”  was a genocide of millions of European Jews, is to diminish the horrors, the sufferings, the losses, the tragedies of all other groups and to specifically elevate European Jews above all others. That, I again suggest, is but another example of the chauvinistic attitude on the part of the Complainants being graphically illustrated in this example.

Further, there were several other holocausts which include the Armenian genocide holocaust of WWI, the Greek genocide holocausts of post WWII, the Ukrainian genocide holocaust of WWII and pre-post WWII,  the Imperial Japanese genocide holocausts of south-Asian people in WWII, the Congo genocide holocausts of the 1980s, the Serbian-Croatian-Bosnian genocide holocausts of the 1990s, the Darfur genocide holocausts of recent times,  the Zimbabwe white Christian genocide holocausts of recent times, etc.

To establish a judicial note as Mr. Abrams and B’nai Brith have requested, would equally be outrageous, prejudicial and discriminatory by labeling the one holocaust position to which Mr. Abrams and B’nai Brith subscribe as  “The Holocaust” above all other mass genocides. This would effect a ruling that genocide against European Jews is to somehow trump all the other atrocities of history and declare that Canada elevate one group above all others. This is no more than a veiled “canard” and “racial slur,” to which I would ask that a Judicial Note be registered against Mr. Abrams  and B’nai Brith.

2.  “The PROTOCOLS OF THE LEARNED ELDERS OF ZION (and other permutations thereof) is both a forgery AND a classic of antisemitic hate literature.”

Mr. Abrams and B’nai Brith are requesting a judicial pre-ruling in the way of a judicial notice on a piece of literature to which the Complainants and Commission point to as evidence with one hand and point to a file void of that same evidence with the other hand.

The Respondent opposes this request for the Complainants’ opinions to be recorded as proof and demand that the Complainants be put to the task of providing their evidence in the clear light of day so that it can be examined and challenged or rebutted if necessary.

3.  “The nation state of Israel is a constitutional, parliamentary democracy. In Israel today, Arab Muslim citizens comprise approximately 20% of the population of Israel. Arabic is one of the three official languages.  Israeli Arabs participate fully in Israeli society and are represented in all professions.”

As I clearly showed the Commission in my Response of January 3, 2008, the above assertions by the Complainants are false and misleading with respect to the actual conditions that prevail in Israel for any citizen not considered to be “Jewish” as defined by the state. In that document which appears to not have been comprehended by the “Hate Crimes Investigator” Ms. Sandy Kozak, I stated:

“In order to clearly illustrate the quintessential point which I am attempting to convey to the CHRC [and now here to the Tribunal. A.T.] it is necessary at this place in my response that I insert a somewhat lengthy extract from a source within Israel itself. In his classic work, Jewish History, Jewish Religion: The Weight of Three Thousand Years, published in 1994, the well-known and respected Jewish scholar, life-long human rights activist and citizen of the state of Israel, Israel Shahak, describes the Jewish state of Israel and shows how it defines itself and its citizens. Because of the paramount importance of this particular issue of Jewish citizenship, its dual nature and direct relationship to both the Judaic faith and to the fact that Mr. Harry Abrams claims himself to be a member of this faith, I feel it needs to be examined by your commission in much greater detail. The extract itself comes from Chapter 1, A Closed Utopia? Sub-titled, Defining the Jewish State. All bold type is mine:

“Without a discussion of the prevalent Jewish attitudes to non-Jews, even the concept of Israel as ‘a Jewish state’, as Israel formally defines itself, cannot be understood. The widespread misconception that Israel, even without considering its regime in the Occupied Territories, is a true democracy arises from the refusal to confront the significance of the term ‘a Jewish state’ for non-Jews. In my view, Israel as a Jewish state constitutes a danger not only to itself and its inhabitants, but to all Jews and to all other peoples and states in the Middle East and beyond….”

“…Let me begin with the official Israeli definition of the term ‘Jewish’ illustrating the crucial difference between Israel as ‘a Jewish state’ and the majority of other states. By this official definition, Israel ‘belongs’ to persons who are defined by the Israeli authorities as ‘Jewish’, irrespective of where they live, and to them alone. On the other hand, Israel doesn’t officially ‘belong’ to its non-Jewish citizens, whose status is considered even officially as inferior. This means in practice that if members of a Peruvian tribe are converted to Judaism, and thus regarded as Jewish, they are entitled at once to become Israeli citizens and benefit from the approximately 70 per cent of the West Bank land (and the 92 per cent of the area of Israel proper), officially designated only for the benefit of Jews. All non-Jews, (not only Palestinians) are prohibited from benefiting from those lands. (The prohibition applies even to Israeli Arabs who served in the Israeli army and reached a high rank.) The case involving Peruvian converts to Judaism actually occurred a few years ago. The newly-created Jews were settled in the West Bank, near Nablus, on land from which non-Jews are officially excluded. All Israeli governments are taking enormous political risks, including the risk of war, so that such settlements, composed exclusively of persons who are defined as ‘Jewish’ (and not ‘Israeli’ as most of the media mendaciously claims) would be subject to only ‘Jewish’ authority.

“I suspect that the Jews of the USA or of Britain [or Canada A.T.] would regard it as antisemitic if Christians would propose that the USA or the United Kingdom should become a ‘Christian state’, belonging only to citizens officially defined as ‘Christians’. The consequence of such doctrine is that Jews converting to Christianity would become full citizens because of their conversion. It should be recalled that the benefits of conversions are well known to Jews from their own history. When the Christians and the Islamic states used to discriminate against all persons not belonging to the religion of the state, including the Jews, the discrimination against Jews was at once removed by their conversion. But a non-Jew discriminated against by the State of Israel will cease to be so treated the moment he or she converts to Judaism. This simply shows that the same kind of exclusivity that is regarded by the majority of the diaspora Jews as antisemitic is regarded by the majority of all Jews as Jewish. To oppose both antisemitism and Jewish chauvinism is widely regarded among Jews as a ‘self-hatred’, a concept which I regard as nonsensical.

“The meaning of the term ‘Jewish’ and its cognates, including ‘Judaism’, thus becomes in the context of Israeli politics as important as the meaning of ‘Islamic’ when officially used by Iran or ‘communist’ when it was officially used by the USSR. However, the meaning of the term ‘Jewish’ as it is popularly used is not clear, either in Hebrew or when translated into other languages, and so the term had to defined officially.

“According to Israeli law a person is considered ‘Jewish’ if either their mother, grandmother, great-grandmother and great-great-grandmother were Jewesses by religion; or if the person was converted to Judaism in a way satisfactory to the Israeli authorities, and on condition that the person has not converted from Judaism to another religion, in which case Israel ceases to regard them as ‘Jewish’. Of the three conditions, the first represents the Talmudic definition of ‘who is a Jew’, a definition followed by Jewish Orthodoxy. The Talmud and post-Talmudic rabbinic law also recognize the conversion of a non-Jew to Judaism (as well as the purchase of a non-Jewish slave by a Jew followed by a different kind of conversion) as a method of becoming Jewish, provided that the conversion is performed by authorized rabbis in a proper manner. This ‘proper manner’ entails, for females, their inspection by three rabbis while naked in a ‘bath of purification’, a ritual which, although notorious to all readers of the Hebrew press, is not often mentioned by the English media in spite of its undoubted interest for certain readers. I hope that this book will be the beginning of a process which will rectify this discrepancy.

“But there is another urgent necessity for an official definition of who is, and who is not ‘Jewish’. The State of Israel officially discriminates in favour of Jews and against non-Jews in many domains of life, of which I regard three as being most important: residency rights, the right to work and the right to equality before the law. Discrimination in residency is based on the fact that about 92 per cent of Israel’s land is the property of the state and is administered by the Israel Land Authority according to regulations issued by the Jewish National Fund (JNF), an affiliate of the World Zionist Organization. In its regulations the JNF denies the right to reside, to open a business, and often also to work, to anyone who is not Jewish, only because he is not Jewish. At the same time, Jews are not prohibited from taking residence or opening businesses anywhere in Israel. If applied in another state against the Jews, such discriminatory practice would instantly and justifiably be labeled antisemitism and would no doubt spark massive public protests. When applied by Israel as a part of its ‘Jewish ideology’, they are usually studiously ignored or excused when rarely mentioned.”

Given this factual data pertaining to the 3rd point presented to the Tribunal by the Complainants I would expect that the issue in question here be disallowed from receiving any judicial notice and that the subject be fully discussed during the upcoming hearing.

With respect to the following points 4 and 5:

4.  “The Jewish religion does not sanction or condone sex with babies, under aged children or cadavers.”

5.  “The Jewish religion does not sanction or condone murder of non-Jews.”

There are numerous sources which establish as fact that the aforesaid allegations are most definitely contained within the Jewish book known as the Babylonian Talmud which is the primary source and final arbiter of all that is contained within the religion of the Jews known as Judaism. In this case I suspect that the Complainants are making direct reference to the writings of the late author Elizabeth Dilling found in her book, THE JEWISH RELIGION: Its Influence Today.
Another and more modern authority that clearly substantiates these and numerous other practices is the recent book by the American scholar Michael Hoffman entitled, Judaism Discovered – From Its Own Texts subtitled, A Study of the Anti-Biblical Religion of Racism, Self-Worship, Superstition and Deceit, published by Independent History and Research, 2008.
Again, it must be stridently stressed here that to subject these points to judicial notice is to prevent the truth of such statements from being aired and acknowledged as an essential aspect of the Babylonian Talmud’s teachings. If, as the Complainants are alleging, these statements are “judicially known” to be false then it’s incumbent upon the Tribunal to give open hearing to such allegations so as to establish the certitude of what they are here only alleging. Their purpose, as in all of these seven points, is to banish them from any arguments as if they were already proven to be notoriously false and that, I affirm, is not the reality of what exists as historic fact.

6.  “Zionism is the international political movement that originally supported the reestablishment of a homeland for the Jewish People in Palestine.” 1

Given the overwhelming volume of evidence that exists today which establishes as fact that this point, as it is here worded, is indisputable I see no need for it to require judicial notice. But, to suggest that political Zionism is, in itself, limited to that one objective is a horse of another colour and one which for multiple reasons cannot be subject to any judicial notice. The sum total of political Zionism is too broad and expansive to be fitted into any such micro-definition. To attempt to do so would be akin to trying to force a camel through the eye of a needle; a grandiose, yet futile impossibility. The naivete of the Complainants in even proffering such a position to the Tribunal appears suspect and ought to be dismissed outright.

7. “Neither Judaism nor Zionism have  agendas to diminish, subjugate or despoil other religions or systems of belief.”

This final point, while I earnestly wish it were in fact an absolute fact and subject to judicial notice, is, like all of the preceding points, not in synch with either historic record or the teachings of the Babylonian Talmud, the highest, undisputed authority for all religious Jews.

The volume of information related to the beliefs and actions of the Zionists respecting their hatred for Christianity and other non-Jewish religions is legion and dates back to historic events prior to the Christian era and is further exacerbated in the actual murder of Jesus Christ by the Pharisaic Judahites who were the religious sect that first formulated the oral laws which later were written down and now constitute what is recognized around the world as the Babylonian Talmud. And so once again it is incumbent upon the Tribunal that they not be fooled by these baseless statements and enticed into giving them the benefit of judicial notice merely on the opinion and word of the Complainants who are, of themselves and for obvious reasons, extremely zealous and biased in their opinions on these matters.

And so this concludes my comments on the matter of judicial notice. All that I have said within the limited scope of this letter is but a tiny fraction of the evidence that will clearly show, during the actual hearing, how all of these seven points presented to the Tribunal are highly prejudicial to actual historic events. To therefore grant the Complainants any of their desired wishes, beyond the one point mentioned above, would be to diminish beyond all known levels of didactic discourse, the fundamental questions here being disputed and garner the Tribunal and the Commission even more reason for the general public to perceive them as being out of touch with all the basic historic references necessary to sustain their mandates and their honour as legitimate quasi-judicial bodies.

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

—————————

1. Wikipedia

This entry was posted on Sunday, July 5th, 2009 at 3:16 pm and is filed under Editor's Zone, Canadian Politics, Palestine, Conspiracy, Political Zionism, 'state' of Israel, Arab Perspectives, Middle East, Freedom of Expression, Internet Freedom, Zionist Atrocities, United Nations, Arthur Topham/ Contributor, Orthodox Jews Against Zionism, ARA Terrorists, anti-Semitism, International Banking Syndicate, Canadian "Just-Us" System, Jewish Porn Industry, Jewish Lobby, Jews Behind Bolshevik Revolution, Alternative Media, Gaza, Canadian Identity/Sovereignty, Jews, New World Order, Judaism, Jewish Holocaust Industry, Human Rights/orgs, Communism, B'nai Brith, Anti-Defamation League (ADL), Ukrainian Holocaust, Jewish Media Monopoly, Freedom of Thought, Canadian Human Rights Commission, Canadian Jewish Congress, The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Babylonian Talmud, Elizabeth Dilling, Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.