Comments on CHRC Report. Re: Complaint from Harry Abrams and B’nai Brith Canada against RadicalPress.com

File #     20071016
Mr. Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel,B.C. V2J 6T8
September 17th, 2008

CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION
Natalie Dagenais
Director, Investigations Division
344 Slater Street, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 1E1

Dear Ms. Dagenais:

I received your investigation Report regarding the CHRC complaint against me and my website Radicalpress.com filed by Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada on September 5th, 2008. Reading through it I immediately noted that you had imposed a rather stringent ultimatum regarding the time which I would have to reply with any further comments. Such a deadline, 17 September 2008, left me only 12 days to compose my comments regardless of whatever circumstances might have been in place at the time. I found this gesture of ill-will on your part to be exceedingly arbitrary, unfair and frankly, insulting.

It is disturbing enough that your investigation process has taken from January 3rd, 2008 until August 27th, 2008 in order to come up with this report and in the interim period has subjected me to months and months of needless mental and financial duress only to then inform me that I have approximately 12 days within which to respond to it. Such a decision on your part Ms. Dagenais can only signal a calculated strategy and does not bode well for the CHRC’s impartiality in terms of it being viewed by Canadians as a fair and just body. I might justifiably ask whether Mr. Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada also were given only 12 days to comment on my Response to the initial complaint sent to your office on January 3rd, 2008? It begs the question from the start as to whether we’re playing on a level field here. Had I been away on holidays for two weeks during the first part of September or out of town on business or otherwise unable to pick up my mail I would have been out of luck in terms of sending additional comments to the commission. Therefore, due to such unreasonable restrictions on both time and space for responding I feel compelled right at the commencement of this reply to express my sincere dissatisfaction with the manner in which you are treating me.

That said I will move directly into commenting on some of the highlights of your report, specifically those sections where I have noted errors in your facts and the inclusion of unwarranted assumptions.

I ought to also state at this point that while it is not my intention to be either rude or insolent it is most likely that you will find my comments, in most cases, highly uncomplimentary to both the complainants and to the Canadian Human Rights Commission and Tribunal. What I write is without prejudice or malice and is stated only in the interests of truth and justice.

Over the past two days, (September 15th & 16th, 2008) I have been observing the behaviour of CHRC members and their attorneys, as well as the lawyer for the Attorney-General of Canada, in the Lemire constitutional challenge to Section 13. What I have witnesssed thus far is a determined, adamant show of resistance on the part of CHRC lawyer Margot Blight and Simon Fothergill, the lawyer for the Attorney-General of Canada, to acknowledge any possibility that the CHRC might in any way be at fault in their zealous defence of this heinous section of the Canadian Human Rights Act. As well, while on the surface CHR Tribunal member Athanasios Hadjis is appearing to spar somewhat with both Fothergill and Blight it remains to be seen exactly where his sentiments lay.

Both this current constitutional challenge and the supposed “independent review” of the CHRC’s hate speech mandate by Richard Moon of the University of Windsor are possibly determining factors in the outcome of Mr. Lemire’s challenge to Section 13. They also have had an influence on my comments regarding your Report.

As I originally stated in my Response to this complaint, sent to Ms. Sandy Kozak on January 3rd, 2008, I steadfastly maintain that the complaint is a vexatious, spurious, and disingenuous charge and should have been dismissed outright after a thorough investigation by your division. Obviously that did not transpire. Now, judging from the scant amount of reference to my lengthy and detailed Response to the charges contained in your report it gives me pause to reflect as to exactly how much actual investigation and consideration were given to that document. From outer appearances the impression I got from reading the Report is that you already had in place (and I will touch upon this further on) a template response to whatever I had furnished in the way of explanations and you merely inserted the various bits of “evidence” that Mr. Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada supplied you with.

As well, it goes without saying that I have been following in depth all of the machinations which have been taking place throughout the blogosphere and in the media regarding the general public’s reaction to this unjust, draconian section of the CHR Act. I’ve spent countless hours reading and writing and debating the issues surrounding the origins and implementation and abuse of this tiny, yet dangerous, piece of anti-democratic legislation which has been repeatedly misused by both CHRC members and associated individuals for partisan purposes that should never have been allowed.

Since the commencement of this unjust process in November of 2007, when I first received this complaint, I have had to sacrifice untold amounts of energy and money in order to deal with something that no law-abiding Canadian citizen ought to be subjected to. The loss of self-employment from November 20th, 2007 to now has cost me thousands upon thousands of dollars in lost wages. My only means of supporting my family and maintaining a decent living is through the carpentry business that I operate but due to the draconian demands made upon me, necessitating a halt in my normal work schedule to deal with this issue, I have lost important contracts and numerous jobs that are essential to staying in business and remaining an independent and responsible member of society. You cannot obviously relate to this just as you cannot relate to the mental and emotional turmoil that subjecting someone to such a process puts a person through. Only experience of such a process would show you what it does to the victim and in the case of this complaint that is precisely what I am going through (and my family as well).

It boggles my mind at times when I reflect on how a body of people such as yourselves can go through the motions of pretending that you are actually serving some noble and just purpose in doing what you do to your fellow citizens. I ask myself, “How would I feel at the end of the day if I were tormenting a fellow human being and treating them like a lowly criminal and judging them as if they were somehow unfit to be treated with respect and dignity simply because another person with another agenda happened to lay some spurious, vexatious charge against someone?”

This Section 13 of the CHR Act is not a means of insuring that Canadians are treated equally and fairly Ms. Dagenais. In reality it is nothing short of being a curse; a form of black magic wrapped in the deceptive, linguistic robes of judicial legalese terminology like an iron fist covered by a velvet glove but basically concealed in the darkness of evil intent. You might laugh or think that I’m being over-dramatic in making such a radical pronouncement but were YOU the subject of such an attack I know that you would not be sitting there snickering to yourself and pretending that I must be out to lunch in making such apparently strange accusations.

Let me tell you a small story regarding this. It is has always been a common practice amongst the Talmudic Jews to employ curses in their efforts at keeping their fellow members in line and obeying the dictates of the Rabbis. Sufficient documentation exists within the Jewish Encyclopedia on the subject of “Cursing” to prove this fact. Bear in mind that the Jewish Encyclopedia is NOT a book published by anti-Semites or Jew haters but by the Talmudic Jews themselves. The article itself states, “Talmudic literature betrays a belief, amounting to downright superstition, in the mere power of the word…Not only is a curse uttered by a scholar unfailing even if undeserved…Scholars cursed sometimes not only with their mouths, but by an angry, fixed look. The unfailing consequence of such a look was either immediate death or poverty”. This notion of giving someone the “evil eye” is still used today and as the Jewish Encyclopedia shows it is a prescribed legal penalty under the Judaic Law. A modern day illustration of this practise is contained in the book The Witness, by Whittaker Chambers, the former Soviet spy who exposed the traitor Alger Hiss, who had infiltrated the U.S. State Department and was passing highly confidential documents to the then former Soviet Union during the 1930s and 1940s. In Chambers’ case, while he was in court he was faced with these very same curses by the Zionist Jewish lawyers defending Alger Hiss during this historic trial. Soon after Mr. Chambers’ experiences in court he relates how he was driven to the point of suicide by these very actions and but for a stroke of luck he failed in his attempt.

Another case is the historic example of the cursing of the famed Jewish philosopher Baruch Spinoza in the 17th Century by the Amsterdam rabbinate. Because he disagreed with the Talmud the following curse was put upon him: “By the sentence of the angels, by the decree of the saints, we anathematise, cut off, curse and execrate Baruch Spinoza, in the presence of these sacred books with the six hundred and thirteen precepts which are written therein, with the anathema wherein Joshua anathematized Jericho; with the cursing wherein Elisha cursed the children; and with all the cursings which are written in the Torah; cursed be he by day and cursed by night; cursed when he goeth out, and cursed when he cometh in; the Lord pardon him never; the wrath and fury of the Lord burn upon this man; and bring upon him all the curses of the firmament which are written in the Torah. There shall be no man to speak to him, no man to write him, no man show him any kindness, no man stay under the same roof with him, no man come nigh unto him”.

Spinoza was then banished from Amsterdam, persecuted and shunned until he died destitute at the age of forty-four in a Gentile city far from the Talmudic government that had laid this curse upon him.

Regardless of whether or not you believe these statements, they are, nonetheless, historic events and they find their place within the context of these comments because, the spirit and intent and language of the written words contained within Section 13 allow for this very process to manifest in ways that for most human beings unaffected by its evil pronouncements, the surreptitious, hidden effects of its power go unnoticed. It will also be noted that I believe, as I have stated in my Response, that certain personages who are of Zionist Jewish origins and who represent themselves to both Canada and Israel as duel citizens have played a decisive role in the insertion of this language into the CHR Act. For someone such as myself who has spend a considerable amount of time and energy over the years studiously documenting the methods by which the Zionists infiltrate and subvert unwary democratic governments this, of course, is no surprise but for those not versed in Zionist subterfuge and espionage tactics such assertions appear as bizarre as the one about cursing.

Having read this Ms. Dagenais you will now most likely refer to your little manual containing the “hallmarks of hatred” and compare notes with the list. Ah, yes, let’s see. Oh, yes, there it is. “ b) The messages use “true stories”, news reports, pictures and references from purportedly reputable sources to make negative generalizations about the targeted group”. Finding it you then promptly dismiss all that I have said from your mind.

But, if you do so, again you will have failed to grasp the true picture of what this legislation is all about. Ever since November 20th, 2007, when I first received the complaint from Harry Abrams and League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada I have literally been under its spell. There is not a day that has passed since that date when I haven’t carried the mental/emotional burden on my shoulders that such a charge produces. It’s the last thing on my mind as I lay in bed at night and the first thing on my mind when I awake either during my regular sleep or in the morning. It’s on my mind while I’m at work building a sundeck or repairing a roof or tiling a floor. It even haunts me in my dreams although not to the point of having nightmares over it. This has been ongoing now for 10 months or approximately 300 days. In many ways it is not only a curse but a form of mental torture as well and, as I have said, unless you are the victim of it, chances are your mind never ventures into such nether regions. Nonetheless, it is essential that you are made aware of it.

Moving on now to the actual Report I will begin with your comments contained in “Background to Complaint 2. The complaint was filed by Mr. Harry Abams. Mr. Abrams is the British Columbia representative for the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. The B’nai Brith Canada website states that it “is the independent voice of the Jewish community, representing its interests nationwide to government, NGO’s and the wider Canadian public.”

This is but a partial reading and not the full text of the complaint, nor does it include ALL the parties who have charged me with this supposed “offence”. As a “Director, Investigations Division” and a member of the “Hate-crimes team” I must assume that you personally have reviewed all the facts of the case and studied in depth the extensive information contained in my Response to your commission dated Thursday, January 3, 2008.

The original complaint, as stated in the official complaint form document received by myself on November 20, 2007, states:

“COMPLAINT FORM, File number:  20071016, Date:  Aug, 14, 2007, Page 1:

My name is Harry Abrams, I am a Canadian citizen of Jewish faith, and the British Columbia representative for The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, who wishes to co-join me as a fellow complainant in this action.

We wish to file a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission seeking relief for discriminatory publication under prohibited grounds caught by Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.

The premise of this complaint is a contention that Arthur Topham and Radicalpress.com contrive to promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.” [bold text is mine. A.T.]

It is not helpful to diminish either the relevance or the scope of those who have impugned both my character as a person or my work as a publisher and a man dedicated to issues of social justice.

As for the B’nai Brith website’s contention that it is “the independent voice of the Jewish community, representing its interests nationwide to government, NGO’s and the wider Canadian public” I must disagree with such a statement. Recent revelations of dwindling membership and alleged financial misconduct plus undemocratic internal dissension within this supposed “benevolent” “charity” organization would indicate otherwise. For an organization that has approximately 4,000 members across Canada to state that it speaks for the majority of over a million Jews in Canada is both presumptuous and misleading.

In this regard I would like to bring to your attention the following relevant information regarding B’nai Brith Canada contained in an article entitled “Partners for Imperium: B’nai Brith Canada and the Christian Right” by Stephen Scheinberg and appearing in the July/Aug. 2008 edition of Outlook: Canada’s Progressive Jewish Magazine ( http://www.vcn.bc.ca/outlook/ ) published in Vancouver, B.C.

Dr. Stephen Scheinberg is Professor Emeritus in History, Concordia University. He currently serves as co-Chair of Canadian Friends of Peace Now. He was a long-time national officer of B’nai Brith, including two terms as Chair of The League for Human Rights. He resigned his post as National VP and Chair of the Montreal Executive last year.

Being an insider to this organization Dr. Scheinberg is obviously aware of the inner workings of B’nai Brith Canada (BBC). In his article he explains that for various reasons BBC’s membership has been declining for a number of years now. He states: “Forty or fifty years ago BBC (B’nai Brith Canada) was a major membership organization. It had lodges and institutions that it sponsored from one end of Canada to the other… However, like most of the major volunteer organizations, the membership of the lodges began to sharply decline….
As its membership declined, B’nai Brith cast off Hillel, the camps and BBYO which then all looked to the Jewish federations for funding.  One exception to this trend has been B’nai Brith senior housing, which operates buildings in Toronto and Montreal.  In this case, generous government grants make it possible for BBC to leverage relatively small contributions into worthwhile projects.  Yet for the most part BBC, despite the adept use of publicity, is no longer an important organization in Canada.

Some small numbers of Canadian Jews still support B’nai Brith because they believe that it is an effective lobby for Israel.”

As Dr. Scheinberg goes on to say in reference to BBC and its Executive Vice-President Frank Dimant, “In the 1980s, when I first came to BBC, attracted by its work for human rights, it was a pluralistic organization. Around the League for Human Rights table I found mostly liberals—a few, such as myself, with more activist backgrounds—and a sprinkling of conservatives. Most of the conservatives were part of the other side of BBC political work, the Institute for International Affairs, and since most of that group’s work was Israel advocacy, it was where Dimant’s own Betar views predominated. I think many, like myself, in the League accepted this, believing that the Institute was Frank Dimant’s small corner of B’nai Brith, but unfortunately that corner has become what today’s B’nai Brith is all about.”

Speaking of the alliance of B’nai Brith with the Christian right in Canada Dr. Scheinberg writes, “This state of pluralism in B’nai Brith lasted until about five years ago. (It has now been totally eliminated with the expulsion of eight dissenting members—see sidebar.)

B’nai Brith Expulsions [From Sidebar Page 7]

“There has been a less political movement within the ranks of B’nai Brith, pitting some of its rank-and-file members against Frank Dimant and his board. The board has now expelled eight dissidents who prefer to style themselves “whistle-blowers.” Their ranks include at least three former national presidents of the organization, Harvey Crestohl of Montreal, Morley Wolf of Toronto and one of the most honoured volunteers in the history of BBC, Lou Ronson, who is now 93 years old. Lou is a thoughtful, and distinguished individual who joined BBC back in 1939, was a Vice-Chair of the Ontario Human Rights Commission and has undertaken countless community responsibilities.  Dimant’s paranoia seems unlimited. Can one imagine purge trials in any other Canadian volunteer association—shades of Joseph Stalin! Almost all of the objects of the purge have stronger and longer associations with B’nai Brith than Dimant and his chosen board.  Certainly Dimant & Co. might have taken another course— that of tolerating internal dissent as long as the discourse remained civil and not libelous—but toleration is not in their vocabulary.

At this point the dissidents are now heading towards a civil process. They are demanding audited financial statements and membership records and claim that as a public corporation, BBC must produce them. It is likely that this action might wind up in the courts, but that would be expensive for the individuals, while Dimant would be able to draw on the individual and corporate contributions which sustain not only BBC but also his own substantial salary, which goes unreported. Imagine if those who bought tables at B’nai Brith dinners (the major source of BBC funding) knew that their contributions would be used to subvert internal democracy.

The internal political issue is not ideological but rather a battle for control of the organization. The dilemma of Dimant and the B’nai Brith board is that they would like to be more like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in the U.S., governed by a “macherocracy” (big donors and their hangers-on) or for that matter like CJC-CIJA.  The problem in achieving that end is that B’nai Brith Canada does not have ADL’s credibility in research, human rights programming, and staffing to merit respect on such grounds.  BBC is a membership organization burdened with a constitution and legal responsibilities attached to that status.  Meanwhile, B’nai Brith continues to portray itself as a representative body of Canadian Jews, while it denies the right of those it supposedly “represents” to a role in the governance of the organization.  CJC, the one-time “parliament of Canadian Jewry,” was never really a membership organization, but BBC was and is. It cannot claim to represent a large section of Canadian Jews while trying to strip them of any voice. Who, then, will it represent— some wealthy Jewish Tories?

The board purports to operate under a constitution that was never properly approved, according to the dissidents.  B’nai Brith International’s court, a not very judicial body, issued a one-paragraph decision supporting Dimant and his board, although the dissidents had submitted a lengthy and documented appeal which surely deserved not only a full hearing but a more thorough rebuttal. It is probable that the court did not want to disturb or interfere in the operations of one of its constituent groups.

Democracy is in short supply in Jewish organizational life, and there are both important social and individual forces undermining it. CJC went through a process of having a group of representatives declare they would be irrelevant to future decision-making.  BBC with its latest purge trials carry us and our community to new depths, as a group supposedly dedicated to uniting brothers and sisters of the covenant has now purged some of its brothers and sisters without the least regard for natural justice.” [all bold text is mine. A.T]

Based upon this recent testimony regarding the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada I would suggest that what is stated in the B’nai Brith Canada website is outdated, misleading and ought not to be taken as fact nor to be given weight by any Tribunal or Investigator into this complaint.

The next area of misinformation relates to number 3.  “The respondent, Arthur Topham, advises that the Radical Press “…was formed in1998 when he began publishing a monthly alternative tabloid known as The Radical. The online version of this hard copy newspaper is known as Radicalpress.com. The purpose of the Radicalpress.com, like all news services, is to present to the general public news, information and opinions with which readers can better understand the world they are living in.” He explains that the forum is provided for public input, debate and feedback. A review of the website shows that, although some other information is present, the website focuses on the subject of “Zionism”.” [bold is mine. A.T]

With respect to your personal comments regarding the “forum” further explanation is due.

The original Radical Press forum went online October 31, 2001. At the time, due to technical complexities involving my inability to operate it from my home via a dial-up system (the site and the newspaper were a home-based business) the only feasible way was to use a Snitz forum format, one that I could interact with directly rather than having to hire a webmaster to do all my uploading and posting work for me. As such it was an online discussion and information site that reflected both the content of the original hard copy newspaper, The Radical, as well as additional postings of articles and letters to the editor which were meant to supplement the newspaper itself and allow for extensive discussion of all the variety of news items that appeared on the forum. In June of 2002 when the original hard copy newspaper failed financially I decided at that point to use the existing forum as both a vehicle for publishing news stories and a medium for creating debate on the issues presented therein.

The Radical Press forum was highly eclectic and contained a number of different threads (topics of discussion) each of which then spread out into their own related field of discussion. A partial list of threads (topics) included the following:

-National and International Politics
-B.C. Politics
-Anarchism
- Law & Justice Issues
-Religion and Spirituality
-Native Issues
-A Touch of Levity (Humour thread)
-Environmental Issues
-Letters to Editor
-Nuclear Issues
-Conspiracy Issues
-Alternative Perspectives (Philosophical, etc)
-Human Rights Issues

This original forum, unlike the present WordPress blog format which began in June of 2006, had literally hundreds of members and contributions to the various topics were in the thousands. You obviously reviewed the site and came to your conclusion that it was a one-sided perspective on “Zionism”, (which is isn’t) after it was deliberately sabotaged back in August of 2007 by either Harry Abrams and the B’nai Brith or else another of the extremist pro-Zionist organizations here in Canada i.e. the Canadian Jewish Congress or the Simon Weisethal Center. Obviously I have no definitive proof that it was Abrams because the nature of these attacks are always cloaked in mystery and subterfuge but based upon prior and subsequent actions of the complainant and the nature of the threats made to my ISP at the time it is a fairly safe conjecture to make.

On Friday, August 17, 2007 I received an email from Darren Hauch, Vice President/General Manager of Alentus Internet Services in Edmonton, AB. Alentus.com was my ISP at that time. In his email Mr. Hauch stated:

“We have been receiving complaints regarding content on the website hosted on our servers of www.radicalpress.com.  The complaints are alleging articles on your site are a public display of material that incites hatred.

One article in question is at this URL: http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=522 with a link that takes you to http://www.radicalpress.com/?page_id=521

We require an explanation of why this material is on your site and request you remove this and any related material of same nature within 24 hours.”

I replied back to Mr. Hauch on August 18th stating:

“ It didn’t come as a surprise considering recent efforts on the part of the B’nai B’rith, the Canadian Jewish Congress and their affiliated organization the Anti-Defamation League, working through their front organization, the ‘Canadian’ Human Rights Commission, to shut down all alternative Canadian websites which publish articles critical of Israeli policies and/or on Jewish actions of any type which these organizations do not want the general public to be aware of.

Articles such as the Protocols are readily available on dozens of websites around the world.  You tell me that you’ve been receiving complaints and that these said complaints are “alleging” that articles on www.radicalpress.com are inciting “hatred”.  What you failed to tell me is who is doing the complaining but, as I am obviously aware, it is one or more of the organizations or their affiliates which I have listed above. Possibly you haven’t ran into this phenomenon before but if you were running an alternative news site you would be most cognizant of this ongoing harassment by these Jewish organizations.

Allegations Darren are just that. They are unproven assertions that someone is doing something that someone else doesn’t want them to do. Publishing the Protocols is not inciting “hatred”. Where is the proof for these false accusations?

You say that you require an explanation of why this article is on my site and in the same breath you request that I remove it. It would appear that it’s a foregone conclusion that whatever the explanation might be it obviously is irrelevant to you as you’ve already judged me guilty of committing some sort of crime merely because some unknown interest has complained and made unfounded allegations.

Nonetheless, I will provide you with an explanation and one that is quite simple to understand. The article in question is there because readers are looking for alternative sources of information that cannot be found within the mainstream media which is controlled by the very same Jewish interests that are now making the allegations which you are referring to in your not-too-subtle ultimatum to me.

Do your realize Darren what you are saying when you demand that I “remove this and any related material of same nature within 24 hours”? It’s now 12 midnight and I’ve already put in a very long day running a carpentry business and I have to go to work again tomorrow morning and you want me to go through numerous unspecified articles that might possibly be “related” to the one you refer to and assess whether or not they might also be inciting “hatred” as well! My God man is this a reasonable request and a professional way to run a server?

If you are unable to see the silliness of what you are proposing I would ask that you at least have the common decency to give me a few days to make some arrangements in order to find another host for my site.

From what I can see you are over-reacting to these unfounded and unproven prejudicial accusations out of either fear or intimidation by the said parties involved.  Hardly what I would consider professional behaviour on the part of Alentus Darren.

In closing I would say that you are being unrealistic in your demands and that you do need to consider the situation that I am in as well especially considering that I have done nothing morally or legally wrong.”

That same day I received a reply from Mr. Hauch stating:

“Thank you for your detailed reply.  As I have been careful to leave my comments as alleged, we will forgo any further action at this time.

I understand your point as long as none of the articles are instructing, recommending, or trying to justify any person to harm another.  I am by no means an expert in this area, nor am I a lawyer in this regard.  I am merely responding to repeated allegations by people emailing us indicating some articles content is allegedly harmful towards a group of people.  We have to take these types of complaints seriously to ensure we get an adequate response from our customers.

You may leave the content on your site as is for the time being.  As long as we do not receive any communication from local or federal law enforcement, then we should consider this particular matter closed.”

Assuming the matter was closed I carried on but only until the 24th of August when I received another short notice, this time from Jonathan Ritter the President and CEO of Alentus. He wrote: “I am writing to let you know that Alentus is no longer able to provide hosting services to you. Your hosting services will be terminated as of 1700 hours MDT on August 31, 2007.”

This was final and left me, at the height of working for a customer barely a week to find a new ISP and transfer all of my files to a new site. Of course the url to the article in question that Darren Hauch of Alentus Corporation refers to in his initial email just happens to be the very same article (“The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion”) that Harry Abrams is attempting to use in this complaint in order to trump any and all discussion surrounding the issue of its contents or its importance in understanding the long term agenda of the Zionist Jews. As well, he used the very same ploy in his letter to the editor of the Quesnel Cariboo Observer published on January 27th, 2008 in response to a news story that newspaper published regarding this same complaint.

Based upon this information I would suggest that you take a serious second look at your premature conclusions regarding the long term content of RadicalPess.com. But, apart from your misplaced assumptions, it is necessary to point out to you that regardless of what the content of the site is, be it Zionism or Communism or Socialism or Buddhism or Winnie the Poohism, it is irrelevant in that it has no bearing on the issues at hand for the simple reason that there is absolutely no known law in effect here in Canada that would prohibit anyone from discussing the issue of political Zionism within any medium of communication. To assume, as you obviously are doing, that somehow this particular branch of political ideology is slated to be exempt from all criticism as if it were not attached in anyway to the trunk from which all the other political ideologies are grounded, is illogical and irrational.

“Intent of the legislation  5.   In looking at the intent of section 13, the Supreme Court in Canada v. Taylor….”

It is probable that in your present instructions regarding the parameters of my comments, that is, “Your submissions…must not include any information related to confidential settlement discussions in the course of mediation or conciliation” that you may have meant the testimony now presented in the Lemire constitutional challenge to Section 13.

With respect to the information contained in 5. of Intent of the legislation, any contrary comments in this regard which I might provide here have already been lucidly and substantially stated in the current Constitutional challenge of Section 13 http://www.stopsection13.com/FACTUM-Written_Submissions_on_Constitutional_Issues.pdf  (internet censorship)  and Section 54 (impose hefty fines) of the Canadian Human Rights Act as well as in the final submissions on the Constitutionality of Section13  http://www.freedomsite.org/legal/Closing_submissions_constitutional-part_2.htm  which Marc Lemire has filed filed before the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. As the the closing arguments regarding this matter are being presented September 15 -17, 2008 it would be a waste of time and the finite amount of space allotted for this reply to repeat what Mr. Lemire already has presented. I would therefore merely state that his arguments in this regard are analogous to mine.

In “The Investigation Process “ I can but state the obvious which, as you well know, is outside the scope of your circumscribed mandate. It goes without saying that your investigation process is flawed from the start due to the obvious discrepancies and illogical sequence of your methodology. The main factor and the one which would, under normal conditions of due process of law be of crucial importance to the establishment of validity as per the complainant’s malicious charges, is the question of TRUTH. It is NOT a question of whether the material was observed on the internet; it is NOT whether the communication took place in Canada or Timbuktu; it is NOT whether I, the respondent was responsible for the communication; nor, is it NOT relevant that the complainant feels the material is “likely” to expose “Jews or citizens of Israel” to “hatred” or “contempt”. The main and only point of any bone fide investigation ought to be to determine whether or not WHAT was said was either TRUE or FALSE. If it was false then the matter ought to be settled in a court of law under the provisions of the law regarding libel and slander. This process herein discussed is based upon false premises and therefore is immune to any serious, rational or logical argumentation.

In number 12.  we find the following:   “The complainant alleges that the respondent maintains a website that contains substantive expression likely to incite hatred and contempt against Jews. Mr. Abrams provides that one very specific item complained of is the re-publication of aspects of the notorious Czarist-era forgery: The Protocols fo the Learned Elders of Zion.”

It is note-worthy here that you repeat without hesitation the standard, knee-jerk reaction of the Zionists with respect to this document. What do you actually know about it? Have you read it through during the course of your investigation? Have you read the facts surrounding its publication back at the turn of the 20th Century and/or the history of how this document evolved over centuries? I suggest that it would be appropriate for an impartial investigator to state that , “Mr. Abrams provides that one very specific item complained of is the re-publication of aspects of The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion” which is a neutral statement. But to include the obviously biased and unproven phrase “notorious Czarist-era forgery” only lends further credence to the fact that you are either not  aware of what you are talking about or you are overlooking an obvious bias. I say this of course without malice and based upon the historical facts rather than upon the inordinate sum of Zionist propaganda that has issued forth regarding this document ever since it first broke to the surface of public awareness in the first decade of the 20th Century.

As I have already pointed out Harry Abrams used this same ruse when he intimidated and threatened my ISP at Alentus.com and then subsequently in his letter to the Quesnel Cariboo Observer. Obviously it is a tried and true ploy to use on the ignorant and unaware who haven’t researched the relevant information hidden from the public by the Zionist-controlled owners of publishing houses and other forms of media. Now, it appears you too have fallen for it and are repeating it as if it were an established fact. It  isn’t .

In number 18 of your Report we come to the following statement, likely the most crucial and poignant point of the whole report. “Intent of the legislation 5.  In looking at the intent of section 13, the Supreme Court in Canada v. Taylor….”

I’m not sure whether this is an unintentional Freudian slip or not. To employ this term “hallmark” which, as you may be aware, is a mark traditionally associated with the standards set by Goldsmiths who are historically and generally Jewish, is rather indicative of the overall atmosphere within the commission infrastructure and reflects the essence of those who have fomented these quasi-judicial terms of reference, specifically for the expediting of preconceived and contrived intent to frame language to suit partisan aims. In this case these “hallmarks” are blatantly constructed in order to both entrap and contort the context of discussions and the meanings of words so as to force them to fit a definition of “hatred and contempt” which otherwise would not be applicable or relevant and which, as Marc Lemire has clearly shown in his constitutional challenge to Section 13(1) are based upon erroneous reasoning and outmoded, pseudo-scientific hypotheses that bear little relationship to reality and only serve to buttress the arguments of those who would control the thoughts and speech of others for purely partisan, political purposes.

Next: “The eleven “hallmarks” cited in Warman v. Kouba (2006)”

These so-called eleven “hallmarks” reflect precisely what I stated above, that is, that they are of a pre-conceived nature, likely constructed by Richard Warman in collusion with others on either the Tribunal itself or else within the body of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, to act as a template for the entrapment and conviction of any publisher or writer who attempts to offer the general public information on the subject of political Zionism. To suggest that all of these “hallmarks” would apply to any other group in the world besides the Zionist-Jews would be an absurd proposal. It is these very same Zionist-run Jewish advocacy groups in Canada who have been the foremost advocates of this undemocratic section of the Canadian Human Rights Act as well as the one group who have laid the most complaints against Canadian citizens under this section. As such it appears extremely naïve to expect the majority of Canadians to fall for this obvious ruse.

From your Report: “19.   Based on the excerpts cited by the complainant, it appears that the articles bear several of the characteristics identified by the Tribunal in Kouba as being ‘hallmarks’ of material that is likely to expose persons to hatred or contempt. The material appears to portray Jews as a powerful menace that is taking control of major institutions and depriving others of their general well-being; Jews appear to be blamed for the  current problems in society and the world; the material appears to de-humanize Jews by referring to them as “biological parasites” who are a menace to the world and Judaism as a “cancer” that needs to be cut out. Some of the material denies the tragedy of the Holocaust whereby Jews are described as liars and criminals who have fabricated the Holocaust for their own benefit. The language cited in some of the passages could be viewed as highly derogatory and inflammatory, containing numerous epithets and appearing to reinforce existing stereotypes which could also be viewed as portraying the targeted group as dangerous or violent by nature. Further, the material makes such statements as “It is a declaration of war” and “Goyim unite, and realize our predicament” which appear to bear the “call to action” hallmark.”

There are a number of false statements contained in 19. of your report based upon both ignorance of the true nature of political Zionism and assumptions based upon Zionist propaganda that have permeated the mindset of Canada’s social and government institutions for decades (via the Zionist-controlled media) and which are congruent with the overall objectives of the Zionists who willfully perpetrate the illusion that they are victims of idle, unfounded criticism and innocent of all wrongdoing with respect to their absolute involvement in all levels of government, provincially, nationally and globally.

The first and foremost failure in your argument is for you to state that the various allegations made are directed at ALL JEWS rather than those who support and advocate political Zionism and its agenda. This is fundamentally incorrect with respect to the bulk of the criticisms contained in the articles cited by Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. The one exception would be some of the statements made by the internet writer John Kaminski who tends to be all-inclusive in some of his work. Stating this though must not be misconstrued to imply that I feel Kaminski is promoting either “hatred” or “contempt” toward Jews.

As for the repetitious statements about “highly derogatory and inflammatory” language, “epithets”, “stereotypes”, assumptions of intent to promote violence and so on, all of these “hallmarks” are designed to fit the template that I’ve explained already.

There is no law against questioning any event of history and in the case of the so-called “Jewish Holocaust” the Zionist media has used the tragic deaths of a certain number of Jews who died in the work camps of Nazi Germany for their own political purposes. I am not aware of any articles on Radicalpress.com that deny that a portion of Jews, along with a greater portion of Christians, atheists, gypsies and other religious faiths, died in the work camps of Nazi-controlled Europe during WW2.

What has never been verified and substantiated without question though are the contentions by the Zionist Jews that 6 million Jews died in the work camps and that many of those who perished died in “gas chambers”. It is these two highly contentious assertions which historians and revisionists question, and rightfully so. The evidence to date points to a lack of credibility in the Zionist’s argumentation and this is no where more blatantly obvious than in the fact that those who have debunked the two controversial theories are  now unjustly  imprisoned in Germany prisons for doing so and were placed there though the machinations of the very same Zionist-controlled organizations who have laid this false and malicious complaint against myself and Radicalpress.com. As well I must state that, unfortunately, the CHRC is also complicit in this illegal and unethical conspiracy.

The purpose of publishing articles antithetical to the Zionist propaganda which the vast bulk of Canadians have been subjected to all their lives is to teach and to instruct and to effectively debrief generations of Canadians who have succumbed wholeheartedly to the false and misleading half-truths and outright lies that the Zionist media has presented as truth for at least the past six  decades with respect to this issue of a “holocaust”.  The only actual verifiable holocausts that can stand up to such a description would be the fire-bombing of  Dresden in Germany by allied forces and the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki by the American forces in 1945. These events were true holocausts in the correct meaning of the word and the perpetrators of these actual holocausts are closely linked to the Zionist influences that then permeated both the British and the American administrations during WW2.

“20. The articles in question are cited on the respondent’s website. The respondent advises that this site is to “present to the general public news, information and opinions with which readers can better understand the world they are living in”. Further, he advises that the forum is provided for “public input, debate and feedback.” The respondent does invite persons to submit feedback at the end of each article and provides an email address to do so. A review of the website shows that, although some other information is present, the website focuses on the subject of “Zionism”.”

This, as I have stated above, is a false and misleading statement and needs to be corrected. It is only in the last couple of years, due to the over-riding interest on the internet about the negative influence on global politics of Zionism that the subject has become one of special interest to readers globally. Any serious study of the internet, the blogosphere and any existing alternative news magaziines would obviously show that this phenomenon is not isolated to only Radicalpress.com and a few other isolated sites and publications. Again your assumption here is that there is something “wrong” or “hateful” or “contemptible” about discussing the roots and the effects of this political ideology. It’s analogous to saying that an increase in articles on global warming and what that implies somehow suggests that I hate and find contemptible those responsible for these events.

“ 21.   In the case of Citron v. Zundel et al[5], the Tribunal considered what constituted ‘legitimate’ debate and concluded that “Legitimacy, in the context of s. 13(1) of the Act, has been determined by Parliament as that which is not likely to expose individuals to hatred or contempt.”  Therefore, the manner in which the material in this complaint is expressed does not appear to be merely part of a legitimate debate or ongoing historical debate.”

Is it to be reasonably expected that under the terms of reference which you are operating that you could logically come to any other conclusion than the one you have? To cite the Zundel case in your concluding surmisal regarding the supposed authenticity of supporting evidence in this obvious political maneuver to silence the alternative press is the height of malfeasance and hubris on your part. The Zundel case, Zionist influence or no Zionist influence, will go down in true, recorded history as one of the greatest travesties of justice ever to have taken place in Canadian jurisprudence; one that will remain forever a “hallmark” of proof of the depth of injustice that a nation can sink to.

To deprive a man of his rights and freedom, his family, and his home and place him in jail for peacefully questioning the authenticity of known and suspect historical events on the grounds that his thoughts are dangerous and “hate” driven, all in the interests of special interest groups such as the Zionist Jews and their front organizations B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Simon Weisenthal Center, is one of the most scandalous and deplorable acts of injustice ever to have been perpetrated on a Canadian citizen.

That said, you then claim that “the manner in which the material in this complaint is expressed does not appear to be merely part of a legitimate debate or ongoing historical debate.” Such pronouncements beg the question as to exactly what it is that you expect of historical debates and what right you, as a quasi-judicial body have, to set, or attempt to enforce, acceptable guidelines for the analysis of what is ailing our socio-economic and political system here in Canada. We’re not talking about some Political Science 101 class in some controlled academic setting. We’re not discussing these extremely real and pressing problems of deadly political intrigue from some idle, intellectual perspective merely to amuse ourselves and pass the time of day because we’re no longer interested in viewing Global TV, CNN, FOX or some other Zionist-Jew owned and controlled propaganda tool.

You will forgive my frankness but just who do you people think you are that you can assume to use Section 13(1) of the CHR Act to second-guess the nuances of the minds and motives and feelings of others and twist and turn and pervert the independent, legitimate perspectives of honest and serious debate among a country’s citizenry?

“Findings:  It appears that material which forms the basis of this complaint bears several of the hallmarks of hate as identified in the Kouba decision.  Further, the examples cited appear to meet the test as outlined in the cases of Nealy and Taylor and focus on a set of emotions and feelings which involve extreme ill-will and devastation toward Jews. Based on all of the information, the material appears to be of such a nature that it is likely to expose persons of the target group to hatred or contempt.”

There is an old saying that appearances can sometimes be deceptive and in the case of your template “findings”  or conclusions nothing could be closer to the truth. What “appears” in your investigative analysis to jive so nicely with that lovely little alliterative expression “hallmarks of hate” which I see used in other cases and citations as well, only illustrates further the perfidiousness of your purpose; one I humbly suggest designed to perpetuate a mendacious mandate to control the thoughts and lives of free men and women to suit the whims of a traitorous troop of special interest lobbyists who have no respect for the fundamental rights of humanity nor the rule of law in Canada.

The Jewish Problem has been an ongoing phenomenon in Western civilization for the past 2000 years and in the case of political Zionism, continuous criticism of its ideology has been ongoing since the inception of the first Zionist Congress in Basle, Switzerland in 1897 when the World Zionist Organization was formed. At the commencement of this international organization the most vehement protests against it came from Western Jewry itself who maintained that the bulk of those delegates present at the conference, mostly Ashkenazic (non-Semitic) Jews from eastern Europe, did not have the right to represent or speak for all the Jews of the world. I suppose in today’s world of “politically-correct” conformity these very same Jews would be labelled “self-haters” by the Zionist forces that have swept across the political and cultural landscape of Europe and North America since the inception of this ill-fated organization.

As I have overstated already in these comments you are intentionally avoiding making the distinction between those Jews (the majority) and non-Jews who are adamantly opposed to the destructive ideology and practises of political Zionism and that relatively small, yet financially and politically powerful group of Zionist Jews and pro-Zionist gentiles who are responsible for the innumerable injustices that have been foisted upon an unwary and brainwashed public since the early formation of the Zionist movement at the turn of the 20th Century. I maintain that this overt intentionality on your part is no accident nor can it be explained on the grounds of ignorance. It simply is part and parcel of this incorrigible and insufferable section 13 of the Act and was put there for precisely that reason. Because of this your  quasi-judicial body is forced to assume the type of power over a citizen’s legal right to freedom of speech that could only proceed out of an orchestrated design, set in place by minds intent on accomplishing aims that can only be construed as being detrimental to the well-being of Canada as an independent and sovereign nation.

The only “extreme ill-will” that I perceive in this whole process is that emanating forth from the complainants.

“What measures have been taken by the parties to rectify the circumstances giving rise to the complaint?
24.    Mr. Abrams contacted the respondent on 12 February 2007 regarding the material in question; but no resolution was attained.”

Once again we are witness to further misinformation in this statement. Let it be clearly understood Ms. Dagenais that at no time did Mr. Abrams contact me, the respondent, in connection with the material in question. Allow me to explain.

On St. Valentine’s Day, February 14th, 2007 I received an email from someone with the user name of Brian Esker and employeeing a yahoo.com address. The person in question proceeded to inform me that they felt I was posting “unacceptable racist material” on my website RadicalPress.com. My initial reaction was to automatically assume that it was yet another threatening, intimidating email from some Zionist organization or pro-Zionist individual. When you are in the business of publishing anti-Zionist literature such emails are par for the course and normally arrive in one’s inbox on a regular basis. Usually they are filled with venomous and filthy accusations and puerile epithets etc. but in this case the writer had gone to the trouble of outlining what he or she felt were legitimate concerns based upon Section 13 of the CHR Act. After quoting from an article on the site the writer then quoted Sec. 13(1) and concluded their email with the following ultimatum: “Could you kindly delete this at your nearest convenience, and advise me when this has been effected so that I can point out more articles of a similar nature also for removal. Failure to do so may result in legal action being taken against you.”

In a respectful and civil manner I responded to the writer and stated the following in my email reply:

Valentine’s Day
Feb. 14, 2007

Dear Brian Esker.

Thank you for your message regarding content on my website which you feel is “racist”.

I normally get lots of crank, spam-like emails from various “yahoo” users and so it would be most appropriate if you would reply to this message and introduce and identify yourself before proceeding further.

Your cooperation would be appreciated. I await a reply at your earliest convenience.

Regards,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
The Radical Press

Later that same day (Feb. 14, 2007) I received a reply email from Brian Esker. In it he/she basically stated that they had “no interest in engaging” in debate with me but that “he” was “obligated before initiating legal action, to point out to you for the purpose of removal, material on your website which, in my opinion offends Canadian law.” He then included a number of urls to recent “Section 13” case histories and ended his additional ultimatum.

Now normally, with the standard hate-type emails that I get from Zionists I usually just reply and tell them to get lost but in this case where the person writing was obviously not being obnoxious, yet very intrusive, I again replied in a civil manner the following day.

February, 15, 2007

Dear Brian Esker.

Thank you for your quick response. Rest assured that I also have no desire to engage in “debate” with an anonymous personage who is suddenly instructing me in how to think and behave.

In your initial email you suggested that there were other articles which you feel “offend” Canadian law. Perhaps it would be best if you just compiled a list of the ones that you are concerned with and sent it to me. I will then give considerating(sic) to whether or not your  request is valid and also whether or not I am interested in complying with your demands.

As for your identity I will merely assume that you are an agent, in one form or another, of either the Bnai Brith, the ADL or CJC or some other affiliated lobby group.

Regards,

Arthur Topham
Pub/Ed
Radical Press

Well, obviously, I wasn’t too far off the mark. In fact my intuition in this regard was bang on the money. But it wasn’t until much later though, in fact sometime after I had received my own complaint from the CHRC on November 20th, 2007, that I learned the true identity of the sender of the emails. I was already aware of the fact that another alternative website out of Victoria, B.C., one ran by an associate in the alternative publishing business Mr. Al Rycroft and known as http://www.PEJ.org , had received a CHRC complaint against them by Mr. Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada. Subsequent to receiving the identical complaint that PEJ.org had it didn’t take too long until I was able to ascertain the true identity of the author of the Brian Esker emails. Not surprisingly it turned out to be none other than the elusive Mr. Abrams stalking my website under some phony alias and commanding me to remove articles from my website.

Now it is not as you have presented the apparent facts Ms. Dagenais in your statement on section 24 of this Report. The FACTS and the TRUTH (for what they are worth) are that I was more than willing to discuss the various articles which “Brian Esker” had found to be offensive. It wouldn’t be the first time that I had removed material from my site upon request of someone who I felt had a legitimate beef with something that I had posted. In the forum that isn’t any longer I had done precisely that at different times when registered members had posted comments or articles that I deemed to be of a racist nature. It was part of my policy both in The Radical newspaper and on my website.

The point here that you are obviously overlooking in your cursory investigation of this complaint Ms. Dagenais is the disingenuous nature of the emails that “Brian Esker”, alias Harry Abrams, had sent to me. In retrospect it was apparent, from the moment that he declined to furnish me with the additional postings which I asked him to identify and that he claimed were offensive and would have helped to facilitate a possible mutually agreed upon solution to his concerns, that he, in fact, was being dishonest about his desire to have me remove certain materials which he was upset about. His true purpose, which is obvious from all that has ensued, was to NOT try and work out some type of amiable solution but to register his complaint with the CHRC while there were articles still on the site which he felt would substantiate and/or corroborate his spurious claims that I was posting material that was displaying “hatred toward Jews and citizens of Israel”. This, I submit, is the truth about why Mr. Abrams immediately declined to bring to my attention the rest of the articles that he professed to be concerned about. Without that information it was impossible for me to meet his expectations.

Again, were the truth to be known (and taken into consideration), at the time that Abrams contacted me under a phony name I was already considering removing certain materials from my site. In particular some of the articles of John Kaminski’s which I then felt were not in keeping with my own personal assessment of the issues. Kaminski’s writings were becoming more and more biased and reached the point where I strongly disagreed with his perspective that ALL Jews were responsible for the actions of the Zionists. Being married to a Jewess for thirty years this was a reasonable position to take on my part as I knew from first hand experience of living with a woman whose family was Jewish (as well as anti-Zionist) that claims made against the whole of Jewry for the crimes of a very small segment of the overall diaspora were obviously untrue and based upon prejudice rather than proof. Therefore, even if Abrams and the B’nai Brith hadn’t chosen me for a hit job, it was highly likely that those articles of Kaminski’s would eventually have been removed of my own volition for the reasons stated. Not of course because I felt that they were promoting “hatred toward Jews and citizens of Israel” but because I felt that his position was incorrect and that I held the editorial power to decide whether or not I wanted readers to conclude that such a position as Kaminski was promoting was favoured my myself as well.

Another small but relevant point in this regard was that Kaminski had already been prohibited from posting on the alternative website of Jeff Rense known as Rense.com for this same reason. I was then having my own articles published on the Rense.com site which is one of the biggest or the biggest alternative news site on the internet and I wanted to maintain a harmonious editorial policy with Rense so I naturally was considering making the same editorial decision that Rense had. These of course were ethical and/or philosophical decisions though rather than one’s based on the type of conjecture that Abrams and the B’nai Brith are using in their efforts to stifle freedom of speech here in Canada.

So Ms. Dagenais, the reason why no possible “resolution was attained” was not due to any lack of willingness on my part but because Harry Abrams and the B’nai Brith had other motives on their minds besides seeking a mutual solution back on St. Valentine’s Day, 2007.

“What are the positions of the parties with respect to an appropriate remedy to the complaint and if the parties do take a position, what are the comments of the investigator with respect to these positions?”

As I have just pointed out to you Ms. Dagenais, as the respondent in this complaint issue I was never given the opportunity to remedy the situation, only an arrogant ultimatum by an unknown assailant followed by a total unwillingness on the part of Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada to attempt to work out a mutual and agreeable solution to the alleged problem. Those facts are blatantly obvious from the email exchanges that took place between “Brian Esker”, alias Harry Abrams on February 14th and 15th of 2007.

“Recommendation 27.    It is recommended, pursuant to paragraph 44(3)(a) of the Canadian Human Rights Act, that the Commission request the Chairperson of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal institute an inquiry into the complaint because:
—–>     the material appears to meet the criteria for hatred and contempt as outlined in the case law and therefore appears to be likely to expose Jewish persons to hatred and contempt.”

Again, please note that this is not the full text of the complaint and that the addition of the words “citizens of Israel” is an integral part of the actual and true complaint registered against the respondent.”

Final Summation

I hold no illusions Ms. Dagenais as to the effect that these comments on Section 13(1) will have upon either you or any member of the Commission or the Tribunal. The behaviour of the CHRC over the past decade and longer is sufficient unto itself in providing ample evidence that you are no longer an arm of government that has as its purpose the holding up and protection of a citizen’s rights as specified in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Instead, in my opinion, you have succumbed, via subterfuge, to internal pressures by special interest groups such as the BBC, CJC and SWC who not only have partisan political objectives which go against the grain of the basic human rights of all Canadians but are anatheme to the essential freedoms requisite to a healthy, functioning democracy. The Lemire constitutional challenge to this Soviet-style piece of legislation may stem the tide of totalitarianism that has stealthily crept into our democratic house. If it does not then our nation will be forced into much greater challenges, ones that I would rather not contemplate. No state anywhere, in my opinion, has the legal right to silence a man’s thoughts. To do so is to destroy all hope that the democratic principles for which centuries of effort and bloodshed were expended was all in vain. It is therefore my intention to fight this unjust charge brought against me by every means possible.

This, Ms. Dagenais, concludes my comments on your Report.

Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
The RadicalPress.com
Email: radical@radicalpress.com