Conspiring with the Commissars: RadicalPress.com teleconference #1 for Feb. 6, 2009
Conspiring with the Commissars: RadicalPress.com teleconference #1 for Feb. 6, 2009
By Arthur Topham
Publisher & Editor
RadicalPress.com
February 11, 2009
“Have a nice night. The dawn will be a long time coming.”
-Doug Collins, from his North Shore News column
of Jan. 12, 1997, “A Bigger and Better Big Brother”.
Teleconferencing is a new experience for me. Never having been a member of any bureaucratic organization of government (other than a professional school teacher for a number of years) the opportunity just never arose before – at least not until Harry Abrams and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada decided to add me to their hit list of alleged purveyors of hate literature which resulted in a complaint being filed with the Canadian Human Rights Commission – one that I first became aware of back on November 20th, 2007 after receiving a copy of the complaint in an unmarked, unregistered envelope in my rural mailbox.
Fourteen months later I find myself dialing the toll-free number 1-866-646-2080 at five minutes to eleven am PST. The call to Ottawa’s Star Chamber head office, officially known as the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, was conveniently set for 2 pm EST. Like most things political in Canada it seems that Ontario is the center of the universe and satellites such as B.C. must beam their signals eastward to be acknowledged and dealt with.
But then Harry Abrams, who resides in B.C. (in Victoria) also had to be up and about and ready to rock and roll by 11 am so from that angle we were both in the same leaky boat.
Those “In Attendance” for the discussions were the following:
Karen Jensen, Tribunal Member
Harry Abrams, Complainant
Anita Bromberg, Representative for League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith* [Canada]
Daniel Poulin, Canadian Human Rights Commission Counsel
Arthur Topham, Respondent
Nancy Lafontant, Registry Officer
Harry’s and BB’s lawyer apparently was also scheduled to attend but didn’t show up.
Karen Jensen chaired the discussions and informed listeners that this would be the first case management plan “of about three” on the matter in order to get ready for the upcoming hearing. To prepare for the blessed event it would be necessary to plow through a number of pre-arranged protocols which included:
1 Finding out if either parties would have legal representation.
2 What language would be used.
3 Identification of any preliminary matters.
4 Disclosure of documents, etc. including dates for the filing of parties’ Statements of Particulars, witness disclosure, documentary disclosure and expert reports.
5 The possibility of an Agreed Statement of Facts (that one brought a chuckle to my mind as it likely did to Harry’s).
6 The proposed venue for the hearing.
7 Other matters/special needs.
8 And finally scheduling the next conference call.
Much of it all was mundane. Kind of like sitting through a tutorial at the end of a long day of summer classes listening to the droning voice of the instructor outlining the various phases of the next essay due on a particular date. But, thanks to fate and Harry and others, some of it was mildly amusing and in an odd sort of way instructive. Hopefully others can learn from what I’m going to report here.
Ever since this “Human Rights” charade, masquerading as some form of “justice” for minorities – particularly those of Zionist Jewish persuasion here in Canada – caught me up in its web of intrigue and entrapment, I’ve thought a lot about this fellow Harry Abrams, wondered, intensely at times, just how the wheels and gears moved inside his head. Part of that process included considering the sound of his voice. You see Harry and I have had little contact other than when he slithered rather surreptitiously out of cyberspace and onto my computer screen back on February 12th of 2007 hiding his true identity then behind the alias now known as “Brian Esker”.
Now, almost to the day, I finally heard Harry’s voice in real time. I had expected it to be somewhat deep and coarse and sharp and abrupt, kinda like the terse little emails he’d sent me for a Valentine’s Day present in 2007 demanding that I remove articles from my website that he found “offensive” to his literary tastes.
As Harry put it then, “I am writing to notify you of unacceptably racist material posted on your website at radicalpress.com,” See http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=380
He was referring to an article that I had posted titled, “Trapping Wiesel’s and Other Rodents”. It was by another writer about the famous holocaust propagandist Elie Wiesel but the title was mine. You know, the fellow some people refer to as the “Pope of the Holocaust Religion”; one of the countless “Holocaust Survivors”, Nobel Peace Prize winner, and most recently, “Knight of the British Empire” who my recently acquired mentor Doug Collins aptly described in one of his columns, “History and Jack in the Beanstalk” back in December of 1988.
Collins wrote, “Survivors’ stories are never questioned, no matter how crude they may be. Elie Wiesel the professional Holocauster tells tales that make no more sense than the Jack in the Beanstalk story. But he is never challenged. Not by mainstream academics and journalists, anyway. Why beg for trouble?
“Wiesel has claimed that the ground spouted ‘geysers of blood’ for months after people were executed at Babi Yar in the Ukraine. Which of course is a physical impossibility….”
Having been, in an earlier part of this life, a trapper for a period of time, I thought the title of the piece was rather apropo all in all considered. Harry begged to differ. That was our initial meeting.
And so I was quite tickled to hear Harry speaking on the telephone. His voice sounded nothing like I had imagined and it didn’t, for some reason, seem to fit his mugshot either, the one that he has posted on his website for the business that he runs in Victoria, B.C.
Instead of Mr. Gruff and Grumbly he came across audibly in a rather light and friendly manner, almost, one could say, jovial even. More like a yuppie than an in-your-face yenteh. Possibly he was jovial seeing as how he’d managed to stretch his Sec. 13(1) of the CHRA deceit to the extent that he was now able to gather with his co-conspirators on the telephone, along with their intended victim even, to lay out the design for and location of the scaffolding and the texture of the twine that would be employed to hang yet another heretic who dared to question the ‘god’ of Israel and the Terror Tablets of political Zionism that were handed down to Theodor Herzl back in 1897.
Like I said I was pleasantly surprised.
Beginning at the top the question of legal representation was quickly resolved. I informed Tribunal rep Karen Jensen that I was looking into legal assistance but didn’t have a lawyer at this point. I was tempted to wipe away the glaze of formality covering the whole process with a joke about Jewish lawyers and how tough it is to find a good goy legal practitioner these days but decided instead to bite my tongue and continue playing along. We already knew from the outset that Harry and the BBs had their lawyer lined up.
The second question about language was also a bit humorous and revealing. I suppose it was in keeping with what Harry states on his website about being a man with a great sense of humour. Somehow I’ve never been able to quite synchronize these two aspects of his persona but in this instance one definitely could sense his purported wit.
When Jensen said she supposed it safe to assume that the language for the proceedings should be in English Harry replied, “I suppose it should be, even though I speak French…but I suppose it should be in English.”
Jensen, being Janey-on-the-spot, immediately replied by asking Harry if there was a possibility that he might be calling witnesses who would be speaking French. Harry responded with a bit of a snicker/chuckle in his bilingual French that he didn’t think so.
At that point again an irresistible urge came up to say that I thought the proceedings ought to be held in Russian rather than either English or French. After all it was the Bolshevik Leninist Zionist Jews who introduced this form of state terrorism known as the Show Trials along with their nefarious Tribunals to the world at large. But, as before, I was able to suppress my urges and we moved on.
After settling on English as the official language for the show Jensen then asked the Attendees if there were any preliminary issues that may have arisen which anyone wanted to discuss at that point.
Again Harry climbed up on stage and remarked, “Well I guess there is one thing that concerns me.”
Jensen replied, uh huh?
Then Harry proceeded to launch into an issue that must have been weighing heavily upon him for quite some time. He said, “That the Respondent, uh…all the communications that are going back and forth…uhmmm…the Respondent seems to put them up on his website and sent them around…and has another friend of his…are putting them around too. I don’t know what the position of the commission or tribunal is on how public the communications are concerning this matter.”
Jensen, in her perfunctory manner, quickly replied, “Well… the matter is of public record. So members of the public can obtain documents through public record… uh … but we don’t have an official policy on… on putting things on a website.”
Harry responded with, “Yah because its gotten to where there are conversations going on about this and of course people don’t know all of the facts and it is being… it is already been misunderstood in public.”
Jensen then tells him that “At this point I don’t see that there is anything that the Tribunal can do or would do about that.”
Harry then dropped it and Jensen was about to shift the conversation onto the next article of discussion when I interjected and said that I also had a preliminary matter which I wished to bring up at this time. Having the floor so to speak I then notified them that I was planning to file a constitutional challenge to Sec. 13(1) and Sec. 54 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Jensen then explained the preliminaries of what was involved in undertaking such a process and we moved on to the next item of business.
“The whole purpose for the preparations for the hearing is so that there will be no surprises” Jensen went on to state with added emphasis. Whatever documents, witnesses, evidence and so on that is intended to be used during the hearing must be put on the table and disclosed in the Statement of Particulars so that both parties will know ahead of time what to expect and how to meet those expectations.
At this point Harry asked if his original complaint to the commission which contained a number of articles that he cited then could be included in his Statement of Particulars. Jensen replied that yes he could as well as anything else that may have come up since that time period and during the course of preparing for the hearing but that if additional matters were to be included after issuing his Statement of Particulars then he would have to issue an amended Statement of Particulars as well.
Harry then revealed to all the waiting ears that since he first filed his complaint to the commission that he’s found at least another “55” articles that he feels are very serious and wants removed and he was wondering whether or not he could include them in his Statement of Particulars as well.
Jensen advised him that yes he could include them but that also the Respondent would also get the opportunity to respond to that part as well.
Following this little interlude into Wonderland Jensen then told Daniel Poulin, Council for the CHRC, that the Tribunal would like the commission’s file disclosed by February 20th. Mr. Poulin, not appearing too impressed with the short order nature of this request, stated that it was quite a short time period.
Jensen then remarked, “Yes, I know but we are having to proceed with these matters expeditiously. The lengthening confines that the commission is presenting to us is not satisfactory so I’m going to set the deadline at February 20th and I expect the commission to comply with that.”
Poulin responded by saying that he wishes to state that it is possible he might not be able to make such a deadline. “It is, I believe, much too short.”
Moving right along we came to the “Expert Witness” section of the discussions and Jensen explained the nature of these beasts to all. I asked if the these “Experts” need to be present at the hearing and she stated that normally they do so that the other party can cross examine them. Only in the case where both parties were in some sort of agreement could such a situation arise where they might have their testimony included without actually appearing.
As for reaching any agreement on our respective Statement of Facts Mr. Poulin, along with Jensen, automatically assumed that neither Harry or I would be in any agreement. Poulin said he thought it “highly doubtful” that we could come to any agreement on facts. Jensen never actually asked either of us this question directly and so from there we moved on to another contentious issue – that of the actual venue and where the hearing should take place.
The Complainant Abrams stated that he thought the hearing ought to take place in either Victoria or Vancouver. I in turn stated that I felt it ought to take place in Quesnel. This brought an immediate response from Jensen, who in her forthright manner said, “Okay, now I have to tell you this is the way that it works typically with the Tribunal. We go to where the complaint is laid and that is the default location but sometimes there are other considerations….” Here she mentioned witnesses and their numbers and special needs cases and so on. Then she asked me if any of these considerations applied to my decision to hold the hearings in Quesnel which is a small city about 30 km west of my home village of Cottonwood.
I asked her to confirm again where the complaint was laid and Harry stated that it had been laid from Victoria and so Jensen said that typically, therefore, the hearing would be in Victoria.
I replied that such a location was not acceptable to me.
Jensen asked why that was?
I said that because I live in the area where the complainant alleged that I committed the offense of publishing material contrived to “promote ongoing hatred affecting persons identifiable as Jews and/or as citizens of Israel.”
Jensen, repeating herself, again stated, “But typically the complaint…the hearing is held where the complaint was laid. It wasn’t laid in Quesnel.”
Anita Bromberg, the co-complainant representing the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, interjected with the comment, “And certainly his statements ranged way beyond Quesnel. We live in Toronto so that means we could argue that it should be in Toronto but Victoria is the logical place.”
My response to that was that when you are talking about the internet a person anywhere in Canada could theoretically lodge a complaint from anywhere. Jensen agreed with that but still insisted on Victoria so I told her that at this point in time I couldn’t give her an answer other than that I didn’t agree it should be held in either Victoria or Vancouver.
Her response was to say, “So but that would mean sir that everyone would have to come to… all the other witnesses… any other witnesses would have to come to you.”
My reply was succinct: “That’s correct.”
Jensen: “Yuh, I don’t see any… you haven’t presented me with any reasons as to why that should happen.”
I then stated, “Well because I’m the one that’s being accused of these so-called “hate crimes” so I would expect that those people who are accusing me ought to come here….”
Jensen (interrupting me) again said, “You know that in any other complaint situation if someone has laid a complaint then the Respondent comes to them. That’s how it goes.”
Reflecting on her comment now the following thoughts come to mind. In the good old days when men were men one could not imagine such a ludicrous scenario ever arising. Imagine, for example this scenario. Wyatt Earp, famed U.S. Marshall of Tombstone is sitting in his office when suddenly a local citizen comes bursting through the door with news that Ike Clanton’s in town hanging out at the saloon and making all sorts of wild accusations against Wyatt, accusing him of being a racist and an “anti-outlaw” and a hater of minorities and all sorts of mean, nasty, ugly things. What do you expect Wyatt’s going to do? Immediately jump up and go running down to the bar where Ike’s mouthing off and call him on his accusations? Or will he remain seated at his desk and attend to his work at hand knowing that if Clanton is really concerned about Earp’s alleged crimes against “human rights” that he’ll eventually come swaggering up to the sheriff’s office and state his demands in no uncertain terms? My guess is the latter.
And this is how I look at Harry’s wild accusations which he’s neatly inserted into the entrapment legislation known as Sec. 13(1) and then sent off to the commission for processing. His actions are identical to those of Clanton’s and deserve to be treated in the same fashion. If I was going to “complain” about Harry I certainly wouldn’t expect him to come trotting up to Cottonwood and likewise I’m not impressed with the Tribunal’s methods of dealing with this vexatious charge as if I am the one who ought to come to Rome to face false charges. Like all things with these Zionist-inspired thought control mechanisms, aka “Human Rights” commissions and tribunals, in today’s society they manage to put the cart before the horse and then demand you get in and go for a ride. Of course they never tell you where you’re bound until the whistling sound of the swiftly-falling blade momentarily alerts you. But by then it’s too late.
Anita Bromberg then spoke up to say, “I also want it on the record that no one’s accused him of a hate crime. Again, it’s a human rights complaint.” Oh, my goodness! How could I have misconstrued all this hullabaloo over my website and the slandering of my good name when it’s really just a little bitty “complaint” to the HRC. Harmless as a flea I suppose.
Jensen was on that one like a dog on a bone and joined in the chorus with, “That’s right, we are dealing with a human rights complaint. You haven’t been accused of anything sir. What you have is a complaint that’s been filed against you. And whenever a complaint has been filed against a Respondent that individual has to present themselves to the venue in which the complaint was laid, unless there are other factors that you can make me aware of that would change that.”
I replied, “Yes, I can’t afford to go down to Victoria.”
At that Jensen stated, “Well, yes, that certainly is a factor that the Tribunal does consider but its not necessarily the over-riding factor. Why don’t I say this. In your Statement of Particulars Mr. Topham, you set out the reasons why you think it should be held in Quesnel and I’ll have the Complainant set out as well why the matter should be heard in Victoria.”
Realizing that the discussion was going nowhere at this point I agreed with her so we could move on.
I then brought up my concern that I receive full disclosure of all the documents in the case including any and all communications between the Complainant and the CHRC and the CHRT and any aliases that were used by any of the parties involved in this “complaint”. Jensen assured me that all of that information would be included in Mr. Poulin’s disclosure.
Following the little tempest in the teapot over the location of the venue little else of importance occurred. The date for the next teleconference was eventually set for March 31st, 2009 and our little tele-tete-a-tete drew to a close.
Jensen, before ending the discussions, assured those in attendance that within a day or two we would receive a letter outlining the main points of discussion and what the Tribunal’s expectations were.
Two things stand out for me regarding this conference. The first being Anita Bromberg’s and Karen Jensen’s statement that I have not been accused of anything and the second, the urgency of holding the hearing as quickly as possible.
No reasonable, sane person is going to pretend that, after all of what’s come down over the past two years, that I haven’t been accused of the “crime” of spreading “hatred toward Jews and citizens of Israel.” To attempt to do so is but a typical Talmudic/Bolshevik/Zionist mind game of pretending that a reality is only a reality if it is agreed upon by an accuser and the mechanism designed to facilitate the accuser. It’s Kafka and Koestler all rolled up in one. If the accused should voice disagreement with the definition then they must be convinced otherwise and made to feel that really nothing has happened except for a “complaint” being filed with the CHRC. No big deal. Everything’s cool Jack. If you’re innocent of the charges then surely you’ll be able to withstand being held underwater for the required ten minutes in order to prove your innocence.
As for the urgency of concluding this case as quickly as possible the reasons for that are so transparent that they hardly require an answer. Basically these Bolshevik commissars can sense in the air that their time for charging people with “hate crimes” is reaching its apex. They know, if only intuitively, that the people of Canada are becoming quite pissed over this issue of censorship of the Internet and that before too long there’s a good possibility that they’ll be all out looking for a real job. And with their fellow co-conspirators in the world of high finance quickly destroying the financial infrastructure of this country as well as many others, the job prospects for the future are not looking too good. They remind me a crew of mind-controlled robots determined to court martial an innocent sailor aboard the Titanic and have him walk the plank even after the ominous thud of the hidden ice berg has reached their ears.
With the various initiatives now in motion such as Marc Lemire’s constitutional challenge to Sec. 13 and Sec. 54 of the CHR Act, the internal investigation into the workings of the CHRC and the various initiatives by members of both the Conservative and Liberals parties to have this insulting and dangerous legislation wiped off the books, one would think that any reasonable person would put on hold any further cases pending either a ruling in the Lemire case or else some formal decision by the federal level of government. But then I have to give myself a slap across the head to remind me that this twisted sister of a piece of flawed legislation has a mind of its own and will not relent until its forced to stop by decree.
Like the fanatics from the Simon Weisenthal Center with their relentless pursuit of “Nazi war criminals” this band of bungling bureaucrats are determined to burn as many Zionist-designated heretics at their proverbial stakes as they can before their legally sanctioned witch hunt comes to an end.
Stay tuned folks. Round two is coming up!
————–
[* I’ve noted this due to the fact that it is an error on the part of the Tribunal in assigning Anita Bromberg the designation as “Representative” when in fact B’nai Brith Canada is a co-complainant along with Harry Abrams. I’ve brought this matter to the attention of the Tribunal office but have yet to receive confirmation of it.]
February 12th, 2009 at 5:31 pm
[…] via The Radical Press » Blog Archive » Conspiring with the Commissars: RadicalPress.com teleconference #1 for Feb. 6, 2009. February 11th, 2009 | Category: Uncategorized | Leave a comment […]