[Editor’s Note: The following article is part of the ongoing exchange of letters, motions, etc. between the parties involved in the Section 13(1) “hate crimes” complaint against RadicalPress.com. It takes the form of a letter to B’nai Brith Canada’s head counsel Marvin Kurz and is my response to his ongoing efforts, on the part of the Complainants in this case, Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, to disqualify lawyer Douglas Christie from gaining intervenor status with the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

Mr. Christie and the organization which he represents, the Canadian Free Speech League (CFSL), have been applying for intervenor status since February of 2009 in order to partake in the upcoming Tribunal hearing. Thus far the Tribunal has turned down one request and at this date we are awaiting their ruling on the CFSL’s second application.

The information contained in this article is important for all Canadians concerned about free speech. Please move it around as far as you can. Thanks. Arthur Topham, Editor, RadicalPress.com]

—————-

Defending the Canadian Free Speech League
By Arthur Topham
May 30, 2009

“Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered”

– Thomas Paine, The Crisis Papers, 1776

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

Dear Nancy Lafontant,

RE:

Harvey Smarba and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada v. Arthur Topham and the RadicalPress.com

File Number: T1360/9008

I am writing to express once again my position with regard to the ongoing attempt by the Complainants, via their counsel, Mr. Marvin Kurz, to prevent Mr. Douglas Christie and the Canadian Free Speech League (hereafter referred to as the CFSL) from gaining intervenor status on behalf of myself and RadicalPress.com.

Kurzpic

Marvin Kurz – B’nai Brith Counsel

________________________

As the Respondent in this “hate crime” complaint case, forced by circumstance to act in a pro se capacity, and a Canadian citizen born and raised in a country that I have always believed to be one whose system of jurisprudence was based upon the democratic principles of rule of law and justice for all, I find this whole sordid, collusive effort on the part of the Complainants and the Commission to prevent Mr. Douglas Christie from partaking in this process most disturbing.

The effort with which Mr. Kurz has doggedly pursued this issue of doing his utmost to prevent the appearance of Mr. Christie at the destined Tribunal hearing by continuous denigration of Mr. Christie’s lifelong work in the field of free speech is a sad reminder of just how far this nation has removed itself from its founding principles.

While Mr. Kurz undoubtedly will deny that his position on this matter is anything but simple legal procedure and precedent I cannot help but question his motives in doing so.

Mr. Kurz would have the Tribunal believe that Douglas Christie, because he is the spokesperson, legal counsel and one of the founding members of the CFSL, is therefore the sole representative of the organization in question and then, to add insult to injury, he enlists as further assumed corroborative evidence, Freudian psychobabble i.e. “alter ego” from another of his B’nai Brith secret covenant members, Sigmund Freud, the notorious cocaine addict of late 19th Century Europe.

FreudCocainecov

One has to question this method of Mr. Kurz’s. Obviously he must feel that interjecting more Jewish-created “psychological jargon” into the equation somehow lends additional credence to his argument but I would beg to differ with that assumption.

While Mr. Kurz, in his own ignorance, might assume that by quoting Freud his words would automatically project an image of authenticity and scientific certitude upon an otherwise groundless position, that is not the case. So-called “Freudian Psychology” is about as exact a science as teacup reading or past-life regression or communication with “Ascended Masters” or a whole host of other pseudo-scientific/psychic adventures sold to the public as official science. No different than the repetitive lie of the 6 million Holocaust myth that the world has been endlessly subjected to for the past 65 years by the Zionist media, the last century of similar brainwashing of Freudian “psychology,” for all its inuring duration, still doesn’t make it anything close to an exact science.

Therefore, to say that the Canadian Free Speech League is but the “alter ego” of Mr. Doug Christie, is meaningless and futile as a legal argument and should not be given any consideration by the Tribunal in its decision as to whether or not to grant intervenor status to the CFSL.

In his May 8, 2009 letter to the Tribunal Mr. Kurz once again regurgitates former arguments contained in his April 1, 2009 letter wherein he tries to convince members that Mr. Christie cannot possibly have anything of value to offer to the hearing which would add “a unique perspective to issues before the Tribunal.” In that April 1, 2009 letter Mr. Kurz conveyed the concerns of the Complainants that Mr. Christie didn’t “clearly spell out just what he intended to do if granted intervenor status.”

As a result of these concerns by the Complainants, and the Tribunal’s decision to honour their arguments and thereby refuse the CFSL’s initial request for intervention, Mr. Christie submitted a renewed application to the Tribunal on April 23, 2009 wherein, I feel, he satisfied the aforementioned concerns voiced by Mr. Kurz. In his letter Mr. Christie stated:

“Dear Ms. LaFontant:

I wish this letter to constitute my renewed application for intervenor status in the above case. I wish to have exactly the same status as was accorded the Canadian Free Speech League in the case of Warmouse v. Lemire, whose member Hadjis allowed the CFSL the following:

The right to cross-examine witnesses.

The right to make final submissions on the constitutional issues.

I did not in that case have the right to call evidence. I would not seek that right in the Abrams case.

The Canadian Free Speech League was founded by letters patent issued by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs on February 20, 1986. According to its founding document, its objects are, inter alia:

To inform the public in regard to matters of freedom of expression, thought, belief and opinion, and the dangers of state control of expression.

To educate the public on the dangers of tyranny and government control of the right to speak and think.

To work for the public awareness of the danger of laws which destroy or otherwise limit freedom of speech to those utterances which are socially unacceptable in the eyes of Judges.

To employ a spokesman for the purpose of carrying out the foregoing objects.

The Canadian Free Speech League has many supporters. It publishes the Friends of Freedom newsletter and distributes it worldwide. Since 1987, it has awarded the George Orwell Free Speech Award annually to a person persecuted for his opinion. As general counsel for the Canadian Free Speech League, I have represented James Keegstra, Ernst Zundel, John Ross Taylor and Malcolm Ross before the Supreme Court of Canada, David Ahenakew before the Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench and the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal, Lady Jane Birdwood before the Queen’s Bench and the Court of Appeal in London, England, and numerous other persons in cases involving free speech.

Therefore, Mr. Kurz’s remarks about the League “simply being” my “alter ego” are insulting, unbecoming and untrue. The purpose of my representation would be to assist in representing the free speech argument, which is a perspective different from those of the parties. It is a purpose which is in the public interest. Mr. Topham and Mr. Kurz are clearly adversaries with particular axes to grind. The Canadian Free Speech League, on the other hand, would point to areas of common interest in the widest range of discourse on public matters and the areas of law which support this contention.

Respectfully submitted,

Douglas H. Christie
General Counsel
Canadian Free Speech League”

Christiephotosm1

LAWYER DOUGLAS CHRISTIE – FREE SPEECH DEFENDER AND

SPOKESPERSON FOR THE CANADIAN FREE SPEECH LEAGUE
____________________________________________________________

In his letter to the Tribunal of May 8, 2009 Mr. Kurz, obviously still not satisfied with the information supplied to the Tribunal by Mr. Christie, proceeds to set forth further citations and rulings to show that the CFSL hasn’t passed the Sec. 50 test for qualification as an intervenor by going on and on in a vain effort to somehow prove that the CFSL is just Doug Christie and no one else, (the “alter ego” card) as if this fatuous argument on his clients’ behalf somehow is the crucial, determining factor and ought to be received by the Tribunal with open arms.

Such a wanton display of incredulous assertions and vacuous demands made on behalf of a recognized secret society (B’nai Brith International) whose primary, existential purpose is to support the foreign, racist, apartheid state of Israel and its nefarious, delusional political ideology known as Zionism, must be looked upon by the Tribunal as grave reason to doubt all that Mr. Kurz is attempting to accomplish for the Complainants and his foreign-dominated organization of which he is himself a member and its lead counsel.

What I see happening here, and it is as clear and as close to sedition as anything I’ve ever encountered in Canadian jurisprudence, is a foreign lobby group, one hiding behind a Zionist Jew, media-created mask of supposed respectability using its powerful, behind the scenes influence to gain not only the undeserved attention and servitude of Canada’s leading politicians but also, over time and via the salami technique of incremental insinuation, that of all other government organizations and quasi-judicial bodies, to subsequently exert undue, unwarranted influence and control over them for the vested, selfish interest of their own heinous agenda.

As a result organizations such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission (I’ll reserve judgment on the Tribunal at this time) and others of a provincial nature have been exploited and manipulated in order to create the very type of undemocratic legislation, i.e. Sec. 13(1) of the CHR Act under which I, and many others, have been unjustly herded into the barbed-wire enclosure, euphemistically labeled the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, to be publicly displayed, vilified and then auctioned off like cattle to the highest Jewish foreign-lobbyist bidder, which, in this case, just happens to be the League for “Human Rights” of B’nai Brith Canada. It could just as easily have been the Canadian Jewish Congress or, if needs be, even a case of entrapment by the Zionist front man Ricardo Warmouse but regardless of which foreign entity it was the modus operandi is identical, be it of Jewish or crypto-Jewish origins.

That said, let me return again to the statements contained in Mr. Christie’s letter of April 23, 2009 wherein he lays out in a clear, unambiguous manner the reasons for why the CFSL ought to be granted intervenor status in this complaint case. Let us look at the four objects of this organization which relate to the issue at hand:

“To inform the public in regard to matters of freedom of expression, thought, belief and opinion, and the dangers of state control of expression.”

If ever there was a need for organizations in Canada willing to stand up to, expose and challenge the growing, imminent danger to freedom of expression, thought, belief and opinion now emanating from state-sponsored bodies such as the Canadian Human Rights Commission as well as its provincial counterparts, it is now.

The very fact that for decades we have had embedded within our country organizations like B’nai Brith Canada and the Canadian Jewish Congress and other foreign Jewish lobbyist groups whose agendas are NOT in the best interests of the vast majority of Canadian citizens ought to, at this pivotal stage of discussions surrounding freedom of speech, be a wake-up call for all Canadians concerned about their fundamental rights, especially in light of all the recent cases surrounding the draconian, fanatical “hate crimes” legislation based upon Section 13(1) of the CHR Act. Such anti-freedom legislation, I contend, was seeded into our former legislation by these very organizations and fostered by them from the start to ensure that eventually they would result in legal precedents useful to their own alien, self-interests and not to the nation as a whole.

Given the fact, which Mr. Kurz and his Zionist compatriots would rather not admit to acknowledging, that most, of not all of these cases transpiring over the past quarter century or longer, have involved the dedicated, patriotic and honourable involvement of the current spokesperson for the Canadian Free Speech League, Mr. Doug Christie, it therefore appears to me to be rather disingenuous and a pointless exercise on the part of Mr. Kurz to suggest, as he does in such vociferous, rhetorical, and repetitive terms, that Mr. Christie and the CFSL would have little to offer in the way of new information regarding our coveted right to freedom of speech.

“To educate the public on the dangers of tyranny and government control of the right to speak and think.”

Knowing, as I do, the Commission’s disdain for all things “American” I will dispense with quoting from the U.S. Constitution or its Bill of Rights and instead offer the Tribunal the famed words of an Englishman whose efforts in the cause of universal freedom and democracy are recognized throughout Western civilization.

In a small pamphlet (The Crisis Papers), composed during the American Revolution of 1776, the great British thinker, inventor, author and political philosopher, Thomas Paine, wrote:

“These are times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will in this crisis, shrink from the service of his country; but he that stands it NOW, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; ‘tis dearness only that gives everything its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as FREEDOM should not be highly rated.”

ThomasPaine

Thomas Paine – English Man of Letters
______________________________

I would humbly suggest to the Tribunal that today, right here in Canada, we are facing a similar crisis of equal, if not greater, importance; that of losing our fundamental right to freedom of speech and self-expression and thus having to live on bent knees in abject, slavish fear of a tyrannical government that imposes the will, not of the majority, but of special interest groups like B’nai Brith Canada, upon all of its citizens.

To lose the right to free expression is akin to losing the right to think for oneself. And that fundamental, God-given right to personal, reflective cognition is something men and women have died for in order to retain since the beginning of independent thought and if it’s ever seriously threatened again, as I’m suggesting that it now is, they will undoubtedly die for it again, for without this freedom we might just as well be dead for spiritually, mentally and emotionally that is what such repression represents to a free and independent people.

Mr. Christie is not a “summer soldier” in this battle for free expression nor is he a “sunshine patriot” who only comes out to a skirmish with the forces of repression when the weather is fine. Every day, in every way possible, for years upon decades, Mr. Christie and the Canadian Free Speech League have battled with the enemies of freedom come hell or high water; be it in the courtrooms of the nation or in the published efforts both hard copy and on the internet of their newsletter Friends of Freedom or other pamphlets and publications.

That is why Marvin Kurz and Harvey Smarba and Anita Bromberg fear his presence at their little contrived “hate crimes” Show Trial. They know that he is a formidable foe of censorship and injustice; they’ve met him before on the legal battlefields across this glorious nation; they know that his sword never sleeps and his valour and his faith in God never wanes in the face of oppression and so they are trying every trick in their shoddy little bag of chicanery to convince the Tribunal that this “David” ought not to be allowed in the field when Goliath goes after Arthur Topham and RadicalPress.com.

Mr. Paine was right. What we obtain in the way of legal freedoms (such as freedom of speech and opinion) without pain or effort we tend to esteem too lightly and in doing so lay ourselves open to the treachery of subversive elements within our society who would, via stealth and the power of their purse, usurp those cherished freedoms from under us and impose their own egregious, self-serving will upon everyone else. This, I humbly suggest to you, is the current crisis that Canadians now face whether or not the Jewish-controlled media will admit to it or not and as it stands today by example they are doing their utmost to keep this growing crisis under their control by censoring and manipulating the news surrounding the vital issue of free speech in Canada.

For decades Canadians have been lulled into a false sense of freedom by the siren songs of the Zionist-controlled media thus succumbing to the notion that nothing would ever endanger the rights and privileges which our forefathers and mothers fought and died for. Therein lies the danger we now face.

DissentISpatriotic

Freedom of speech is the lifeblood of any democracy. Without it all else is for naught and for that reason alone it behooves the Tribunal to pause and consider exactly who its enemies are and who its friends are in this conflict over basic human rights. Who are the real haters in this drama? Those of us who love their country, their families, their communities, their land, their freedoms, their God and who are willing to risk all they cherish in order to expose the foreign agents that are undermining the foundations upon which our way of life depends? Or those who threaten our freedoms; who trivialize and downplay our rights in the interest of their own specious, suspect agendas; agendas that only serve small, special-interest groups, foreign nations and foreign concepts of what a truly humanitarian and free society ought to look and be like?

“To work for the public awareness of the danger of laws which destroy or otherwise limit freedom of speech to those utterances which are socially unacceptable in the eyes of Judges.”

I have stated this before on a number of occasions and it is a fact which Mr. Kurz, the Complainants, the Commission and the Tribunal are fully aware of whether they wish to openly acknowledge it or not:- our judicial system, especially at the higher levels, is too heavily bodied and influenced by Jews who wield an inordinate amount of influence upon Canadian jurisprudence due to their elevated status to positions of political and judicial power. This is not a moot issue even though I’m sure Mr. Kurz will likely rise up in feigned outrage and indignation to argue and accuse me of being “anti-Semitic” and “racist” and so on for having stated the obvious.

The fact that some Canadians are able to clearly perceive the nakedness of the Emperor may be disturbing to his sycophantic consorts but Mr. Kurz’s feelings in this regard are not a direct concern of mine. What concerns me as a sincere, honest, patriotic Canadian is the undeniable fact that at least 50% or more of our federal Supreme Court Judges are Jews and, as such they are, by definition, dual citizens of both the racist, apartheid state of Israel and the democratic nation of Canada and that their divided allegiance to Canada, due to their Zionist and/or religious connections with Israel, makes any of their decisions respecting Canadian jurisprudence as it pertains to “hate crimes” law, highly suspect given the nature of political Zionism and belief system of Babylonian Talmudism which forms the underlying basis of Judaism.

Decisions, with respect to anything remotely connected to Jews in Canada, are heavily influenced by the attitudes, ambitions and beliefs of these members of our highest court in the nation and when it comes to issues related to the foreign state of Israel and/or issues related to discrimination and “hate crimes” (which in reality are only criticisms of Israel and political Zionism) and “Holocaust” denial and “gas chamber” doubts and anything else associated with Jews and their personal idiosyncrasies, it cannot be overlooked that this preponderance of Jewish Supreme Court Judges plays a vital role in the attitude and motivation of their decisions; ones which affect the vast majority of Canadians, not just their own small, circumscribed community here in Canada.

It’s for important reasons as these that organizations such as the CFSL are vitally necessary to challenge these hidden aspects of our nation’s judicial underpinnings. Decisions such as Section 13(1) of the CHR Act are relatively of such a high degree of importance to our nation that they should never have been left to the whims of individual judges who, for whatever reasons, might be influenced one way or another into framing such anti-democratic legislation.

“To employ a spokesman for the purpose of carrying out the foregoing objects.”

Respecting the fact that Mr. Christie is the spokesperson for the Canadian Free Speech League should not, in my opinion, have a bearing on the Tribunal’s decision to grant intervenor status to the CFSL. All of Mr. Kurz’s vainglorious efforts to the contrary, every organization will have a spokesperson and considering the objects of the CFSL noted above plus the fact that Mr. Christie is one of the founding members of this laudable organization and a person extremely experienced in the issues at hand I cannot imagine anyone better suited to represent the CFSL in this complaint case.

Mr. Kurz’s attempts to discredit Mr. Christie notwithstanding plus his suggestions that the CFSL is not a legitimate organization and only representative of its spokesperson is but a feeble endeavour and in truth more a discredit to the Complainants and himself than anyone else.

Why would dedicated, patriotic Canadians concerned about issues of freedom (the building blocks of any democratic society) try to prevent someone like Mr. Christie from intervening in a case which involves allegations of wrongful use of freedom of speech? One would think that, for the Complainants and the Commission, any gains in the area of additional knowledge as it applies to the concept of freedom of speech would be welcome in nation that prides itself on its democratic ideals. By opposing such efforts it begs the question as to whether organizations such as B’nai Brith Canada actually believe in this worthy principle themselves or if, in fact, they believe that only they should be allowed to express their opinions on matters, political, religious, or otherwise, regardless of how repulsive or revolting their perspectives may happen to be to other Canadians.

One would like to think that minorities in Canada, such as the Jewish community is, would be at the forefront of the struggle for freedom of speech and open debate. Historically it’s a known fact that the Jews love to debate and argue. Their religion itself, Judaism, is based upon ancient oral traditions wherein their rabbis are known universally for their ability to argue and debate the most esoteric, abstruse ideas to the point of absolute absurdity. Anyone who has read the Babylonian Talmud can attest to the fact that the debating skills of the Jews are par excellent yet when it comes to debating issues such as the ideology of political Zionism or Israel’s domestic and foreign policies as they pertain to the Palestinian people of Gaza or the Middle East in general, suddenly their longstanding, touted abilities at sustained discourse abruptly cease and in place of debate we find them consistently resorting to Section 13(1) of the CHR Act and inevitable “complaints” of “hate crimes” against those whose views and opinions they cannot, for some strange reason, seem to find the requisite intellectual knowledge or information to either refute or even reach a stalemate over.
It’s for important reasons as these that organizations such as the CFSL are vitally necessary to challenge these hidden aspects of our nation’s judicial underpinnings. Decisions such as Section 13(1) of the CHR Act are relatively of such a high degree of importance to our nation that they should never have been left to the whims of individual judges who, for whatever reasons, might be influenced one way or another into framing such anti-democratic legislation.

“To employ a spokesman for the purpose of carrying out the foregoing objects.”

Respecting the fact that Mr. Christie is the spokesperson for the Canadian Free Speech League should not, in my opinion, have a bearing on the Tribunal’s decision to grant intervenor status to the CFSL. All of Mr. Kurz’s vainglorious efforts to the contrary, every organization will have a spokesperson and considering the objects of the CFSL noted above plus the fact that Mr. Christie is one of the founding members of this laudable organization and a person extremely experienced in the issues at hand I cannot imagine anyone better suited to represent the CFSL in this complaint case.

Mr. Kurz’s attempts to discredit Mr. Christie notwithstanding plus his suggestions that the CFSL is not a legitimate organization and only representative of its spokesperson is but a feeble endeavour and in truth more a discredit to the Complainants and himself than anyone else.

Why would dedicated, patriotic Canadians concerned about issues of freedom (the building blocks of any democratic society) try to prevent someone like Mr. Christie from intervening in a case which involves allegations of wrongful use of freedom of speech? One would think that, for the Complainants and the Commission, any gains in the area of additional knowledge as it applies to the concept of freedom of speech would be welcome in nation that prides itself on its democratic ideals. By opposing such efforts it begs the question as to whether organizations such as B’nai Brith Canada actually believe in this worthy principle themselves or if, in fact, they believe that only they should be allowed to express their opinions on matters, political, religious, or otherwise, regardless of how repulsive or revolting their perspectives may happen to be to other Canadians.

One would like to think that minorities in Canada, such as the Jewish community is, would be at the forefront of the struggle for freedom of speech and open debate. Historically it’s a known fact that the Jews love to debate and argue. Their religion itself, Judaism, is based upon ancient oral traditions wherein their rabbis are known universally for their ability to argue and debate the most esoteric, abstruse ideas to the point of absolute absurdity. Anyone who has read the Babylonian Talmud can attest to the fact that the debating skills of the Jews are par excellent yet when it comes to debating issues such as the ideology of political Zionism or Israel’s domestic and foreign policies as they pertain to the Palestinian people of Gaza or the Middle East in general, suddenly their longstanding, touted abilities at sustained discourse abruptly cease and in place of debate we find them consistently resorting to Section 13(1) of the CHR Act and inevitable “complaints” of “hate crimes” against those whose views and opinions they cannot, for some strange reason, seem to find the requisite intellectual knowledge or information to either refute or even reach a stalemate over.

It’s therefore inconceivable that given all of Mr. Christie’s hard-earned knowledge and experience over the years in defending political prisoners such as Ernst Zundel and others, experience that only comes by research and study and the questioning of assumed “authorities” in whatever field of expertise, that Mr. Kurz would try to suggest to the Tribunal that Mr. Christie should be prevented from intervening in an upcoming, precedent-setting case that bodes of ill intent and greater curtailment of our freedoms should it ever reach the stage wherein the Complainants allegations are accepted as legally warranted and therefore justified in the eyes of our courts and our quasi-judicial bodies meant, supposedly, to preserve and protect our inherent rights.

It’s therefore inconceivable that given all of Mr. Christie’s hard-earned knowledge and experience over the years in defending political prisoners such as Ernst Zundel and others, experience that only comes by research and study and the questioning of assumed “authorities” in whatever field of expertise, that Mr. Kurz would try to suggest to the Tribunal that Mr. Christie should be prevented from intervening in an upcoming, precedent-setting case that bodes of ill intent and greater curtailment of our freedoms should it ever reach the stage wherein the Complainants allegations are accepted as legally warranted and therefore justified in the eyes of our courts and our quasi-judicial bodies meant, supposedly, to preserve and protect our inherent rights.

There is much more that needs to be said concerning this matter but I will forgo further comment and summarize by stating that this particular issue of intervenor status for the CFSL is basically the third strike which potentially could be alleged against the Tribunal in terms of its credibility as an impartial, unbiased, and independent body.

Already in this process leading up to a hearing the Tribunal has been faced with two other issues which await a ruling. I’m referring here to my two previous motions to the Commission wherein the Commission is blatantly attempting to deny evidence in the complaint case and furthermore, and of even greater concern, trying to change the actual wording of the original charges made against my person and my business known as RadicalPress.com.

Given these three indicators by the Commission and the Complainants I once again must ask of the Tribunal that they look at these matters in as great a detail as possible and try to see this situation from as clear a perspective as they are able.

Justice, to be conceived of and accepted as having been meted out in a fair and impartial manner as possible, must, above all else, have not only the appearance of truth to fortify itself but also the substantial backing of unblemished fact to maintain its alleged legitimacy.

If there is any further formality or motion that you require, please let me know as soon as possible.

Sincerely,

Arthur Topham pro se
Publisher/Editor
The RadicalPress.com

Cc:
Daniel Poulin, CHRC counsel
Marvin Kurz, Counsel, B’nai Brith Canada
Harvey Smarba, Complainant
Anita Bromberg, Co-complainant
Douglas Christie, General Counsel, Canadian Free Speech League