Dear Supporters of Free Speech and a free Internet,
Tuesday, May 28th, 2013, saw the return to the Quesnel provincial court house of myself and my dear and lovely wife for yet another appearance on the charge of ‘willfully promoting hatred against ‘people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group’ as written in Canada’s criminal code sec. 319(2).
At this stage of the proceedings it has become virtually impossible to know what to expect beforehand when attending them. The last time I went on May 16th I was greeted with a completely new strategy by the Crown when they informed the court they had decided to go for a ‘direct indictment’ rather than have the case unfold in a normal manner by allowing me to present evidence at a ‘preliminary inquiry’ in order to determine whether or not the Crown actually had sufficient and viable evidence to warrant proceeding to a trial.
Crown told the court that they were awaiting a decision by the B.C. Attorney General’s office that would confirm this and that they expected it would happen prior to May 28th.
Well, as we all know about the best laid plans of mice and men, that decision by the AG’s office didn’t manifest and so the Crown told Judge Morgan that they would have to postpone that part of the proceedings until a later date at which time they fully expected that the Attorney General’s office would make up its mind one way or another.
Judge Morgan, the Honourable Judge who has been attending to my case from the beginning and who was absent on the previous court appearance, looked over the documents that were awaiting him when he entered the court room in order to get the drift of what had taken place on May 16th. He noted that I had filed an application for particularization of the Crown’s disclosure material and in perusing the document he read out excerpts to the court wherein it was stated that because of the volume of materials (over 1000 pages) presented that it was virtually impossible for me to address what specific posts on my website the Crown deemed to be ‘hatred’. After doing so he addressed the Crown prosecutor, Jennifer Johnston, and asked her what she had to say about it.
The Crown’s response was rather vociferous and protracted, the main thrust of the argument being that the Crown was not legally bound in any way, shape or form, to divulge to the defendant the specifics of what posts they intended to argue were the ones they felt might prove to a court of law that I was guilty of the said offence. In the words of Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnston, ’ There is no case law anywhere’ that says they are bound to do so.
Crown then further worded its argument to the effect that by doing so they would be giving away to the defendant their strategies and in saying that CC Johnston then proceeded to hand to the Judge a number of photocopied pages taken off my website that referred to an online book written by Elizabeth Dilling titled, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. The document that Judge Morgan was presented with first was the Forward to Dilling’s book giving an overview of her various works and her experience in dealing with the negative influences that had come to bear upon America during the course of World War II and afterwards by Zionism.
Judge Morgan quickly scanned the page and then, giving Crown counsel Johnston a rather quizzical look, asked her if this was the sort of thing that Crown was planning to present to the court as evidence?
CC Johnston then launched into a somewhat convoluted and forceful explanation bordering upon become a diatribe. She told the Judge that the article in question was an example of how the defendant’s website was presenting the writer as a credentialed and erudite researcher and writer when it fact (and this was not stated but inferred in her comments) she was really just another anti-Semitic hate monger using the excuse of communism to spread lies about the Jewish Talmud and that the Forward to her book might be compared to a sexual predator who, by sending out an email to someone online telling them about a wholesome family camping trip and inviting them to attend, by stealth and deception lures the innocent (and presumed) youth into meeting with them so they can then violate them sexually!!!
It’s at times such as these that keeping a calm, straight face in the court room becomes extremely challenging.
After her presentation Judge Morgan then stated that he could sympathize with the fact that there was such an abundance of disclosure and that I might well be overwhelmed by it. He said that he was unable to give me any legal advice but that he felt that I should consider bringing this matter up in my Rowbotham application as an illustration of why I felt it was vitally necessary to have counsel to represent me in the event of a trial.
With respect to the Rowbotham application the Judge asked me whether I had filed it and I told him that I had sent off the proper papers to the government but that I was awaiting further word as to whether or not Crown would get their ‘direct indictment’ decision which was to have happened today. Earlier the Crown had informed the Judge of the letter which I had been sent from the legal department for the AG’s office instructing me to either file a Rowbotham application for a counsel to represent me at a preliminary inquiry or to wait and file an application in the event of a trial. I told Judge Morgan that I had gone no further with the application pending today’s appearance because I didn’t know which way the Crown was going with the case. He appeared to have no problem understanding what I was saying.
Judge Morgan then decided that it was not the time make any decisions regarding any of the matters that came up and that he would, once again, have to postpone the case to a later date when Crown felt that they would know for certain whether a direct indictment was happening or not. Crown concurred with him and suggested that they might know better by the end of June or the early part of July, 2013. At that point the Judge instructed me to go to the office next to the court room after adjournment and I would be given the exact date when I was to return.
Following his instructions to me I asked the Judge if I might speak. He gave his permission and I then told him that I wished to register a strong objection to the manner in which Crown was continually making reference to Radical Press and comparing the website to either cases of child pornography or else, as in today’s arguments, cases of sexual abuse. I told the Judge that I felt this was highly unfair and prejudicial and that there was no comparison to what I publish and what the Crown was attempting always equate with those two references. The Judge then said that my objection was registered and following that the case was adjourned to Tuesday, July 9th, 2013 at 1:30 pm.
Radical Press Legal Update #13
Dear Supporters of Free Speech and a free Internet,