Reply to Mark Weber by Robert Faurisson

I shall briefly sum up for you what, precisely, our recent exchange of correspondence has been. For greater clarity, I find myself obliged to emphasise certain words of this exchange, although I do not care for the practice. You will see that, contrary to what you venture to say, the letter that I sent you and made public on 17 December was neither ‘misleading’ nor ‘unfair’. You will also see, at the end of this reply, that you have made a monumental muddle of a text of mine of which you quote a very brief fragment; by so doing, you have been ‘misleading’ or ‘unfair’ or both. In conclusion, I will show that this controversy may in the end lead to a heartening prospect for the future of revisionism.
My question of 17 December was: ‘Tell me whether or not you SAY, as I myself have so clearly STATED for so many years, that the alleged Nazi GAS CHAMBERS and the alleged Nazi GAS VANS never EXISTED’. The question was clear: it focused 1) on what you SAY or STATE, 2) on the very EXISTENCE, 3) of the alleged Nazi GAS CHAMBERS, 4) and of the alleged Nazi GAS VANS.
Instead of answering this question directly, you wrote back: ‘I don’t believe the claims about the alleged Nazi gas chambers’. That act of faith was not what I was looking for. Effectively, whereas I was waiting to see what you, as a historian, would SAY or STATE, you answered by what you DIDN’T BELIEVE. Then, you asserted that you did not BELIEVE in CLAIMS, a particularly vague word; the remark may mean that you refuse to believe certain statements concerning the said gas chambers, but not necessarily all such statements; the choice of the word ‘CLAIMS’ may mean that you call into question certain aspects of the story of the Nazi gas chambers (their number, location, performance) but not necessarily the affirmation of their existence itself. Finally, with such a sentence you do not, as all may see, breathe a word of the ‘gas vans’.
Noting that with so vague a sentence you had not gone into the subject, I did not feel the need to deal with it in my letter itself, but, in the accompanying message, addressed to Jean Plantin, Yvonne Schleiter and Arthur Butz at the same time as to you, I plainly told you: ‘I did not ask for your ‘beliefs’ (?) about ‘claims’ (?) and, moreover, you do not mention the Nazi gas vans’.
Nor did I deal with your prologue regarding at once Dachau, Mauthausen, Hartheim and your ‘limited’ knowledge of technical and chemical matters. As is my habit, I went straight to the heart of the matter and so it was that, leaving to one side everything of the order of more or less trifling preliminary remarks, I extracted from your response the lone sentence that constituted an answer, FINALLY, to the question put. And that answer was as follows: ‘I do not like to say that the ‘Nazi gas chambers never existed’, in part because I do not regard myself as any kind of specialist of ‘gas chambers’ and in part because I avoid making such categorical statements.’
I think it useless here to run once more through the remarks that such a pitiful answer inspires me to make. It is typical of what I call ‘spineless Revisionism’. At the 2002 conference, I protested against this form of revisionism and suggested that, in future, revisionists come out fighting. I find comical the insistence of some revisionist ‘researchers’ on still looking into ‘the problem of the gas chambers’. We are not about to carry on this way till the end of time killing what has already, on the commonsense level, been ‘overkilled’. But with our ‘researchers’ the corpse of the ‘Nazi gas chambers or vans’ is buried, then exhumed to be put in a coffin into which one more nail is driven. The role of an Institute like the IHR ought to be to come out with a formal assertion, one requiring neither technical nor chemical expertise but rather of the simplest kind: For more than half a century, Germany’s accusers have in the end revealed their inability to let us see a single specimen of the alleged weapons of mass destruction that the Nazis are said to have designed, built or used for ‘The Destruction of the European Jews’ (Raul Hilberg).
Whatever you do, don’t moan that ‘Given that you have not pressed me for my view on Nazi gas chambers during the past ten years or so, I don’t understand why you have been pressing me on this in recent weeks’. In reality, you know perfectly well that there has been this point of discord between us for quite a long time. I have reminded you of the instance at which you and I confronted one another on it ten years ago in Washington. There was also, though you seem not to remember, another instance, over the telephone, on the subject of a statement of yours during a talk-show on a Black radio station. And I am not the only one to deplore Mark Weber’s shilly-shallying with regard to the gas chambers. I can recall Fritz Berg rightly complaining of your dodging the question. Carlos Porter also seems to find you are dancing around. I myself have had to approach you more than once in order to get you to respond. And now, finally, that your response is known, it is understandable why you have tried to dodge an irksome question. But, is it normal, Mark Weber, to conceal from the IHR’s readers, members, dues-paying supporters that their editor perhaps refuses, to a certain degree, to BELIEVE a lie and a historic slander but DOES NOT LIKE to have to say so? How many people imagine that for the Editor of the Journal of Historical Review a proper reply to that slander is: ‘I do not like to say that ‘the Nazis gas chambers never existed’’?
During the above-mentioned talk-show, you stated: ‘I do not deny the Holocaust happened but ’ I immediately told you how deadly wrong it was to make such a CONCESSION to The Big Lie and Defamation. You retort now that in 1991 I myself declared: ‘Revisionists do not deny the genocide and the gas chambers’. There you make a fine muddle. I said then, on the contrary, that by the acceptance of the word ‘deny’ an untoward CONCESSION was made to the liars. I give you below the full text of my remark, that was published under the altogether unambiguous title ‘AFFIRMATION, NOT DENIAL’:
A reminder: Revisionists do not deny the genocide and the gas chambers. This is a MISCONCEPTION. Galileo didn’t deny that the earth was stationary; he AFFIRMED, at the conclusion of his research, that the earth was not stationary, but that it rotated on its axis and revolved around the sun. In the same way, the revisionists, after concluding their own research, AFFIRM that there was no genocide and no gas chambers, and that the ’ final solution of the Jewish question ’ consisted of the removal of the Jews from Europe by emigration if possible, and by deportation if necessary. The revisionists strive to establish what happened ; they are positive while the exterminationists doggedly continue to tell us about things which didn’t happen : their work is negative. The Revisionists stand for the reconciliation of the antagonists in the recognition of what really happened. (Robert Faurisson, The Journal of Historical Review, January-February 1999, p. 21).
In other words, I make with that remark the opposite of a CONCESSION. In a general way, not only do I expose the enthusiasts of the Big Lie for what they are, but I also refuse to borrow their least turn of phrase. The revisionists must show themselves to be candid, unbending and without CONCESSION. The time for CONCESSIONS is over.
I come now to the possibility, mentioned at the outset, of an interesting prospect for the future of revisionism. On 2 June 2003, I published the following short article.
Hitler’s and Saddam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction
Is it not wonderful to get the same lie from the same people and for the same purpose?
In January 1944, President Franklin D. Roosevelt decided to create, at the request of the Jew Henry Morgenthau and his fellows, the so-called War Refugee Board (WRB). In November 1944, that official body published, under the heading ‘Executive Office of the President / War Refugee Board / Washington, DC’, a report entitled German Extermination Camps Auschwitz and Birkenau, falsely accusing Adolf Hitler of having weapons of mass destruction or WMD (called execution gas chambers).
In 2002, President George W. Bush decided to create, at the request of the Jew Paul Wolfowitz and his fellows, the so-called Office of Special Plans (OSP). That official body authored reports falsely accusing Saddam Hussein of having WMD.
The lie was the same: an accusation based on false evidence. The people were the same: powerful American Jews. The purpose was the same: war.
But there were also differences. First, the lie against Hitler was about impossible and inconceivable WMD (for physical and chemical reasons) while the lie against Saddam Hussein was about quite possible and conceivable WMD since his accusers themselves had the same kind of weapons. Secondly, the lie against Adolf Hitler was more than half a century old and stronger than ever while the lie against Saddam Hussein was a few months old and already not too strong. Thirdly, if someone disputed the accusation against Adolf Hitler, he might go to prison like Ernst Zundel while, if someone disputed the accusation against Saddam Hussein, he might, at least currently, be taking limited risks.
Observe how the lie was built against Saddam Hussein and you will see exactly how the lie against Adolf Hitler was forged by the same kind of people and for the same purpose: perpetual war.
When you, Mark Weber, recently held a conference with David Irving on current world events, I suppose that the two of you had a good laugh with the tale of Saddam Hussein’s WMD’s. If so, did you also have a laugh with Adolf Hitler’s WMD’s? And, if you did not, may one ask why?
It is time for the end of this COMEDY that consists in demanding that the Allies show us those weapons that Saddam is said to have possessed whilst, on the subject of the far more fantastic weapons that Hitler is said to have possessed and used on a large scale, Mark Weber is as reserved as a shy young maiden. With Saddam’s WMD’s, our patience did not last even a year, whereas with Hitler’s we shall soon have shown sixty years of patience.
In the late 1970s I myself opened the way to material revisionist studies, looking into the technical, physical, chemical, topographical and architectural aspects of the matter of Hitler’s alleged WMD’s. On this level, the revisionists have attained results of such abundance and precision that, little by little, the LIARS have found themselves at a loss for any answer. Their museums of the ‘Holocaust’ have been unable to take up my final 1992 challenge: ‘Show me or draw me a Nazi gas chamber’. And what is true of the ‘Nazi gas chambers’ is equally true of the ‘Nazi gas vans’ or ‘Jewish soap’ or lampshades made of human skin or still other nonsense.
I therefore suggest that the revisionists today close the book on this physical, chemical and other material research, for it is in fact taking a progressively pedantic turn. It is becoming ‘art for art’s sake’. These redundant studies have, above all, the disastrous effect of making a problem appear complicated when it is actually altogether easy to solve.
It is pitiful when the head of an institute of revisionist studies is reduced to confessing: ‘I do not like to say that the Nazi gas chambers never existed’. It is regrettable that he should have concealed that attitude up to now and that only my insistence on getting an answer on the subject made him come out with it. It is a pity that, seeking to vindicate his position, he wrongly accused me of having been ‘misleading and unfair’. It is lamentable that in the dispute with me he should bring up a text of mine whose meaning he distorts to the point of turning it entirely around.
But it is heartening to see that I am now far from alone in denouncing a revisionism that has had its day and in advocating a new revisionism, more clear-cut, straightforward, vigorous and able, for a start, to put it to the upholders of the Big Lie that ‘The best proof that your Nazi gas chambers and your Nazi gas vans did not exist any more than your Jewish soap, your lampshades of human skin and so much other nonsense of a vile war propaganda is that, more than fifty years after that war, your ‘scientific experts’ are, more than ever, unable to show them to us’.
This new revisionism, which demands character, calls for young and spirited men.
Epilogue
‘Hitler’s gas chambers are like Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction: THEY’VE NEVER BEEN SEEN!’ Voiced by a woman, this radio-style watchword has for the past few weeks been making the rounds of a French revisionist news group. I recommend that it be taken up with insistence in all revisionist publications and correspondence for as long as the Allies have not found Saddam’s secret weapons. As for the Liars who, to display Nazi gas chambers, put on view for us a section of wall or a door with a small window or a showerhead or a spyhole or a pair of shoes with the inscription ‘We are the last witnesses’ (as seen at the Washington Holocaust Memorial Museum), they make one think of General Colin Powell who, at the UN, showed photos of buildings or trucks supposed to represent Saddam’s weapons of mass destruction. And no one will have forgotten the ‘phial of poison’ brandished there by the same general, himself raised, as his biographers tell us, in Yiddishtown (New York). The phial contained only a sort of sneezing powder. It was pure, unadulterated ‘Nuremberg trial’!
22 December 2003

{ Add a Comment }

Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25 December 4th, 2015

A&STophamCBCPic

The trial of Roy Arthur Topham by the government of Canada, aka ‘Regina’, finally got underway Monday, October 26, 2015 in Quesnel, B.C., twelve hundred and fifty-eight days (1258) after his arrest on May 16, 2012. The Indictment stated that Arthur Topham did ‘willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.’
There was a marked difference between the previous 24 court sessions where Arthur and his wife Shastah had attended court. In none of the earlier appearances was there any presence of RCMP officers yet now that the trial was actually beginning, there suddenly appeared an over abundance of police who commenced performing what turned out to be a very obvious, onerous, time-consuming and intimidating ‘security’ check system, not only for those attending the trial but also for anyone from the general public who had to enter the provincial government building on other business related matters. It was definitely an ‘over-kill’ approach obviously initiated by the Crown and the motives for doing so were suspected to be little more than an unabashed attempt at creating the illusion that this trial was of such supreme importance a high level of security was deemed necessary. Every person entering the building had to remove all their belongings from their person and then proceed through a body scanner. Following that they had to be additionally gone over with a special ‘wand’ by a police officer to detect any metal objects that might still be on them.
When Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler eventually arrived the bulk of the day was taken up with jury selection. A 12 member jury composed of eight women and four men were chosen from the local community. After that the trial commenced, running over the scheduled 10-day period to fourteen consecutive days and culminating on November 12th when the jury finally reached its verdict.
Twice charged
Of primary importance in understanding the nature and outcome of the trial is the fact that Roy Arthur Topham was charged TWICE with the same Sec. 319(2) criminal offence. The first time was the day of his arrest on May 16, 2012 and the second time was January 14, 2014. The wording of the second Indictment was identical to that of the first. The reason for the second charge, like that of the first, was so that Crown might try again to have Topham’s bail conditions altered in order to prevent him from publishing. These additional attempts (there were three in all) to increase the severity of the bail conditions were buttressed upon the questionable pretext by Crown that the police investigation was ‘ongoing’ and therefore the second Indictment (Count 2) was merely a result of additional evidence gleaned from posts Arthur Topham had added to his website after his initial bail conditions ended on October 9, 2012 (when Crown failed to hand down their initial Indictment within the prescribed time frame allotted them).
From the time of his arrest on May 16th, 2012 until October 9, 2012 Topham was not permitted to post anything to his site.
It’s fundamental to bear this in mind when attempting to understand why the jury concluded that Arthur Topham was guilty on Count 1 and not guilty on Count 2.
Weekly reports
Throughout the course of the trial weekly updates on what transpired in the courtroom were published on RadicalPress.com along with editorial commentary and photos. The ‘Report on first week of Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham’ came out November 1, 2015 and can be found here. The second, ‘Report on week two of Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham’ can be found here. Rather than repeat what was said in those articles it’s suggested that readers go to them further information.
GILAD&BARCLAY
Expert Witness for the defence
The defence was most fortunate in being able to solicit and obtain the expert testimony of Gilad Atzmon, a former Israeli citizen, accomplished philosopher, scholar, writer and Jazz musician who graciously consented to appear on behalf of Arthur Topham free of charge. Gilad Atzmon’s testimony to the jury was covered on RadicalPress.com in a November 9, 2015 article titled, ‘The Expert Witness Part 1 by Gilad Atzmon‘. Mr. Atzmon’s intellectual/literary forte revolves around his best selling book The Wandering Who? which is a serious academic work in the relatively new field of Jewish Identity politics.
Cross-examination of former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson and Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner
[Editor’s Note: It must be stated here that until the actual transcripts of the proceedings are obtained the commentary below regarding cross-examination of these two Crown witnesses, in particular Crown’s Exert Witness Len Rudner, should be considered more anecdotal rather than precise and factual. Again, please refer to the two weekly reports mentioned above for greater detail on this portion of the trial.
Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson’s cross-examination of Crown’s two witnesses revealed to the court that both of these individuals had personal axes to grind when it came to their testimony against Topham or their actions (as in the case of Terry Wilson) while carrying out the investigation into Topham’s website.
Unfortunately, in the case of Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner, it wasn’t until after his testimony and cross-examination that the defence became aware of a very serious, glaring breach of legal protocol with respect to Rudner’s sworn statements to the court. The immediate result of this new-found evidence was a call by Defence for a mistrial based upon an accusation of perjury on the part of Rudner but that move on Johnson’s part was dismissed by Justice Butler as coming too late in the proceedings.
The Crown’s forte
Throughout the whole of the 14-day trial what stood out most for the defence (as well as many observers in the gallery) was the overwhelming volume of documentary evidence (all taken from the RadicalPress.com website) which the Crown downloaded on to the jury. Coupled with that fact was the additionally onerous presence of two bulky Binders which were of such poor quality they were virtually unreadable, thus making the task of comprehending the details of the evidence not only formidable but in all likelihood an impossibility for the jury to comprehend. In fact it wasn’t until the morning of Friday, November 6th, ten days into the trial, that new exhibits of Binders 3 & 4 were finally made available to jury members.
Charge to the jury
On the afternoon of Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler read out his Charge to the jury. On top of the other thousands of pages of online books and articles the jury was now given an additional 62-page document instructing them on how to go about deliberating on all of the evidence presented over the previous 12 days of the trial. After reading out the document to the jury Justice Butler then instructed them to retire and seek a decision on the two counts.
The Decision
The decision was rendered on the morning of Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:27 a.m.
Count 1: Guilty
Count 2: Not Guilty
Immediately following the jury’s decision Justice Butler thanked the jury members for having done their civic duties then dismissed them. Next he told Crown and Defence that court would reconvene at 1:30 p.m. at which time any additional matters related to the trial would be dealt with.
New Bail Conditions Sought by Crown
When court reconvened at 1:40 p.m. Crown immediately brought up the issue of changing Topham’s bail conditions again. Defence objected as did Justice Butler and a new date was set for a bail hearing; one which was to take place on November 19th but was subsequently changed to November 20th, 2015.
The bail hearing began at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, November 20, 2015 with both Justice Butler and Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson appearing via telephone. Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston and Arthur Topham were present in the Quesnel Supreme Court.

GILAD&BARCLAY
Justice Butler listened to Crown’s arguments for wanting severe restrictions on Topham’s ability to continue publishing on his website and then heard Defence’s arguments against such proposals.
It ended up being a very short session; one that culminated in Justice Butler’s decision to refuse Crown’s request pending the outcome of both Crown’s Sentencing position which was slated tentatively for January 25, 2016 plus the Constitutional challenge to Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada which was also set to be heard before Justice Butler during the same week of January 25 29, 2016. Justice Butler did grant one small concession to Crown when they asked that a photo on RadicalPress.com, depicting from a distance the crowd of potential jurors lined up outside the courthouse on Monday, October 26, 2015, be removed from Topham’s website. Topham willingly consented to remove it and that concluded the bail hearing.
The Future and the Silver Lining: The Constitutional Challenge to Sec . 319(2)
Once the initial shock of the guilty verdict in Count 1 had subsided and time allowed for a reconsideration of all of the events surrounding the trial it became apparent that the verdict of ‘Guilty’ in Count 1 was, in reality, the key to opening the door for the Defence’s ultimate objective which was to challenge the Constitutional legitimacy of the actual section of the Canadian Criminal Code (Sec. 319(2) now containing the infamous ‘Hate Propaganda’ legislation which threatens freedom of expression for all Canadians.
Back in the spring of 2015 on March 23rd Arthur Topham’s legal counsel Barclay Johnson had served a constitutional notice on the Crown. The purpose was to present before a Supreme Court Justice a Charter argument challenging the legitimacy of the now existing Sec. 319(2) ‘Hate Propaganda’ legislation. Eventually the date of June 22nd, 2015 was set to hear the Charter argument in the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver.
Topham’s Argument
The Issues that Arthur Topham wanted raised and which were included in his Memorandum of Argument were as follows:
• Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code constitutes an infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
• The Crown bears the onus of justifying the infringement of Charter rights on a case-by-case basis.
• The present case is distinguishable from Keegstra on its facts.
• The infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter is not reasonably justified by Section 1 in the circumstances of this case, and specifically:
The ‘pressing and substantial objective’ of legislation must be defined narrowly for the purpose of a Section 1 analysis.
• The use of Section 319(2) in this case is not rationally connected to the pressing and substantial objective of preventing harms associated with hate propaganda.
• Criminal prosecution by indictment is not a minimal impairment of the Applicant’s Charter rights.
• The infringement of the Applicant’s Charter rights is disproportionate to any possible salutary effect that Section 319(2) could have in the circumstances of this case.
• The appropriate remedy is to read into the law a constitutional exemption, to the effect that Section 319(2) is not a reasonable limit on Section 2(b) in circumstances where the allegedly hateful material is legal to possess and lawfully available from other sources.
Arguments, Counter Arguments and Reasons for Judgment
For the full text of the Memorandum of Argument please go here and read it in pdf format.
The full text of the Respondent Crown’s Submissions concerning Charter S. 1 Justification and R v. Keegstra can be viewed here.
A copy of the Applicant’s Reply to Crown’s arguments can be found here.
Justice Butler’s Reasons for Judgment.
Conclusion
The future of Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code will depend in part on the outcome of the planned Constitutional challenge now scheduled to take place during the week of January 25 29, 2016. In the interim period leading up to that challenge Topham will remain free to continue to publish and to carry on with his solicitations for funding in order to persevere with his efforts to have this unconstitutional section of Canada’s Criminal Code repealed.
Should the challenge to Sec. 319(2) fail then the next step will be an appeal of the guilty verdict in Count 1.

In order to support Arthur Topham’s ongoing efforts to protect Canada’s Constitutional Rights and Freedoms as contained in the Charter donations can be made online via his GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/canadian-publisher-faces-jail-for-political-writings/ . If one is unable or unwilling to use that mode of helping out they may also asset by sending either cash, a cheque or a Money Order to the following postal address. Please make sure that all cheques or Money Orders are made out to Arthur Topham and sent to:
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8
Thank You!

{ Add a Comment }

The New Russian Revolution Has Deposed the Jews

Shortly after Vladimir Putin was elected president of Russia in 2000, the murdered family of Czar Nicholas was beatified. Until quite recently, the centers of Jewish power had hoped to preserve some idealized memories of the murderous Soviet system in the minds of the Russians, but it turned out to be a vain hope.
Because Bolshevism was formulated and executed by Jews, their power centers had retained fond hopes of being able some day to reconnect and reinstall some sort of Jewish lobby leverage in the Kremlin. These fond hopes were dashed by Vladimir Putin.
By the end of 2008, the Russians were expected to have decided on what archetype they preferred: Stalin s ‘Patriotic War’ or Czarism. Until quite recently, Stalin had remained slightly ahead of Czar Nicholas II . ‘Then, however, the Czar mysteriously pulled ahead.’ (Die Welt, 17 July 2008, page 1) After that, the choice no longer had to be made.
The Jewish Lobby was of course hoping that a Czarist cult would never rise again, since the Czar had been the great adversary of the Bolshevik Jews. Now however, the Russians again see in Czar Nicholas II a kind of savior who, like Jesus, had dared to oppose the Pharisees.
Following on the heels of the organized collapse of the Soviet Union, the global Jewish Lobby was able to install Boris Yeltsin (alias Jelzman) in the Kremlin. Once they had seized control of Russia s natural resources, they believed they could rule forever, or at least as long as they were operating under the protection of the US military forces. Not only did they control the military bloodhound USA, which they could let loose against any country that became troublesome; they also controlled Russia, whose energy wealth they could use to exploit and enslave the entire planet. Yeltsin-Jelzman allowed the Russian military forces to disintegrate rapidly.
In the early 1990s the Arab press investigated the Jelzman case and exposed Yeltsin as a puppet of the Lobby, providing additional background details. On 28 November 1992 the newspaper ‘Al Arab’, published in London, made the following announcement on the front page: ‘The name change was decided upon at the 20th Party Congress … Yeltsin is a Jew. Risselov, a member of the Volksunion, revealed that the family name of President Yeltsin was Jelzman, a German Jewish name. The 20th Party Congress then decided to change the family name of Boris Jelzman to Yeltsin … The reason given for this change was that the Russian people would be afraid of the name Jelzman since his grandfather Jelzman had murdered thousands of Russians under Beria.’
Everything had seemed to be going well for the Lobby. Then, out of a clear blue sky, Putin’s coup occurred.
He deposed the terrible Jelzman-Yeltsin. Today Yeltsin s Jewish background is openly discussed even in the Establishment press, where as he is described as having ‘converted to Christianity’. For example, on page 1 of its issue of 17 July 2008, Die Welt refers to ‘Boris Yeltsin, the Communist who later converted to Christianity.’
When they brutally murdered the Czar s family in Yekaterinburg on the night of 17 July 1918 in the house of the engineer Ipatjev, the Bolsheviks unwittingly established ‘…a cult that, 90 years later, is still as strong as ever.’ (Die Welt, 17 July 2008, p. 1) This was true even though Jelzman did everything in his power to erase the memory of the Czar from Russian consciousness. ‘Boris Yelzin even had the Ipatjev house demolished without being able to stop the growing fondness for the Czar in Russia.’ (Die Welt, 17 July 2008, page 1).
However, the Russian schools now teach that it was Jews who murdered the Czar’s family, which is probably the reason why even Wikipedia has begun reporting that the murderers were Jews, a fact that could not be mentioned in former times. ‘On 4 July 1918, the Cheka took over guarding the Romanovs in Yekaterinburg. They were accompanied by Jakov Jurovski… Jurovski was a Jew.’ (from Wikipedia). Two additional Jewish assassins who joined the Jurovski murderers were Alexander Belobarodov and Filip Goloschtschokin.
Today the Russians weep when they think of the horrible crime. ‘Only the Jews would have been capable of such a terrible bloody crime’ stated a participant in the memorial mass in front of the Church of the Blood that was held in Yekaterinburg in 2008.
According to eyewitness reports of the massacre, the Czarina complained to Commandant Jurovski about the empty room in which they were held and she requested two chairs. Jurovski then had two chairs brought in, on which the Czarina and her ill son Alexi sat down. Jurovski ordered the other family members to stand in two rows behind mother and son, then brought in the execution detail. Jurovski informed the Czar that the government had ordered their execution and therefore, he was now going to shoot them. The Czar said nothing except the words ‘Forgive them Father, for they know what they do’ as Jesus said on the Cross. Then Commandant Jurovski shot him. All the other soldiers also shot Nicholas as well, and he died immediately. Then the firing squad began shooting wildly to kill all the other members of the family. When the shooting was over, Alex and three of his sisters were still alive and lying wounded on the floor. The bullets that were fired at the girls seemed to have been deflected. The soldiers then began bayoneting the victims. However, the bayonets became stuck in the girls bodices. This was because, during internment in Alexander Palace, the children and Lady-in-waiting Anna Demidova had sewed a large number of the family jewels and diamonds into a pillow and the girls’ bodices. On the evening they were murdered they were wearing these bodices, and in addition, Demidova attempted to deflect the bullets with the pillow. For this reason the execution lasted about 20 minutes until the last member of the family was dead. After the murders, Jurovski attempted to erase all traces of the crime.’ (From Wikipedia).
According to a report released by Archbishop Wikenti on 17 July 2008, around 40,000 persons took part in a religious procession from Yekaterinburg to an abandoned mineshaft some 18 kilometers distant.
In conjunction with the memorial service for the Romanovs, copies of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ were offered for sale.
The bodies of Czar Nicholas, his German wife Alexandra and their five children had been carried to that place after they had been shot by their Jewish murderers in the night of 17 July 1918 in Yekaterinburg. In conjunction with the memorial service for the Romanovs, copies of ‘The Protocols of the Elders of Zion’ were offered for sale. Large numbers of printed pamphlets were distributed along with the Protocols. The printed materials were entitled ‘Why we hate the Jewish Mafia’ and posed the question ‘Is This Xenophobia or Self Defense?’ The student Ivan Kolsev, 20, who had wrapped himself in a Czarist banner, expressed the opinion of many when he said ‘Democracy has no future — we are returning to Monarchy!’ On the banner was written ‘In honor of Russia: for Czar and Fatherland.’ [Agence France-Presse (AFP), 28 July 2008.]
For the Russians, the Jews are guilty of having killed emissaries of God when they murdered the Romanov family, since the family has been beatified. ‘…Just as they once crucified Jesus’ said a participant in the memorial services. ‘Nicholas and Alexandra were our father and mother — they were like Russia s parents’ said another of the faithful. Another participant in the memorial mass expressed enthusiasm for the return of the Czarism: ‘The Czar is God s chosen on Earth, we must have a Czar.’ (AFP 17 July 2008.)
The new Czarist cult is more than a revolution, it is the rebirth of the Russian nation after all the suffering the Bolsheviks inflicted on it. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez expressed this view during his visit to Moscow at the end of July 2008: ‘Venezuela takes note of the rebirth of Russia with great and affectionate attention.’ (Die Welt, 23 July 2008, p. 5)
President Medvedev then expressed sincere appreciation to President Chavez for his heartfelt interest. Since his first day as President of Russia, it has been Putin s principal goal to enable Russia s reawakening. He and his allies have always had a clear picture of the people who murdered the Romanovs along with 55 million other Russians.
It was always clear to Putin that these peoples’ primary aim was to suck Russia dry and annihilate it for all time with their unparalleled parasitism. A Kremlin politician close to Putin was quoted as saying about the then most influential Jews: ‘Boris Beresovski and Vladimir Gussinski are like bacteria that establish themselves in diseased bodies, but then die when the bodies grow healthy again.’ [Jewish Telegraph Agency (JTA), 2 April 2002.] This statement reminds us of a passage from Mein Kampf: ‘The Jew is and will remain the eternal parasite, a freeloader that, like a malignant bacterium, spreads rapidly whenever a growth medium is made available to it.’ (Chapter 11)
Vladimir Gussinski was the head of the Jewish Central Committee in Russia as well as chairman of the Jewish World Congress. After fleeing Russia for refuge in Israel, he stated to the world press that in Russia, ‘a new state ideology against the West is to be feared… It has many anti-Jewish characteristics.’ He called the then Russian president, Vladimir Putin, an ‘extreme anti Semite and secret admirer of Hitler.’ (Spiegel, 25/2000, p. 180)
In early July 2008 observers noted a new high point in Russia’s struggle against the Lobby, when the new US ambassador was installed in Berlin. Former chancellor Gerhard Schroeder, an intimate friend of Putin, declined the invitation of the American ambassador, without explanation.
In the entire history of Post-War-Germany, or BRDDR, this had never before occurred. Such a snub could never have happened before, even in a dream. In addition to the fact that Schroeder is not overly fond of the Lobby, he was certainly advised by his friend Putin to decline the invitation in order to demonstrate the new power relationship in Europe. ‘When the new American embassy is opened in Berlin, Gerhard Schroeder was absent. The ex-chancellor had been invited by the Americans, but he declined the invitation… The reasons for the former chancellor s failure to appear are not known.’ (spiegel.de, 4 July 2008)

{ Add a Comment }

Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal by Eve Mykytyn

Jewish people. Mr. Topham maintains a website, RadicalPress.com, in which he publishes and comments upon various documents. These documents include The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, various anti-Zionist texts, and a tract entitled Germany Must Perish!, first published in 1941 and then satirized by Mr. Topham as Israel Must Perish!.
Mr. Topham’s defense rested primarily on the theory that his writing was not directed at Jews as a race or religion, but rather at the politics espoused by a number of Jewish people. The best discussion of this topic is by Gilad Atzmon, contained in his book, The Wandering Who?. The basic take away for considering the implications of Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction is that some people conflate Judaism as a religion, an ethnic heritage AND with a political view, not always consistent, that generally favors Israel’s perceived benefit.
Canada has a lobby entitled Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) that lobbies the Canadian government on behalf of Israel. Mr. Rudner, who had lodged various complaints about Mr. Topham in the past and was the Crown’s expert in Mr. Topham’s case, has worked for CIJA or its predecessor for 15 years. So the Crown relied upon the testimony of a man who lobbies for Israel (clearly a political entity) for proof of anti Semitic content and potential harm to Jewish people. His appearance in tiny Quesnel is testimony to the political importance that his organization places on silencing Mr. Topham. (The original witness scheduled to testify, Mr. Farber was a former colleague of Rudner’s, and apparently the two are close enough that Mr. Rudner’s written testimony was an exact duplicate of Mr. Farber’s original.)
Since Mr. Topham was accused of anti-Semitism, let’s look at the term. The quote below is from the Holocaust Encyclopedia, published and maintained by the United States Holocaust Museum so it is probably safe to assume that this is a standard definition.
‘The word antisemitism means prejudice against or hatred of Jews. The Holocaust, the state-sponsored persecution and murder of European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945, is history’s most extreme example of antisemitism. In 1879, German journalist Wilhelm Marr originated the term antisemitism, denoting the hatred of Jews, and also hatred of various liberal, cosmopolitan, and international political trends of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often associated with Jews. The trends under attack included equal civil rights, constitutional democracy, free trade, socialism, finance capitalism, and pacifism.’
Interesting that, in the first paragraph of its section on anti-Semitism, the encyclopedia blends together the concepts of ‘hatred of the Jews’ with opposition to various political and social movements generally associated with Jews. This is puzzling. Is it anti-Semitism to oppose socialism or is it anti-Semitic to oppose finance capitalism? While one could oppose both, it would be impossible to espouse either view without rejecting the other. I assume the author did not intend to imply that opposition to socialism, for instance, was it anti-Semitic even if such opposition was from a fellow Jew.
I bring this up because this is precisely what I believe happened in Mr. Topham’s case. Mr. Topham was charged with two counts of inciting hatred over different periods of time. The jury found him guilty on the first count and not guilty on the second. Of course there are many possible explanations for a split verdict (none of which the jury is allowed to discuss even after trial without committing what the judge termed a ‘criminal’ offense). The observers, including myself, tended to believe that the discrepancy in the verdicts was a result of the text Germany Must Perish! and its satirization by Mr. Topham in Israel Must Perish!, a text that appeared on his website during the period for which Mr. Topham was found guilty.
The original text of Germany Must Perish! was written in 1941 by Theodore Kaufman, an American Jewish man. The text was originally self-published, but was apparently advertised and reviewed by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Time magazine. In any case, the publication was well known enough to have been read in Germany and was cited by Hitler and Goebbels as evidence of the bad intention of the Jews. The book is horrendous. Its semi-literate ravings are a ridiculous indictment of the German people and their warlike nature. Kaufman advocates sterilization of the Germans as the only possible remedy. At best, the author is confusing all Germans with Nazis, but that is not what the book says. Mr. Topham’s satire in which he substitutes the words ‘Israel’ for Germany and ‘Zionists’ for Germans helps to make the original text comprehensible. The satire hopefully provides some insight into how these words might have been viewed by Germans in 1941. The proof that the works were effective but the satire was not understood, is that Mr. Topham faced criminal charges for aping Kaufman’s words.
In its case, the Crown made the point that Israel Must Perish! was a horrible text. The Crown argued that the fact that the words were originally written by a Jewish man to indict the Germans did not kosher the text. ‘Jews,’ the Crown said, ‘could write anti-Semitic things too.’ Presumably her next case will be against a Jew for inciting hatred against the Jewish people. Mr. Topham was making a political point. I believe he was trying to convey the idea that Israel and Zionists could seem very much like Germans and Nazism in 1941. It is not necessary to agree with Mr. Topham’s point to understand it.
If I am right and it was this text that caused Mr. Topham’s conviction, then that is an important indictment against Canada’s admirable attempts to limit ‘hate’ speech while allowing freedom of political speech. Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction may well have been the result of a misunderstanding that Mr. Topham was criticizing Israel and Zionism and not Jews as a race. Germany and Israel are political constructs, Germans may not be, but Zionists, or those who support establishment of the state of Israel are, by definition, espousing a political cause. So, Mr. Topham criticized the political cause of the Zionists. Is there a way in which Canada’s laws would allow Mr. Topham’s political views to find an outlet? Perhaps Canada ought to make criticism of Israel legally off limits so that Canadians may adjust their behavior accordingly.
Read Part 1 and 2.
Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.

{ Add a Comment }

Strike Three! Crown’s third attempt at imposing draconian bail conditions on RadicalPress.com fails By Arthur Topham

Strike3YerOut!

On Friday, November 20th, 2015 RadicalPress.com publisher Arthur Topham returned for the third time to the B.C. Supreme Court in Quesnel to attend another bail hearing in the wake of the November 12th, 2015 guilty verdict in Count 1 of his two count indictment.
Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnson was seeking what turned out to be a series of extremely harsh conditions that would have seen Topham charged with an additional criminal offence for allegedly publishing Crown disclosure documents as well as severe restrictions that would have prevented him from operating his website. In addition to those added Orwellian features Crown was also seeking unconstitutional conditions that would have prevented outside media from speculating on the reasons for the jury’s decision to find Topham guilty of Count 1. And finally, new conditions that were ostensibly meant to protect jury members from being subject to criticism or harassment.
Both Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler and Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson appeared via telephone from Vancouver and Victoria while Topham attended in Quesnel along with Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnson.
Crown made its presentation to Justice Butler followed by Defence counsel Johnson who countered all of Crown’s arguments with reasoned facts. When the smoke finally cleared it was apparent that Justice Butler wasn’t buying into Crown’s arguments and declined to impose any new conditions besides those already in effect with the exception of one small concession related to the safety of the jurors.
Crown, in its submission, argued that a photo of the potential jurors lined up in front of the courthouse on the snowy morning of October 26th (the first day of the trial) had been published on RadicalPress.com and it potentially posed a possible threat to the safety of the jury members (the photo, upon inspection didn’t show the faces of any of the people who were actually on the jury). Justice Butler was willing to concede to Crown’s request that it be removed and rather than have it written up in the new conditions Crown stated that if Mr. Topham would give the court his word that it would be remove then she would be happy with that. I assured Justice Butler that I would remove the photo as soon as I returned home and that was the end of it.
My wife and I and body guard Frank Frost left the courthouse feeling rather elated about the decision and knowing that RadicalPress.com had been victorious once again in retaining its right to carry on publishing until the Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2) was heard. The date for the Charter application has been tentatively set for the week of January 25th, 2016.

{ Add a Comment }

Why I Stand for God, Canada and Free Speech, not Israel By Arthur Topham

FreedomofSpeechAkiane

On Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:27 a.m. in the British Columbia Supreme Court, city of Quesnel, I was pronounced ‘Guilty’ by a jury of twelve men and women of the following criminal offence, also known as Count 1:
‘Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 28th day of April, 2011 and the 4th day of May, 2012, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.’
Immediately following I was pronounced ‘Not Guilty’ of a second and identical criminal offence, known as Count 2:
‘Roy Arthur TOPHAM, between the 29th day of January, 2013 and the 11th day of December, 2013, inclusive, at or near Quesnel, in the Province of British Columbia, did by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.’
Within moments of the jury leaving the courtroom Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnson was seeking new bail conditions that would restrict even further my fundamental rights as contained in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson immediately objected suggesting to Justice Bruce Butler that if Crown wants changes to my bail conditions then due process should be followed and Crown must file an application to that effect. Justice Butler agreed and the date of Thursday, November 19, 2015 was set for a hearing on Crown’s application. Later it was set for Friday, November 20th, 2015 at 10 a.m.
Given the fact that Crown has attempted on two earlier occasions to have stringent bail conditions imposed upon my freedom to operate RadicalPress.com it must be assumed that in this instance too Crown will be calling for either removal of my site from the Internet or else a total ban on my ability to operate it until final sentencing which is tentatively scheduled for late January of 2016.
In the event that Crown is able to accomplish either of its objectives, November 20th, 2015 could, theoretically, be the last day that I am able to communicate the status of my case on the Internet pending the outcome of my Charter challenge to Sec. 319(2).
It therefore behooves me to make a few comments and observations before the hearing takes place.
Our collective dilemma
Only someone in a comatose condition or willfully blind to any form of self-reflection could deny the fact that the global state of affairs today has reached an extreme state of critical disharmony.
War, and the threat of war, environmental degradation, cancer rates of epic proportions, fear levels at an all-time high and an endless array of bureaucratic and media machinations all designed to confuse and obfuscate any remedial efforts on the part of the people to rectify this imminent threat to our collective condition are the order of the day. Then, coupled with all of these Orwellian conditions, is the growing threat by Zionist infiltrated nation states to introduce illogical, totalitarian, communist tactics such as ‘hate crime’ legislation in order to penalize those who attempt to define and interpret the present narrative of negativity.
Numerous individual writers from the past have warned us repeatedly of what would happen if we didn’t get off our collective fanny and do something about what was happening but, as is the human condition, the general populace is too busy making a living, paying off their plastic, raising families and mesmerized by Big Brother’s ‘Eye’ tv to find the time to address and dismantle these specious, serpentine moves of the Zionist lobbyist to put in place their anti-free speech ‘hate’ legislation.
Now that the proverbial fecal matter is hitting the fan suddenly the truth revealers are getting broad-sided by this legislation and falsely accused and dragged before Stalinist ‘Show Trial’courts in order to plug the failing dams of deception that are currently crumbling before their very eyes.
Holding the reins

In term of my own situation I’ve spent a lifetime searching for answers to this perennial problem of endless conflict and environmental destruction and now, at the ripe young age of 68, I can honestly and rightfully declare that all of my years of research and writing, coupled with the past 9 years of ‘harrowing’ legal hassles, only further corroborates and confirms that censorship of individuals who earnestly try to give warning to their fellow citizens and censorship of the Internet via the unscrupulous use of ‘hate crime’ legislation must be stopped if we are to remain free to think, reason and peacefully protest against any form of oppression.
The final step in this ongoing process of ridding our country of the last remaining legal barrier (Sec. 319(2) of the criminal code will be a Constitutional challenge using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Sec. 2b which states:
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
Israel and the Zionist agenda
All of the hate crime legislation in the world has been created by one group, the Zionist Jew lobby, working through B’nai Brith International and other similar orgs. They’ve set themselves up in every nation of the West and their primary purpose as agents of the state of Israel is to silence any and all criticism of the Zionist ideology and its debilitating effect upon human rights and freedom of expression. This fact is now beyond dispute and case after case where individuals are charged with these duplicitous ‘hate’ crimes the complainants inevitably are dual citizens of the foreign state of Israel or else goy sycophants in the pay of these same lobbyists.
To support Israel is to support racism, apartheid, murder of innocents, theft of other nation’s land, the destruction of other cultures, war, destruction and endless terrorist acts and media deception on a scale never before witnessed in human history.
Any Western government that ‘stands with Israel’ is admitting to and condoning and complicit with all of these barbaric and uncivilized actions that comprise the whole of what political Zionism entails.
God
My first duty as a human being is to acknowledge, revere and do the Will of the Creator source of all life. God = Love = Truth. If I don’t include God in every equation related to my work and my life then it all becomes meaningless and devoid of that one fundamental principle which governs both the physical and spiritual realms. Any attempt at addressing the evils that men do which omits the Truth is futile. God gave man Free Will which ultimately implies the right to express himself without fear of state repression. The atheistic Zionist agenda would end that freedom of the mind and soul and for that reason alone it must be resisted all costs.
Conclusion
My purpose in all that I’ve done over my lifetime has been to shed light upon the machinations of those who would enslave us and silence us so that we’re not at liberty to express our thoughts and ideas. Censorship now remains the #1 threat to our global survival in that without the freedom to challenge the state (any state) and its dictates and demands we’re left bereft of the ability to speak the Truth. In this sense my struggle is every person’s struggle who desires to remain free and live in peace and harmony with their fellow human beings and all other life forms.

{ Add a Comment }

TRUTH JIHAD: Gilad Atzmon bears witness to the trial of Arthur Topham by Dr. Kevin Barrett

GILAD&BARCLAY

Canadian publisher Arthur Topham will likely be appealing his conviction on one count (accompanied by an acquittal on the other) of ‘promoting hatred toward the Jewish people.’ The conviction appears to have been the result of the prosecutor, judge and jury’s inability to understand the concept of satire. Check out Arthur’s article ‘Guilty/Not Guilty’ for details. If and when Arthur appeals, I will be happy to volunteer my services as an expert witness. I have four advanced degrees in literature (three MAs and a Ph.D.) and have done extensive work on the literary theory of Bakhtin, whose work provides the best possible basis for an accurate understanding of what satire is and how it works.
Meanwhile…Shortly before the verdict came in I recorded this interview with ex-Israeli philosopher-musician Gilad Atzmon, who may be the world’s leading expert on Jewish identity politics. When Arthur Topham was charged with ‘willfully promoting hatred against the Jewish people,’ hauled into court, and menaced with a possible two-year prison sentence, Gilad flew to Quesnel, British Columbia to appear as an expert witness. (Read Gilad’s description of his testimony, ‘The Expert Witness‘).
Arthur Topham (who has appeared on Truth Jihad Radio) is a kind, decent person without any apparent hatred in his heart. It is his love of justice, not his hatred of anyone, that led him to criticize Zionism and the dark side of Jewish identity politics. Arthur and his wife Shasta, who is Jewish, have behaved with amazing restraint and decorum during their eight-year ordeal, during which their remodeling business was destroyed.
What was Arthur Topham’s alleged crime? Parodying Zionist Jew Theodore Kaufman’s book ‘Germany Must Perish!’ by changing ‘Germany’ to ‘Israel’ throughout the text. This tiny change produced the satirical masterpiece ‘Israel Must Perish!’ and led Canada’s Zionist Power Configuration to have him jailed on ‘hate crime’ charges!
Who is the REAL hater here Arthur Topham, or the Zionists like Kaufman who wanted to commit genocide against Germany, and are now committing genocide in Palestine with the full support of the governments of the US and Canada?
And how has Jewish identity politics morphed into genocidal Zionism? If anyone can explain that, it would be Gilad Atzmon.
Also check out my interviews with Arthur Topham:
Arthur Topham puts Zionist double-standards & hypocrisy on trial! (December 17, 2013)
Persecuted writer-editor Arthur Topham: ‘Zionists assault free speech’ (January 21, 2015)
Related Posts:
Arthur Topham vs. Theodore Nathan Kaufman
Outlawing Free Speech on Jewish Identity
Gilad Atzmon’s Expert Witness Testimony at Arthur Topham’s criminal trial Part 1
Gilad in the USA- May 15th
Ten reasons why I Support Alan Dershowitz, Not

{ Add a Comment }

The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham: Part 2 by Eve Mykytyn

Read Part 1.
On November 12th the jury found Mr. Topham guilty of ‘inciting hate.’ This leads to a few questions.
First, the jury found Mr. Topham guilty on Count 1 but not guilty on Count 2. Ordinarily, this is a result we are comfortable with since the state (the Crown) may have proved ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ that a defendant committed an assault but not have shown sufficient evidence of battery. Mr. Topham’s case is different. He was charged with two virtually identical counts, both relating to his website but covering different periods of time, that is, count 1 was for the period from April 28, 2011 to May 4, 2012, and count 2 was for January 29, 2013 to December 11, 2013.
If Mr. Topham intended to incite hate, would he really have changed his mind in the brief period between counts 1 and 2? We will never know what the jury relied upon; in yet another abrogation of free speech, the jury was threatened that if they spoke to anyone about their deliberations, they would be committing a criminal offense. How is the public supposed to understand the mysterious machinations of the term ‘hate’ without knowing what caused a jury to convict a fellow citizen of such a crime?
Hate is a crime the essential elements of which have been left undefined. As a writer, one must not only discern from the miasma what constitutes ‘hate’ but also guess what elements a jury will find persuasive. If one of the main goals of the criminal law is to prevent certain behavior then clarity of what such behavior is, is essential. What can Canadians say? May they say they disagree strongly with a particular group? What evidence can one print in support of their disagreement? Surely, it is not the defendant’s responsibility that a particular political group is also associated with an ethnic identity and a religion. The Crown, by controlling website content through its ‘hate’ law, is controlling not only what Canadians may say but also what Canadians may read. Mr. Topham’s is not the only blog to criticize Israel and Zionism. Should Canadians then read political criticism only from other countries? Very troubling.
Second, the crown had almost 2 years to prepare its case. Its evidence was contained in 4 binders. Many of the pages were illegible and the Crown itself seemed to have extraordinary difficulties in citing to its own arguments. The defense quite properly objected. The Crown wanted to provide clear copies of the illegible pages in yet another binder cross referenced to the originals. The trial could have been an exercise in maze solving. Judge Butler ruled that the Crown had to provide legible copies. This seemed to present a large obstacle and endless court time was wasted in discussions of printing costs, etc. As a foreign observer it seemed ironic that the crown spent $190 an hour on its expert witness, who as an earlier independent complainant against Mr. Topham might have been willing to accept less, and I don’t know how much money on ‘security’ but had so much trouble producing legible copies.
I belabor this point because it is very odd for the prosecution to allow its evidence to be blurry. I would expect in proving an elusive crime like ‘hate’ they would want their evidence to be as clear and convincing as possible. Was the intent to confuse the jury? Was the Crown merely incompetent? This is not impossible. The judge spent much time instructing the crown’s representative, Ms. Johnston, on procedural issues. This gave me the impression (and perhaps the jurors as well?) that the judge was helping and thus favoring the prosecution. Surely this was unintentional on Judge Butler’s part.
Third, and this relates to point two, the jury was given 62 pages of ‘charges’ (or what Americans call jury instructions). Even if all twelve jurors, ordinary men and women, are speed readers, how are they to read and evaluate 62 pages of instructions and then apply them to four binders? The plethora of material leads me to suspect that the jury was not intended to read the material at all. This would tend the jury toward a guilty verdict.
There is not a sinister act by the jury. They were asked to sit through weeks of testimony about Jewish politics, history, religion, and identity. Jury selection would have excluded anyone who was actually interested in such topics. They were handed stacks of paper. Faced with these circumstances, they presumably decided that the Crown and the judge worked for their province and had British Columbia’s best interests at heart. It is actually a testimony to the weakness of the Crown’s case that Mr. Topham was found not guilty at all.
The battle is not over. Following the verdict, both sides indicated that they intended to appeal. (Here Canada differs from the United States where prosecutors can appeal only under very limited circumstances). The Crown asked that Mr. Topham’s bail restrictions be changed and that his website be taken down. Judge Butler did not decide these issues because first, as the defense pointed out, these requests were improperly made. Mr. Topham intends to present a Charter (constitutional) argument that the judge had stayed at the beginning of the trial so that the ‘facts’ of the case could be more fully developed at trial.
Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.

{ Add a Comment }