SEND CHRISTMAS GREETINGS TO THESE IMPRISONED OR PERSECUTED REVISIONISTS



For the upcoming Christmas season, please remember our fellow German revisionists sitting in prison, being on the run, or being prosecuted. Send them a nice Christmas card or even a letter!
If sending letters into prison, abstain from any remarks that might lead to the letter being confiscated! “Illegal” statements can get our comrades into even deeper trouble.


These are our men/women “behind the wire.”

In the words of the old German folk song: “Die gedanken sind frei” (thoughts are free”).

Wolfgang FRÖHLICH (prisoner)
Steiner Landstr 4
A-3504 Kreims-Stein, AUSTRIA

Dr. Horst MAHLER (early release on probation)
Weidenbusch 13
D-14532 Kleinmachnow, GERMANY

Axel Möller (prisoner)
Kühlungsborner Str. 29a
D-18246 Bützow, GERMANY

Gerhard Ittner (trial ongoing)
c/o S. Rübel
Bessemerstr. 51
D-90411 Nürnberg, GERMANY

Vincent Reynouard (convicted, hiding in exile).
c/o Siegfried Verbeke
Italiëlei 203b, B-2000 Antwerp – BELGIUM

Dr. Sylvia Stolz (prosecuted)
Pfarrer-Grabmeier-Allee 10
D-85560 Ebersberg, GERMANY

Dr. Ursula Haverbeck (prosecuted)
Bretthorststr. 199
D-32602 Vlotho-Valdorf, GERMANY


Hear Brian Ruhe (Vancouver victim of Zionist persecution) Interviewed by Co-Host Paul Fromm, Wednesday, 10:00 a.m. EST

Hear Brian Ruhe (Vancouver victim of Zionist persecution) Interviewed by Co-Host Paul Fromm, Wednesday, December 9,  10:00 a.m. EST

Tune in to STORMFRONT RADIO (9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., EST) Wednesday, December 9, 2015

 
 
Co-host Paul Fromm will interview Vancouver revisionist videographer Brain Ruhe. Mr., Ruhe has been the victim of an organized campaign by Zionists to impoverish him and have him fired from a series of jobs as an instructor in Buddhism and meditation at Vancouver-area education institutions and community centres.
Frederick Fromm's photo.
 
Listen live to Stormfront Radio with Don Black & Roy
with co-hosts Paul Fromm and Don Advo. Followed by Dr. David Duke.
Weekdays 9:00-11:00am

Overview of the Arthur Topham Free Speech Case

Overview of the Arthur Topham Free Speech Case

 
Regina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25

December 4th, 2015

LegalUpdate123 copy.png

Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters,

Screen Shot 2015-11-08 at 7.06.41 PM.png
 

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, 2015 (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 until October 9, 2015 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 onRadicalPress.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.png
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.
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 2529, 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 2529, 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!

Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal

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

November 29, 2015 by  Leave a Comment

Screen Shot 2015-11-07 at 4.51.44 PM

Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal
The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham: Part 3
by Eve Mykytyn / November 29th, 2015

On November 12, 2015 Arthur Topham was convicted of inciting hatred against a racial group, the 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.

B.C. Man Takes ICBC To Human Rights Tribunal for Nixing “White Pride” Vanity Plate

The waiting time is usually a month. When, after three months, he’d had no reply. he phoned them. “Oh, it’s been returned to us [from the Ministry of Highways]. That slogan,” he was informed, “may be considered not in good taste.”
 
Being a persistent chap, Willie didn’t give up. “I e-mailed the director of the department.”
When he replied, he reported that he’s Googled the term “White Pride” “and I found it on ‘White Supremacist’ sites. It is the department policy that ‘no slogan may be offensive.”
Willie took his case to the manager of customer relations and the fairness commissioner at ICBC. He got nowhere.
“I’m a white guy and proud of who I am but I am just not allowed to express myself.” he is convinced that “Black Pride”, “Gay Pride” or “Indian Pride” slogans would face no problems.
On November 10, he filed a complaint against ICBC with the British Columbia Human Rights Tribunal charging them with discrimination on the basis of race, colour and place of national origin.

 

HEAR PAUL FROMM – THE ARTHUR TOPHAM TRIAL – VICTORIA, B.C. NOV. 28TH

HEAR PAUL FROMM – THE ARTHUR TOPHAM TRIAL – VICTORIA, B.C. NOV. 28TH

Part of CAFE’S mission is to encourage support for freedom of speech in Canada and to support the victims of censorship and minority-inspired persecution. Paul Fromm, CAFE Director, has undertaken an extensive speaking tour to discuss the Arthur Topham Trial. He has already spoken in Vancouver and Winnipeg with a number more locations planned.

P.FrommTophamTrialVictoria

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

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

Strike3YerOut!

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

By

Arthur Topham

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 Charterapplication has been tentatively set for the week of January 25th, 2016.

Stay tuned folks!

No Increased Bail Restrictions on Free Speech Warrior Arthur Topham

No Increased Bail Restrictions on Free Speech Warrior Arthur Topham

 
Frankly, we feared the worst. After Authur Topham’s conviction, November 12, on one of two counts of willfully promoting “hate” against a privileged group, in this case Jews, on his website radicalpress.com, Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnston immediately sought tighter bail conditions.
 
It has been the goal of both the highly politicized “hate squad” and the Crown to shut down Mr. Topham’s website. Indeed, his initial bail conditions forbad him to be on the Internet. Eventually, these were appealed and amended.
 
The Crowns application for more restrictions on Mr. Topham was heard by video conference November 19 and 20.
 
Judge Bruce Butler turned down Ms Johnston’s demand that Mr. Topham be prevented from doing any more posting on the Internet until his sentencing. [Actually, in a sense, the trial is not yet over because the constitutional challenge is yet to be heard.]
 
In addition, she wanted a ban on his discussing or speculating why the jurors decided as they did.
 
Defence lawyer Barclay Johnson appearing from Victoria pointed out: “The international media is alerady reporting on the case.”
 
“The hearing went extremely well,” Arthur Topham told CAFE. “All Crown got was an order that I remove a photo taken outside the court the first day of the trial as the group shot might have shown a person who would eventually sit on the jury. I had no problem  removing it,” he said.
 
 
Frederick Fromm's photo.
 
 
The tentative date for hearing the constitutional challenge is January 25 in Quesnel.

Peel Cops Lean on Immigration Critics

Peel Cops Lean on Immigration Critics

One of the sad results of political correctness in Canada is the increasingly political role of many police forces.
 
Shawn Dalton is a dedicated researcher in his ’30s. The Toronto-based activist has spent much of the past few years sequestered in major libraries looking over immigration reports going back 100 years and studying the numbers of foreigners let in and the number of jobs available. At one time, patriotic governments tried to adjust immigration levels when unemployment rose.
 
No longer. Since 1990, regardless of unemployment levels, governments Conservative and Liberals, but especially the Conservatives in 1990 and 2008, continued the demographic changing flood regardless of unemployment levels.
 
In September and October, Mr. Dalton and friends distributed thousands of snappy and colourful leaflets questioning mass Third World immigration and the new religion of “diversity.”
 
One distributed in Brampton, Ontario featured local Mayor Linda Jeffrey and asked: “Why do the mayors of major Canadian cities constantly visit failed 3rd World states?” Mr. Dalton is an honest straight-forward man who puts his phone number and e-mail on the leaflets.
 
On October 21, Mr. Dalton received a call from a Const. Sullivan from the Peel Regional Police. “Did you design a flyer featuring the Mayor of Brampton and distribute it?” Mr. Dalton said he was not a designer.
 
“And,” he shot back, “I receive a lot of offensive advertising in the email but don’t complain to the police.
 
As soon as Mr. Dalton asked for the cop’s badge number, he was told and Const. Sullivan said: “Thank you for your time and ended the conversation.”
 
What possible concern is a non-violent political leaflet to the under-employed Peel Regional Police?
 
Two weeks later Mr. Dalton received a more aggressive call from a female Const. named Singh, badge number 2515, with the Diversity Relations Unit — do such politically correct enforcement units actually exist? — of the Peel Regional Police. She chastised him for distributing leaflets “that might get children upset.” [The leaflets were adult in approach and not aimed at youngsters.]
 
The leaflets showed some of the backward nature of Indian society. Indians are a major immigrant component of Brampton. In the discussion, Mr. Dalton ventured the honest opinion: “Our culture is better than theirs.”
 
“You can’t say that !” Const. Singh scolded.
 
Since when did cops become arbiters of political thought and opinion?
 
At least one other person who helped distribute the leaflets received a call from the Peel police.