Hate Cop Tries to get Topham’s U.S. Server to Drop Him

Hate Cop Tries to get Topham’s U.S. Server to Drop Him
Hate Cop Tries to get Topham's U.S. Server to Drop Him-arthur-topham2.jpg
We try not to oversell our case. However, when we label police “hate squads” as the thought police, we are being precise and accurate. In an undated letter, Detective-Constable Terry Wilson, who self-importantly identified himself as “Detective Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police E-Division Major Crime” wrote to pressure Canadian dissident Arthur Topham’s U.S. Internet Service Provider to drop him.
True, Mr. Topham has been charged under Canada’s notorious Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code for wilfully promoting hate against privileged groups. Det. Wilson asserts  that Mr.Topham is using his radicalpress website for “Hate Speech or other offensive speech or content.”
The New World Order thought cops clearly know nothing of our Anglo-Saxon legal tradition. Mr. Topham is a victim of a minority-instigated charge. That’s all it is — an accusation. In our system, the accused is still INNOCENT until proven guilty in court.
Police are supposed to investigate “crime” not write to other countries to try to inflict punishment on a man who has not even been tried yet.
What a country! This thought cop is actually a member of the Mounties’ “Major Crime Division.” For a frightened politically correct Establishment, maybe “thought crimes” and dissent really are “major crimes.”
Arthur Topham asks that you write in decent terms to Zach P at legal@netfirms-inc.com  — doesn’t anyone give a full name anymore? — and urge him not to give in to Wilson’s bullying and attempt at state censorship.
We note that during Prime Minister Harper’s recent visit to India, he was challenged about the Canadian government’s toleration of Sikh radicalism and support for Khalistan — an independent Punjab. “I’t may be a political position that both the government of Canada and the  government of India disagree with. We can’t interfere with the right of  political freedom of expression,'” the Vancouver Sun (Nov.9, 2012) reported him as saying. We hope Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh laughed in  his face and whispered: “What about Arthur Topham?”
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Email from Netfirms.com regarding Det-Cst Terry Wilson’s letter to them.

Subject:  [P10300383000000000] Radical Press.com

Date:  21 November, 2012 12:11:12 PM PST

To:  Arthur Topham <radical@radicalpress.com>
Hello Arthur,
We have been advised by a visitor to your web site radicalpress.com that such web site contains content that is alleged to be untrue, offensive, slanderous, harassing or controversial in nature.
Accordingly, please remove such content within 48 hours of this notice. Failure to delete such content within such period will result in termination of your website.  The notice we received is below.
As you may know, we are a web hosting company. We are not responsible for the content or links posted by our customers who create and place content on websites that we host. We further do not “monitor” the websites that we host or prescreen the content placed by customers on their sites. However, when we become aware of allegations of improper activity by one of our customers using a hosted site, which would be a violation of our Terms of Service (TOS) governing the web sites, we take such situations seriously, investigate promptly, and take appropriate action.
Should you have further questions, please contact us.
Regards, Zach P Corporate Support
———————–
Here’s the bullying letter from Thought Cop Det-Cst Terry Wilson to Netfirms.com
This letter is undated.
Dear Sir or Madame, I am Detective Terry Wilson of the BC Hate Crime Team of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police E-Division Major Crime. I am the lead investigator into a Hate Propaganda investigation involving the above internet site.
I understand that on May 31, 12 we have requested, through the US Department of Justice, to preserve this website as we were working on a Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT). I wish to confirm that this website is still being persevered as the MLAT process has taken longer than anticipated.
Secondly I would like to advise you that the administrator/owner of the website Mr Roy Arthur Topham has been now charged criminally with Section 319(2) of the Canadian Criminal Code of Canada for Wilful Promoting Hatred, over his website
www.radicalpress.comI see by your website policy that this may in fact contravene you policy, section 4 (b)(i) by using the website for “Hate Speech or other offensive speech or content”. 
If you have any questions please don’t hesitate to contact me at the above email or at
604-543-4903.
Detective Constable Terry WILSON
B.C. Hate Crime Team t.wilson@rcmp-grc.gc.ca 604-543-4903 

Support David Lindsay: Stand Up for the “Man Behind the Wire”

Support David Lindsay: Stand Up for  the “Man Behind the Wire”
I spoke to political prisoner David Lindsay this evening. he’s being held by the Canadian state, actually the Province of British Columbia for 60 days. He will be in jail over Christmas.
David is encouraged by the fact that so many of you have sent him Christmas cards. It’s still not too late to send a little bit of Christmas comfort and best wishes for the New Year to this man behind the wire.
“And every man
Must stand behind
The men behind the wire.”
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Tax Rebel David Lindsay Gets 60 Days — Extra Harsh Penalty for His Political & Religious Views
David-Kevin Lindsay has been a lecturer across Canada. He is a committed Christian, a staunch constitutionalist and one who believes that Canada’s Income Tax Act  is illegal. For some years, he has failed to file his income tax return. He has fought a running battle in the courts and is a ferocious researcher and most learned. He has astounded many judges and lawyers with his learning.
 
Last week, I reported on a disturbing trend by some government security “experts” and other officials to label non-violent free men (people with a strict sense of our ancient Anglo-Saxon liberties) dissidents and White supremacists as “terrorists.” My report said, in part:
 

“When Const. Curtis Rind pulled over a man without a valid driver’s licence during a routine traffic stop, he didn’t expect the man to start arguing that it was his God-given right to use the road. But the man was part of an emerging group of domestic terrorists that police have been notified to be on the look out for because of their anti-government beliefs.They’re called “freeman” or “sovereign citizens,” and basically believe the law doesn’t apply to them, and they shouldn’t have to pay taxes, Rind said. Rind, an officer in southwest division, first learned about freeman citizens a few years ago through notices and information bulletins circulating throughout the police service. In the last six months, Rind said freeman citizens have increased their presence in the city and now seem to be all over the place.” (Edmonton Sun, November 7, 2012)

 

This Const. Rind is a dangerous ignoramus. He was outraged that some mere citizen, who pays his exorbitant salary, actually believes he has “rights” and that driving isn’t some state-given “privilege.” They may be dissenters, they may be oddballs, but they are not terrorists, if “terrorist” means using extreme violence to further their political goals.
Ever since 9/11, many police and even rent-a-cops and airport security types have begun acting like Rambos on steroids, snarling, throwing their weight around and seeking to intimidate any mere citizen who doesn’t act like a submissive sheep/
It gets worse. The Sun report continued: “Anti-terrorism expert John Bain said police should be keeping a close eye on. Speaking at an anti-terrorism workshop Wednesday, Bain explained the different types of terrorists that range from “freedom fighters” such as Osama bin Laden and eco-terrorists such as Wiebo Ludwig, to religious and other extremist groups like white supremacists.  At this time, it’s the White supremacist groups that Bain believes poses the biggest threat to Canadian safety.”
 
David was sentenced to 60 days. This non-violent dissident and organic gardener fights through the courts. He argued with copious documentation that, in such cases, there is no jail time imposed for a first offence. However, David is seen as a leader. So, as a dissident with the wrong political  views , he’s off to prison in Kamloops.
 
I’d call him a political prisoner. When you consider the ongoing police indifference to Indians violently occupying land, despite court injunctions in Caledonia, Ontario, it’s hard not to conclude that the real offence is not in the alleged breaking of the law but in having the wrong political views.
 
Why not send a Christmas card to David, thus:
David-Kevin Lindsay, Political Prisoner,
Kamloops                 Regional Correctional Centre
PO Box 820 Kamloops, BC.,
 V2C 5M9
CANADA
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Here’s a message from David.
 
 
Hi to everyone, to begin please do not respond to this email as I am currently and unlawfully being held in custody at the Kamloops Correctional centre.  On Thursday, Nov 29 I appeared for sentencing on the second charge, this time of failing to comply with court order to file income tax returns. The judge, Judge DeWalle as expected ignored all my sentencing submissions. It was clear from the beginning when I showed up at court and there were 3 sheriffs in the court room with black gloves on that the judge had already made up his mind before even hearing me that he was going to send me to jail and he had already ordered the sheriffs that this was to happen.  Thus, my sentencing submissions meant nothing from the beginning as the issue was already decided before I entered the court.  I had insisted that there should be no jail, the crown suggested 60 days. I provided the judge with over 50 cases showing that on first offence the maximum penalty given was $1000 fine. However, in the first trial the provincial court tried to sentence me for 5 months, the appeal court shortened this to 30 days, even though at that time I had also provided the court with over 40 cases showing that jail is not an option on the first offence therefore because the court made that error the first time this court should not increase it but should keep it as a fine or 15 days or less.  I also provided him with 9 pieces where people had been charged the second time with failing to comply with a court order to file income tax returns , one person got 21 days in jail on 23 counts, all the rest were fines only.  I told the judge that my case was no different than these.  He disagreed relying on what the appeal court said in the first case, claiming with no evidence to support it that I was leader of either the Freedom movement or tax honesty movement.  As a result Judge DeWalle imposed a harsher penalty specifically due to my political beliefs, and my Christian religious beliefs which outlines in great detail at the sentencing hearing that formed the basis of my inability to file income taxes.  I also instructed the judge to the fundamental and constitutional principles to our law as admitted to by the most respected English judges in history including Blackstone, Coke, Broom, and Halsbury who all admitted that our constitution allows me and everyone else to refuse to comply with statutes that violate the principles of Christian law set out in the Bible.   I had attempted to apply to the Supreme court of BC, for release pending appeal however, the court refused to accept my application because an order exists from 6 years ago given in my absence, declaring that I was vexatious and that I was required to get leave ‘permission’ from the court before they would accept my application.  Despite the fact that I have never had any action instituted by me declared to be vexatious at any time and despite the fact that the court of appeal upheld in my position that this order does not apply in criminal or penal matters, the supreme court still refuses to accept my application of release pending appeal.   Also, this ignores the well known principle that the provincial legislation  permits this type of order to be issued, cannot override federal statutes including the Criminal code, which directly states that I am entitled by law to a right of appeal and to apply for release pending appeal, also as of right. 
 
 Consequently, I have no remedy to get released, as the court refuses to uphold my rights.  I am now going to spend the next 60 days less 1/3 rd time, in jail and will not get out until first week in January. I appreciate all the support from everyone across Canada and wish everyone to know that the judges in BC have decided that they will not rule on the issue of whether the income tax act violates the Coronation Oath Act which is part of our constitution.  I will send out another email through a third party friend in about a week and want everyone to know that this jail sentence has not diminished my resolve to expose the unlawful usury banking system and supporting tax structures and will continue to do so with all resolve beginning once again in the Spring upon my release. Thank-you again for your support and please remember that I cannot respond to any emails until January.

 

In Freedom I remain

David-Kevin: Lindsay

 

Good Fellowship at IHR Annual Christmas Gathering

Good Fellowship at IHR Annual Christmas Gathering
ORANGE COUNTY. December 15, 2102. The meaning of Christmas and gratitude for the growing fellowship of like minded freethinkers in Southern California were the themes of the annual Christmas party held by the Institute for Historical Review. Guests came from as far away as Las Vegas and San Diego.
IHR  Director Mark Weber was the host of the potluck supper and reflected on the growth over the past four years of an expanding and cohesive circle of people in Southern California who gather for frequent IHR meetings. There is always a lively synergy among younger and older members.
Photo: Good Fellowship at IHR Annual Christmas Gathering

ORANGE COUNTY. December 15, 2102. The meaning of Christmas and gratitude for the growing fellowship of like minded freethinkers in Southern California were the themes of the annual Christmas party held by the Institute for Historical Review. Guests came from as far away as Las Vegas and San Diego.

IHR  Director Mark Weber was the host of the potluck supper and reflected on the growth over the past four years of an expanding and cohesive circle of people in Southern California who gather for frequent IHR meetings. There is always a lively synergy among younger and older members.

Special guest Paul Fromm from the Canadian Association for Free Expression reflected on that amazing story of the spontaneous truces that broke out along the Western Front at Christmas, 1914, when British and German soldiers sang Christmas carols, shared food and even played soccer. "There was a tremendous wisdom and good common sense," Mr. Fromm noted. "Deep down these men saw one another as coming from a common culture. there was an inner reluctance about the coming slaughter. This was a fratricidal war that did much to weaken and ruin European man" for the benefit of manipulators and outsiders.

Mr. Fromm discussed the attack on Christmas. "I find it dumbfounding that such a good and gentle feast can come in for such attack and shunning. Some religions celebrate the massacre of their enemies or, in the case of Judaism's Passover, the death of every firstborn Egyptian male. How can such a tragedy, if, indeed, it happened be a cause for feasting and joy? On the other hand, Christmas celebrates the birth of a Saviour. It is a gentle feast of joy and giving," he added.

The attack on Christmas, he pointed out, came in two assault waves. The first  hit in the 1940s and 1950s. Songs, many written by Jewish writers like Irving Berlin, erased Christ -- songs like "White Christmas", "City Bells", "Rudolf the Red-nosed Reindeer." Now, there was nothing wring with these songs in themselves," he explained. "They celebrated a secular or folk aspect of Christmas, but they downplayed or erased the core reason for Christmas -- the birth of Christ."

The second wave of the assault has occurred over the past 20 years. Businesses and government and the trendy have replaced "Merry Christmas" with "Happy Holidays" or "Seasons' Greetings." Not many of us celebrate a season, Mr. Fromm added, "like snow  and ice where I come from. Merchants know very well people are buying their over-priced imported Chinese junk because they celebrate Christmas, not a holiday or season. People have been conned in the name of inclusiveness or exclude the beliefs and celebrations of the Majority.

Mr. Fromm concluded by urging people to use the leverage of their custom with merchants to insist that the word "Christmas" be used in their signage and greetings.

Many comments were made about the fine dishes offered to the attendees. Mr. Fromm especially commented on a spicy Jambalaya-like Louisiana dish prepared by Miss Cathleen. "It reminds me of the Jambalaya Louisiana Council of Conservative Citizens chairman Herb Price used to serve down at baton Rouge," Mr. Fromm praised.

Paul Fromm with IHR Director Mark Weber
Special guest Paul Fromm from the Canadian Association for Free Expression reflected on that amazing story of the spontaneous truces that broke out along the Western Front at Christmas, 1914, when British and German soldiers sang Christmas carols, shared food and even played soccer. “There was a tremendous wisdom and good common sense,” Mr. Fromm noted. “Deep down these men saw one another as coming from a common culture. there was an inner reluctance about the coming slaughter. This was a fratricidal war that did much to weaken and ruin European man” for the benefit of manipulators and outsiders.
 
Mr. Fromm discussed the attack on Christmas. “I find it dumbfounding that such a good and gentle feast can come in for such attack and shunning. Some religions celebrate the massacre of their enemies or, in the case of Judaism’s Passover, the death of every firstborn Egyptian male. How can such a tragedy, if, indeed, it happened be a cause for feasting and joy? On the other hand, Christmas celebrates the birth of a Saviour. It is a gentle feast of joy and giving,” he added.
 
The attack on Christmas, he pointed out, came in two assault waves. The first  hit in the 1940s and 1950s. Songs, many written by Jewish writers like Irving Berlin, erased Christ — songs like “White Christmas”, “City Bells”, “Rudolf the Red-nosed Reindeer.” Now, there was nothing wring with these songs in themselves,” he explained. “They celebrated a secular or folk aspect of Christmas, but they downplayed or erased the core reason for Christmas — the birth of Christ.”
 
The second wave of the assault has occurred over the past 20 years. Businesses and government and the trendy have replaced “Merry Christmas” with “Happy Holidays” or “Seasons’ Greetings.” Not many of us celebrate a season, Mr. Fromm added, “like snow  and ice where I come from. Merchants know very well people are buying their over-priced imported Chinese junk because they celebrate Christmas, not a holiday or season. People have been conned in the name of inclusiveness or exclude the beliefs and celebrations of the Majority.
 
Mr. Fromm concluded by urging people to use the leverage of their custom with merchants to insist that the word “Christmas” be used in their signage and greetings.
 
Many comments were made about the fine dishes offered to the attendees. Mr. Fromm especially commented on a spicy Jambalaya-like Louisiana dish prepared by Miss Cathleen. “It reminds me of the Jambalaya Louisiana Council of Conservative Citizens chairman Herb Price used to serve down at Baton Rouge,” Mr. Fromm praised.
 

Doug Christie Addresses CAFE’S Christmas Gathering — “Freedom Is the Cause, Not of a Day, but of a Lifetime”

Doug Christie Addresses CAFE’S Christmas Gathering — “Freedom Is the Cause, Not of a Day, but of a Lifetime”
TORONTO, December 2, 1012. Victoria-based lawyer and long-time free speech activist Douglas H. Christie addressed the Christmas gathering of the Canadian Association for Free Expression and posed some politically incorrect questions for his packed audience.
Challenging Canada’s Trudeau-era fetish with group rights and special privileges for certain groups, Mr. Christie asked: “Why can’t there be ‘anti-Semitism?’ Anti-Christianity is rampant. There’s a double standard. You can slam Christianity, but not Judaism or Islam.”
Under Canadian law, he noted, “you can expose an individual to hatred, contempt or ridicule as long as there is some basis in fact and this is your honestly held opinion.” He noted that some years ago he was called “a perverted monster” for defending Ernst Zundel by a Vancouver talk radio host. “A jury said it was defamatory but fair comment,” he explained.
 
“Opinions should be allowed,” Mr., Christie said. “Free speech is the one thing you must give your worst enemy, if you wish to keep it for yourself”
Photo: Doug Christie Addresses CAFE'S Christmas Gathering -- "Freedom Is the Cause, Not of a Day, but of a Lifetime"

TORONTO, December 2, 1012. Victoria-based lawyer and long-time free speech activist Douglas H. Christie addressed the Christmas gathering of the Canadian Association for Free Expression and posed some politically incorrect questions for his packed audience.

Challenging Canada's Trudeau-era fetish with group rights and special privileges for certain groups, Mr. Christie asked: "Why can't there be 'anti-Semitism?' Anti-Christianity is rampant. There's a double standard. You can slam Christianity, but not Judaism or Islam."

Under Canadian law, he noted, "you can expose an individual to hatred, contempt or ridicule as long as there is some basis in fact and this is your honestly held opinion." He noted that some years ago he was called "a perverted monster" for defending Ernst Zundel by a Vancouver talk radio host. "A jury said it was defamatory but fair comment," he explained.

"Opinions should be allowed," Mr., Christie said. "Free speech is the one thing you must give your worst enemy, if you wish to keep it for yourself"

"Truth will offend," the Battling Barrister noted. "Why should it be wrong for anti-homosexual activist Bill Whatcott to say homosexuality is evil?" There's low tolerance for dissent in Canada, he added. "If you disagree, why not debate him. If we're not free to debate, what are our brains for?"  he asked. "A fearless national discourse changes potential violence into understanding." 

In the case of the complaints under Saskatchewan's Human Rights Act against Mr. Whatcott, "the complaint of 'discrimination' does not refer to the denial of a service but anything that might take away the self-esteem of some privileged group, in this case homosexuals," he explained. "But what if there are negative aspects to homosexual practices? Instead of a spirited debate, so-called human rights legislation, encourages offended homosexuals to say: 'You've offended me. So, I'm taking you to the human rights commission to try to get you punished and silenced.'"

Part of the assault on free speech, Mr. Christie explained, is "a result of massive immigration from non-traditional societies. This has produced 'diversity' where people don't have a common understanding." But we're not allowed to discuss differences honestly. Instead, we'll go to court and academics and 'experts' at great expense will talk about 'human rights,' but what they practise is really tyranny," he said. "We've delegated to the courts the power to make determinations of morality."

"We're seeing an ethical transformation imposed by government. In  Ontario, Catholic schools are being forced, in the name of tolerance, to teach that homosexuality is a legitimate 'lifestyle' to be respected and protected, even though his notion is totally contrary to Catholic belief," he charged.

Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, says "context" is everything. A priest or imam may refuse to "marry" two homosexuals, but a marriage commissioner may not, even though homosexual "marriage" violates his faith. "He belongs to the state," Mr. Christie concluded.

The repressive power of the state and of human rights regimes suggests, said Mr. Christie, "the lesson that any sensible person should keep his head down, be afraid, drink his beer, because it's all too complicated." But, this is not a proper fate for free men and women,

Turning to recent developments in the Marc Lemire, Internet free speech case -- the constitutional challenge to  the constitutionality of Sec. 13,(Internet censorship)  of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Judge Richard Mosley upheld the constitutionality of Sec. 13  but not the fines and penalties. The judge took the case under questionable circumstances: "It is clear to my mind that if you justified this legislation (Sec. 13's extension to include the Internet) to Parliament and you've expressed an opinion, that raises the concern of reasonable apprehension of bias." Mr. Justice Mosley "is a judge of the Federal Court, Trial Division. However, in 2001, as a senior lawyer for the Department of Justice, he was a critical player in drafting Bill C-36," an anti-terrorism bill which, among other measures, turned over control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. "Now he's adjudicating the very legislation he assisted in drafting" and which he assured the media was constitutional.

Indeed, "Sec. 13 cases may be about to resume, thanks to Judge Mosley," he added.

In a rousing conclusion, Mr. Christie: "The State wants the power to take what you have and control your life. Don't think that government is your friend, no matter what you political party is. The cause of freedom is not the cause of a day but of a lifetime. Am I going to live in fear and silence and censor myself? Never!"

 
“Truth will offend,” the Battling Barrister noted. “Why should it be wrong for anti-homosexual activist Bill Whatcott to say homosexuality is evil?” There’s low tolerance for dissent in Canada, he added. “If you disagree, why not debate him. If we’re not free to debate, what are our brains for?”  he asked. “A fearless national discourse changes potential violence into understanding.”
 
In the case of the complaints under Saskatchewan’s Human Rights Act against Mr. Whatcott, “the complaint of ‘discrimination’ does not refer to the denial of a service but anything that might take away the self-esteem of some privileged group, in this case homosexuals,” he explained. “But what if there are negative aspects to homosexual practices? Instead of a spirited debate, so-called human rights legislation, encourages offended homosexuals to say: ‘You’ve offended me. So, I’m taking you to the human rights commission to try to get you punished and silenced.'”
Part of the assault on free speech, Mr. Christie explained, is “a result of massive immigration from non-traditional societies. This has produced ‘diversity’ where people don’t have a common understanding.” But we’re not allowed to discuss differences honestly. Instead, we’ll go to court and academics and ‘experts’ at great expense will talk about ‘human rights,’ but what they practise is really tyranny,” he said. “We’ve delegated to the courts the power to make determinations of morality.”
“We’re seeing an ethical transformation imposed by government. In  Ontario, Catholic schools are being forced, in the name of tolerance, to teach that homosexuality is a legitimate ‘lifestyle’ to be respected and protected, even though his notion is totally contrary to Catholic belief,” he charged.
Barbara Hall, Chief Commissioner of the Ontario Human Rights Commission, says “context” is everything. A priest or imam may refuse to “marry” two homosexuals, but a marriage commissioner may not, even though homosexual “marriage” violates his faith. “He belongs to the state,” Mr. Christie concluded.
The repressive power of the state and of human rights regimes suggests, said Mr. Christie, “the lesson that any sensible person should keep his head down, be afraid, drink his beer, because it’s all too complicated.” But, this is not a proper fate for free men and women,
Turning to recent developments in the Marc Lemire, Internet free speech case — the constitutional challenge to  the constitutionality of Sec. 13,(Internet censorship)  of the Canadian Human Rights Act, Judge Richard Mosley upheld the constitutionality of Sec. 13  but not the fines and penalties. The judge took the case under questionable circumstances: “It is clear to my mind that if you justified this legislation (Sec. 13’s extension to include the Internet) to Parliament and you’ve expressed an opinion, that raises the concern of reasonable apprehension of bias.” Mr. Justice Mosley “is a judge of the Federal Court, Trial Division. However, in 2001, as a senior lawyer for the Department of Justice, he was a critical player in drafting Bill C-36,” an anti-terrorism bill which, among other measures, turned over control of the Internet to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. “Now he’s adjudicating the very legislation he assisted in drafting” and which he assured the media was constitutional.
Indeed, “Sec. 13 cases may be about to resume, thanks to Judge Mosley,” he added.
In a rousing conclusion, Mr. Christie: “The State wants the power to take what you have and control your life. Don’t think that government is your friend, no matter what you political party is. The cause of freedom is not the cause of a day but of a lifetime. Am I going to live in fear and silence and censor myself? Never!”

 

Free Speech Monitor, Number 203. December, 2012

Free Speech Monitor, Number 203. December, 2012

A Bitter Grudging Partial Victory in Lemire Case

 In a long awaited decision in the Marc Lemire Internet case, Mr. Justice Richard Mosley delivered his long awaited judgement, October 2, 2012. Judge Mosley should never have been seized with this case. He should have recused himself on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias. As a lawyer for the Department of Justice, he was the point man shepherding through amendments to various pieces of legislation, including Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which was now worded to specifically hand over control of the Internet to the Human Rights Commission thought police. He strongly assured MPs that this legislation was constitutional. Now, wearing his since acquired judge’s robes, he’s being asked to rule that his baby is unconstitutional. Potential bias? Potential conflict? You bet.

Hamilton webmaster (The Freedomsite) Marc Lemire was one of Richard Warman’s most prominent victims. He was hit with a complaint by Richard Warman in 2003 for postings on the

 

Freedomsite


Then, began a six year legal battle. Mr. Lemire not only fought the complaint on the merits but also challenged the constitutionality of Sec. 13. He was joined by the Canadian Association for Free Expression and Doug Christie’s Canadian Free Speech League.

Impressive evidence was introduced and witnesses led. The dirty tricks, or at least some of them, of Richard Warman and the Canadian Human Rights Commission were exposed. We learned that the chief investigator or Internet “hate” a blind man named Dean Steacy put no weight on freedom of speech investigations as “free speech is an American concept.” The very science on which Sec. 13 was based was challenged. The sorry history of Sec. 13 — a 100% conviction rate — was exposed.

On September 2, 2009, in a landmark decision Athanasios Hadjis essentially ruled Sec. 13 unconstitutional, albeit on annoyingly narrow grounds. In 1990, by a narrow 4-3 margin, the Supreme Court of Canada narrowly upheld the constitutionality of Sec. 13 on the basis that, while it did restrict free speech, it was essentially remedial, not punitive. However, in 1998, a range of fines and financial penalties was introduced. On this basis, Mr. Hadjis acquitted Mr. Lemire on all but one charge — an article about Negroes and AIDS — refused to apply a penalty and essentially declared Sec. 13 to be unconstitutional as it was no longer “remedial.”

We’d have liked to have  seen it thrown out on more substantial grounds, Still, a victory is a victory. Within a month the Canadian Human Rights Commission sought judicial review (appeal) its humiliating defeat. After two years of legal jockeying and tens of thousands of dollars spent by those promoting free speech, the appeal was heard in Federal Court, December 13, 2011 by Judge Mosley. On June 4, well before he rendered his decision, the House of Commons repealed Sec. 13. One might think the judge would simply deliver the coup de grace and put this totalitarian piece of repression out of its misery.

However, Judge Mosley saved his hobby horse. He maintained in the fact of all evidence that Sec. 13 was constitutional and an acceptable denial of free speech. However, the financial penalties are unconstitutional. Marc Lemire is to be sent back to the Tribunal for sentencing. And to add insult to injury, chronic complainer Richard Warman who chose to make this mischief is to be paid for writing his legal brief and for attending the appeal.

THIS COURT’S JUDGMENT is that:

1. The application for judicial review is granted and the matter is remitted to the Tribunal to;

a.issue a declaration that the publication of the article “AIDS Secrets” by the respondent Marc Lemire constituted a breach of s 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act ; and

b. for determination of whether a remedy for the breach is to be imposed under ss 13 and 54(1)(a) and (b) of the Act;

2. It is declared that ss 54 (1) (c) and 54 (1.1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act are of no force or effect pursuant to s 52 (1) of The Constitution Act, 1982, being schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11,1982;

3. The respondent Richard Warman is awarded costs for the preparation of his record and his out of pocket disbursements for attendance at the hearing against the respondent Marc Lemire.

The decision is rife with errors. Here are just a few.

One of the key arguments advanced by Mr. Lemire and especially promoted by CAFE was that the justification for Sec. 13 (and, indeed, for upholding the “hate law”, Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) that the Supreme Court bought in 1990 was based on bad science.  Frankly, it was “theoretical” nonsense back then, but neuropsychology has made huge inroads and shown us how the human brain reacts. the science they accepted in 1990 is now junk. This is how it goes: the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a smoke and mirror job of Indian giving. We are promised all these rights — free speech, freedom of belief, etc. Then,  comes the weasel clause, “subject only to such restrictions as are demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” Thus, if Parliament or a provincial legislature has a good goal in mind and, to achieve the goal restricts your rights, that’s alright as long as the restrictions accomplish the goal and are not excessive. In the case of Sec. 13, the Supreme Court accepted that “hate speech” had a bad effect on society. This was all based on a 1965 report by an obscure University of Toronto psychology professor Harry Kaufmann. He argued that minorities were made fearful by “hate speech”, that they tended not to want to be themselves and that they withdrew from society and, at the extreme end, abused drugs or alcohol. This being so, Parliament, the Court held, was right to suppress “hate speech.” Common sense and every day observation tell us that that’s not the way groups respond when they are criticized, even extravagantly. Professor Michael Persinger, led as an expert witness at the Lemire tribunal, sank the scientific ship holding afloat the Supreme Court’s justification of repression. Persinger testified that Kaufmann was wrong. On being confronted with “aversive language” (“hate speech” is a loaded term, Persinger testified), minorities either  scoff at the comments and reject them or become angry and want to argue or refute them. Neither reaction is a harm to society. In fact, both are positive.  So, in fact, beyond a few wounded feelings “hate speech” causes no harm to society. There goes any justification for Sec. 13 This was a key argument.

At paragraph 78, Judge Mosley states:  “Most of the interested parties agree that the objectives of s 13, the suppression of hate speech and the promotion of equality, are pressing and substantial. Only Mr. Lemire and the CFSL appear to take issue with that proposition. Neither, in my view, have  [sic] submitted any valid argument as to why the objective of s 13 is not pressing and substantial and why this Court should depart from Taylor on that point.” Well, actually the Canadian Association for Free Expression forcefully challenged the objectives of Sec. 13 in suppressing “hate speech.” One wonders in despair whether Judge Mosley even read our submissions or heard our lawyer’s summation.

The learned judge continued:  “Lemire further questions the legitimacy of the finding in Taylor,  that hate speech can cause substantial psychological stress, arguing that the Supreme Court relied not on expert evidence, such as he presented to the Tribunal, but on extrinsic research, to reach that conclusion. (para 80)  The judge will not let his legal baby go: “Notwithstanding the recent legislative effort to repeal s 13, I have no difficulty concluding that the objective of the enactment continues to be substantial and pressing.” (para 87) Nonsense. So, as he sees it, Parliament was wrong.

Finally, Judge Mosley all but admits that the purpose of Sec. 13 is not to suppress “hate speech” but to silence a particular political ideology: “Apart from the technology, there is little to choose between Taylor’s callers and like-minded individuals looking for confirmation of their views on a white supremacist web site. And the suggestion that they are open to countervailing views cannot be taken seriously. “(para 94) The judge rejects evidence from several witnesses that the Internet is far more interactive and functions very differently from a telephone answering machine.

So, should this judgement stand, Marc Lemire would be assessed a penalty, likely a “cease and desist order”, a lifetime gag, despite the fact that the law has been repealed by the House of Commons! To add insult to injury, he’d have to pay tormentor Richard Warman for Warman’s costs in preparing his submission and his costs in travelling to the hearing from Ottawa. Warman has an uncanny way of persecuting people and still getting paid to do so. Finally, Sec. 13, until its repeal is passed by the Senate, could, theoretically be used to persecute others with the temerity to criticize privileged minorities on the Internet. Yes, on the good side, the financial penalties are gone. The Mosley decision MUST be appealed.

On October 30, Marc Lemire filed “Notice of Appeal.” On November 12, the Canadian Association for Free Expression filed notice that it wished to support Marc as an intervener in the appeal.

Canadian Dissident Jailed for One Month Definite, 6 More Months If He Doesn’t Remove Postings

Don’t let them tell you Canada is a free country. Next time some earnest do gooder reminds you of the fate of dissidents in Red China or Burma or Cuba, be sympathetic but remind him or her that Canada has no reason to be self-righteous. Our courts are quite happy to jail dissidents and gag opinion on the Internet, especially where the dissident has criticized powerful privileged groups. In China, if you criticize the powerful Communist Party, they send your impertinent butt to jail. In Canada, if you criticize privileged minorities, as has scholar and dissident Terry Tremaine, they fling your dissident self in prison.

What’s the difference?

Terry Tremaine, a scholar and blogger, is headed to prison for a month. Should he not remove dozens of postings or his website and request STORMFRONT.ORG to remove dozens more, he’ll spend a further six months in jail. To add insult to injury, just as in Red China at the height of the madness of the cultural Revolution, where “counter-revolutionaries” were send a bill for the bullet to execute them, Terry Tremaine, who is penniless, must pay the Commission’s costs for this sentencing hearing and the disbursements of chronic complainant Richard Warman who chose to participate.  Terry Tremaine instructed his lawyer to appeal this sentence. To all the naive folks listening to those TV ads about the 30th Anniversary of the Charter: Do you still think your rights are protected? Not if you cross politically powerful and privileged minorities.

 

Free Speech Monitor, Number 203. December, 2012

 

Now, the Thought Police Are After Ezra Levant for Criticisms of Gypsies

“Hate laws” exist to shield privileged groups from criticism and to shut down or stifle debate on key topics, like immigration. Back in the 1930s, the Canadian Jewish Congress began lobbying mightily for “hate” laws. Finally, in 1970, thanks to socialist Pierre Trudeau, they succeeded and we got Canada’s notorious “hate law” — Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. The latest potential victim is Ezra Levant, himself Jewish but no admirer of the Canadian Jewish Congress. Levant is a lawyer, writer and news commentator on Sun News television.
The delightful thing about “hate laws” is that a privileged minority can holler “hate” and now their critic becomes the object of attack. It’s an old sleazy lawyer’s trick: accuse the accuser. The neat thing is, by whooping up this noise about “hate”. the privilege group avoids having to answer or refute the criticism or deal with unflattering facts because the mere mention of these facts is “hate.” The Toronto Star (October 24, 2012) reported:” A complaint about broadcaster Ezra Levant’s rant that likened Gypsies to ‘swindlers’ has prompted a Toronto police investigation. Toronto’s Roma Community Centre, which has called the rant overtly racist, prejudicial, and demeaning,’ lodged the complaint with police on Oct. 11. Const. Wendy Drummond confirmed Toronto police had received the complaint and were investigating the comments aired on Levant’s Sun News show, The Source, on Sept. 5.

An Oct. 15 statement from Roma Community Centre executive director Gina Csányi-Robah described Levant’s comments as “nearly nine minutes of on-air racist hate-speech targeting our community.” Early in Levant’s segment, “The Jew vs. the Gypsies,” he likened Gypsies with ‘swindlers,’ and said ‘too many have come here as false refugees.’ Levant attempted to qualify his comments by saying politically correct terms are being used to obscure the truth. Csányi-Robah said called the comments “one of the longest and most sustained on-air broadcasts of hate-speech against any community in Canada that we’ve witnessed since our organization was established in 1997.”

Levant argued: “‘These are gypsies,’ he tells us, ‘a culture synonymous with swindlers. The phrase gypsy and cheater have been so interchangeable historically that the word has entered the English language as a verb: he gypped me. Well the gypsies have gypped us. Too many have come here as false refugees. And they come here to gyp us again and rob us blind as they have done in Europe for centuries. . . They’re gypsies. And one of the central characteristics of that culture is that their chief economy is theft and begging.” (Toronto Star, September 15, 2012)

Forget all the fog about “hate”: the only relevant question is whether what Levant said was true. Do Gypsy “refugees” — not all, of course — commit many crimes, especially theft and shoplifting? Even though our press tends to downplay immigrant crimes, or, as in a recent television news story about Gypsy gangs descending on stores to shoplift that identified the bizarrely dressed perpetrators as dressed in Eastern European costumes, there have been many reports of considerable criminality among the Gypsy “refugee” claimants, many who seem to hit the ground thieving not long after they land. Even Bernie Farber former CEO of the Canadian Jewish Congress, in a feverish denunciation of Ezra Levant, reluctantly admitted: “There will always be those who claim the Roma engage in lawlessness and crime. And in Europe, statistics do demonstrate a significant increase in theft by those living in Roma encampments. These numbers have been used by French authorities to justify large scale deportations of Roma.|” (National Post, September 25, 2012)

“The Canadian Border Services Agency is asleep at the wheel allowing more than 400 alleged Roma gypsies – many of whom have extensive criminal records – into the country and specifically the GTA, critics say.This week, the Durham Regional Police Service confirmed they had arrested 34 people and laid 263 charges in the largest investigation of its kind in the region,” CNEWS reported (September 8, 2012) “Former Conservative MPP Toni Skarica, an Ontario Crown Attorney who, speaking at a parliamentary committee, said Roma refugees from Hungary come to Canada because ‘we have the most generous welfare package for refugees in the world. That’s why they’re coming here, because they get the best deal here.’” (Toronto Star, September 15, 2012)


Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has repeatedly denounced the wholesale welfare scamming being perpetrated by many Gypsy “refugee” claimants. And, as to Ezra Levant’s charge that many are phoney refugee claimants, that is the conclusion of the Canadian Immigration and Refugee Board, which rejects the overwhelming number of claims. Think about it. Hungary is a democratic country and part of the European Union. If Gypsies felt persecuted in Hungary, they could move, let’s say to Germany. The rub is that, while they get welfare and many social benefits including housing in Hungary, most other European countries would require them to work. They would not get welfare. So, hey, head to Pollyanna Canada, say the magic “refugee” word, scarf up welfare and other social services and maybe do a little bit of thieving on the side. A healthy nation would not rely on political police to investigate “hate.” We should have a full debate. Let the complaining Gypsy leader Gina Csányi-Robah offer evidence that her people are not disproportionately involved in shoplifting Perhaps, she can bring forth evidence that the shoplifting is really being perpetrated by clever Icelanders in dark face, dressed up in “Eastern European folk costumes.”
A full 98 per cent of Gypsy refugee claims worldwide end up in Canada and the vast majority of these claims are abandoned or rejected. The government is bringing in new legislation to limit Gypsy “refugee” claims. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney ” hopes to create a list of countries that generally don’t produce refugees, to make it easier for the Canada Border Services Agency to separate unfounded refugee claims from those that have merit. Hungary, where a bulk of Roma refugee claims come from – and from where the vast majority are abandoned, withdrawn or rejected – would be on that list. ‘Countries whose nationals have an acceptance rate of 25% or less, or where 60% or more of claimants from a country have abandoned or withdrawn their claims … would be subject to designation,’ he said.” (CNEWS, October 16, 2012).

Canadians seem to approve. They were asked: “Do you think the federal government should attempt to limit Roma refugee claims?” An overwhelming 85.7% said yes; 10% said no; and 4% were not sure.”? (CNEWS, October 16, 2012).

 

Setback for Censorship: B.C. Judge Refuses to Gag Dissident Topham Before “Hate” Trial

Setback for Censorship: B.C. Judge Refuses to Gag Dissident Arthur Topham Before “Hate” Trial
Radical Press Legal Update #8
January 4, 2012

Dear Supporters of Freedom of Speech,
January 3, 2013 was a good day in B.C. and across the nation for those who have taken up metaphorical arms in defence of Canada’s fundamental right to freedom of speech on the Internet.
Here in B.C. and out in Ontario those battling against the forces of media censorship and repression were, in both cases, successful in their efforts and thus, for once, I have only positive news to report.
During the last court appearance in December presiding Judge Church, after hearing arguments from both the Crown and Defence regarding the Crown’s rather strident and persistent effort to reimpose the original bail conditions that were placed on me by Cst. Terry Wilson of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM back on May 16, 2012, reserved her judgement on the issue until January 3, 2013.
My lawyer Doug Christie attended by telephone from Victoria, B.C. and  my wife  and I were in the Quesnel Court room at 1:30 p.m. to hear Judge Church’s decision.
The Judge first gave an overview of the Crown’s arguments and those of Defence lawyer Mr. Christie before presenting her own position on the issue. According to Judge Church the Crown’s basic argument was that while I had legally resumed publishing on RadicalPress.com on November 2, 2012 I was still publishing material that the Crown felt was of the same calibre as that originally complained of by Harry Abrams and Richard Warman. To back up Crown’s argument Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston had submitted to Judge Church on December 19, 2012 a couple of screen shots taken from the radicalpress.com website that had supposed controversial headings which CC Johnston felt were significant enough that they warranted reinstating the original draconian restrictions that Cst Terry Wilson had unilaterally saddled me with on the day of my arrest in May.
Having considered these apparently pithy examples of willful promotion of hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group”  Judge Church went on to say that while the screen shots may have (as Crown was alleging), indicated an “undertone” of hatred toward those of the Jewish faith, Crown had not gone so far as to state that the captured text was in fact hateful. Furthermore, Crown had not disclosed to Judge Church any additional corroborating information pertaining to the screen shots in question which Crown was alleging were displaying such sentiments and so, according to the Judge, she had no way of determining whether or not the screen shots or the accompanying articles were, in fact, contravening sec. 319(2) of the CC of Canada.
Judge Church then went on to review Defence council Doug Christie’s arguments which basically stated Crown was attempting to pre-judge the published materials before a trial was held to determine whether or not they were in truth a contravention of sec. 319(2). It was also established that I am, in fact, a publisher and that under Canada’s constitution I have the right to publish articles deemed to be of interest to the general public and until such time that said articles are proven in a court of law to have contravened Canada’s hate crime legislation that my right to publish should not be pre-emptively prohibited simply because of allegations of wrong doing by those who feel particular materials are wilfully promoting hatred toward an ethnic minority. Throughout the course of her comments the Judge referred to the cases cited by both Crown and Defence during the previous hearing on December 19, 2012.
Another issue that had come up on December 19, 2012 was that of Disclosure. The Crown had then argued that they were withholding disclosure from my attorney because of a breach of protocol that had occurred back in the summer when a confidential document released to Doug Christie was later found to have been posted on a third party website (FreeDominion.ca). The Judge went on to describe the event which had to do with what is called a “Warned Statement” which was a digitally recorded conversation between myself and the arresting officer Cst Terry Wilson on the day of my arrest. The Crown alleged that the breach (committed by me due to ignorance of the nature of the document) posed a serious threat to the safety of the two complainants in the case Warman and Abrams and for that reason Crown had filed a further application demanding that my lawyer not provide me with any further disclosure because I might intentionally publish it or give it to someone else who might publish it and in the process endanger the complainants. CC Johnston had cited the case of the Basi-Virk Trial involving the BC Rail/BC Liberal government scandal as reasoning for her allegations.
The Judge then went on to state that the case law cited by Crown in fact dealt with examples where secondary parties who were testifying may have been at risk but that in my case it was information which I personally had given to Cst. Terry Wilson and was, as my lawyer had stated, not of the same nature and certainly did not pose any direct threat to either of the two individuals who had complained to the RCMP. As such the Judge did not feel that the Crown’s argument that Mr. Christie be restricted in sharing disclosure with me was valid.
Judge Church also considered Doug Christie’s counter argument that it would be an unreasonable and onerous position to be placed in were he not allowed to share the information in any disclosure with his client unless I was under his direct supervision given the fact that he was in Victoria and I was 700 km away in Quesnel. Mr. Christie had indicated on December 19, 2012 that he and his client would be more than willing to sign an undertaking prohibiting me from disclosing any further confidential information in order to insure that no such breach occurred a second time. The Judge was able to see the logic of Mr. Christie’s arguments while at the same time dismissing Crown’s position that the breach in question could have endangered the two complainants and went on to say that while she would not be imposing the two original conditions that prohibited me from publishing on radicalpress.com or writing articles for publication wherever I so chose she would be issuing an order that would make it illegal for me republish any further disclosure. At this point she also stating she would not impose upon Mr. Christie the condition that he be in attendance whenever disclosing confidential documents to me.
Having read out her decision regarding the matters at hand the Judge reinstated the new bail conditions and asked me if I understood them. I acknowledged that I did. As such here are the new bail conditions which I am now to legally abide by:
CONDITION ONE: You shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour.
CONDITION TWO: You shall have no contact or communication, directly or indirectly, with Richard Warman or Harry Abrams except as follows: (a) while in attendance at court; (b) through legal counsel.
CONDITION THREE: You shall not possess any weapon as defined in Section 2 of the criminal Code except for purposes directly related to your employment.
CONDITION FOUR: You shall not distribute, circulate or share all or any part of the Crown disclosure material with any person or organization.
CONDITION FIVE: You shall not publish or post all or any part of the Crown disclosure material on any internet site that can be read by the general public.
Having listened to the conditions of the new undertaking and given my consent to obey them the Judge then concluded the hearing. My wife and I then went for coffee and returned later to the Court Registry office where the undertaking was waiting for my signature. After signing it and obtaining a copy we left the building.
Included in the new undertaking was a notice stating that I would appear in court on April 2, 2013 at 1:30 pm PT in Quesnel for the preliminary hearing.
For some unknown reason Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston was absent from the court room and another assistant Crown counsel was sitting in for her.
So by all indications it looks like I will finally have some temporary respite from all the legal machinations that have been occurring over the past three months and I can focus on raising funds and adding further information to radicalpress.com that will assist others in understanding both the importance of this case and why it is that Canadians must sit up and pay much more attention to what these foreign lobbyists are doing to wreck our inherent right to freedom of expression and censor any and debate that focuses on the criminal and racist actions of the state of Israel and its dangerous and supremacist ideology known as Zionism.
Sincerely
Arthur Topham Publisher & Editor The Radical Press “Digging to the root of the issues since 1998”
————————————————————
NOTE: The struggle to retain our inherent right to freedom of speech doesn’t come without costs both financially and otherwise. Out of necessity, I am forced to ask for financial assistance in this ongoing battle with the foreign interest censors who are determined to stop all freedom of expression in Canada. Due to the fact that the Crown is refusing to give the required disclosure to my lawyer I am not able to apply for legal aid. This leaves me in the unenviable position of having to rely solely upon donations to pay for my legal expenses.
As of January 3, 2013 there are additional costs to those already incurred that now stand at $5,222.79 still owing on Mr. Christie’s account. Given my minimal monthly pension of approximately $1400.00 out of which I must pay my mortgage and utilities and insurance on home and vehicles (this doesn’t cover additional costs for fuel and food) which come to approximately $1200.00 one can see that it’s virtually impossible for me to cover these expenses without further assistance from supporters.
As such I would once again implore readers to give serious consideration to helping me out by either sending a donation via PayPal using either a PayPal account or a credit card or else sending a cheque or Money Order or cash to me via snail mail at the following postal address. Cash of course also works. Please don’t make the cheque out to “RadicalPress” as that account is no longer available to me.
Arthur Topham 4633 Barkerville Highway Quesnel, B.C. Canada V2J 6T8
To access my PayPal button please go to either the Home Page at http://www.radicalpress.com or my blog http://www.quesnelcariboosentinel.com The PayPal button is up on the right hand corner of the Home Page on either site. Feel free to click on it.
Sincerely,
Arthur Topham Pub/Ed The Radical Press