by Christopher di Armani
ByChristopher di Armani
That may seem a strange title for an article about our legal system, but after reading about Campbell Ernest Crichton, the former Duncan, BC, physiotherapist who faces charges he sexually assaulted at least 23 of his former patients, it seems to be the correct title.
A February 21, 2014, article in The Province started thus:
A hearing has been ordered in the case of a former physiotherapist who successfully argued he was too poor to pay for a lawyer to defend himself against charges he sexually assaulted 23 female patients.
Last year Campbell Ernest Crichton of Duncan, B.C., had his charges temporarily set aside after a judge found he was indigent and needed a government-funded lawyer for the complex criminal trial.
Anyone following my writings on Freedom of Speech will be well familiar with the case of Arthur Topham, the Quesnel, BC, publisher of
RadicalPress.com, an alternative news website.
Mr. Topham currently faces criminal charges under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada for “inciting hatred” against an identifiable group.
What, you ask, is the connection between Arthur Topham’s Freedom of Speech case and an [alleged] degenerate serial sex offender?
Quite simply, neither man can afford legal counsel for their criminal trials.
In the case of the [alleged] sex offender B.C. Supreme Court Justice Keith Bracken said there was a “real and substantial” risk to Crichton’s right to a fair trial if if did not have legal counsel. As a result of that “real and substantial” risk Justice Bracken ordered Crichton be provided a government-funded lawyer.
Arthur Topham is facing criminal charges for exercising his Right to Freedom of Speech. There is no “victim” here other than a few people whose actions lead me to believe they self-identify as victims. Topham sexually assaulted nobody. He physically harmed nobody. He never forced a single person on Planet Earth to read what he wrote.
Despite those facts Arthur Topham’s right to a fair trial with adequate legal counsel seems unimportant to the very same judiciary that ruled an [alleged] serial sex offender ought to have a government-funded lawyer.
Arthur Topham is not a wealthy man. He’s a modest man living on modest means in his rural home outside of Quesnel, BC. His application for legal aid was denied. His application for government funding under what is known as a Rowbotham Application was similarly denied.
By these standards it is far more important that a sexual deviant’s rights be safeguarded than a man who dared write a few words someone found objectionable.
That is a very dangerous precedent to set.
Sending a man to prison for the words he writes ought to scare the crap out of every single writer in Canada. Sure, today it’s Topham’s views that are “politically incorrect” and therefore fair game for our legal system, but what about tomorrow? Whose views will be deemed “incorrect” then? Who will stand up for you then?
Campbell Ernest Crichton is charged with sexually abusing 23 human beings. That is real, substantial physical and emotional trauma all for one sick man’s own sexual gratification.
There are real human victims.
Arthur Topham wrote an article someone didn’t like. For that the BC Hate Crimes Unit of the RCMP and the BC Attorney General want to send Mr. Topham to prison, while refusing him any chance of a true legal defense.
Shouldn’t we be far more concerned about sexual predators? Nope. We’ll happily pay their legal fees and send that darned writer to prison. After all, ideas are far more dangerous than sexual predators, right?
Christopher di Armani is the editor and publisher of Canada’s Rights and Freedom Bulletin. This article appeared in Issue No. 167, Feb. 22, 2014. Visit Mr. Armani’s site at: http://Bulletin.RightsAndFreedoms.org
My court battle to retain the right to publish the truth about any and all injustices is a serious and costly effort and one critical to the future of all Canadians who wish to have the same rights and freedoms. Please consider a donation to the Radical Press Free
Free Speech Monitor
Number 215 March, 2014
Small Victory: Political Prisoner Brad Love Can Now Write His Lawyer
LINDSAY, Ontario, February 3, 2014. Four court appearances and over two months after the Ontario Provincial Police (OPP) charged Canadian political prisoner Brad Love (already in jail for writing letters) with breach of bail conditions for writing a letter to his own lawyer, the Crown withdrew the charge this morning. Mr. Love can now legally write letters. Appearing before Mr. Justice Chester, Crown Attorney Jennifer Broderick withdrew a charge of breach of undertaking (bail) against Mr. Love.
The charge should never have been laid. Last May, Mr. Love was charged with several counts of sending “scurrilous” material through the mail and harassment of several Fort McMurray media people and politicians, He had sent them non-threatening political literature and had phoned them. In hypersensitive, politically correct Canada, recipients of critical or — that empty all pervasive term of negativity — “inappropriate” material, instead of tossing it in the garbage, call the political police. Mr. Love’s initial bail conditions might have been forged in North Korea. Mr. Love, already in prison for five months awaiting an appeal date for a May, 2012 conviction and draconian sentence of 18 months for breach of probation — sending information packages to four Toronto Jewish groups — was charged by police on November 28 for writing to his own lawyer, Peter Lindsay.
The bail conditions forbad him to “communicate by post, e-mail or text” with anybody. [Yes, such tyranny was imposed in Canada!] With CAFE’s help and legal research, Mr. Love appeared in Court in Fort McMurray, July 11, 2013 and had the bail conditions amended so that he was forbidden to communicate only with the parties involved in the complaint against him — a significant victory. The Crown, however, despite Mr. Love’s court appearances December 19, January 2 and 20, seemed unable to locate the transcript of the order. Mr. Lindsay finally obtained the transcript of the more reasonable bail conditions and today the Crown withdrew the charge. The scandal is that the Crown studiously ignored and clearly did not adequately investigate Mr. Love’s honest assurances from the beginning that the conditions had been varied. Also, several Ontario Crowns seemed to see no problem in conditions that might even make Kim Jong On blush — no written communication with anyone! This is a minor victory in a 12-year saga of legal harassment of a non-violent dissident whose only “crime” is writing non-violent letters to media or public officials.
Free Speech Takes A Thumping: McCorkill Will Is “Against Public Policy”
ST. JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK. January 27, 2014. The atmosphere inside Courtroom 13 was more frigid for freedom of thought than the bitter Maritime winter outside the courtroom. This morning lawyers argued that the will of the late Professor Robert McCorkill giving a bequest to the White Nationalist U.S.-based National Alliance be set aside. It was like an Anti-racist Action meeting with slogans of “neo-Nazi” “White supremacist” and “racist” snapping through the air in the Court of Queen’ Bench. There was a lot of “hate” in the air or, at least, how much certain people hate “hate.”
Moncton lawyer Marc-Antoine Chiasson led off the complainant’s case before Judge William T. Grant. He represents the long-estranged sister of the late Robert McCorkill who brought this current action to nullify the bequest. She turned up or was found after being silent during the nine years since her brother’s death, after the militantly anti-free speech U.S.-based Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) found out about the bequest soon after the will was probated in May, 2013. The exceedingly well-funded SPLC, an arch enemy of the National Alliance, went on the warpath to stop the bequest. The only problem for them was that they have no legal standing in Canada. Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman was soon being quoted in the press commenting that the bequest should be nullified because it was contrary to public policy. Isabelle McCorkell [yes, different spelling] emerged and, although she claims to live on $1,000 a month, hired a pricey Moncton law firm to obtain an ex-parte injunction freezing the assets of the will and then a further application to nullify the bequest. Piling in to support her were the Attorney General of New Brunswick , the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.
“This is an unusual case,” Mr. Chiasson noted. And then the smears and name-calling began: “The Court must decide whether it is acceptable or appropriate to leave a bequest to a White supremacist, neo-Nazi organization that wants to rid North America of Jews. We should not be able to interfere with a will on a whim because we don’t like the beneficiary,” he added. [Then, why are we here? I wondered.] However, he added, “there is a certain line that cannot be crossed, but the line has been crossed with the bequest to the National Alliance and we ask this Court to intervene. The Court should intervene in very few cases,” he admitted. However, an exception should be made for “hate propaganda” and “hate groups.”
The three lawyers arguing for the application repeatedly demanded suppression of people and views their clients didn’t like. “Any group that promotes views contrary to the human rights codes is unacceptable,” Mr. Chiasson announced. “The International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination condemns all groups that promote the superiority of a race and the participation in or financing of such groups,” he added. [Did Canada or its Parliament knowingly sign on to such a mental straight jacket?] “Multiculturalism and equality are the linchpins of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” he said. [The Charter, it might be noted, for all its talk of “equality” grants special privileges to favoured minorities.] So, he argued, “we have adopted the view that, in Canada, the propaganda of the National Alliance, the existence of the National Alliance and the financing of the National Alliance is contrary to public policy.” Mr. Chiasson professed himself outraged that the National Alliance believes in “the preservation of the White Race and racial separation.” Reading from the National Alliance’s 2005 Membership Handbook, he quoted the NA’s programme: “We must have White work spaces, White farms, White schools. “
Mr. Chiason equated White self-preservation with White Supremacy. “We just can’t stop ideas at the border due to the power of the Internet,” he complained. Apparently, dissenting in certain historical debates is against the law, at least in Mr. Chiasson’s submissions: “The National Alliance says ‘the holocaust is a myth’. This is hate speech and contrary to public policy.” No evidence had been adduced of homicidal inclinations on the part of the NA, but, Mr. Chiasson concluded: “The sole purpose of the NA is promoting hate and killing non-Whites, its sole objective is to create White living space, and, thus, it offends public policy. The gift is illegal and against public policy and should be voided.”
Next up was Richard Williams of Fredericton, representing the Attorney General of New Brunswick. “|Our only interest in this matter is our belief that the bequest is illegal and contrary to public policy,” he said. A strong voice for repression, he declared: “The theme of the Charter and human rights codes is that racism will not be allowed in this country.” He professed himself upset at the notion of “White living space”, although he made no mention of native land claims or special lands for Indians or Eskimos. He added: “There is no redeeming merit” in the National Alliance. Attempting to answer an argument in CAFE’s brief that nullifying the McCorkill will could launch a flood of similar litigation, he concluded: “I never expect to have a case like this again in my career.”
The final presentation of the morning came on behalf of another intervener, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. Representing B’nai Brith, Catherine Fawcett insisted: “The National Alliance has a presence in Canada and is well known to the League.” Whether the NA has actually committed acts of violence “doesn’t matter. They put out ideas that incite hate. Their membership is restricted to White people who support the objectives of the NA. “In the NA Handbook, they say: “The holocaust story in engineered by Jews or is full of exaggerations.’ This is contrary to Canadian values,” she insisted. Elsewhere, the NA says that “AIDS has taken off undesirables among Whites — homosexuals, intravenous drug users, and those who have sex with non-Whites. That, M’lord, is hate.” In a country that does not have a Second Amendment to protect the right to keep and bear arms, Miss Fawcett was very critical of the NA Handbook urging members to have weapons for the defence of their family or to join the state militia, if necessary. The Handbook recommended a riot gun, a military semi-automatic rifle, a handgun and at least 500 rounds of ammunition. She took great exception to the NA saying: “The Aryan Race has the right to ensure its own survival and it must have a White living space including Europe, North America and the southern tip of Africa.” NA Chairman Erich Gleibe in an affidavit “says the National Alliance has no programmes in Canada, but the effect of the National Alliance message is to corrupt people and turn a small receptive minority against multiculturalism. We can stop printed material at the border and we have ‘anti-hate’ legislation but the Internet can reach so many.” Concluding, she said: “This Court has the power to strike down the testamentary gift to the National Alliance and stop it spreading its message of hate.”. — Paul Fromm
CAFE & Free Speech Supporters Heard In McCorkill Will Case; Judge Reserves
St. John, New Brunswick. January 28, 2014. Lawyers defending the right of a man to will his estate to a controversial group had their day in court today.However, before the free speech lawyers defending the bequest were heard, the third of three interveners advocating the nullification of the will addressed the court. Danys Delaquis, representing the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said: “CIJA opposes anti-Semitism, racism and discrimination. There is no room for any Jewish person in the White space the National Alliance seeks to create,” he complained. “If the bequest is not voided it will be detrimental to the Canadian Jewish community,” he added. Mr. Delaquis then issued a warning: “If a barrister or solicitor here in New Brunswick adopted the views of the National Alliance, he would soon be out of work. The role of regulatory bodies is vital to see the values of inclusiveness we hold prevail.” The St. John lawyer seemed to see no irony in recommending the exclusion of dissident opinions from his ideal universe of “inclusiveness.” He urged the Court to take an activist approach: “The courts cannot leave it to the legislature.” There are no redeeming qualities in the National Alliance in regard to Canadian public policy,” he insisted. “The National Alliance excludes an entire people from its White space. This is repugnant and offensive. The public interest must outweigh the wishes of Mr. McCorkill.”
Paul Fromm, CAFÉ Director, and New Brunswick Free Speech Martyr Malcolm Ross
Rising for the defence was John Hughes, a tall stately lawyer from Moncton with a shock of white hair.” “I am acting for the Estate of Robert McCorkill, not the National Alliance,” he explained. “There is no propaganda or hate speech in the will. No one has argued that Robert McCorkill was not capable of making this bequest and the bequest is clear. There is no evidence the National Alliance has violated any U.S. law and it remains a U.S. corporation in good standing. There is no evidence the National Alliance was ever convicted or charged with an offence in either the U.S. or Canada. Is the NA duty bound to obey the law of any country but its own?” he asked. “The affidavit of the Southern Poverty Law Centre’s Mark Potok’s points to six ‘contact points’ the National Alliance had in Canada in 2003 — Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, London, Ottawa — but none in New Brunswick. Potok admits a name can be included on a ‘hate list’ for merely the mentioning of a P.O. Box. Erich Gleibe, National Chairman of the NA, said in his affidavit that, as of 2013, the NA has no programmes in Canada. There is no evidence,” he added, “that the National Alliance has ever held a meeting in New Brunswick. Without a credible presence in New Brunswick, the NA is subject to the jurisdiction it resides in; namely, West Virginia, where the glorious First Amendment with its guarantee of freedom of speech is the law that governs it, not the laws of Canada. The National Alliance is a peaceable organization that promotes and exchanges ideas and does not cross the line into crime. Therefore, the National Alliance qualifies as a beneficiary under the law governing it — U.S. law.” Referring to the applicant and her allies as “the unruly chorus about the law of public policy,” Mr. Hughes argued: “Courts can make decisions for the restraint of the population under their jurisdiction, like the New Brunswick horses in the Wishart case (the frequently cited case where a provision requiring the shooting of the man’s four horses was overturned by a Court.) The disposition of this will either way will have no effect on the people of New Brunswick. The appropriate decision is for the Court to follow the guidance of Sec. 17 of the Interpretation Act and dismiss this application with costs.”
The final submissions were from Andy Lodge, a well organized litigator from St. John, representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression. “I am not here to defend the National Alliance,” he said. “I have listened for many hours and read through 1,000 pages of legal documentation and I am struck by one point — all the energy and money spent over the past six months, with very little time spent on the actual McCorkill will. There is no legal basis,” Mr. Lodge argued, “to challenge the McCorkill will. It is a valid will, properly constructed and compliant with the Wills Act. No words in this will are contrary to any public policy. This is a very significant point and the real reason this Court should refuse this applicant. Other interveners,” he continued, “are very concerned about the character, written words and behaviour of the National Alliance. That alone is not enough to challenge a will. Make no mistake,” Mr. Lodge warned, “the applicant and the supporting interveners are trying to get this Court to go where no Court has gone before. The applicant is trying to get this Court to evaluate the beneficiary and to find effectively that the National Alliance is not worthy to receive a testamentary gift — the ‘public policy issue.’ Despite legal arguments over the past six months, there is no evidence of any members of the National Alliance being charged with crimes. Otherwise, the representative of the Attorney General of New Brunswick [Mr. Williams] would be downstairs charging the National Alliance. Whether the National Alliance’s values are congruent with the values of Canada should not be the issue. Allowing this applicant to succeed by assailing the character of others should not be permitted,” he concluded.
Photo by AFP/Getty
Should Neo-Nazis Be Allowed Free Speech?
Over the past several weeks, free speech has gotten costlier—at least in France and Israel.
In France, Dieudonne M’Bala M’Bala, an anti-Semitic stand-up comic infamous for popularizing the quenelle, an inverted Nazi salute, was banned from performing in two cities. M’Bala M’Bala has been repeatedly fined for hate speech, and this was not the first time his act was perceived as a threat to public order.
Meanwhile, Israel’s parliament is soon to pass a bill outlawing the word Nazi for non-educational purposes. Indeed, any slur against another that invokes the Third Reich could land the speaker in jail for six months with a fine of $29,000. The Israelis are concerned about both the rise of anti-Semitism globally, and the trivialization of the Holocaust—even locally.
To Americans, these actions in France and Israel seem positively undemocratic. The First Amendment would never prohibit the quenelle, regardless of its symbolic meaning. And any lover of “Seinfeld” would regard banning the “Soup Nazi” episode as scandalously un-American. After all, in 1977 a federal court upheld the right of neo-Nazis to goose-step right through the town of Skokie, Illinois, which had a disproportionately large number of Holocaust survivors as residents. And more recently, the Supreme Court upheld the right of a church group opposed to gays serving in the military to picket the funeral of a dead marine with signs that read, “God Hates Fags.”
While what is happening in France and Israel is wholly foreign to Americans, perhaps it’s time to consider whether these and other countries may be right. Perhaps America’s fixation on free speech has gone too far.
Actually, the United States is an outlier among democracies in granting such generous free speech guarantees. Six European countries, along with Brazil, prohibit the use of Nazi symbols and flags. Many more countries have outlawed Holocaust denial. Indeed, even encouraging racial discrimination in France is a crime. In pluralistic nations like these with clashing cultures and historical tragedies not shared by all, mutual respect and civility helps keep the peace and avoids unnecessary mental trauma.
Why should speech be exempt from public welfare concerns when its social costs can be even more injurious?
Yet, even in the United States, free speech is not unlimited. Certain proscribed categories have always existed—libel, slander and defamation, obscenity, “fighting words,” and the “incitement of imminent lawlessness”—where the First Amendment does not protect the speaker, where the right to speak is curtailed for reasons of general welfare and public safety. There is no freedom to shout “fire” in a crowded theater. Hate crime statutes exist in many jurisdictions where bias-motivated crimes are given more severe penalties. In 2003, the Supreme Court held that speech intended to intimidate, such as cross burning, might not receive First Amendment protection.
Yet, the confusion is that in placing limits on speech we privilege physical over emotional harm. Indeed, we have an entire legal system, and an attitude toward speech, that takes its cue from a nursery rhyme: “Stick and stones can break my bones but names can never hurt me.”
All of us know, however, and despite what we tell our children, names do, indeed, hurt. And recent studies in universities such as Purdue, UCLA, Michigan, Toronto, Arizona, Maryland, and Macquarie University in New South Wales, show, among other things, through brain scans and controlled studies with participants who were subjected to both physical and emotional pain, that emotional harm is equal in intensity to that experienced by the body, and is even more long-lasting and traumatic. Physical pain subsides; emotional pain, when recalled, is relived.
Pain has a shared circuitry in the human brain, and it makes no distinction between being hit in the face and losing face (or having a broken heart) as a result of bereavement, betrayal, social exclusion and grave insult. Emotional distress can, in fact, make the body sick. Indeed, research has shown that pain relief medication can work equally well for both physical and emotional injury.
We impose speed limits on driving and regulate food and drugs because we know that the costs of not doing so can lead to accidents and harm. Why should speech be exempt from public welfare concerns when its social costs can be even more injurious?
In the marketplace of ideas, there is a difference between trying to persuade and trying to injure. One can object to gays in the military without ruining the one moment a father has to bury his son; neo-Nazis can long for the Third Reich without re-traumatizing Hitler’s victims; one can oppose Affirmative Action without burning a cross on an African-American’s lawn.
Of course, everything is a matter of degree. Juries are faced with similar ambiguities when it comes to physical injury. No one knows for certain whether the plaintiff wearing a neck brace can’t actually run the New York Marathon. We tolerate the fake slip and fall, but we feel absolutely helpless in evaluating whether words and gestures intended to harm actually do cause harm. Jurors are as capable of working through these uncertainties in the area of emotional harms as they are in the realm of physical injury.
Free speech should not stand in the way of common decency. No right should be so freely and recklessly exercised that it becomes an impediment to civil society, making it so that others are made to feel less free, their private space and peace invaded, their sensitivities cruelly trampled upon.
We Need Your Help!
We need your support for the McCorkill Will Case in St. John, NB. We need your help to keep CAFÉ in the courts punching for freedom of speech. We need your help to support free speech victims.
CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
___ Here is my donation of $_______ to help CAFÉ’s work in supporting the victims of censorship and McCorkill cases.
___ Please renew my subscription for 2014 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
$___ Doug Christie booklet order from back of this coupon.
Please charge _____my VISA#_________________________
Expiry date: __________ Signature:____________________
Doug Christie Free Speech Booklets
For 30 years, Doug Christie, the Battling Barrister, has been Canada’s outstanding free speech attorney. He passed away of liver cancer, all too young, on March 11, at age 66. Order his outstanding free speech booklets published in C-FAR’S Canadian Issue Series.
__ The Zundel Trial & Free Speech by Douglas Christie (1985) $4.00
__ Thought Crimes Trial: The Keegstra Case by Douglas Christie (1987) $4.00
__ Free Speech IS the Issue by Douglas Christie (1990) ($5)
[Tick booklets you want here and indicate the number and enter dollar amount on the other side of this coupon.]
Federal Court of Appeals Rules Sec. 13 (Internet Censorship) is Constitutional & Penalties Are Back
The Federal Court of Appeals has confirmed again that the highest courts of this land are dominated by Cultural Marxists. Free speech took another battering. The issue was whether Sec. 13 (Internet censorship) of the Canadian Human Rights Act is constitutional. After years of protest. Parliament repealed this odious piece of censorship in June, 2013.
Marc Lemire and his Freedomsite had been the victims of a Sec. 13 complaint filed by serial complainant Richard Warman. The case was fought for six years, resulting in the only victory under Sec. 13 (truth is no defence, intent is no defence ( in September, 2009, when member Athanasios Hadjis essentially found Sec. 13 unconstitutional as it imposed financial penalties and when the Supreme Court upheld a milder version of the law in Taylor, in 1990, they did so, in part, because it was remedial. The Canadian Human Rights Commission sought judicial review (in Federal Court). The hearing was in December, 2011. The Federal Court ruled the law constitutional but agreed that the penalties were out. Marc Lemire then appealed to the Federal Court, which heard the case on November 14.
The three judges ruled Sec. 13 is constitutional and the financial penalties are back in.
In his judgement, Mr. Justice Evans, closely followed the Supreme Court in its decision in Whatcott, the case of the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission fining William Whatcott for distributing leaflets critical of homosexuals some 13 years ago. The Whatcott decision was a viciously anti-Christian ruling that was classic Cultural Communism. The Frankfurt School of communists, which is the evil genius behind political correctness (radical feminism, the homosexual agenda, the mis-named “civil rights movement”) is based on a radical view of “equality.” All people are equal, say the true believers. Of course, when that’s not the way things
work out, then laws must be used to impose equality. It is from this view, for instance, that Canada’s nutty Supreme Court decided that the traditional definition of marriage is out: if a man can marry a woman, then a man should be able to marry a man.
Let’s look at some of this decision’s reasoning, as ideology trumps freedom of speech and even logic.
In Mr. Lemire’s submissions and in Mr. Hadjis’s decision, the conduct of the Commission was very much in question. Contrary to the approach endorsed by the Supreme Court in Taylor, the Commission and Mr. Warman refused repeated requests for mediation.
“In particular, the Tribunal noted, unlike complaints of other kinds of discriminatory
practices, the Commission had rarely attempted to mediate section 13 complaints. Instead, it
referred the vast majority of them to the Tribunal for adjudication, and regularly sought
compensatory awards and penalties. Moreover, the Commission often continued to process
complaints after impugned material had been removed from the website on which it was posted.
Indeed, in the present case, Mr Lemire had removed most of the material before he was notified of
Mr Warman’s complaints, and promptly removed “AIDS Secrets” from Freedomsite after learning
that it was the subject of a complaint to the Commission. Further, the Tribunal found, the
Commission had not attempted to resolve the complaint by conciliation.”
But, none of that mattered to the Federal Appeals Court. Perhaps, the overworked thought police at the Canadian Human Rights Commission just didn’t have time for mediation or to notice that Mr. Lemire had swiftly removed all the impugned posts. If mediation were the approach of the Human Rights Commission, as the SCC found in Taylor, surely this should have mattered, but no!
” After finding that the Tribunal had no authority to examine the conduct of the Commission for the purpose of determining Mr Lemire’s constitutional challenge to section 13, the Judge considered whether the Court could examine the manner in which the Commission administered section 13 when determining whether it is a reasonable limit on section 2(b) rights and thus saved by section 1. He held that the way in which Commission exercised its statutory administrative powers was not relevant to the validity of section 13.
Nor do I accept that the effects of the Commission’s conduct have displaced the valid
objectives of section 13, namely the prevention of discrimination against vulnerable groups on prohibited grounds. Conciliation is not the only constitutionally permissible manner in which the Commission may approach the enforcement of the CHRA in general and of section 13 in particular.
Because of the nature and relatively small number of section 13 complaints, as well as the
extreme kinds of speech proscribed, I agree with the Judge (at paras. 63-64) that the Commission cannot reasonably be criticized for being reluctant, in this and other section 13 complaints, to devote scarce resources to mediation and conciliation, or to accept offers to take down offending material
Too bad for Lemire if his rights to due process were trampled on.
The Federal Court of Appeals leaned heavily on Mr. Justice Rothstein’s decision in Whatcott. The wording reflects the Frankfurt School’s conspiracy theory of reality: there are dominant majorities — White and usually Christian and male — oppressing “vulnerable” minorities, who must be given special protection by “human” (actually, special) rights legislation.
Here’s the argument:
“Writing for the Court in Whatcott, Justice Rothstein summarized (at para. 59) the
principal elements of hate speech provisions in human rights legislation that provide the degree of objectivity required by the Charter.
… [W]here the term ‘hatred’ is used in the context of a prohibition of expression in
human rights legislation, it should be applied objectively to determine whether a
reasonable person, aware of the context and circumstances, would view the
expression as likely to expose a person or group to detestation and vilification on the
basis of a prohibited ground of discrimination.
In other words, “[t]ribunals must focus on the likely effects of impugned expression in
order to achieve the preventive goals of anti-discrimination statutes” (at para. 54). … Addressing the objectives of hate speech provisions in human rights legislation, Justice Rothstein said (at para. 71):
When people are vilified as blameworthy or undeserving, it is easier to justify
discriminatory treatment. The objective of … [hate speech provisions] may be understood as reducing the harmful effects and social costs of discrimination by tackling certain causes of discriminatory activity.
[Justice Rothstein noted (at para. 75) that a “particularly insidious aspect of hate speech” is that it effectively blocks the target group from responding. It does this not only by attempting to marginalize the group so that their reply will be ignored: it also forces the group to argue for their basic humanity or social standing, as a precondition to participating in the deliberative aspects of democracy.
Finally, Justice Rothstein observed (at para. 120) that because of its narrow definition, hate speech constitutes ‘an extreme and marginal type of expression’. It ‘contributes little to the values underlying freedom of expression and … its restriction is therefore easier to justify’ under section 1. “
So, “hate speech”, because the Court doesn’t like its message, is not a legitimate form of “freedom of expression.” And, of course, as even a high school student can see, then there really isn’t FREEDOM of expression. Note the utterly unproven conspiracy theory that a [posting on Marc Lemire’s website critical of homosexuals intimidated or silenced homosexuals. In fact, it was busybody Richard Warman, not homosexuals, who complained against Marc Lemire. During the years this case has inched through a tribunal and on to the Federal Court, homosexuals have gained the right of same sex marriage, many Canadian cities are flying rainbow flags in support of supposedly aggrieved homosexuals in Russia, several provinces have imposed militantly pro-homosexual curricula even on little grade school children and Canada’s present “Conservative” government is among the most “gay” friendly ever. There is NO objective evidence that Kevin Strom’s article on The Freedomsite, long since removed, ever intimidated or silenced anybody.
The person who faces silencing is Mr. Lemire!
The Court has no trouble with the fact that neither intent nor truth is a defence:
“Hate speech constitutes an extreme form of expression of limited scope that fosters a
climate in which unlawful discrimination may be regarded as acceptable and flourish. It does this by demeaning, vilifying, and marginalizing groups of individuals who share characteristics that constitute a prohibited ground of discrimination under the CHRA. Since hate speech contributes little to the values underlying free speech, its proscription is fairly easily justifiable under section 1. Hate speech constitutes an extreme form of expression of limited scope that fosters a climate in which unlawful discrimination may be regarded as acceptable and flourish. It does this by demeaning, vilifying, and marginalizing groups of individuals who share characteristics that constitute a prohibited ground of discrimination under the CHRA. Since hate speech contributes little to the values underlying free speech, its proscription is fairly easily justifiable under section 1. “
As to penalties, only the African Canadian Legal Clinic, represented by two lawyers who were, well, decidedly un-African or Black, wanted the penalties restored. The Federal Court of Appeals ruled: “I agree with the Judge that it is not constitutionally permissible for human rights legislation, to include a sanction designed to impose a punishment that expresses society’s moral opprobrium of the conduct of the wilful communicator of hate speech. ”
It doesn’t matter: Impose a punishment anyway and call it something else:
” The Supreme Court recognized for the first time in Whatcott that the imposition of a
financial sanction was a constitutionally permissible remedy for breach of a hate speech provision in human rights legislation. Thus, Justice Rothstein said (at para. 149): As in tort law, an award of damages made pursuant to the Code is characterized as compensatory, not punitive, and is directed at compensating the victim. However, the circumstances in which a compensation award will be merited should be rare and will often involve repeat litigants who refuse to participate in a conciliatory approach. ” So a financial award is not “punitive”?
The plain meaning of English is being bent like a pretzel.” Since subsection 53(3) does not in terms require proof of loss by the victim, it is not compensatory in precisely the same way as paragraph 31.4(b) of the Saskatchewan Code which applies when the hate speech caused the injured person to suffer with respect to feeling, dignity or self-respect. Nonetheless, when applied to breaches of section 13, subsection 53(3) can be regarded as compensating victims specifically identified in hate speech for the damage presumptively caused to their “sense of human dignity and belonging to the community at large” which Whatcott
recognized (at para. 81) that hate speech causes. In my view, when the penalty provisions are considered in the context of the objectives of the CHRA and its remedial scheme, they are not properly characterized as penal in nature.”
To compensate identified people “for the damage presumptively caused to their ‘sense of dignity’”? Note the weasel word “presumptively”. Thus, no real damage or injury has to be proven at all.
So, where does this decision leave freedom of speech? On one level, the ruling of the Federal Court of Appeals will effect only Mr. Lemire who now faces a sentencing hearing, should he not appeal. As Sec. 13 has been repealed, the Federal Court of Appeals decision is largely moot. However, and this is a big however, as Sec. 13 has been ruled constitutional, another government, say Liberal of NDP, could reintroduce it. And there lies the danger.
CAFÉ has been an intervener and has supported Marc Lemire throughout his 11-year ordeal. CAFÉ’s submissions were studiously ignored by the federal Court of Appeal. For good reason. CAFÉ reminded the Court of the testimony before the Tribunal of Professor Michael Persinger. The eminent neuropsychologist sank the leaky scientific ship on which all this Frankfurt School “vulnerable minority” theory is based. His expert testimony testified that people subjective to “aversive speech” (not the emotional “hate speech” label, but views contrary to or critical of their own group) do not fall apart in fear, withdrawal or alienation: they either reject the criticism as crazy or laughable, or fight back and argue – both healthy reactions. The Court ignored the submissions that their ideology that forms the justification for the erasing of free speech through Canada’s various “anti-hate” laws is as utterly without scientific basis as the views of the flat earth society.
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Censorship Victim Marc Lemire Comments
The court is an insane asylum! Stay as far away from it as you can, if you want any “justice”!
The three Appeals court fossils upheld Section 13, and REINSTATED the penalty provisions, although all the main parties agreed it was unconstitutional! The only party who wanted it was the “African-Canadian” legal clinic, whose two religio-ethnic lawyers were distinctly non-“African Canadian”.
Those judges were rubbing their hands together when the “African-Canadian” legal clinic made submissions about how the penalty provision is not actually a penalty. And the Judges were their argument, almost verbatim, in this decision.
I guess this means… back to the Tribunal for me. For my penalty/non-“penalty” phase, where they slap me with a lifetime speech ban and possibly thousands in penalties/non-”penalties”.
Regina v RadicalPress.com LEGAL UPDATE #17
January 27th, 2014
January 27th, 2014
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,
Due to the nature of this particular Legal Update, i.e., it being recent events connected to my Preliminary Inquiry, the necessity arose for editorial commentary throughout the report wherever I felt it was warranted. It also meant that it would be a rather long article as well. The need to present a general overview of my case now that it’s finally reached this stage is the reason for its inordinate length.
January 22nd, 2014 marked the 616th day since my arrest on May 16th, 2012 for the alleged crime of “communicating statements, other than in private conversation, [that] willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.” The actual section of the Criminal Code of Canada reads:
Wilful promotion of hatred
(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of
(a) an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or
(b) an offence punishable on summary conviction.
In the Legal Rights section of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, under “Proceedings in criminal and penal matters”, 11(b) it states:
11. Any person charged with an offence has the right
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
According to the stated legal rights of all Canadian citizens (as denoted in the above Section 11(b) of the Charter), one must assume that a wait of 616 days or 20 months plus should be construed as being a “reasonable time” in which to expect one’s case to be heard in a Canadian court of law. But of course 616 days is only the beginning of the arduous process of seeking justice within the Canadian court system. January 22nd, 2014 was not the day when my trial on these specious charges was set to commence; it was but the date set for the Preliminary Inquiry which is basically an opportunity afforded the accused wherein they are given an opportunity to dispute the actual evidence which precipitated the laying of charges based on the Crown’s allegations.
I will get to the actual proceedings but first I’d like to say a few words about this section of the Canadian Criminal Code (CCC) which is placed under the heading “Hate Propaganda” and exists as Sections 318(1) through to Section 320.1(1) of the Code itself. This vile, undemocratic section of the Criminal Code was inserted into law by Zionist forces operating within the Cohen Commission back in 1970 and remains the one critical section of Canada’s criminal code where the pro-Zionist elements within Canada are now focusing their combined effort in a last ditch, desperate legal campaign designed to censor and silence Canada’s Internet and prevent Freedom of Speech from occurring without fear of legal reprisals.
Until Canada is free of all this Zionist created “HATE” legislation we will never be able to say that we’re a democratic nation that values the one fundamental God-given right that must remain sacrosanct in order to retain all of our other inherent rights, that being the right to free and unfettered expression. All of it must be eliminated so that a level playing field will exist for every Canadian.
The Preliminary Inquiry – Day One
Back in November of 2013 the date, January 22nd, 2014, was set for a full day to hold a preliminary inquiry into my Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” case involving the two complainants – B’nai Brith Canada (represented by Harry Abrams) and Richard Warman, a lawyer involved in numerous former Sec. 13 cases prior to the law’s repeal in June of 2012. My former lawyer, Doug Christie, had requested that at least one week of time be set aside for the preliminary inquiry in order to challenge all the specious evidence that Crown had used in order to gain its search warrant then used to invade my residence and steal all my computers and electronic files plus other hard copy materials which weren’t covered in the warrant. Crown at that time agreed to four days.
After the passing of Mr. Christie in March of 2013 Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston changed that time period to one day, telling the judge that in her estimation a single day was all the time necessary for Crown to – as Crown and Judge Morgan have been wont to say repeatedly, – “pass the Shepherd test” and move the case on to the trial stage. The “Shephard Test“, for those not versed in court legalese involved an extradition case back in the 1970′s out of which emerged a number of test arguments as to the degree of evidence required in order for a judge to determine whether or not to move the case forward.
Being self-represented and unaware of the machinations of Crown I ended up with one day in order to address all the issues including the sworn information of Cst. Normandie Levas provided to a Justice of the Peace in order to have the search warrant approved; information that contained numerous allegations which appeared to have been written by a Zionist script writer rather than by someone who was at the time relatively new to the controversial BC HATE CRIME TEAM and not versed in the whole array of research necessary to make expert commentary on issues dealing with what may or may not be alleged to be “hate” literature. All these allegations initially sworn in the Information regarding postings on the RadicalPress.com website were basically the same evidence that Crown was now introducing at the preliminary inquiry in order to convince Judge Morgan that there was sufficient evidence to commit my case to trial.
Initially Crown was planning to call a number of witnesses for the preliminary inquiry, the bulk of them being RCMP officers involved in the surveillance and later plunder of my home and theft of my computers and electronic files and firearms. The others were Barry Salt an expert in the field of forensic examination of computers and data and, of course, Det.Cst. Terry Wilson, the Lead Investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM located in Surrey, B.C. I had made application to the court to have the judge order Crown to subpoena the other crucial witnesses – the two complainants who had filed the vexatious complaints in the first place and Cst. Normandie Levas, the second member of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM who, as the Affiant swearing the Information, was responsible for the act that led to the granting of thel search warrant used to enter my home and steal all of my computer equipment and firearms. Judge Morgan did eventually direct Crown to have Cst. Levas appear but as she was on “holidays” at the time of the scheduled inquiry a later date of March 13th, 2014 was set for cross-examination.
During an earlier focus hearing on January 3rd, 2014 Judge Morgan mediated some concessions between Crown and myself, which I agreed to, regarding some of the witnesses being called in order to prove where I lived and what firearms I had in my possessions and so on; items that would cut down the time which would otherwise have been wasted giving evidence for incidental aspects of the case that I wasn’t intending to challenge. As a concession to this Crown agreed to reconsider the second firearms count involving unsafe storage.At the time, I informed Judge Morgan that I recently had taken the PAL firearms safety course and received 100% of the written test and 90% on the practical test and was now in the process of sending my application off. I also informed Judge Morgan that I was planning to purchase a certified gun storage locker in which to store my firearms properly. Crown then stated that if these preconditions were achieved that they would consider staying the firearms charge.
What was scheduled to be a one day inquiry, like all great plans of mice and men, turned out to be a horse of another colour. I had made arrangements with my two witnesses, Mr. Frank Frost and Mr. Lonnie Landrud, to be at the courthouse at 9:30 a.m. on the morning of Wednesday, January 22nd. When my wife and I arrived around 9:15 a.m. it was evident that my case was not going to be the only one scheduled for the morning. Now this is not an uncommon occurrence in the Quesnel Courthouse (or in many other smaller communities throughout B.C.) and it all stems from government ineptitude (or design?) that there are never enough judges and prosecutors and courtrooms available to handle the volume of cases awaiting address. Nonetheless, I did expect that for a formal preliminary inquiry time would have been arranged so that it could occur without needless interruption.
After approximately twenty minutes of lawyers and Crown attempting to reschedule times, etc. my case began and Crown called their first witness, Det. Cst. Terry Wilson, lead investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM. Det. Wilson informed the court as to his name and position within the RCMP and when Crown asked him about his involvement with RadicalPress.com he told the court that he been monitoring the RadicalPress.com website since April 28th, 2011. It was on that date he first received an email from Richard Warman who registered a Sec. 319(2) “hate crime” complaint against the site. I thought it was rather amusing given that it was right around the time of the last federal election (May 2nd, 2011) and I had just posted a long article on Harper only the day before on April 27th which I had titled “Hating Harper“. It’s possible that Warman didn’t appreciate the graphic header for the piece in question that caused him to lay the charge or it may have been my advice at the time to the Canadian electorate warning them of dire days ahead should Canadians hand Stephen Harper a mandate to govern the nation. Whatever it was, given the current controversy over Harper and his entourage of Zionist sycophant ministers and pro-Israeli band of Chabad Lubavicher controllers traveling at great taxpayer expense to the state of Israel and soiling Canada’s image as a sovereign nation with their unabashed grovelling and overt support for this criminal state, it was rather apropos that Warman would suddenly file a complaint against RadicalPress.com at that particular point in time.
Det. Wilson then went on to describe to the court how his unit has been investigating the website since that time (a period of approximately 32 months thus far) and in the process confirming to the judge that the articles and online books and links, etc. were available to the general public and that anybody could just go there and click on a link and read whatever they wanted without having to enter any passwords or penetrate any firewalls. I thought to myself as he was going on, “My goodness, an acknowledged alternative news site and all you have to do is click on the url to it and the home page or whatever document hyperlink you may have clicked on in the sidebar or the menu bar above just suddenly appears and you can actually view it and read it! What a genius that Arthur Topham must be!”
Det. Wilson also told the court that the website has been running and posting new materials on a regular basis ever since the original conditions of my bail were changed with the exception of a few days in November of 2012 when the site was transferred to a new host server.
It was at this point that Det. Wilson then set up his laptop and introduced the courtroom to a special computer software program that allowed him to show the judge, myself and Crown what appeared to be interactive video footage of my website that they had copied to the program. We all had our own individual monitor screens and sat there while Det. Wilson took us on a virtual journey around the RadicalPress.com home page explaining to the judge and Crown how the site operates. Given the fact that it operates as any normal WordPress program would it was like sitting through an introductory lesson on basic computer skills that one might offer a Grade 2 or 3 class of children. This went on for some time and we all observed with great interest as Det. Wilson clicked on a hyperlink in the Pages section on the side bar and lo and behold the article or book would suddenly appear right there on the screen! All of this was, ostensibly, being done to show that any person in Canada could easily access all the “hate” and “anti-Semitism” and “racism” toward the Jewish population that the Crown alleges is present on the RadicalPress.com website.
Having endured this little media sideshow the judge then called for a break at 10:15 a.m. after which court resumed and other cases once again intruded into the schedule. My inquiry ceased at that point. The lunch hour eventually came and when court reconvened at 1:30 p.m.for the afternoon session more cases consumed the time. It wasn’t until around 3:45 p.m. that the preliminary inquiry resumed. It was at this stage that Crown finally got down to the meat and potatoes of its argument. Det. Wilson was presented with a massive black binder that eventually was entered as Exhibit A in the proceedings. I had been given the same binder a couple of days prior to the inquiry as well and had time to peruse its contents beforehand so it wasn’t a surprise to me. What it contained was hard copy pages of four online books that are present on RadicalPress.com plus two articles of my own that were also on the site. Each was given a tab number and they appeared in the following order:
Tab 1: Germany Must Perish
Tab 2: Israel Must Perish
Tab 3: Protocols of Zion
Tab 4: The Biological [sic]
Tab 5: The Jewish Religion
Tab 6: Karen Selick: Just Another Hate-mongering Germanophobe Jew by Arthur Topham
Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston then proceeded to ask Det. Wilson questions regarding the 6 items posted on RadicalPress.com.
With respect to Tab 1 which was the online version of Theodore N. Kaufman’s book Germany Must Perish! Wilson went on to describe the book and what it was about. He gave a reasonable outline of its aim and purpose which was to spread anti-German propaganda against the National Socialist government of Germany and the German nation.
When it came to Tab 2 Wilson presented his views in a somewhat modified form than his original statements wherein he was very emphatic about the fact that I had actually written a “real” book bearing the title, Israel Must Perish! Now he was admitting that it was a reproduction of segments of Kaufmann’s book and that I had only changed certain words like “Germany” and “German” and “Hitler” to “Israel” and “Jew” and “Netanyahu” and the rest of the text was actually Kaufman’s. Crown then asked Wilson if he had read the Preface to this “book” which was written my myself. Wilson responded in the affirmative and said that he had read it. At no time though did he broach the issue of my assertion (contained in the Preface) that it was actually a satirical article based on Kaufman’s original hard copy book.
Tab 3 was, of course, the infamous book that the Jews have been attempting to erase from the screen of world history ever since it first appeared back at the turn of the 20th century. The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion has been attacked as an “anti-Semitic” book from day one and as the writer/journalist Douglas Reed, author of the classic study of Zionism, The Controversy of Zion, wrote, more money has been spent on trying to prove this particular book to be a fraud than any other book in history. And for good reason.
Again, Det. Wilson’s assessment of the book was that it was a fraudulent attempt to promote anti-Semitism and hatred of the Jewish population and added that those who promote it see the book as a “roadmap” of the Zionist Jews’ attempt to “take over the world” and create a Jewish one world government. Crown asked Det. Wilson whether the book existed on other websites as well and he confirmed that it could be found on many websites besides RadicalPress.com.
Tab 4 was the online version of a book written by Eustice Mullins called The Biological Jew. Wilson then went on to describe the book as an anti-Semitic book that describes the Jews as “societal parasites”. It was also admitted that this book could also be found on other websites as well as on RadicalPress.com.
Tab 5 referred to the book titled, The Jewish Religion: It’s Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling. Crown asked Det. Wilson to describe the book and he testified that it was in his estimation “anti-Semitic” and then went on to describe how bad it was and how the author accuses the Jewish rabbis of terrible things like having sex with very young children and so on. Crown then asked Wilson whether or not the author of the book, Elizabeth Dilling, was a “real person”. Wilson’s response was, “I have no idea if the author is a real person”.
Tab 6 was a reference to an article that I had published on RadicalPress.com back on August 13, 2013 entitled, Karen Selick: Just Another Hate-mongering Germanophobe Jew . Finally, I thought to myself, we’re getting to something that I, personally, had penned and I was waiting for Det. Wilson’s assessment of how he felt my writing was such an example of “hate” that it warranted inclusion in the Crown’s arsenal of classic cases of such literature. Det. Wilson then went on to explain to the court that it was a graphic image which I had included in my article that he perceived to be proof that it was yet another anti-Semitic, “hate” piece. I enclose that example directly below for the reader’s consideration.
Following Wilson’s comments regarding Tab 6 Crown then asked him if all of these online books were still up on the website and Wilson replied that all of the books that he found on the website were still there and to his knowledge none had been removed since I was arrested back on May 16th, 2012. It was at this point that Det. Wilson stated, “This is a massive website.”
Crown asked a few other related questions about Det. Wilson’s role in the arrest and he explained that he wasn’t present at my home during the search and seizure of my computers and firearms but that Cst. Gill, the “Exhibit officer” has provided him with my property afterwards. It was then that Det. Wilson sent the computers and firearms for “forensic” analysis so that the RCMP could show the court that I was the actual owner of these stolen devices.
It was at this point that the day’s testimony concluded and we left the courthouse.
The Preliminary Inquiry – Day Two
Day two proved to be much more productive in terms of time and purpose although it got off to a bit of a rough start. One of my witnesses that I had subpoenaed to appear on my behalf, Mr. Frank Frost, had traveled down to Quesnel at his own expense to attend the Preliminary Inquiry. Given that I had been told I would get my full day in court I was not that impressed when I only had approximately an hour and a half thus far allotted for the process.
When we arrived at the courthouse on Thursday, January 23rd, at 9:30 a.m. the court list showed a number of other case listed for the morning. At that point I decided to challenge the court on the matter and when the judge entered the court room and began discussing the scheduling with Crown and other lawyers present I stood up indicating that I had something to say and the judge told me to take a seat momentarily and he would get right to me. I sat down and within a few minutes he called my name and I stood up and said to him, “Your honour, I notice again today the list is getting longer than even yesterday and I’m not getting my day in court. I see this as an attempt by the Crown to prevent my witnesses from testifying. My wife, who is Jewish, is greatly offended by these charges brought against me therefore, in the interest of fundamental justice I ask that the charges be dismissed with prejudice.”
Judge Morgan responded by saying that he was not about to dismiss the case and also stated that there was no design on the part of Crown to prevent my witnesses from testifying. He followed those comments with a short dissertation on the problems and challenges that small communities face where they don’t have enough time and resources to deal with the ongoing case loads and therefore have to juggle and schedule them in order to do the best they can. He assured me that my situation was no different than any of the others. I had made my point and didn’t pursue the issue any further. From then on matters began to unfold as they should and within a very short period of time I was able to begin my cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson.
Being self-represented since the passing of my former counsel Mr. Doug Christie I was now faced with the task of cross-examining the testimony the arresting officer, Det. Wilson, had given to the court yesterday. I had prepared a series of questions that I planned to ask Wilson plus also a number of other court cases which related to the inquiry process which I intended to use if Crown began to object to any of the questions I had for Det. Wilson. Due to the length of all the questions, many of them not relevant at this point to the update itself, I will focus on only those that I feel are important to a general understanding of the case as a whole. As well, readers should bear in mind that Det. Wilson (and most likely B’nai Brith Canada’s agent Harry Abrams) monitor the RadicalPress.com website on a daily basis and I don’t wish to divulge certain matters which I intend to use later should the case go to trial.
Cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson
[Editor’s Note: Please bear in mind that all of the exchanges between myself and Det. Wilson during my cross-examination are taken from my notes which I made at the time I was questioning him and they may not be 100% accurate. Once I obtain a written transcript of the inquiry I’ll know if I erred on any of the minor details but for the most part I’m only quoting the things that I wrote down immediately upon Wilson’s stating them. Readers should also bear in mind that during the questioning I asked Det. Terry Wilson to inform the court as to his level of education and he answered by stating that he had received an Honours Degree in History from the University of Guelph, Ontario.]
I began cross-examination of Det. Terry Wilson by first reading out the following:
“Det. Wilson, I’m going to begin by taking you to the Criminal Code section under which I am charged. Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code reads as follows:
‘(2) Every one who, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, wilfully promotes hatred against any identifiable group is guilty of … an indictable offence … or an offence punishable by summary conviction.’”
I then asked Wilson the following question: “I believe you stated yesterday in your testimony that the BC HATE CRIME TEAM was formed in 2009 and that it consists of two people, yourself and your partner/assistant Cst. Normandie Levas. Is this correct? Could you please tell the court how many actual convictions your unit has successfully prosecuted under Sec. 319(2) of the CCC since the formation of the BC HATE CRIME TEAM.” Wilson’s reply was that to date his “Hate Crime Team” had not convicted a single solitary soul! He did say though that there were two cases pending, my own plus another investigation that’s still underway.
Given all the media hype about there being so much “hate” on the Internet it begs the question as to just how much this propaganda about hatred that’s being emphasize by Jewish lobby groups like B’nai Brith Canada, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and the Centre for Israel & Jewish Affairs is merely Zionist PR designed to justify the spending of vast amounts of taxpayer money in order to create these provincial “HATE CRIME UNITS” across Canada that ultimately only serve the interests of the foreign lobbyists who exploit them in order to monitor, harass, intimidate and punish critics of the Zionist ideology, their global mechanisms and the criminal state of Israel.
Considering Det. Wilson’s concerted effort to show the court that RadicalPress.com was wide open to the general public and that anyone in Canada could easily access the website plus all its accompanying links to a vast assortment of online books and articles, I asked Det. Wilson if he had any evidence that the material on the website was actually viewed and read by anyone. His reply was “Yes”. Then he stated that both of the two complainants, Harry Abrams and Richard Warman plus himself had accessed the site. That was the sum total of his evidence. No shit! That was it!
So it was manifestly obvious that no one else in all of Canada had gone on to the RadicalPress.com website, found it to be “anti-”Semitic” and then registered a complaint against it with the BC HATE CRIME TEAM claiming the site was promoting “hatred” contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. Yet, because these two had filed complaints, that, in the Crown’s view, were reason enough to monitor my website; the RCMP did helicopter and ground surveillance of my home and property; stalked both my wife and myself in the days prior to my arrest; flew the “BC HATE CRIME TEAM” up from Surrey, B.C. (a distance of approximately 600 km) at great expense to the taxpayers of the province; conscripted a number of local police officers as well; stopped me on my way to Prince George on business; arrested me; handcuffed me; terrorized my wife; hauled me off to jail, leaving my wife on the highway in the middle of nowhere; then waited for some justice of the peace on the lower mainland to sign a phoney, illegal search warrant so the police could eventually enter my home, scavenge and steal what they could of my computers and electronic files, and make off with all of my firearms.
Does this sound like the “free and democratic society” called Canada that we see enshrined in the Charter of Rights or Freedoms or is it more in keeping with the Marxist Communist Bolshevik dictatorship under Lenin, Trotsky and Stalin where all it took was a single accusation from an enemy and you suddenly found yourself dragged before a tribunal of crooked, conspiring commissars where all your legal rights suddenly vanished, truth was no defence and you’re then subjected to humiliation and the abject opprobrium of the state and either sent off to spend your remaining years in some northern gulag wasteland or else escorted down into a dark dungeon to receive a bullet in the back of the head?
For those readers who’ve yet to experience such tactics by the state this may all sound a bit fantastic but let me assure you that if it’s happening to me and my family and has happened to other Canadians in the recent past it doesn’t bode well for any of you either as this form of systemic covert repression on the part of the state continues to grow more bold and audacious by the day, aided and abetted by the Jewish lobbyists who now so blatantly advertise their power and influence over Canada’s elected Harper government.
As I thought about the two individuals who’s actions had precipitated all the endless angst of the police and the court against myself and my family I pondered what percentage of the Canadian population this would be when we consider that 2 out of 34.88 million people accessed RadicalPress.com and alleged that the site contained “anti-Semitic” articles and books that wilfully promoted hatred toward people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin. A quick calculation indicated that it amounted to 0.00000573394495 % of the total population of Canada.
103,000 Missing Emails
Another area of contention was the matter of all of my private email communications contained in the two computers that the police had taken from my residence. I had only recently received a thumb drive from the BC HATE CRIME TEAM containing what is purported to be all of my stolen emails just days before the Preliminary Hearing and to date I’ve not had the time to check to determine how many are stored on the 32 Gigabit memory stick. Crown was supposed to have returned these emails back in 2012 and it was only recently that Judge Morgan finally requested that CC Johnston contact Det. Wilson and ask him to return them. I had indicated to the judge that there was a large volume of relevant data contained in the emails which I needed for my defence and given that email communications are considered to be “private communications” and not admissible as evidence in Section 319(2) offences they should be returned to me.
It has always been my contention that Det. Wilson took my computers in order to access the information contained in the private communications between myself and my many associates and friends. When questioned on this matter Wilson stated that the police have the right to take an accused’s computer in order to search for evidence that would prove in a court of law that the accused was in fact the person posting to the website. When asked whether or not he or anyone else accessed and read the emails or shared them with anyone else Wilson did his best to deny having done so although he did concede that he saw some of them in the course of investigating the various articles and online books that were now being used to convince Judge Morgan there was sufficient evidence to warrant trying the case but that his main object was to verify the material now being presented to the court as Exhibit “A”. I should add that when I later cross-examined Cpl. Barry Salt he confirmed that when he did his initial analysis of my computers that he found 103,000 emails and 5,500 documents. As well, he stated that the number was closer to 107,500 by now. Unfortunately it didn’t cross my mind at the moment to ask him how he would be aware of any increase in numbers but that’s an issue to be investigated later.
There are very good reasons for me to suspect that Det. Wilson did in fact go through the private emails contained on my iMac computer. This came out when I questioned Wilson on the following:
Det. Wilson, I’d like to ask you a few questions about your own history with regard to these kinds of investigations.
Q: I understand that you once worked with the London Police Service. Am I correct in that regard?
[Wilson replied by stating that he had joined the police force in Ontario back in 1989 and the hate crime unit in 1995 and that he had moved out to B.C. in 2003 and eventually joined the BC Hate Crime Team in 2009. A.T.]
I also understand from the decision of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal in Warman v. Kulbashian, 2006 CHRT 11, that while employed by the London Police Service, you executed a search warrant at the residence of James Scott Richardson, an individual suspected of uttering threats.
“ Mr. Wilson obtained a search warrant for the apartment in question, and executed it on September 28, 2001. Mr. Richardson was found in the apartment when the police entered and was arrested. He was charged with uttering threats against property and persons, and counselling the indictable offences of murder and of property damage…
 A police crime analyst specializing in electronic evidence was involved in the search operation. He seized a computer found in the apartment, and once back at the police station, made a mirror image of its hard drive and examined its content. Amongst the directories on the drive was one that contained the logs of Internet relay chats in which the user of the computer had participated…”
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
According to that same Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, you also executed an arrest warrant for Mr. Alexan Kulbashian, and a search warrant at the residence of Mr. Kulbashian’s parents:
 Mr. Wilson’s investigation eventually led him to conclude that “Totenkopf” and “Alex Krause” were pseudonyms for Mr. Kulbashian, and that he had also been involved in the publication of the September 14, 2001, Vinland Voice articles. Mr. Wilson therefore sought and obtained warrants for the arrest of Mr. Kulbashian (on charges similar to those filed against Mr. Richardson) and for the search of his residence at his parents’ home in North York. The warrants were executed on January 30, 2002…”
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Again Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
And according to that same Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision, the criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian were later withdrawn:
“ In the end, the Crown prosecutor apparently decided to withdraw the criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian before going to trial. According to Mr. Wilson, the Crown concluded that there was no reasonable expectation of conviction on the charges laid against them.”
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Again Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
But despite the withdrawal of criminal charges against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian, the evidence that you collected in the course of Criminal Code search warrants was later disclosed to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Wilson’s reply was that the evidence was disclosed to the CHRC but that it was divulged to them only after the commission had subpoena’d Wilson in order to get it. A.T.]
And that same evidence, collected by you in the course of executing Criminal Code search warrants was also disclosed to Richard Warman, an individual who pursued a complaint against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian.
Q: Is that correct to the best of your recollection?
[Wilson replied that the evidence had been disclosed to the commission itself and not specifically to Warman. A.T.]
Q: When you disclosed this evidence to the Canadian Human Rights Commission, did you know Mr. Warman?
[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
The Wilson/Warman Connection
Having established that Det. Wilson was involved with alleging and arresting and removing other individual’s computers from their homes over a decade ago I continued questioning Wilson as to his relationship with Richard Warman, the person who had first laid the Sec. 319(2) complaint against me back in 2011.
I asked Det. Wilson the following questions:
Q: When did you first establish contact with Mr. Warman?
[Wilson replied that he first connected with Richard Warman a year or two after he had joined the Ontario hate crime unit back in 1995 and that it was likely due to Warman having contacted the unit with a complaint. A.T.]
Q: Did you and Mr. Warman ever discuss the Section 13(1) complaint against Mr. Richardson and Mr. Kulbashian?
[Wilson’s reply was “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: When did you first establish contact with Mr. Abrams?
[Wilson replied that he first heard from Harry Abrams back in April of 2011. A.T.]
Q: Did you initially make contact with Mr. Abrams or did he make contact with you?
[Wilson testified that it was Abrams who first contacted him. A.T.]
Q: Were you aware, at the time you executed the search of my residence, that I was subject to a proceeding under Section 13(1) of the Canadian Human Rights Act?
[Again Wilson affirmed that he was aware of my previous Sec. 13(1) “hate crime” complaint that Abrams had filed against me back in 2007 but he attempted to downplay it by suggesting that his investigation focused on doing a whole new investigation separate from what was done (and still remains current) by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. A.T.]
Q: Were you aware that Harry Abrams was the complainant in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Were you aware of any involvement on the part of Richard Warman in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding?
[Here Det. Wilson states, “Yes, Warman was also a complainant in the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding.” Of course, officially, Richard Warman was not a complainant in the CHRC complaint brought against myself and RadicalPress.com in 2007 although Wilson’s reply now ties in with evidence which I have suggested all along confirms the fact that he was involved but only in a clandestine manner. A.T.]
Q: Did you ever discuss the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me with Mr. Warman?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Did you ever discuss the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me with Mr. Abrams?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Did Mr. Abrams ever express to you that he was concerned that the Canadian Human Rights Act proceeding against me might not be successful?
[Wilson’s reply was that during his investigation he had interviewed Harry Abrams and Abrams had in fact mentioned his Sec. 13(1) complaint against me but that it was only in reference to Abram’s “fear” that this section of the Canadian Human Rights Act was likely going to be repealed. A.T.]
Q: Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with Richard Warman?
[Wilson says “No”. A.T.]
Q: Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with Harry Abrams?
[Again, Wilson says “No” but he then qualified that by adding it has been “just updated”, whatever that means. A.T.]
Q: Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with the Canadian Human Rights Commission?
[Wilson says “No”. A.T.]
Q: Has the evidence collected as a result of the search of my residence been shared with anybody? If so, who?
[Here Wilson stated that only those directly authorized to be involved in the investigation have been privy to the evidence collected. A.T.]
Tabs 1 & 2 – Germany Must Perish! and Israel Must Perish!
At this point in my cross-examination I focussed on the first two tabs mentioned in Crown’s Exhibit “A”, those being the online book, Germany Must Perish! written by Theodore N. Kaufmann and my satirical article Israel Must Perish!.
I began my questioning by asking Det. Wilson if he was familiar with the term “satire” and, if so, could he define for the court its meaning. His response was that it more or less meant “poking fun at something”. I then went on:
Q: Did Mr. Abrams ever suggest to you that the article Israel Must Perish! was a form of satire?
[Wilson’s response was that Abrams hadn’t told him anything that would lead him (Abrams) to believe it (Israel Must Perish! ) was satire. A.T.]
Q: Have you read the article Israel Must Perish!?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Are you familiar with the book Germany Must Perish!?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Were you, at the time you began investigating my website, familiar with the book Germany Must Perish!?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Throughout the course of these proceedings you and the Crown have consistently referred to the article Israel Must Perish! as a “book”. Could you please explain to the court why you have done so?
[Wilson basically dodged the direct question by saying that it was “sections of a book” meaning sections of Germany Must Perish! A.T.]
Q: Are you familiar with the acronym ISBN regarding book publishing? It stands for International Standard Book Number. Every book published has an ISBN that is unique to that particular publication. Do any of your records show an ISBN number for the purported book Israel Must Perish! ?
[Wilson’s response to the first question was “No” he wasn’t familiar with the acronym “ISBN”. As for the second part of the question Wilson looked again at the images of the article that were in the Exhibit “A” binder and then stated, “I don’t recall one.” A.T.]
Q: Did it ever occur to you that the article Israel Must Perish! might be a satirical reference to the book Germany Must Perish!?
[Wilson’s response to this question was very telling indeed. He simply stated, “No sir.” A.T.]
Q: When you were reading the article Israel Must Perish! on the RadicalPress.com website HYPERLINK http://www.
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Are you familiar with the defence contained in Section 319(3)(d) of the Criminal Code, namely that “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … if, in good faith, he intended to point out, for the purpose of removal, matters producing or tending to produce feelings of hatred toward an identifiable group in Canada.”?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Q: Do you accept that certain satirical material might fall within the protection of Section 319(3)(d) of the Criminal Code?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Tab 5: The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling
Q: In your testimony yesterday, regarding Tab 5: of the Exhibit Index File 25166 which dealt with the book The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today, Crown Counsel Johnston asked you whether or not the author, Elizabeth Dilling, was a “real person.” You responded by saying, “I have no idea if the author is a real person.” Given the fact that you claim to be the lead “hate crime” investigator for the BC HATE CRIME TEAM Mr. Wilson did it not occur to you that you might take the time to investigate and find out whether Elizabeth Dilling was or was not a “real person?” I did a simple Google search of Elizabeth Dilling’s name last night after returning home from court and found a total of 211,000 results in less than 30 seconds listing the various works of the author plus biographical documentation from the Jewish-owned Wikipedia site, the free online encyclopedia, which verifies that Elizabeth Dilling was in fact a real person. Given the fact that in your professional opinion you have determined this book to be “anti-Semitic” and worthy of proof, in your estimation, that it constitutes “hate propaganda” or “anti-Semitic hate literature” could you please tell the court why you would not have taken 30 seconds of your time to check into this matter?
Before I was able to read out the whole question to Det. Wilson he interjected by grinning and saying that after yesterday’s court session he had checked and now was cognizant of the fact that Elizabeth Dilling was an actual author of the aforesaid book. He obviously had been caught off guard by CC Johnston’s question regarding the author. His reply to my question about why he didn’t take the time to check the authenticity of the author was that he was “more concerned with the content of the book than with authenticating whether the author was real or not.”
Q: Are you familiar with the defence contained in Section 319(3)(c) of the Criminal Code, namely that “No person shall be convicted of an offence under subsection (2) … if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true.”?
[Wilson: “Yes”. A.T.]
Question Regarding the Search Warrant
Q: On Page 8 of the BC Hate Crime Team pdf it gives an explanation for Sections 320 and 320.1 Warrants of Seizure. These warrant of seizure sections pertain to the removal of hate propaganda written material. This includes hate propaganda that is stored on computer systems and made available to the public, including through the Internet. A judge who is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds for believing that any publication or electronic material—copies of which are kept for sale or distribution in premises or on a computer system within the jurisdiction of the court—is hate propaganda, may issue a warrant authorizing seizure of the copies or order the custodian of the computer system to provide an electronic copy of the material to the court.
Now I was charged under Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code. That section of the criminal code does not allow for warrants of seizure. Could you please tell the court how you were able to gain a search warrant for the removal of all of my computers and electronic files when I wasn’t charged under an offence that permitted such actions?
[Wilson responded by stating “Our search warrant was executed under Section 487 of the Criminal Code of Canada not under Section 319(2).”A.T.]
Q: Do you accept that certain political commentary, even commentary which is extremely critical of an identifiable group of people, may fall within the protection of Section 319(3)(c) of the Criminal Code?
[Wilson replied “Yes”, he did accept that certain political commentary may fall within the protection of Sec. 319(3) of the Criminal Code “but not in the case of RadicalPress.com“.A.T.]
Q: Could you briefly explain your expertise in identifying speech which is prohibited by Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code and not saved by one or more of the defences listed in Section 319(3) of the Criminal Code?
[Wilson replied by stating that he had graduated from Guelph University in Ontario with an Honours Degree in History and that he had been working with “hate crime” units both in Ontario and in B.C. for the past 18 years. A.T.]
Q: Could you define for the court the term “hate”?
[Wilson responded by stating that his “HATE CRIME TEAM” uses the definition of hate that was originally used in the R v Keegstra case. A.T.]
Q: Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code includes an intent requirement. The promoted hatred must be wilful, meaning that the words must be intended to cause hatred. What causes you to believe that this is the case here?
[Without the actual transcripts I can’t state exactly what his reply was other than he started talking about Elizabeth Dillings book, The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today and her descriptions of what the Talmud states regarding children, Christians and non-Jews, aka “goyim” or cattle, and how this is intended to cause “hatred” toward those of Jewish ethnicity. A.T.]
Q: Do you have any expertise in psychology which would qualify you to accurately assess my intent? [Wilson: “No.” A.T.]
Q: I put it to you that the evidence you have given with regard to the material on my website is not expert evidence. Would you agree?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: I put it to you that all of the evidence you have given is, in fact, unqualified opinion evidence. Would you agree?
[Here Wilson launched into the issue and began telling the court of his many years of investigative experience in the field of “hate propaganda” and “hate crimes” but rather than stating that he was an “expert” he preferred to refer to his work as “investigative knowledge”. A.T.]
Q: What makes your opinion on the material on my website more valid than that of myself, the author and publisher of the material in
[Wilson’s reply to this question was that his opinion was “no more valid than anyone else’s.” A.T.]
Hatred on SunNewsNetwork by Ezra Levant
This is just a screen shot. Please click on the url below to view.
Q: On November 11, 2012 I sent a private email to you and Cst. Normandie Levas and Crown Counsel Jennifer Johnston titled, A Personal Appeal. In my letter I spoke about the then recent television interview between my former counsel Douglas Christie and SunTV News Network employee Ezra Levant, host of the show The Source. I explained to you that in the course of the interview, which was approximately six minutes in length, Ezra Levant, who is Jewish and a strong supporter of the state of Israel and the political ideology of that state known as Zionism, stated publicly the following about me:
“I call him an anti-Semite”
“I call Arthur Topham offensive”
“I don’t care much for Arthur Topham. He’s anti-Zionist. I think that’s code for anti-Semitic.”
“We’re showing you some screen shots from his website. I disagree with them. I find them gross. I find some of his comments repulsive.”
“I’m sure that Arthur Topham is motivated by a form of malice.”
“I see hate everywhere in Canada, especially in B.C.” [where I, Arthur Topham just happen to reside. A.T.]
“He’s a nobody”
“I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM”
“I think he’s an idiot. An anti-Semitic idiot”
“…right wing wackos like Topham”
Is this not inciting and spreading hatred toward myself in a manner far beyond that which the Crown is alleging RadicalPress.com is doing?
[Wilson’s response to this was that Ezra Levant didn’t break any law in stating what he did on national tv because he wasn’t communicating statements that wilfully promoted hatred against an “identifiable group”. In other words he was free to malign and smear and tell the whole world that he “hated Arthur Topham” but that didn’t count because I wasn’t a member of an “identifiable group”. I then said to Det. Wilson, “But I am a Christian and so I am a member of an identifiable religious group.” He had no further comment on that. A.T.]
Following this question to Wilson I then read out my letter to the court. Judge Morgan cautioned me that the letter did state that it was written “without prejudice” and that if I entered it into the record it could be used against me. When I told him that I never received a reply from any of the recipients that it was sent to he said okay, go ahead.
A Personal Appeal
Sunday, November 11th, 2012
Dear Jennifer, Normandie and Terry,
Yes, this is most likely very unusual for all three of you that someone whom you are determined to convict of a “hate crime” and strip of their constitutional rights would have the audacity to write to you directly but given the circumstances under which I am now placed, I would ask that you open your hearts and your minds, if just for a few brief moments, and take approximate 6 minutes of your time (if you haven’t already done so) to view this video of the television interview that my lawyer Doug Christie did with Ezra Levant on the SunTV News Network’s show, The Source, out of Toronto only a few short hours after our (yours Jennifer and mine) appearance in court on Thursday the 8th of November.
Whether or not you are aware of it that television show is broadcast across the nation and the world and the number of viewers who watched it exceed, by far, the number of readers who frequent my (as one of the mainstream media’s writers recently stated), “nasty little blog called Radical Press.”
Within the span of those six short minutes, Ezra Levant, who is Jewish and who also supports Zionism, publicly made the following disparaging statements about me and my website:
“I call him an anti-Semite”
“I call Arthur Topham offensive”
“I don’t care much for Arthur Topham. He’s anti-Zionist. I think that’s code for anti-Semitic”
“We’re showing you some screen shots from his website. I disagree with them. I find them gross. I find some of his comments repulsive.”
“I’m sure that Arthur Topham is motivated by a form of malice.”
“I see hate everywhere in Canada, especially in B.C.” [where Arthur Topham just happens to reside. A.T.]
“He’s a nobody”
“I HATE ARTHUR TOPHAM”
“I think he’s an idiot. An anti-Semitic idiot”
“…right wing wackos like Topham”
If this is the sort of ‘impartial, objective and unbiased’ coverage that I can expect from Canada’s mainstream media throughout the upcoming trial do you find it that strange or unusual or unreasonable that I would want to hold on to my fundamental Charter right to be able to continue operating my website and posting my side of the story in my own defence for those who wish to have an alternative perspective to the one that the msm is now so blatantly broadcasting the minute that an Indictment has come down?
Do you not see the obvious slander, libel and defamation of my person and my motives and my work in these public statements? Do you not see how it already is prejudicing my chances for a fair and just trial? Does it mean nothing to you?
Is this what you, as professionals in the field of law and order and justice, condone and are striving to support in your apparent effort to take away my one means of defending myself from such open and mean spirited vituperation?
All I can say is that, in the stillness and quiet of your own inner mind and soul, you try to see and understand the injustice of what you are doing.
“Digging to the root of the issues since 1998″
Q: Det. Wilson, are you familiar with Section 11(d) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Q: Section 11(d) of the Charter protects the presumption of innocence. I put it to you that this includes the idea that an accused person should not be punished for a crime unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you agree?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: Are you familiar with Section 11(e) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Q: Section 11(e) of the Charter provides that no accused person should be denied reasonable bail without just cause. I suggest to you that this means the state should not unreasonably interfere with the liberty of an accused person unless and until he has been proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Would you agree?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: As of October 9, 2012, and to this day, there is no bail order preventing me from publishing content to RadicalPress.com pending trial. Is that correct?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: And in January 2013, this court specifically determined that it would not be appropriate to impose a bail condition prohibiting me from publishing on RadicalPress.com pending trial. Do you recognize this as a decision of this court?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: On November 21, 2012 I received an email from my then web hosting company Netfirms.com which contained an email letter which you had sent to Zach P of the legal department sometime between November 5th when the Indictment was handed down and November 21, 2012. In your letter you informed Zach P that I had been charged with a Section 319(2) Canadian Criminal Code offence, alleging that I had been distributing hateful speech and that you felt that the contents of my website (quote) “may in fact contravene” and be in breach of their policy. Is that correct?
[Wilson: “Yes.” A.T.]
Q: What was your objective in writing to NetFirms.com?
[Wilson then explained that he had written to my web host server “To notify them of a potential breach of their policy.” A.T.]
Q: By alleging that I had been distributing hateful speech and suggesting to Netfirms.com that you felt that the contents of my website “may in fact contravene” and be in breach of their policy were you not in effect asking NetFirms.com to do what this Honourable Court has been unwilling to do, namely shut down RadicalPress.com in advance of my trial?
[Wilson basically repeated what he’d just said about simply notifying them of a “potential breach of their policy.” A.T.]
Q: Do you think you allegations contained in your letter to Netfirms.com were appropriate in view of the presumption of innocence?
Q: Do you think your allegations were appropriate in view of the right to reasonable bail on just terms?
[Again Wilson basically repeated what he’d previously stated. A.T.]
Q: Your allegations, as stated in your email to Netfirms.com, resulted in my web hosting company giving me a 48 hour notice to remove all of the alleged “hateful speech” or else face having my website removed and losing seven years of publishing content. This sudden 48-hour ultimatum was impossible for me to rectify as Netfirms.com had no idea what the alleged offending articles were and as a further result of your allegations they were unwilling to even negotiate with me. I was faced with having to move the site to another host server in an extremely short period of time and in the process of doing so all the content on the website was damaged and hundreds upon hundreds of articles are now in need of editing to restore them to their original condition. Were you at all concerned that your allegations to NetFirms.com might result in the destruction of important evidence?
Testimony of Frank Frost and Lonnie Landrud
The final lap in the Preliminary Inquiry was the calling of two witnesses in my defence. Both Frank Frost and Lonnie Landrud are two of many individuals who have come to realize that the mainstream media no longer serves the general public when it comes to issues of social justice. Both these people have been through the wringer and the stories of the injustices that they’ve witnesses and been subjected to are nothing short of incredible.
The Lonnie Landrud story, should it ever receive the attention that it deserves, will undoubtedly go down in B.C. history as one of the most extraordinary and horrific examples of police corruption and government cover up ever to have occurred in this province. Mr. Landrud had the unfortunate fate in 1999 of witnessing the killing of a young woman by the name of Deena Lynn Braem in Quesnel by two RCMP officers, Cst. Paul Collister and Cst. Bev Hosker. When he called 911 and reported the incident it was the beginning of what is now 15 years of hell on earth for Mr. Landrud. He has had eleven attempts on his life since he first sought justice and at present the police have placed a $100,000 bounty on his head. Mr. Landrud has done everything conceivable to have his case investigated by an independent body and to date has had all of his honest and earnest efforts rebuffed by every level of government from the Prime Ministers office through to the RCMP Complaints Commission and the office of the Premier of British Columbia, Christy Clark. During one attempt on his life by the RCMP Lonnie Landrud, in self-defence, shot his attacker Cst. Paul Collister with a 12-gauge shotgun, severely damaging the police officers left arm to the point where ample DNA evidence was left at the scene of the shooting to verify the fact that the officer had been wounded. The whole incident was covered up and denied by the investigating agencies and to date no one is willing to investigate and verify the evidence that still exists which will prove all of the allegations which Mr. Landrud has been desperately attempting to have examined.
When I finally heard about Mr. Landrud’s story and watched the videos where he had been interviewed back in 2007 I ran his story on RadicalPress.com in order to assist him in getting the truth out about what he had witnessed and suffered since the night he stumbled on the murder scene. Lonnie Landrud’s story is best told in his own words and writings and for this reason I’ve placed the url to his videos below and also the url to (yet another) letter which Mr. Landrud wrote to Prime Minister Stephen Harper, NDP Opposition Leader, Thomas Mulcair, Federal Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, Federal Solicitor General, Rob Nicholson, Christy Clark, Premier of British Columbia and Adrian Dix, NDP Leader of the Opposition Party on April 24th, 2013.
Mr. Landrud testified at the Preliminary Inquiry and told the court about his case and the urgent need for alternative media sites like RadicalPress.com that are willing to carry his story where no none of the mainstream media would do the job.
Click on the url below to view
We have not heard the last from either of these two valiant, courageous individuals nor have we heard the last from RadicalPress.com with respect to the pervasive corruption within every level of Canadian government, the mainstream media and all levels of Canada’s judiciary.
This wraps up Legal Update #17 for January 27th, 2014.
Last Place Calgary Mayoralty Candidate Charged With “Hate” — Prissy Press Won’t Explain Why
The story broke on Friday, January 31, 2014. When I landed in the Calgary airport prior to the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee meeting that night, I noticed the streaming news at the baggage carousel announcing: “Former Calgary mayoralty candidate charged with hate.”
Once I reached my hotel, I found a copy of the Calgary Sun. The Calgary Sun reported that Milan Papez, Sr., who ran and placed last in the recent mayoralty elections had been arrested for “hate” presumably under Canada’s notorious “hate law” – Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code. Here’s the story:
“Former mayoral candidate Milan Papez who finished last in the race for the city’s top job has been charged with inciting hatred. Cops say since the beginning of the year, the police Hate Crimes Co-ordinator has received more than dozen complaints about two men carrying signs and allegedly publicly inciting hatred downtown, with messages targeting two people and a specific community.
Milan Papez. 72, has been charged with four counts of public incitement of hatred and one count of defamatory libel.
Charges against another man are pending.
Anyone with information is asked to call police at 403-266-1234 or Crime Stoppers 1-800-222-8477.”
While the Sun was touting for more information to help the political police, they provided almost none themselves. For instance, just what was it Milan Papez, Sr. said?
By Saturday, the Calgary Sun (February 1, 2014) offered a few more details but still no information about just WHAT it was Papez had said. Don’t forget a charge is just a charge. In Canada, we still cling to a few remnants of Anglo-Saxon law including the belief that a man is INNOCENT until proven guilty. The public should know what it is the man is accused of saying. Here is the jist of the Sun story.
“Allegedly inciting hatred against Calgary’s Chinese community and publishing defamatory libel about a prominent city lawyer has landed a former mayoralty candidate in legal hot water. Milan Papez Sr. was released on a non-cash bail Friday with conditions which include he stay away from Chinatown after police charged him with five offences.
Four of those are the rarely laid allegation of publicly inciting hatred against an identifiable group accusing him of doing so four times in the past week. He’s also accused of committing defamatory libel against high profile criminal lawyer Alain Hepner and an unidentified Asian individual by displaying signs between Jan. 6 and 27….
Const. Eric Levesque, the Calgary Police Service hate crimes coordinator, said inciting hatred charges are rare because the actions have to be likely to lead to a breach of the peace before they become criminal. ‘A breach of the peace could be somebody being very upset … and maybe assault the person that’s doing the inciting,’ Levesque said.’It’s relatively rare,’he said. ‘Often times we are dealing with things that are very offensive, but they don’t meet that level of hatred that’s required,’ Levesque said.
He said the last time CPS laid a charge of publicly inciting hatred was in 2009.”
Notice: Still no information about what Papez actually said or wrote on his signs. There is the almost Orwellian claim by political police cop Eric Levesque that Papez was being charged for inciting people to hate and possibly injure HIMSELF: ” ‘A breach of the peace could be somebody being very upset … and maybe assault the person that’s doing the inciting,” So, if Papez displays signs with a message that might upset some Chinese to assault him, he, not some fast-fisted Chinaman, is the one to be arrested.
Well, I thought, perhaps we’ll do better with the more upscale Calgary Herald (January 31, 2014)
“A Calgary man who ran for mayor in the last municipal election has been charged with public incitement of hatred. Police say since the beginning of 2014, the hate crimes co-ordinator has received more than a dozen complaints from citizens about two men carrying signs with messages targeted towards two specific individuals and a specific community downtown.
Milan Papez, 72, of Calgary, has been charged with four counts of public incitement of hatred and one count of defamatory libel. Another man is also facing charges. Public incitement of hatred charges are laid when statements of hatred against an identifiable group are made and can lead to ‘a breach of the peace,’ police said.”
Presumably wearing a placard reading, “Kick me; I am stupid” might incite someone to take you seriously. Could that too lead to charges? Likely not, as no privileged group would be involved.
The next day’s Herald was no more informative. Under a headline “Update: Former mayoral candidate, son, charged with inciting hatred,” we learned that Milan Papez Jr. had also been charged. However, the Herald was also not forthcoming as just WHAT is was that Papez, Junior or Senior, had said. Reporter Clara Ho wrote:
“The son of a former Calgary mayoral hopeful has been charged with a hate crime alongside his father in connection with signs bearing messages targeting specific individuals and a specific community.
Milan Papez Jr., 53, has been charged with three counts of public incitement of hatred and one count of defamatory libel.
His 72-year-old father, Milan Papez Sr. — who ran for mayor in the October municipal election and came in last place — was charged with four counts of public incitement of hatred and one count of defamatory libel.
Police say the charges stemmed from more than a dozen complaints made this month about the two men in Chinatown and near the courthouse holding signs.
The placards bore messages targeting the Chinese community and an individual of Asian descent, as well as a prominent defence lawyer, whose image and name was used to incite hatred, according to court documents.Calgary police hate crimes co-ordinator Const. Eric Levesque said the rare charges of public of incitement hatred are laid when statements communicated in public set off hatred against an identifiable group, such as a particular religious group or race, and are likely to lead to a breach of peace.
Over the years, father and son have been spotted in downtown Calgary on various advocacy campaigns. Both faced public incitement of hatred charges in 1997 in relation to an incident near Chinatown.In 2002, the Alberta Human Rights Commission ruled one of the elder Papez’s pamphlet was ‘virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Asian.”
Calgary mayoral candidate Milan Papez handed out campaign flyers to commuters on 5th Street SW in August 2013. Papez has been charged with public incitement of hatred. (Colleen De Neve/Calgary Herald)
We have long argued that most of the North American media do not provide objective news; that is, the who, what, where, why, when and how of a story or “the facts, ma’m, just the facts,” as Sgt. Joe Friday of Dragnet used to say. Instead, we are exposed to a soap opera, with readily identifiable good guys and bad guys. The press signals the good guys or bad guys by the details or adjectives they use. Notice that both papers — the populist neo-con tabloid Sun and the more cerebral Herald, studiously avoid telling us the what — what was it the father and son Papez said or wrote. Note, as well, that what details we are provided with are almost all negative, especially that Milan Papez Sr. had been found guilty by an Alberta Human Rights Tribunal of a pamphlet that was “deemed virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Asian.” The helpful implication is that he must be guilty this time. While the Herald notes that father and son have “been spotted in downtown Calgary on various advocacy campaigns” we are given no clue as to what these might be.
For 20 years, free speech champion the late Doug Christie pointed to a pattern in “hate cases”: “demonize, isolate, criminalize.” The political police and the media jackal pack demonize the intended victim. People turn away, afraid to support or help the victim, and, then, now that the victim is alone and thoroughly vulnerable, the courts or human rights bodies move in for the kill.
Well. I did a little research — research that the Sun or Herald reporters could have done. Papez has a website. The Herald’s own report on candidates for the last municipal election provided some more information about Papez Sr, who, in the 2013 mayoralrty race, garnered 492 votes and finished ninth of 9 candidates. [He really doesn’t sound like a dangerous guy!] The foreign born Moslem Nameed Nemshi won.
. “Milan Papez Sr. — Calgarians may have seen Papez around, handing out his campaign pamphlets to downtown passersby. His one-sheet brochure calls floodway building ‘the biggest fraud in Calgary’s history,’ and decries LRT congestion and the $295-million Airport Trail tunnel.
‘Mayor Nenshi knows nothing about anything and city council is still out to lunch,’ Papez’s brochure reads.
The salesman and his son have for years wandered downtown Calgary sidewalks on various advocacy campaigns. In 2002, the Alberta Human Rights Commission ruled one Papez pamphlet was “virulently anti-Semitic and anti-Asian.” Papez has recently demonstrated against Nenshi, wearing a shirt that claims the mayor is “brainwashing” people.(Calgary Herald, August 13, 2013)
If Milan Papez has a problem with some Jews, it may be that the complaint over a decade ago to the Alberta Human Rights Commission was filed by Harvey Kane, Calgary head of the Jewish Defence League, whose U.S. founding body has been labelled by the FBI as a “terrorist” group and whose late leader Irv Rubin openly boasted that he was responsible for the 1995 firebombing of revisionist publisher Ernst Zundel’s Toronto house. Neither paper pointed out that the threshold for a guilty finding at human rights commissions is the low “balance of probabilities” and not “beyond a reasonable doubt.” Human rights commissions across the country have been labelled kangaroo courts and those who sit in judgement are often people tied to the human rights industry and not objective disinterested parties. Papez Sr’s appearance before the Alberta Human Rights omission cost him a $2,500 fine.
Readily available online material reveals Milan Papez Sr. to be a proud Czech. He has no love of Nazis and labels people he dislikes, including Calgary’s Mayor Nenshi a “Nazi.” Papez writes: I am “a survivor of German Nazis and my campaign is all about exposing the criminal acts of the Alberta Government and the fraud of the City of Calgary by issuing building permits in the flood plains.” He is a critic of Calgary’s traffic gridlock. He has also long advocated that government do more for schizophrenics, including forcing them to take their medications and institutionalizing ones that are dangerous. He feels Aboriginals have received a bad deal. This readily available information would have offered a more balanced picture of Mr. Papez rather than the soap opera villain who just hates Jews and Chinese He seems all over the political landscape — an opinionated eccentric with a passion for promoting his causes — not the sort of person an increasingly intolerant political system should be seeking to jail.
Here are some passages from Papez website in his own words:
THANK YOU ALL
IT IS FAIR TO SAY THAT TODAY THIS ELECTION WAS A FRAUD. THE PRESS FROM DAY ONE SABOTAGED ME AND I WAS DISCRIMINATED 100% WITH NOT GETTING ONE LINE IN THE NEWSPAPER OR I MINUTE ON TV LIKE EVERYBODY ELSE. THEY WERE SAYING ABOUT ME THAT I AM RUNNING A LOW BUDGET CAMPAIGN AND I GOT 280 000 PEOPLE TO SEE MY WEBSITE. THEY EVEN SAID THAT MY WEBSITE IS THE WORST WEBSITE OF ALL THE CANDIDATE WEBSITES AND THAT DAY I GOT A RECORD 41 000 PEOPLE LOOKING AT MY WEBSITE AND THE COMMENTS I GOT WERE THAT IT IS A VERY CONSTRUCTIVE WEBSITE. THIS IS ELECTION FRAUD BECAUSE I WILL NEVER KNOW HOW MANY PEOPLE VOTED FOR ME.
POSTED 11 Nov 2013
We must change our political landscape in Calgary. We must create more plebiscites for Calgarians to get more involved in city politics. A plebiscite for secondary suites is excellent example. Budget cuts by City of Calgary, Government of Alberta and Government of Canada put the City of Calgary into crisis. Harvard educated professor mayor Nenshi turned Calgary’s crisis into a total catastrophe. Mayor Nenshi, parachuted into City Hall is telling us all beautiful fairy tales and City Council is doing nothing but listening to the mayor Nenshi bedtime stories. Mayor Nenshi knows nothing about anything and City Council is always out to lunch. We now have C-trains jammed up on 7th avenue, our freeways, Deerfoot Trail and Crowchild Trail are parking lots and every street is a traffic jam. We have a six-lane tunnel at Airport Road that goes nowhere. The city limits end at 68 street east because of the sour gas wells and the tunnel goes nowhere but to mayor Nenshis back yard.
At one of the council meetings, I told Mayor Nenshi and City Council and I even gave it to them in writing.
A. Not to waste 500 million dollars on the airport tunnel when 68 street is the city limits and will be for a very long time because of the sour gas wells instead of finally finishing the C-train tunnel downtown that we desperately need. We now have an airport tunnel that is a monument to Mayor Nenshis stupidity.
B. How to increase the C-trains capacity at no cost which is done in every city for example allowing every 3rd or 4th C-train to turn around at Anderson and Brentwood stations and return downtown and not continue to the end of the line empty. By doing this we will simply add 3 or 4 trains into operation every hour.
C. To improve traffic congestion on Deerfoot and Crowchild trails and limit the amount of cars in downtown Calgary we must demand from the province to pay for a single track of C-train to run from the last station in Calgary to Okotoks, Airdrie, and Cochrane. We should also be talking with the railways to run trains to these towns.
Mayor Nenshi and city council have failed to protect Calgarians today and in the future from floods. We could have prevented this flood damage by simply following the strategy developed by the government of Alberta in the 1970’s. Firstly, no one will build on the flood plains and secondly relocate everybody from the flood plains. A trailer home park and many homes already been moved in Calgary. The cancelation of this project because of budget cuts so we save a few dollars on our taxes only to pay out billions for our mistake.
The multimillion-dollar disaster control center is a total failure because of provincial and federal governments who do not have a weather and climate monitoring in Banff, Canmore and Kananaskis areas because of budget cuts. Mayor Neneshi and City Council should jump 10 feet high and demand that this must change immediately. The Alberta emergency alarm started for the City of Calgary at 08:45 am. However, the diggers were digging dikes in Canmore at suppertime the night before. The evacuation order went out at midnight for Canmore and the flood washed the first homes away. The 08:45 am alarm for Calgary is a criminal act by the Government of Alberta and issuing building permits in the flood plains is the biggest fraud in Calgary’s history.
We must immediately begin a nonstop negotiation with provincial and federal governments to establish adequate coordinated weather and climate related information gathering and sharing. We must have mandated operational procedure for railway transporting dangerous, poisonous and flammable goods through Calgary so Calgary will not turn into a Hiroshima.
My major objective is to change the spending habits of city hall on projects we do not need and to improve transit and traffic congestion. I moved to Calgary in 1968. I worked in the development of commercial properties and I am currently working in sales and promotion. My roots are in Calgary, if elected my commitment will be to the people
ELECT MILAN PAPEZ FOR MAYOR
I am a survivor of German Nazis and my campaign is all about exposing the criminal acts of the Alberta Government and the fraud of the City of Calgary by issuing building permits in the flood plains. My campaign was gaining support and a positive response by Calgarian’s “I will vote for you” the Calgary Herald is doing everything to destroy my campaign and my activism by using the fraudulent 2002 Alberta Human Rights Commission ruling of my son and me being anti-Semitic and anti Asian as a discouragement to my supporters. The Calgary Herald is fully aware that the Alberta Human Rights Commission ruling is a fraud and the news media in Calgary or in Canada has never published or reported our side of the story, ever. The fact that the Human Rights Commission never accepted our defense and the fact that we wrote and produced a play about the Holocaust the Human Rights Commission never accepted our defense and their ruthless fraudulent decision had catastrophic affect on my whole family especially my children. The fact remains that mayor Nenshi was brainwashing Calgarians by building an airport tunnel going nowhere except to Nenshis backyard and he was only pretending to take good care of the flood when the Alberta Emergency Alarm was 12 hours late at 08:45 AM. As of today, we still have nobody monitoring the flow of water in the mountains. Nenshi does not even know that the flood was fueled by fires in Colorado. The selling of land for profit in the flood plains is a crime. The issuing of building permits in the flood plains is a crime. The issuing of a late emergency alarm at 08:45 AM is a crime. The fraudulent 2002 Alberta Human Rights Commission decision of my son and me being anti-Semitic and anti Asian is a crime.
For 15 years, we have lobbied the Alberta legislature to amend the Alberta Mental Health Act with an involuntary treatment for seriously mentally ill. For our efforts we were spat on, punched, kicked, and rocks thrown at us. We told the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission that we are the victims of a mistake in identity; and that the commission should pay attention too and defend the rights of a voiceless minority the seriously mentally ill. The commission refused. Without the help of any lawyer or any organization, we introduced a private bill in the legislature to amend the Alberta Mental Health Act. IN 2006, THIS BILL PASSED IN THE ALBERTA LEGISLATURE. For 25 years, we have lobbied law firms, HOWARD MACKIE, BENNET JONES VERSHERE, HEREDANCE AND CO. We have lobbied lawyers, Scott Watson, Lindsey Neville, Terence Semenuk, and John McPherson. We have lobbied members of the Alberta Legislature Garry Mar and Ralph Klein, and we have lobbied the Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission and all we have is their sympathy because all they have to say is “THERE IS NOTHING WE CAN DO FOR YOU”. All we want is a fair hearing and this is how Alberta Human Rights and Citizenship Commission treat minorities in Alberta. We are CZECHS. There are about 2500 Czechs living in Alberta. Therefore, we are a minority within minorities and nobody wants to listen to the concerns of Czechs in Alberta. There are 10 million Czechs living in the Czech Republic and for 300 years, Germany burned our books and forbade the speaking of the Czech language. Germany occupied the Czech Republic until 1918 and a 100 million Germans failed to destroy the Czech nation. How is it possible that Canada has done the same thing to the Aboriginal Nations as Germany did to the Czech nation? There is no one in Canada that wants to help the Aboriginal Nations. When the German NAZIS returned to the Czech Republic in 1939, the Czech nation was No. 3 on Hitler’s, to be gassed list in concentration camp ovens. No. 1 was the Jews, No. 2 was the non-white races, and No. 3 was the Czechs. In 1984, we wrote and produced a play “THERE IS A ROSE GARDEN” at the Pumphouse Theatre. The artistic community in Calgary warned us to produce the play under an assumed name because a production with our Czech names will result in a low attendance. “
So, what exactly did the two Papez men say that led to their arrest by the political police? I found an online photo that would have been readily available to the Herald or Sun had they chosen to write a balanced NEWS story rather than a soap opera piece. The picture shows a younger man, presumably Papez, Jr. with an upside down Canadian flag — the symbol of distress. A busy placard features many upside down Canadian flags and the words: “Death Penalty. Hang ’em high. Calgary Chinese Centre, Cheuk Tam, Jewish Defence League Harvey Kane, Canada. Shame on you for enjoying the Chinese and Jewish torture of innocent [sic] people.” The remaining two lines are illegible, Frankly, the references seem obscure, but does all this add up to a trip to court, lawyers’ fees and possible imprisonment?
Only in stifling politically correct Canada!
Whatever happened to the healthy reaction to such zany folks: “You have a RIGHT to your opinion, but I ain’t buying. Heck, I can’t even understand what you’re saying”?
Appearing before Mr. Justice Chester this morning, Crown Attorney Jennifer Broderick withdrew a charge of breach of undertaking (bail) against Mr. Love.
The charge should never have been laid. Last May, Mr. Love was charged with several counts of sending “scurrilous” material through the mail and harassment of several Fort McMurray media people and politicians, He had sent them non-threatening political literature and had phoned them. In hypersensitive, politically correct Canada, recipients of critical or — that empty all pervasive term of negativity — “inappropriate” material, instead of tossing it in the garbage, call the political police.
Mr. Love’s initial bail conditions might have been forged in North Korea. Mr. Love, already in prison for five months awaiting an appeal date for a May, 2012 conviction and draconian sentence of 18 months for breach of probation — sending information packages to four Toronto Jewish groups — was charged by police on November 28 for writing to his own lawyer, Peter Lindsay.
The scandal is that the Crown studiously ignored and clearly did not adequately investigate Mr. Love’s honest assurances from the beginning that the condtions had been varied. Also, several Ontario Crowns seemed to see no problem in conditions that might even make Kim Jong On blush — no written communication with anyone!
And still Canada’s preachy and pompous Foreign Minister John Baird will lecture Russian Premier Vladimir Poutin about Canada’s commitment to free speech while denouncing Russia’s anti-homosexual propaganda law, more limited but not unlike Canada’s “anti-hate propaganda” law, under which Mr. Love was originally charged back in 2003.
You can write to political prisoner Brad Love, one of our “men behind the wire” at:
Brad Love 
541 Highway 36,
I, “Roy Arthur Topham, between the 29th 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 promoting hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.” Notice: There are no specifics as to which statements are deemed to have promoted hatred against this privileged group. It’s hard to organize a response or defence in a background. This is prosecution by ambush.
January 16th, 2014
Dear Free Speech Advocates and Radical Press Supporters,
My last update of November 20th, 2013 focused mainly on the Rowbotham application that I had applied for in order to have Regina pay for a lawyer to defend me against her spurious sec. 319(2) “hate crime” charge that resulted in my arrest and incarceration back on May 16th, 2012. That application was refused by Judge Morgan after a hearing held in the Quesnel court house on November 18th.
Since that date I’ve been back in court a few more times on related matters the most recent being Tuesday, January 14th.
During the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing Judge Morgan brought up the matter of the particularization of the disclosure (the massive amount of purported “evidence” which the Crown intends to rely upon to justify their having charged and arrested me and stole all of my computers and firearms back in May of 2012). I had made an application to the court back on April 10th of 2013 asking for further particulars and that the Crown to be more specific as to just what articles, posts, etc. were the ones on the website which Regina felt were willfully promoting hatred against “people of the Jewish religion or ethnic group.” After the Rowbotham application was refused I refiled the original April 10th, 2013 application asking the Judge to order Crown to further particularize the case.
That hearing took place on December 16th, 2013. Judge Morgan reserved his decision until I appeared again January 3rd, 2014 on another related matter. It was then that he handed down his Judgment in which he dismissed my application on the grounds that I was “seeking” “particulars relating to the Crown’s theory.” In the Judge’s estimation, “An order – as set out in his application – for the Crown to particularize the date and time and the exact statement or statements by which the alleged hatred was promoted would have the effect of limiting the Crown’s theory of the case; something that Krindle J. in Pangman (above) at paragraph 3, found there was no authority for and would amount to an extension of the existing law.” It all sounds good in “theory” doesn’t it?
Following the November 18th, 2013 Rowbotham hearing I contacted Crown Counsel Johnston regarding the matter of witnesses that the Crown was planning to call for the Preliminary Inquiry set for January 22nd, 2014. Counsel informed me that she would only be calling one witness, Barry Salt, a forensic computer technician. More taxpayer money to be spent bringing someone up to Quesnel in order to “prove” that I was the Publisher and Editor of RadicalPress.com a fact which I have never denied.
On December 2nd, 2013 I wrote another letter to CC Johnston regarding the matter of witnesses (or lack thereof) and that Crown was not planning to call either of the complainants (Richard Warman and Harry Abrams) nor the investigating officers (Terry Wilson and Normandie Levas). In that letter I wrote: