Overview of the Arthur Topham Free Speech CaseRegina v Radical Press Legal Update # 25
December 4th, 2015 Dear Free Speech Defenders and Radical Press Supporters, The trial of Roy Arthur Topham by the government of Canada, aka “Regina”, finally got underway Monday, October 26, 2015 in Quesnel, B.C., twelve hundred and fifty-eight days (1258) after his arrest on May 16, 2012. The Indictment stated that Arthur Topham did “willfully promote hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code.” There was a marked difference between the previous 24 court sessions where Arthur and his wife Shastah had attended court. In none of the earlier appearances was there any presence of RCMP officers yet now that the trial was actually beginning, there suddenly appeared an over abundance of police who commenced performing what turned out to be a very obvious, onerous, time-consuming and intimidating “security” check system, not only for those attending the trial but also for anyone from the general public who had to enter the provincial government building on other business related matters. It was definitely an “over-kill” approach obviously initiated by the Crown and the motives for doing so were suspected to be little more than an unabashed attempt at creating the illusion that this trial was of such supreme importance a high level of security was deemed necessary. Every person entering the building had to remove all their belongings from their person and then proceed through a body scanner. Following that they had to be additionally gone over with a special “wand” by a police officer to detect any metal objects that might still be on them. When Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler eventually arrived the bulk of the day was taken up with jury selection. A 12 member jury composed of eight women and four men were chosen from the local community. After that the trial commenced, running over the scheduled 10-day period to fourteen consecutive days and culminating on November 12th when the jury finally reached its verdict. Twice charged
Of primary importance in understanding the nature and outcome of the trial is the fact that Roy Arthur Topham was charged TWICE with the same Sec. 319(2) criminal offence. The first time was the day of his arrest on May 16, 2012 and the second time was January 14, 2014. The wording of the second Indictment was identical to that of the first. The reason for the second charge, like that of the first, was so that Crown might try again to have Topham’s bail conditions altered in order to prevent him from publishing. These additional attempts (there were three in all) to increase the severity of the bail conditions were buttressed upon the questionable pretext by Crown that the police investigation was “ongoing” and therefore the second Indictment (Count 2) was merely a result of additional evidence gleaned from posts Arthur Topham had added to his website after his initial bail conditions ended on October 9, 2015 (when Crown failed to hand down their initial Indictment within the prescribed time frame allotted them).
From the time of his arrest on May 16th until October 9, 2015 Topham was not permitted to post anything to his site.
It’s fundamental to bear this in mind when attempting to understand why the jury concluded that Arthur Topham was guilty on Count 1 and not guilty on Count 2. Weekly reports
Throughout the course of the trial weekly updates on what transpired in the courtroom were published onRadicalPress.com along with editorial commentary and photos. The “Report on first week of Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham” came out November 1, 2015 and can be found here. The second, “Report on week two of Supreme Court Trial R v Roy Arthur Topham” can be found here. Rather than repeat what was said in those articles it’s suggested that readers go to them further information.
Expert Witness for the defence
The defence was most fortunate in being able to solicit and obtain the expert testimony of Gilad Atzmon, a former Israeli citizen, accomplished philosopher, scholar, writer and Jazz musician who graciously consented to appear on behalf of Arthur Topham free of charge. Gilad Atzmon’s testimony to the jury was covered on RadicalPress.com in a November 9, 2015 article titled, “The Expert Witness – Part 1 by Gilad Atzmon“. Mr. Atzmon’s intellectual/literary forte revolves around his best selling book The Wandering Who? which is a serious academic work in the relatively new field of Jewish Identity politics.
Cross-examination of former Det. Cst. Terry Wilson and Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner
[Editor’s Note: It must be stated here that until the actual transcripts of the proceedings are obtained the commentary below regarding cross-examination of these two Crown witnesses, in particular Crown’s Exert Witness Len Rudner, should be considered more anecdotal rather than precise and factual. Again, please refer to the two weekly reports mentioned above for greater detail on this portion of the trial.
Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson’s cross-examination of Crown’s two witnesses revealed to the court that both of these individuals had personal axes to grind when it came to their testimony against Topham or their actions (as in the case of Terry Wilson) while carrying out the investigation into Topham’s website.
Unfortunately, in the case of Crown’s Expert Witness Len Rudner, it wasn’t until after his testimony and cross-examination that the defence became aware of a very serious, glaring breach of legal protocol with respect to Rudner’s sworn statements to the court. The immediate result of this new-found evidence was a call by Defence for a mistrial based upon an accusation of perjury on the part of Rudner but that move on Johnson’s part was dismissed by Justice Butler as coming too late in the proceedings.
The Crown’s forte
Throughout the whole of the 14-day trial what stood out most for the defence (as well as many observers in the gallery) was the overwhelming volume of documentary evidence (all taken from the RadicalPress.com website) which the Crown downloaded on to the jury. Coupled with that fact was the additionally onerous presence of two bulky Binders which were of such poor quality they were virtually unreadable, thus making the task of comprehending the details of the evidence not only formidable but in all likelihood an impossibility for the jury to comprehend. In fact it wasn’t until the morning of Friday, November 6th, ten days into the trial, that new exhibits of Binders 3 & 4 were finally made available to jury members.
Charge to the jury
On the afternoon of Tuesday, November 10th, 2015 Supreme Court Justice Bruce Butler read out his Charge to the jury. On top of the other thousands of pages of online books and articles the jury was now given an additional 62-page document instructing them on how to go about deliberating on all of the evidence presented over the previous 12 days of the trial. After reading out the document to the jury Justice Butler then instructed them to retire and seek a decision on the two counts.
The Decision
The decision was rendered on the morning of Thursday, November 12, 2015 at 11:27 a.m.
Count 1: Guilty
Count 2: Not Guilty
Immediately following the jury’s decision Justice Butler thanked the jury members for having done their civic duties then dismissed them. Next he told Crown and Defence that court would reconvene at 1:30 p.m. at which time any additional matters related to the trial would be dealt with.
New Bail Conditions Sought by Crown
When court reconvened at 1:40 p.m. Crown immediately brought up the issue of changing Topham’s bail conditions again. Defence objected as did Justice Butler and a new date was set for a bail hearing; one which was to take place on November 19th but was subsequently changed to November 20th, 2015.
The bail hearing began at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, November 20, 2015 with both Justice Butler and Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson appearing via telephone. Crown counsel Jennifer Johnston and Arthur Topham were present in the Quesnel Supreme Court.
Justice Butler listened to Crown’s arguments for wanting severe restrictions on Topham’s ability to continue publishing on his website and then heard Defence’s arguments against such proposals.
It ended up being a very short session; one that culminated in Justice Butler’s decision to refuse Crown’s request pending the outcome of both Crown’s Sentencing position which was slated tentatively for January 25, 2016 plus the Constitutional challenge to Sec. 319(2) of the Criminal Code of Canada which was also set to be heard before Justice Butler during the same week of January 25 – 29, 2016. Justice Butler did grant one small concession to Crown when they asked that a photo on RadicalPress.com, depicting from a distance the crowd of potential jurors lined up outside the courthouse on Monday, October 26, 2015, be removed from Topham’s website. Topham willingly consented to remove it and that concluded the bail hearing.
The Future and the Silver Lining: The Constitutional Challenge to Sec . 319(2)
Once the initial shock of the guilty verdict in Count 1 had subsided and time allowed for a reconsideration of all of the events surrounding the trial it became apparent that the verdict of “Guilty” in Count 1 was, in reality, the key to opening the door for the Defence’s ultimate objective which was to challenge the Constitutional legitimacy of the actual section of the Canadian Criminal Code (Sec. 319(2) now containing the infamous “Hate Propaganda” legislation which threatens freedom of expression for all Canadians.
Back in the spring of 2015 on March 23rd Arthur Topham’s legal counsel Barclay Johnson had served a constitutional notice on the Crown. The purpose was to present before a Supreme Court Justice a Charter argument challenging the legitimacy of the now existing Sec. 319(2) “Hate Propaganda” legislation. Eventually the date of June 22nd, 2015 was set to hear the Charter argument in the B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver.
Topham’s Argument
The Issues that Arthur Topham wanted raised and which were included in his Memorandum of Argument were as follows:
• Section 319(2) of the Criminal Code constitutes an infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. • The Crown bears the onus of justifying the infringement of Charter rights on a case-by-case basis. • The present case is distinguishable from Keegstra on its facts. • The infringement of Section 2(b) of the Charter is not reasonably justified by Section 1 in the circumstances of this case, and specifically: The “pressing and substantial objective” of legislation must be defined narrowly for the purpose of a Section 1 analysis. • The use of Section 319(2) in this case is not rationally connected to the pressing and substantial objective of preventing harms associated with hate propaganda. • Criminal prosecution by indictment is not a minimal impairment of the Applicant’s Charter rights. • The infringement of the Applicant’s Charter rights is disproportionate to any possible salutary effect that Section 319(2) could have in the circumstances of this case. • The appropriate remedy is to read into the law a constitutional exemption, to the effect that Section 319(2) is not a reasonable limit on Section 2(b) in circumstances where the allegedly hateful material is legal to possess and lawfully available from other sources. Arguments, Counter Arguments and Reasons for Judgment
For the full text of the Memorandum of Argument please go here and read it in pdf format.
The full text of the Respondent Crown’s Submissions concerning Charter S. 1 Justification and R v. Keegstra can be viewed here. A copy of the Applicant’s Reply to Crown’s arguments can be found here. Justice Butler’s Reasons for Judgment. Conclusion
The future of Sec. 319(2) of Canada’s Criminal Code will depend in part on the outcome of the planned Constitutional challenge now scheduled to take place during the week of January 25 – 29, 2016. In the interim period leading up to that challenge Topham will remain free to continue to publish and to carry on with his solicitations for funding in order to persevere with his efforts to have this unconstitutional section of Canada’s Criminal Code repealed.
Should the challenge to Sec. 319(2) fail then the next step will be an appeal of the guilty verdict in Count 1. —– In order to support Arthur Topham’s ongoing efforts to protect Canada’s Constitutional Rights and Freedoms as contained in the Charter, donations can be made online via his GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/ Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8
Thank You!
|
Tag Archives: Arthur Topham
Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal
Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal by Eve Mykytyn
Arthur Topham’s Political Beliefs May Just Be Illegal
The Extraordinary Trial of Arthur Topham: Part 3
by Eve Mykytyn / November 29th, 2015
On November 12, 2015 Arthur Topham was convicted of inciting hatred against a racial group, the Jewish people. Mr. Topham maintains a website, RadicalPress.com, in which he publishes and comments upon various documents. These documents include The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, various anti-Zionist texts, and a tract entitled Germany Must Perish!, first published in 1941 and then satirized by Mr. Topham as Israel Must Perish!.
Mr. Topham’s defense rested primarily on the theory that his writing was not directed at Jews as a race or religion, but rather at the politics espoused by a number of Jewish people. The best discussion of this topic is by Gilad Atzmon, contained in his book, The Wandering Who?. The basic take away for considering the implications of Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction is that some people conflate Judaism as a religion, an ethnic heritage AND with a political view, not always consistent, that generally favors Israel’s perceived benefit.
Canada has a lobby entitled Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs (CIJA) that lobbies the Canadian government on behalf of Israel. Mr. Rudner, who had lodged various complaints about Mr. Topham in the past and was the Crown’s expert in Mr. Topham’s case, has worked for CIJA or its predecessor for 15 years. So the Crown relied upon the testimony of a man who lobbies for Israel (clearly a political entity) for proof of anti Semitic content and potential harm to Jewish people. His appearance in tiny Quesnel is testimony to the political importance that his organization places on silencing Mr. Topham. (The original witness scheduled to testify, Mr. Farber was a former colleague of Rudner’s, and apparently the two are close enough that Mr. Rudner’s written testimony was an exact duplicate of Mr. Farber’s original.)
Since Mr. Topham was accused of anti-Semitism, let’s look at the term. The quote below is from the Holocaust Encyclopedia, published and maintained by the United States Holocaust Museum so it is probably safe to assume that this is a standard definition.
“The word antisemitism means prejudice against or hatred of Jews. The Holocaust, the state-sponsored persecution and murder of European Jews by Nazi Germany and its collaborators between 1933 and 1945, is history’s most extreme example of antisemitism. In 1879, German journalist Wilhelm Marr originated the term antisemitism, denoting the hatred of Jews, and also hatred of various liberal, cosmopolitan, and international political trends of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries often associated with Jews. The trends under attack included equal civil rights, constitutional democracy, free trade, socialism, finance capitalism, and pacifism.”
Interesting that, in the first paragraph of its section on anti-Semitism, the encyclopedia blends together the concepts of ‘hatred of the Jews’ with opposition to various political and social movements generally associated with Jews. This is puzzling. Is it anti-Semitism to oppose socialism or is it anti-Semitic to oppose finance capitalism? While one could oppose both, it would be impossible to espouse either view without rejecting the other. I assume the author did not intend to imply that opposition to socialism, for instance, was it anti-Semitic even if such opposition was from a fellow Jew.
I bring this up because this is precisely what I believe happened in Mr. Topham’s case. Mr. Topham was charged with two counts of inciting hatred over different periods of time. The jury found him guilty on the first count and not guilty on the second. Of course there are many possible explanations for a split verdict (none of which the jury is allowed to discuss even after trial without committing what the judge termed a ‘criminal’ offense). The observers, including myself, tended to believe that the discrepancy in the verdicts was a result of the text Germany Must Perish! and its satirization by Mr. Topham in Israel Must Perish!, a text that appeared on his website during the period for which Mr. Topham was found guilty.
The original text of Germany Must Perish! was written in 1941 by Theodore Kaufman, an American Jewish man. The text was originally self-published, but was apparently advertised and reviewed by the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, and Time magazine. In any case, the publication was well known enough to have been read in Germany and was cited by Hitler and Goebbels as evidence of the bad intention of the Jews. The book is horrendous. Its semi-literate ravings are a ridiculous indictment of the German people and their warlike nature. Kaufman advocates sterilization of the Germans as the only possible remedy. At best, the author is confusing all Germans with Nazis, but that is not what the book says. Mr. Topham’s satire in which he substitutes the words ‘Israel’ for Germany and ‘Zionists’ for Germans helps to make the original text comprehensible. The satire hopefully provides some insight into how these words might have been viewed by Germans in 1941. The proof that the works were effective but the satire was not understood, is that Mr. Topham faced criminal charges for aping Kaufman’s words.
In its case, the Crown made the point that Israel Must Perish! was a horrible text. The Crown argued that the fact that the words were originally written by a Jewish man to indict the Germans did not kosher the text. “Jews,” the Crown said, “could write anti-Semitic things too.” Presumably her next case will be against a Jew for inciting hatred against the Jewish people. Mr. Topham was making a political point. I believe he was trying to convey the idea that Israel and Zionists could seem very much like Germans and Nazism in 1941. It is not necessary to agree with Mr. Topham’s point to understand it.
If I am right and it was this text that caused Mr. Topham’s conviction, then that is an important indictment against Canada’s admirable attempts to limit ‘hate’ speech while allowing freedom of political speech. Mr. Topham’s criminal conviction may well have been the result of a misunderstanding that Mr. Topham was criticizing Israel and Zionism and not Jews as a race. Germany and Israel are political constructs, Germans may not be, but Zionists, or those who support establishment of the state of Israel are, by definition, espousing a political cause. So, Mr. Topham criticized the political cause of the Zionists. Is there a way in which Canada’s laws would allow Mr. Topham’s political views to find an outlet? Perhaps Canada ought to make criticism of Israel legally off limits so that Canadians may adjust their behavior accordingly.
Read Part 1 and 2.
Eve Mykytyn graduated from Boston University School of Law and was admitted to bar of the state of New York. Read other articles by Eve.
HEAR PAUL FROMM – THE ARTHUR TOPHAM TRIAL – VICTORIA, B.C. NOV. 28TH
HEAR PAUL FROMM – THE ARTHUR TOPHAM TRIAL – VICTORIA, B.C. NOV. 28TH
Part of CAFE’S mission is to encourage support for freedom of speech in Canada and to support the victims of censorship and minority-inspired persecution. Paul Fromm, CAFE Director, has undertaken an extensive speaking tour to discuss the Arthur Topham Trial. He has already spoken in Vancouver and Winnipeg with a number more locations planned.
No Increased Bail Restrictions on Free Speech Warrior Arthur Topham
No Increased Bail Restrictions on Free Speech Warrior Arthur Topham
Frankly, we feared the worst. After Authur Topham’s conviction, November 12, on one of two counts of willfully promoting “hate” against a privileged group, in this case Jews, on his website radicalpress.com, Crown prosecutor Jennifer Johnston immediately sought tighter bail conditions.
It has been the goal of both the highly politicized “hate squad” and the Crown to shut down Mr. Topham’s website. Indeed, his initial bail conditions forbad him to be on the Internet. Eventually, these were appealed and amended.
The Crowns application for more restrictions on Mr. Topham was heard by video conference November 19 and 20.
Judge Bruce Butler turned down Ms Johnston’s demand that Mr. Topham be prevented from doing any more posting on the Internet until his sentencing. [Actually, in a sense, the trial is not yet over because the constitutional challenge is yet to be heard.]
In addition, she wanted a ban on his discussing or speculating why the jurors decided as they did.
Defence lawyer Barclay Johnson appearing from Victoria pointed out: “The international media is alerady reporting on the case.”
“The hearing went extremely well,” Arthur Topham told CAFE. “All Crown got was an order that I remove a photo taken outside the court the first day of the trial as the group shot might have shown a person who would eventually sit on the jury. I had no problem removing it,” he said.
The tentative date for hearing the constitutional challenge is January 25 in Quesnel.
HARRY ABRAMS (Complainant in Arthur Topham Case) SPEAKS
HARRY ABRAMS (Complainant in Arthur Topham Case) SPEAKS
Harry Abrams is the Victoria voice of B’nai Brith one of Canada’s leading anti-free speech groups and, as defence lawyer Barclay Johnson pointed out at the recent Arthur Topham trial, a lobby for a foreign power — Israel. So, people associated with a lobby group dedicated to supporting a foreign power make judicial war on a Canadian critic of that power.
In 2007, when Arthur Topham turned the focus of his website radicalpress.com — check it out before the thought police order it taken down — he almost immediately came under attack by thought control freak Harry Abrams. He launched a “human rights complaint” under the notorious Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. CAFE intervened on his behalf. However, before a tribunal could be convened the section was repealed. In 2012, Abrams, now joined by the champion human rights complaint filer under the old Sec. 13, Richard Warman, filed a complaint with the B.C. Hate Squad, fortuitously headed up by another free speech foe and former London thought police cop Terry Wilson. Needless to say, he hopped to it and Arthur was “investigated” and charged under Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code; to wit, “willfully promoting hatred against a privileged minority” — in this case Jews.
Neither Warman nor Abrams bothered to attend the 12-day trial (October 26 to November 12) resulting from their complaint. They just do their mischief and let the cops and courts inflict maximum pain on dissidents.
The following material appeared November 15 on the Anti-Racist Canada website. Here Abrams thanks all the people who helped him persecute Arthur Topham, including B’nai Brith lawyers like Marvin Kurz and Anita Bromberg. Poor Richard Warman hasn’t received the kudos Abrams feels he deserves in the judicial takedown of Arthur Topham. [Boo, hoo, we’ve run out of Kleenex.]
Abrams boasts of a number of campaigns to shut other people down. He’s currently trying to impoverish Vancouver Buddhist lecturer Brian Ruhe for publishing historical revisionist videos. He boasts (elsewhere) of contacting Ruhe’s employers and getting him fire.
Erroneously, Abrams says that the evil book Germany Must Perish was obscure WW II Allied propaganda that no one had ever heard of. It was not Allied propaganda. It was written by a U.S. Jew Theodore Kaufman and was his blueprint for the eradication of Germans after WW II by mass sterilization. Abrams knew Arthur Topham’s take-off on this book, Israel Must Perish was a satire. He said so, the Arthur Topham trial learned, when he was interviewed by Det. Const. Wilson. The fiery passages Abrams quotes are from this satire. They are meant to criticize the book Germany Must Perish, not seriously to suggest genocide of Jews. Det. Const. Wilson said he’d been aware of Germany Must Perish. Of course, as Germans are not a privileged minority, this book has never been the subject of prosecution in Canada.
More than ever, free men and free women need liberation from thought control laws like Sec. 319, Canada’s “hate law.”
Repeal all hate laws!
Paul Fromm
Director
CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Harry Abrams also writes the following on the subject:
Arthur Topham – Guilty!
Undated ( 1970’s?) photo posted to Topham’s Facebook page
“…Topham’s bizarre antisemitic conspiracy theories and his repeated demonization of the Jewish people are far beyond the limits of what civil society would consider to be protected speech. While we recognize that freedom of speech is the cornerstone of a free and democratic society, Topham’s postings crossed a line when he began to actively assert the need for genocide of the Jewish people…” – B’nai Brith Canada
Harry thank you for bringing Topham to everyone’s attention. Here the system has worked as it should. – Marvin Kurz
These above are my 2 favourite headlines so far. The decision just didn’t seem to sink in for me until I finally could read it in the national mainstream news, and for this once, I think that the main outlets covering the story, both understood and conveyed the significance of why this needed to be done, and how freedom of speech in a democracy can never be totally open-ended…or else we risk losing our civilization.
More wherefores and why-fores in a moment, but first I would like to offer some acknowledgements and thanks.
Detective Terry Wilson and Corporal Normandie Levas and the BC Hate Crimes Team. Without these skilled, principled and above all, dedicated Peace officers, we never would have had this show. Det. Wilson, who led the investigation would have been the first (after myself and the B’nai Brith legal ensemble) to recognize the complaint for what it was, and make the critical decision to proceed, knowing with certainty that we had a textbook criminal case.
Richard Warman of Ottawa. See: www.
It’s been something of a shame that Richard hasn’t received much notice in all of the coverage I’ve seen so far, because he also filed similar complaints all along. I’d like to see him receive a few laurel leaves. He’s taken personal risks and worked very hard and has been an admirable steadfast colleague for many years.
B’nai Brith Canada A special thank you to Anita Bromberg, then in-house lawyer at the office in Toronto, and of course legal counsels Marvin Kurz in Brampton, Ont. and David Matas in Winnipeg, Man., both of whom oversaw my work and preparation, pro bono.
Antiracism Experts: Alan Dutton of Vancouver and Helmut Harry Loewen in Winnipeg. Thank you fellows!! For all of your support and years of commiseration!
http://anti-racistcanada.blogs
Why Topham and Radicalpress.com?
By 2006 the phenomenon of internet blogs and interactive websites and chatboards had absolutely exploded.
Not only was it a whole new era of instant feedback to news outlets, but any person, with only even a rudimentary understanding of the use of computers, could instantly become their own regional or worldwide publisher or take part in any number of exciting discussion and interest groups. We’ve never turned back. Indeed social networking plus the advent of smart phones, tablets and other highly portable computer-like devices have totally revised the way many of us communicate, socialize, fund raise and do business all around the world. For myself, setting up interest streams on Facebook have helped my business, sharpened my language learning skills (I speak English, French, Spanish, German and some Hebrew and Yiddish) plus generated a 24 hour stream of world art treasures, paintings and photography; all highly inspirational to me in my work as an advertising executive and commercial artist.
But this new communication miracle also served darker interests. Seized upon by haters of every stripe. But Canada, in those lofty days, had a reasonable remedy for online published hatred. Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act. And nobody wielded this piece of legislation against more baddies and to greater effect than Richard Warman.
By 2006, and under the guidance of B’nai Brith I had already used this section successfully in two different projects. Not something that most of you would have likely heard about, because neither of those cases ever went to a hearing. The first concerned Vancouver and Victoria Indymedia. They were absolutely awash with vitriol: traditional antisemitism plus very explicit hatred against the continued existence of Israel.
Posting refutational material in response was spotty at best. The Indy editors adamantly were loathe to clean up their discussion boards and it was unruly chaos. By dint of close observation, I eventually discovered who the heretofore carefully anonymous principle editor was; and confirmed a residence address and enough relevant contact information to file a case. The Commission accepted my complaint, and the fellow was eventually served a set of papers, receiving a packet in the mail. Rather than dispute, negotiate or attend a hearing, the editor chose instead to make himself very scarce. As in off of the grid. Virtually untraceable, in fact.
But before doing so, he obliged us by erasing and disabling the then discussion board, ending the problem at hand.
Also in 2006, a local Victoria blog called www.pej.org (Peace, Earth & Justice) came to my attention in all of the bad far-left publicity that followed in the wake of Israel’s war with Hezbollah in Lebanon that year. PEJ.org became a cruel cesspit of not just criticism, but existential hatred. Here are a couple of stories about it still accessible online:
To move this story along I’ll simply say that when finally served with the complaint, the owner of the site promptly apologized and removed the specifically offending items, ending the problem.
No arrest. No release conditions. No court appearances. No legal fees.
PEJ.org still carries on today. I don’t monitor it anymore. But even if they do put out the occasional article that speaks unkindly of Israel, it’s not rampantly hateful like it was back in the day.
So finally, all of this has really been just a preamble to my initiating contact with Mr. Topham. Arthur was, if I recall correctly, for a time, actively associated with PEJ, and I picked up on something nasty of his that was re-posted there and linked back to his radicalpress.com. It was then (as it stands today) a virtual toilet of Jew hatred. In 2007 I pseudonymously emailed the fellow, pointing out one ugly article (the link is still live, but perhaps not for very much longer) and asked him politely, but firmly, if he would kindly remove this article as it was both untrue and highly offensive to Jews. I also warned that a federal level human rights action might be commenced against him if he didn’t.
I excerpt just a bit of Elie Wiesel’s Holocaust Tale and link it here:
“…Jewish supremacists are poisoning, subverting, perverting, and murdering people of all races. The world is enslaved by their control and their ideologies, with the aid of treasonous gentiles….”
Topham refused to accommodate my request.
So I went back to work and prepared a complaint. He was served and the dispute trundled along at a more or less glacial pace until it finally stalled in 2010; awaiting the outcome of a constitutional challenge to one of Richard Warman’s Section 13’s. By then it had become very fashionable for everybody and their cousin in media all over Canada to roundly condemn this human rights mechanism, and I suppose there were enough exploitable weaknesses with the process as it then was to bring down the entire piece of legislation.
Those were some bad old days.
Canada’s Parliament de-certified this section of the Human Rights Act, and that ended 2 separate complaints that both I and Richard Warman had filed against Topham. Did I forget to mention that Richard Section 13’d Topham simultaneously as well?
Since then, former Canadian Justice Minister Irwin Cotler has forwarded a bill to Parliament, with some very carefully considered amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. It would be nice to have something like it on the books again, but I don’t suppose it will see the light of day until well after our new government has fully legalized marijuana, and kept a few other election promises first.
So this brings us to 2011, and emboldened, I suppose, by the scuttling of Section 13, Topham appeared to double down on his rants and turned up the heat with more and more classics of hate literature, plus intense vilification of both Richard and myself; and posted his piece de resistance, the Israel Must Perish screed, concocted from an obscure piece of Allied WW2 propaganda that none of us had ever heard of before.
No doubt, he thought himself very clever to substitute the words Jew for German and Israel for Germany and so on to make up this egregious piece of work.
“…It is assumed that the reader will already be fully cognizant of the Zionist agenda for global governance that is a given in today’s political reality, especially within the alternative media and on the Internet where Zionist “hate” laws are still not fully in place to restrict the natural flow of ideas and opinions that proceed from historical research and experience….”
“…There remains now but to determine the best way, the most practical and expeditious manner in which the ultimate penalty must be levied upon the Israeli nation. Quite naturally, massacre and wholesale execution must be ruled out. In addition to being impractical when applied to a population of some five million, such methods are inconsistent with the moral obligations and ethical practices of civilization. There remains then but one mode of ridding the world forces of Zionism — and that is to stem the source from which issue those war-lusted souls, by preventing the people of Israel from ever again reproducing their kind. This modern method, known to science as Eugenic Sterilization, is at once practical, humane and thorough. Sterilization has become a byword of science, as the best means of ridding the human race of its misfits: the degenerate, the insane, the hereditary criminal.
Sterilization is not to be confused with castration. It is a safe and simple operation, quite harmless and painless, neither mutilating nor unsexing the patient. Its effects are most often less distressing than vaccination and not more serious than a tooth extraction. Too, the operation is extremely rapid requiring no more than ten minutes to complete. The patient may resume his work immediately afterwards. Even in the case of the female the operation, though taking longer to perform, is as safe and simple. Performed thousands of times, no records indicate cases of complication or death. When one realizes that such health measures as vaccination and serum treatments are considered as direct benefits to the community, certainly sterilization of the Jewish people cannot but be considered a great health measure promoted by humanity to immunize itself forever against the virus of Zionism.
…Concerning the males subject to sterilization the army groups, as organized units, would be the easiest and quickest to deal with. Taking 2,000 surgeons as an arbitrary number and on the assumption that each will perform a minimum of 25 operations daily, it would take no more than one month, at the maximum, to complete their sterilization. Naturally the more doctors available, and many more than the 2,000 we mention would be available considering all the nations to be drawn upon, the less time would be required. The balance of the male civilian population of Israel could be treated within three months. Inasmuch as sterilization of women needs somewhat more time, it may be computed that the entire female population of Israel could be sterilized within a period of a year or less. Complete sterilization of both sexes, and not only one, is to be considered necessary in view of the present Jewish doctrine that so much as one drop of true Jewish blood constitutes a Jew….”
And so my friends, especially those of you in media, I must ask you to take particular notice of even just these few paragraphs above, sampled from the many thousands of pages and years and years of similar invective… volumes of material that all point in the same direction.
This has not been a complaint about opinions with which I or B’nai Brith or Richard Warman or the Jewish Community of Canada simply disagree. It’s incitement to genocide. Nothing less.
TRUTH JIHAD: Gilad Atzmon bears witness to the trial of Arthur Topham
http://www.radicalpress.com/?
TRUTH JIHAD: Gilad Atzmon bears witness to the trial of Arthur Topham
by Dr. Kevin Barrett
November 15, 2015
TRUTH JIHAD: Gilad Atzmon bears witness to the trial of Arthur Topham
By Kevin Barrett on November 14, 2015
By Kevin Barrett on November 14, 2015
Trial was Alice-in-Wonderland meets Franz Kafka – judge, jury & crown unable to grasp concept of “satire”
Gilad Atzmon, expert witness, with Defence Attorney Barclay Johnson
Canadian publisher Arthur Topham will likely be appealing his conviction on one count (accompanied by an acquittal on the other) of “promoting hatred toward the Jewish people.” The conviction appears to have been the result of the prosecutor, judge and jury’s inability to understand the concept of satire. Check out Arthur’s article “Guilty/Not Guilty” for details. If and when Arthur appeals, I will be happy to volunteer my services as an expert witness. I have four advanced degrees in literature (three MAs and a Ph.D.) and have done extensive work on the literary theory of Bakhtin, whose work provides the best possible basis for an accurate understanding of what satire is and how it works.
Meanwhile…Shortly before the verdict came in I recorded this interview with ex-Israeliphilosopher-
Arthur Topham (who has appeared on Truth Jihad Radio) is a kind, decent person without any apparent hatred in his heart. It is his love of justice, not his hatred of anyone, that led him to criticize Zionism and the dark side of Jewish identity politics. Arthur and his wife Shasta, who is Jewish, have behaved with amazing restraint and decorum during their eight-year ordeal, during which their remodeling business was destroyed.
What was Arthur Topham’s alleged crime? Parodying Zionist Jew Theodore Kaufman’s book “Germany Must Perish!” by changing “Germany” to “Israel” throughout the text. This tiny change produced the satirical masterpiece “Israel Must Perish!” – and led Canada’s Zionist Power Configuration to have him jailed on “hate crime” charges!
Who is the REAL hater here – Arthur Topham, or the Zionists like Kaufman who wanted to commit genocide against Germany, and are now committing genocide in Palestine with the full support of the governments of the US and Canada?
And how has Jewish identity politics morphed into genocidal Zionism? If anyone can explain that, it would be Gilad Atzmon.
—
Also check out my interviews with Arthur Topham:
Arthur Topham puts Zionist double-standards & hypocrisy on trial! (December 17, 2013)
Persecuted writer-editor Arthur Topham: “Zionists assault free speech” (January 21, 2015)
Related Posts:
Arthur Topham vs. Theodore Nathan Kaufman
Outlawing Free Speech on Jewish Identity
Gilad Atzmon’s Expert Witness Testimony at Arthur Topham’s criminal trial – Part 1
Gilad in the USA- May 15th
Ten reasons why I Support Alan Dershowitz, Not
Related Posts:
Arthur Topham vs. Theodore Nathan Kaufman
Outlawing Free Speech on Jewish Identity
Gilad Atzmon’s Expert Witness Testimony at Arthur Topham’s criminal trial – Part 1
Gilad in the USA- May 15th
Ten reasons why I Support Alan Dershowitz, Not
—-
•••0•••
Please help fund the purchase of the court transcripts and the Constitutional Challenge for R v Roy Arthur Topham.
Donations can be made online via my GoGetFunding site located at http://gogetfunding.com/
Arthur Topham
4633 Barkerville Highway
Quesnel, B.C.
V2J 6T8
Paul Fromm Reports on the First Two Weeks of the Arthur Topham Thought Crimes Trial in Quesnel, B.C.
Welcome! This video is of Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association of Freedom of Expression. Paul just returned after two weeks at the trial of Arthur Topham, held is Quesnel, BC, Canada. He gives his account of the trial experience as he saw it unfold and he describes key testimony such as Gilad Atzmon’s who spoke in Arthur’s defence. [Part of a meeting of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, Vancouver, November 7, 2015)
Defence expert witness Gilad Atzmon, Richard Warman free speech victim Terry Tremaine,defendant Arthur Topham and Defence lawyer Barclay Johnson
JURY STILL OUT IN ARTHUR TOPHAM TRIAL
JURY STILL OUT IN ARTHUR TOPHAM TRIAL
On Monday, the prosecuting attorney Jennifer Johnson delivered her summation to the jury in the Arthur Topham free speech trial. Mr. Topham is charged under Canada’s notorious “hate law” (Sec. 319 of the Criminal Code) for “willfully promoting hatred against a ” privileged group — in this case Jews.
Defence lawyer Barclay Johson had presented his summation on Friday afternoon.
Tuesday both lawyers discussed the judge’s charge or instructions to the jury with him. These were delivered by the Judge Brian Butler Tuesday afternoon. The jury deliberated until 9:00 p.m.
The jury continued deliberations this morning. Barclay Johnson reports that they returned to court to ask the judge whether “hate” can be willfully conveyed, if there is no malice.
Report November 2 Arthur Topham Trial
Arthur Topham’s Defence Lawyer Barclay Johnson Cross-Examines Len Rudner formerly of the Canadian Jewish Congress
. We learn he helped write a complaint in 2007 to try to get Arthur Topham charged by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police for “hate”. Thus, he is not an objective “expert” witness.
He admits sending a letter to an ISP to get Arthur’s website kicked off, in 2007, to “inconvenience him.”
He says the number of Jews killed in WW II is between 5.3 and 6-milloon. He admits Yad Vasham in Israel is a centre expert in the holocaust and is confronted with their figure of 2.6-million Jewish deaths.
Rudner is flummoxed when confronted with fiery quotations from the Torah and Passover prayers calling for the genocide of the Jews neighbours.
Crown admits Rudner is being paid $195/hour for his expert testimony and preparation, not the $95 that was mentioned on Friday.
|WEEK ONE OF THE ARTHUR TOPHAM TRIAL
Quesnel, British Columbia, October 31, 2015. Week one of the Arthur Topham trial ended yesterday in this Cariboo country town of 15,000, with fireworks predicted for next week.
This trial makes frequent reference to symbols especially Jewish symbols. Thus, the symbols in the courtroom have caught the eye of the defence team. At the front, above the judge’s dias is the coat of arms of the Queen — a gold crown, a gold lion, a white unicorn. red roses. So far so good. However. on the ceiling dominating everything in this 1967 building are four large wooden Stars of David and from each six hanging lamps that light the court. Of course, the constipated court rules do not allow us to take a picture of this holy of holies even when the court in not in session, the sheriffs told me.
This trial is special. When I attended the preliminary hearing in the spring of 2014, there was no security at the courtroom. Now, one must pass through a metal detector and be wanded. Freedom activist Dave Lindsay confronted the security brigade on Monday and demanded to know what “reasonable and probable grounds” they had to a search him. After some strutting and attitude, he was finally told: “We can do what we want.”
Up until Thursday, cellphones were allowed as long as they were turned off in court. Thursday, however, no cellphones were allowed. “Why”? I asked. “Orders,” I was told. More likely it was the arrival of an “important” personality, Len Rudner, formerly an official with the Canadian Jewish Congress and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, and the Crown’s “expert witness.” Of course, in keeping with the manufactured drama, he was accompanied by police bodyguards. Arthur Topham who has been much vilified in the press never has such cop shadows at his preliminary hearing.
Monday morning, of over 900 people summoned for jury duty about 120 showed up. It took over an hour to select the jury of eight women and four men.
For the prosecution is Jennifer Johnston, a raven haired woman in her 40s who favours black skirts and boots. She has a powerful though not unpleasant voice and has a flair for the dramatic as she prances around the court. She has trouble pronouncing many key words; for instance, referring to Eustace Mullins, author of one of the impugned books on Arthur Topham’s website www.radicalpress.com, as “Eustache” — to rhyme with moustache.
For the defence is Victoria lawyer and former Doug Christie associate Barclay Johnson. A man who enjoys a good cigar, Mr. Johnson is solid and distinguished looking and is an experienced criminal defence lawyer. On the bench from Vancouver is B.C. Supreme Court Judge Butler.
The rest of Monday and the next two days were devoted to the testimony of Mr. (formerly Detective Constable) Terry Wilson of the B.C. “Hate Squad.” From him we learned that the source of Mr. Topham’s ordeal is Ottawa lawyer and champion complaint filer Richard Warman who sent his old friend Wilson — they had worked on Internet “hate|” cases together in Ontario — an e-mail on April 28, 2011 urging charges under Sec. 319 of Canada’s notorious “hate law” against Arthur Topham for postings on his website.
Mr. Wilson pronounced “85-90 per cent of the material on the website anti-Semitic in its rhetoric.” In an agreed definition, the Crown and Mr. Johsnon held that “anti-Semitic” meant opposition to or dislike of Jews but did not mean hatred.
The second complainant was Harry Abrams of B’nai Brith in Victoria. Mr. Wilson indicated that Abrams even pointed out to him that Israel Must Perish by Arthur Topham was a satire of Germany Must Perish a blueprint for the genocide of the German people, authored by Theodore Kaufman, an American Jew, in 1941.
Mr. Wilson’s chief role was to identify books and passages on radicalpress.com that the prosecution found objectionable.
- Germany Must Perish! by Theodore N. Kaufmann
- Israel Must Perish! (erroneously labeled by Wilson and the Crown as a “book” rather than a satirical article)
- The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion
- The Biological Jew by Eustace Mullins
- The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today by Elizabeth Dilling
Binder #2 was the complete text of Douglas Reed’s masterful historic analysis of political Zionism The Controversy of Zion.
The remaining two binders contained numerous posts and editorial comments by Topham. The majority of material being that produced by authors other than the accused.
Mr. Wilson was taken through the Protocols of the Elders of Zion which is a blueprint for establishing Jewish world dominance and world government. Among other things it : “We shall enslave the Gentiles through financial monopolies”; we shall end individual liberty; the masses will be led by lies; we shall take control of the legal and educational systems and control the press.
Another text under attack that was linked through Mr. Topham’s site was Elizabeth Dilling’s The Jewish Religion: Its Influence Today. Miss Dilling quoted the Talmud, a compilation of the writings of rabbis over the centuries, which contains some hair-raising passages that seem to approve sex with girls as young as three and which assert that such a violated girl’s virginity will grow back. Other passages seem to endorse maternal incest with young boys.
On Thursday, Barclay Johnson began his cross-examination of Mr. Wilson. The court’s mood changed as Jennifer Johnston repeatedly interrupted him and the jury got their exercise by being repeatedly sent out of the room while the lawyers argued procedure before the judge.
Asked why Mr. Topham’s computers had been seized by the police who raided his home in May, 2012, even before he was charged, Mr. Wilson said: “We were concerned to protect his victims from his hateful messages.” Thus, in the “hate squad’s” eyes Mr. Topham was guilty even before being charged or tried.
In a further act of mischief against Mr. Topham, on May 31, 2012 Mr. Wilson sent a letter to Mr. Topham’s U.S. Internet Service Provider (ISP) advising that Mr. Topham had been charged for wilfully promoting hatred against a privileged group — no such censorship law exists in the U.S. — and that the website might contravene the ISP’s usage policies.
Mr. Johnson tried to get Mr. Wilson to admit that his goal had been to get the ISP to shut Mr. Topham down, as they subsequently did. Mr. Wilson played coy and said it was up to the ISP to decide what to do. Sending the letter “was the right thing to do,” Mr. Wilson insisted.
Mr. Topham had run some satirical cartoons about the B.C. hate squad and Terry Wilson. “Is it police policy to write such a letter? ” Barclay Johnson demanded. “I put it to you, you wrote the letter for personal reasons. You were angry at the things Mr. Topham put on his website?”
“No, sir,” Mr. Wilson answered.
During the Warman v Marc Lemire tribunal hearings it was learned that operatives of the Canadian Human Rights Commission wrote hundreds of U.S. ISPs to try to get them to close down Canadian and even some American websites, some of which were not even the subject of Sec. 13 complaints.
Near the end of the cross-examination, Mr. Johnson got Mr. Wilson to admit that he was not an expert on so-called “hate propaganda” or on its likely effects. “No, I am not.”
He agreed that “anti-Semitism was not necessarily hate” and admitted that he did not have a copy of the Talmud and had not checked out the accuracy of Elizabeth Dilling’s many quotations of blood curdling passages of the Talmud.
On Friday, the Crown introduced its expert witness, Len Rudner, 62, an Orthodox Jew who had worked from 2000 to 2011 in various roles for the Canadian Jewish Congress and, until this August, as Director of Community Relations for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. He admitted that he was not a Talmud scholar. He also admitted that he had not read all of Douglas Reed’s The Controversy of Zion, one of the books that he is critiquing.
He is being paid $95 an hour for preparation and his testimony and, of course, an all-expense trip to Quesnel, B.C. He noted that Schindler’s List was, in fact, a work of fiction,
Crown lawyer Jennifer Johnston asked: “CIJA is a lobby for the state of Israel?”
Rudner agreed: “We advocate to the Canadian government for a positive position” on the State of Israel.
Mr. Rudner also revealed that, while at the CJC, he had helped prepare four complaints to the Canadian Human Rights Commission.
He explained that Jews can identify as such on the basis of religion or ancestry and that some do not believe in God. “Zionism is the yearning of the Jewish people to return to the land of Israel.”
Is Len Rudner a holocaust skeptic? He told the court: “The six million figure might be slightly high. The death count may be between 5.3-million and 6-million.” In such repressive regimes as Angela Merkel’s Germany such potential backsliding could land a skeptic in prison.
Mr. Rudner claimed that the term “World Jewry” was anti-Semitic and did not exist. “The term Jewry dehumanizes us and treats us as an anthill,” he insisted.
As to the horrific passages from the Talmud, Mr. Rudner insisted that Jews oppose adultery and child abuse and that the comments Miss Dilling quoted were speculation among rabbis over many centuries.
Although vital free speech issues are at stake here and there is a battle over many of history’s repeated accusations against Jews, the national media has studiously shunned Quesnel. Even the local paper which gave the trial a little publicity in its October 28 issue, managed to have its editor in court for less than half an hour this week.
Those with a jaundiced view of the MSM [Mainstream (or Lamestream) Media] will have had little reason to change their views after the first week of this trial.
The trial continues Monday. — Paul Fromm32222222