Vancouver Friends & Supporters Mourn the Passing of Doug Christie

Vancouver Friends & Supporters Mourn the Passing of Doug Christie
 VANCOUVER. March 26, 2013. The last of four memorial meetings sponsored by the Canadian Association for Free Expression across Canada took place here this evening. Friend…s, former clients, admirers and members of Doug Christie’s Western Block party gathered to remember the Battling Barrister.

Cecilia “Sissy” von Dehn is a former nurse and midwife who, with a friend, several times passed out copies of Bill 48, the draconian legislation, brought in by the former NDP government, that sets up bubble zones around abortion clinics where no protests are allowed. “I felt no one knew what a bubble zone was. I distributed the law. We never discussed abortion. Apparently telling people what the law is in British Columbia is illegal. Our sign said: ‘You are in a bubble zone, Read Bill 48,'” Mrs. von Dehn explained.

The Vancouver abortion clinic called the police and Mrs. von Dehn and her friend were arrested. She approached many law firms. “They were afraid of an unpopular case. I am grateful Doug Christie fought for another unpopular cause in my case,” she added.

Another Doug Christie client, Terry Tremaine, spoke. Mr. Tremaine  has been victimized by Richard Warman through a human rights complaint, a Criminal Code “hate law” complaint, three “contempt of court” complaints and a complaint to the University of Saskatchewan which resulted in the loss of his teaching position. “This whole country has become a bubble zone against free speech,” he said.

“Doug Christie was my lawyer, but he was also my friend,” Tremaine said. “I haven’t been so affected by the death of anyone since the death of my own father in 1985,” he added. “No only have I lost my lawyer, I have lost my dear friend.”
Mr. Tremaine was teaching at Red Deer College in 1983 while the James Keegstra “hate law” case was in progress. A student whose father had been Mr. Keegstra’s principal invited him to attend court one day. This was the first occasion Mr. Tremaine saw the Battling Barrister.Photo
James Keegstra was testifying. Mr. Tremaine had been prepared to see a monster from hyperventilating stories in the press. “But James Keegstra didn’t have horns. He was a sincere and thoughtful person and he started me off on a course of research that continues to this day.”
“Doug Christie’s life was built on principle. He was devoted to freedom of speech and fought against people being fed into an unjust system.”
“Doug Christie’s life was based on principle and he would withstand the rejection of lesser men. He was not swayed by the opinions of insignificant men. Doug was a hero for freedom,” he concluded.
In his wrap-up, CAFE Director Paul Fromm reminded the audience that Doug Christie often said: The only freedoms you have are the ones you’re prepared to fight for.”
“We have had thirty years of Trudeau’s lying Charter. He hijacked our Anglo-Saxon Common Law and replaced it with continental Napoleonic Law, where the state stingily doles out ‘rights’ to the serfs. The Charter, despite the apparent guarantees of freedom of speech, freedom of belief, and freedom of religion is a fraud. We are far less free today, in terms of free speech, than we were before the Charter,” Mr. Fromm said.Photo
“In the Whatcott decision, traditional Christians have just had the boots put to them by a Supreme Court panel of six who included three Jews, who, and we’re not supposed to notice this fact, constitute less than one percent of the population. Made up rights, like self actualization and satisfaction for privileged minorities, have trumped freedom of speech for Christians. These are hard times.”
“Doug Christie helped hold back the censors’ onslaught. He got the archaic ‘false news’ law thrown out at the Zundel trial and developed many challenges to the hate law which have not been adjudicated. He achieved the acquittal of Chief David Ahenakew and the staying of charges against Terry Tremaine in hate law cases. We must carry on with his work,” Mr. Fromm pledged. — Paul Fromm

Tribute by Former Canadian Diplomat Ian V. Macdonald for Doug Christie Memorial, March 23, 2013

Tribute by Former Canadian Diplomat Ian V. Macdonald for Doug Christie Memorial, March 23, 2013
Photo: Douglas  Hewson Christie, RIP

Keltie Zubko

Douglas Christie

April 1946 - March 11, 2013

Keltie Zubko

I am heart-broken to say that Doug passed away this afternoon in Victoria Hospice. Cadeyrn, Kalonica, Doug's sister Jane, and I were all with him and able to say all that was in our hearts to say before he let go of the pain and suffering to leave us with the immense gifts of his love for us and the lessons of his life.

Marc Lemire:

Douglas Christie was a great man and will be missed by so many.  He was one of my personal heroes!

Dear Supporters of Free Speech:

I just received these e-mails from Keltie Zubko, Doug's wife, and Marc Lemire, the intrepid challenger of Canada's notorious  Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship).

Doug was an immensely brave man and a towering presence in Court. His height and firmness of bearing made an impact on many a judge, and, I suspect, many a miscreant or liar under cross-examination.  Other lawyers have told me that Doug was one of the most intimidating cross-examiners in this Dominion. As a former client, (my firing for my political views by the Peel Board of Education and the libel charge by Richard Warman for calling him a "censor")  I can testify that Doug was demanding and unrelenting that his clients organize and prepare their material.

My friend of more than 30 years was motivated by a deep love of freedom and a suspicion of government and authority. Perhaps, in the best of ways, he was a symbol of the '60s, an era we both grew up in. It was an era that, however faultily, sought freedom. Neither of us was part of the "tune out, turn on" ethos of the time, but both of us deeply valued individual freedom. Doug lived to see what used to be common political culture of a largely European Canada -- "I disagree with you, but you have a right to your opinion" -- become the prissy, prune-faced political correctness of  Canada today: agree with the minority agenda or you shut up!

One of his last legal acts was to review the catastrophic Supreme Court of Canada Whatcott decision, where a fervent fundamentalist pamphleteer was found guilty and fined by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for passing out leaflets critical of homosexual teachings in public schools. Doug sadly concluded: "Free speech as we knew it in Canada, is dead." Having read this revolutionary decision, I, who at first dismissed the conclusion as the pessimism of a dying man, believe his grim view is right.

Doug's unshakable courage in the face of press abuse -- he was once called a "perverted monster" by a  Vancouver talk show  host for having defended revisionist publisher Ernst Zundel -- put others in the legal profession to shame, Doug didn't just believe in a client's right to a full and proper defence, he really did believe in freedom of speech: that freedom of expression is the gift you must give to your worst enemy, he told a CAFE meeting in Toronto, December 2, 2012. Many other lawyers lost that belief. Terry Tremaine, later one of Doug's clients and another Richard  Warman free speech victim, called on seven Regina law firms to represent him in a "judicial review" (appeal) against the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal decision finding him guilty of spreading "hate" on the Internet. Finding out that this was a controversial free speech case running headlong into political correctness, not a single Regina law firm would touch Mr. Tremaine's case.

 Murderers, child molesters, rape-kidnap-murder perpetrators like Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo, or more recently accused murderer and butcher Luka Magnotta, had no trouble finding counsel. The media and other bien pensants would praise their lawyers as brave and creative lawyers. Yet, Doug Christie, who stood up for non-violent freethinkers assailed for having unpopular beliefs. was often reviled in the press and in the legal profession.

The Doug I knew was a sensitive and proud man. He was a deeply moral man. He did not seek notoriety. He felt the rejections and condemnations deeply. Yet, Doug felt a higher imperative -- individual freedom and liberty.  These had once been the values of our generation. But many of the free speech advocates of the 1960s had grown old and paunchy and grey and had been subverted into Frankfurt School political correctness. They had become the very repressive, narrow-minded Establishment they  had once reviled. Doug never lost that youthful passion for freedom.

Ranged, often with the highly talented legal researcher Barbara Kulazska at his side, against the endless money and batteries of lawyers of various repressive government bodies, Doug Christie was a one man Dutch boy with his finger in the dyke holding back the tidal wave of repression. His achievements were many. He singlehandedly got Canada's archaic "false news" law used to  try to silence Ernst Zundel ruled unconstitutional. His persistence in the Terry Tremaine Sec. 319 "hate law" case got the charges stayed for undue delay,

Doug's towering presence in the defence of freedom will be sorely missed. The would-be censors, the minority zealots who would silence any opinion but their own and those who hate the unfettered thoughts of free men and women whenever they deviate from the prune-faced, fussy little orthodoxy of political correctness may feel a little freer to pursue their repressive instincts tonight with the passing of this great man.

Another important aspect of Doug Christie was his political life as an outspoken and often lonely champion of Western separation. I first met Doug Christie on a rainy late afternoon at the Vancouver television studios of the then famous Jack Webster Show. At the time, Doug apparently had something to do with the British Columbia provincial Conservative Party. Although a seemingly quiet man,  as we exchanged a few words, I knew I had met a man with an imposing presence. we parted and I went in to do my interview with the irrascible Scot to promote my critique of foreign aid, the recently published book Down the Drain: A Critical Re-examination of Canadian Foreign Aid Policy.

I next met Doug when I travelled to Red Deer for  a meeting to support a thoughtful school teacher Jim Keegstra who was being charged under Canada's notorious "hate law", section 319 of the Criminal Code. By now, Doug Christie was famous as a champion of Western separation.

The early 1980s were heady times. The arrogant Trudeau socialists had brought in the National Energy Programme. Alberta, devastated by a slump in oil prices, had ruined people walking away from their homes, on which they often owed more than what they were worth. Alberta was in near revolt. Doug Christie criss-crossed the West arguing for separation and independence. No longer should the West be bled dry by the East and held up with high prices for Eastern manufactured goods. He held up a vision of more populist and responsive government in a unilingual English country. State intrusion in ownership of guns would be reduced and, of course, anti-free speech laws would be abolished. The West would be a proud country of independent men and women, not a nanny state of  Ottawa-controlled serfs.

Doug Christie's message was a powerful one. He spoke to packed meetings in halls across Western Canada. He packed the Jubilee Auditorium in Edmonton with several thousand people. His party the Western Canada Concept contested a by-election in Alberta and the separatist candidate Gordon Kessler was elected.

There were, of course, problems. The party tended to be run out of Doug Christie's briefcase. A flock of opportunists and not a few federalist agents joined the party. There was a lack of seasoned and experienced staff. Divisions followed and plagued the party.

In 1984, the Mulroney Conservatives were elected with a large  representation of Western MPs. They repealed some of the worst abuses of the NEP. However, with their many neo-Liberal policies, they left many real populists and conservatives feeling betrayed. There arose a new populist party, the Reform Party, with the slogan "the West wants in." It was well-funded and seemed to offer a less radical answer to Western grievances.

Doug Christie soldiered on explaining his vision in the monthly Western Separatist Papers and later on the WCC website . The meetings were fewer and less well attended. The WCC ran a few candidates in each federal election, but the enthusiasm for separation had passed. In the past decade, the West has become rich. Saskatchewan, once an exporter of wheat and people, is now a "have" province. Alberta's oil sands are a job magnet.

So, was Doug Christie's vision of an independent West wrong? Only history will tell. For much of the 140-year long struggle for Irish independence, those pushing for an independent state were for long periods of time treated, even by many Irishmen, as crackpots. But their day came as it may come for Western Canadian Independence.

Whatever history's final judgement of Doug Christie's Western Canada Concept, he kept the faith and articulated a vision of a free and independent West with intelligence and dedication.

Paul Fromm

Director

CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION
Recognizing Doug Christie’s service to Canada:  Memorial Meeting, March 23, 2013
 
Thanks for the suggestion.  There will be so many tributes  that anything I could add would be redundant, but I have done a  short piece (below) based on a letter to Peter Milliken, former  Speaker of the House of Commons, suggesting that he would be the appropriate  person to nominate Doug for the Order of Canada,  an award long  overdue for which Doug has shown  himself to be better qualified than most  recipients to date.  Peter Milliken replied that nominations are  better made by people who were most familiar with the individual named, and that  he did not know Doug Christie (although surely he was familiar with his  good works).
 
I hoped to find a prominent alternative sponsor but  unfortunately time had run out, and apparently the Order of Canada is not  awarded posthumously.  Perhaps we can have an exception made in Doug’s  case.  In eny event, Doug’s service to the people of Canada deserves  national recognition, and it is up to us to argue for it.
 
                                          ******************************************** 
 
My lengthy friendship with Doug Christie began in the late  ‘eighties when I had almost run out of hope of finding a lawyer to contest my  1984 dismissal from a Federal Government  position and forfeiture of my paid-up pension. I approached all  the law firms in Ottawa who advertised competence in “unlawful dismissal”  litigation but, after initial enthusiasm, all declined when  they ascertained that the Jewish Lobby (which included the Israeli Embassy)  was the culprit.  In desperation, as the appeal deadline approached, I drew  up the appeal myself.  I sent a copy to Doug Christie, whom I  had  heard speak in Ottawa, to vet my handiwork.  He replied that he would  be glad to represent me, despite the distance from Victoria, if I could  find no other.
 
Since there were no legitimate grounds for dismissal, a  favourable outcome at Court seemed assured.  However,  as Doug began his examination of the Plaintiff, he was  interrupted by the Judge who told him he should think twice if he intended to  mention “Jews” or raise the subject of a “Jewish conspiracy” since to do so  would seriously jeopardize his chance of success.  Although  clearly the Jewish Lobby was behind the dismissal, Doug felt obliged  to comply and made a case  that, even without  the  Jews, was more than adequate, especially since the Department of  Justice lawyers presented no evidence.  Nevertheless, the Appeal  failed.
 
I asked an old friend, who had specialized in Public Service  law, how it was possible that I could lose.  He  asked the name of the Judge.  When I told him, he said the Judge was  an “old Liberal hack who knows how the game is played”.  Shortly  after, by chance, I ran into a former neighbour, the renowned Judge  John Matheson, at an Alumni Reunion at Queen’s and put to him the same  question.  He asked the name of my lawyer.  When I replied “Doug  Christie” he said “Well, that’s your answer – there’s no way they were going  to let him win the case”. 
 
More recently, I retained Doug in a defamation claim  against the CBC for permitting the egregious Warren Kinsella to state on  national TV that I was one of  the main sources of finance for  extreme right-wing terrorism in Canada.  The Judge found, in her  “Reasons for Judgement” that would have been no different had they been written  by the Canadian Jewish Congress, that the comments were not  defamatory, even to the slightest degree and, falsely, that in any event I  was out of time, giving credibility to Kinsella’s  ludicrous story and forcing me to pay the Defendants’ substantial legal  fees.  The decision was upheld on appeal.  A Supreme  Court application was denied.  Such is the quality of justice in  Canada. 
 
Aside from my own cases, I have followed Doug Christie’s fortunes  and misfortunes for many years and recognize him as being without par as  the epitome of all that is honourable and equitable in the practice of his  profession, combined with an empathy for ostracized victims of our  Politically Correct society who are shunned, condemned and punished,  however worthy and valid their opinions.  He is virtually unique in  Canada in his self-sacrifice on behalf of his victimized clients and in his  willingness share their distress, although it has cost him the  public esteem he might have earned in law and politics, and an  otherwise very profitable legal career.
 
It has cost him also his health, as he has been  struck down in his prime by a cancer that doubtless was  aggravated, if not induced, by the stress and  frustration of appearing before a hostile judiciary and  facing the wrath of venal law society zealots, covering  their shamelessness with invective, ad hominems and  baseless condemnation of an ultra-respectable man whose  Christian rectitude and respect for tradition are beyond their  comprehension.Photo: Ex-Diplomat Ian Macdonald Tells National Post Neo-Con Scribblers to Get Real About Canadian Sovereignty     

 December 24, 2012

Editor

NATIONAL POST

Toronto

Dear Sir

 Re:  Protecting Canadian sovereignty

The debate on how best to defend Canada becomes more and more unrealistic as it increasingly centres on military weaponry, notably the implausible F-35, while ignoring the real threat to our sovereignty of alien political, cultural and economic hegemony, menacingly accompanied and reinforced by an invasion from Sub-Saharan African and other Third World exploding-population regions.  The influx, and concomitant displacement of traditional British/European immigrants, will ensure the demise of the nation as we know it, unless a timely remedy, including repatriation, can be found. 

What is it then that your columnists and others seek to defend?  Seemingly, the status quo, although obviously it is just a way station on the road to oblivion for the founding races.  What needs to be addressed, urgently, is not the "red herring" of an inconceivable bombing attack by a major power.  It is the corrosive, corrupting subversion that already has enabled the "enemy within the gates" not only to dispossess traditional Canadians of their assets and their rights (esp. freedom of speech) but also to take effective control of the Federal Government, including the security services and judiciary, and of the mainline media that otherwise could have exposed and led to prosecution of the stealthy, incorrigably-avaricious occupiers, rendering them permanently harmless through massive restitution orders and incarceration. 

The tsunami of self-selected, unassimilable Africans and South Asians across our undefended borders, if not soon reversed, will have even more profound consequences.  Unfortunately, the flow has now gained sufficient momentum to thwart effective control, let alone reversal, at least so long as the invaders' "rights" take precedence over those of their unwilling hosts - an outrageous anomaly that could exist only where government and media are under the full control of traitors and crass opportunists.

As ever,

Ian V. Macdonald

 Ex-RCAF, RNFAA, Foreign Service, rtd.

Ottawa ON
 
He has many admirers who now seek to memorialize him for all his  good works as an outstanding Canadian, selfless Good Samaritan and proud  Scot who dedicated his life to the struggle for truth, freedom and justice  to a degree equaled by few if any others.  He deserves  formal recognition by the people of Canada.  It is up to his  friends and admirers to ensure his place in the history of the struggle for  freedom of speech and an honest judiciary in Canada.
 
Ian Macdonald
Ottawa, ON.

Priest Hails Free Speech Warrior Doug Christie as a “Saint”

Priest Hails Free Speech Warrior Doug Christie as a “Saint”
VICTORIA. March 15, 2013. “Today we are laying a saint to rest,” proclaimed Fr. Lucien Larre, who said the funeral Mass this foggy morning for Doug Christie, Canada’s foremost free speech lawyer.” He fought for what was right,” said Order of Canada winner and psychologist Fr. Larre, “no matter the threats to his life or the number of times his office windows were broken. He stood tall.”

Twice in three days, Canadians have buried a taller than life man, known for his cowboy boots and black hat. Folks crowded a Peterborough hockey arena, March 13, to say farewell to Country and Western icon Stompin’ Tom Connors, the boy from Skinner’s Cove, PEI, who gave us songs like  Sudbury Saturday Night, Bud the Spud, My Stompin’  Grounds, that celebrated Canada.
 
Today in Victoria, a Western Canadian who struggled for more than 30 years to uphold another Canadian value, freedom of speech, even for people vilified by the press for their unpopular views, was buried. Doug Christie, a proud Scotsman, would have smiled as a lean piper piped his casket into a crowded St. Andrew’s Cathedral in downtown Victoria. A large bouquet of vivid red roses and Mr. Christie’s black Australian outback hat graced the top of the casket.
Fr. Larre hailed Doug Christie as “a real Westerner, a man with ideals and aspirations as high as the Rockies. He stood for a better Canada, a freer Canada,” the priest told the packed cathedral made up of mourners who had been Mr. Christie’s family, friends, clients, neighbours, and, in several cases, the beneficiaries of his kindness.
The Battling Barrister ” had the ideals our soldiers died for — for freedom — but we do not have certain freedoms, like freedom of speech, in Canada today,” said Fr. Larre, who returned his Order of Canada honour  in protest when the same honour was bestowed some years ago on mass abortionist Henry Morgenthaler.”What mattered to Doug Christie is a man’s right to speak. He believed people have the right to go to court whether they can afford it or not,” he added.
In a stirring eulogy to his father, Caderyn Christie, a second year law student, shared memories of a complex man — the battling lawyer so well known to the public, the politician, the devoted father, the private man with as wicked sense of fun and humour.
“A man like my dad was not meant to die in a hospital bed but on a battlefield with a sword and shield,” he said. And Doug Christie very nearly did die in the battle ground of the courtroom. For days during a three week trial in Victoria, Mr. Christie had been in mounting pain, fighting nausea and sleeplessness, but refusing painkillers lest they dull his wits. Finally, on Thursday, February 21, he was too ill to finish his summation and was rushed to hospital and diagnosed with advanced terminal liver cancer.
One of Doug Christie’s heroes was Confederate General Robert E. Lee whose portrait hung in his office. Lee advised: “Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more, you should never wish to do  less.”
Doug Christie took this to heart and was driven by a sense of duty.
Caderyn revealed that Doug often recalled growing up in Winnipeg and that there was always food on the table but just enough. Doug paid his way through the University of Winnipeg working on the railway and as a lifeguard at Banff Hotsprings. For a while he lived in top floor garret that was scorching in the summer and leaked  snow and rain in the frigid Winnipeg winter. Other part-time work paid Doug’s way through law school at the University of British Columbia. Doug’s single-minded goal was to practise law.
He was part way through articling for a Victoria firm when an accidental error in judgement angered a prominent client and the law firm let Doug go. He was in near despair seeing his career stymied before it even began, his son recalled. Then, a single practitioner in Victoria Barney Russ gave the Winnipeg law student a break and took him on as an articling student. Nine months later, Doug was called to the bar and began a 42-year career in law.
Years later,  Doug Christie visited Barney Russ who was dying of cancer. Doug asked what he could ever do to thank or repay Mr. Russ for having given him a chance. “Pass it on,” he gasped with laboured breathing.
That had become a driving force in Doug’s life, his son recalled: “He chose to defend people who would otherwise be unrepresented and he paid dearly in his personal and professional life.” Although he had struggled hard to become a lawyer and succeeded, “he was very frugal with himself.”
Caderyn Christie said his father was “profoundly kind to his children. He was also a proud Scotsman and taught us kids how to pull the nails out of a 2′ x 4″ and reuse them.” And, yet, Doug would treat a man who was a regular panhandler at the church doors to a lunch once a month. He didn’t just toss him a looney as he walked by.
Caderyn  concluded his eulogy with words that left many an eye wet: “Robert Louis Stevenson said: ‘A leader is one who keeps his fears to himself and shows his courage to others.’ That was my father. He lived fully, he lived freely and laughed every chance he got.”
In his closing remarks, commenting on Doug Christie’s ever present cowboy boots, celebrant priest Fr. Larre quoted a line from Country and Western singer George Jones song Who’s Going to Fill Those Shoes? “We must get together for free speech and try to fill those shoes,” he urged. — Paul Fromm

Terry Tremaine’s Sentence – A Spitting, Spiteful Nasty Condemnation of a Dissident

Terry Tremaine’s Sentence – A Spitting, Spiteful Nasty Condemnation of a Dissident

Judge Sean Harrington’s sentencing decision delivered November 7, 2012 is a nasty piece of work.  It opens:  “The time has come, at last, to penalize Mr. Tremaine for acting in contempt of an order of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. … It is beyond doubt that Mr. Tremaine continued to post hate messages of the type found by the Tribunal to be in violation of Section 13(1) of the Act.” In a fine example of judicial balance, Judge Harrington calls the university lecturer’s postings “Internet rantings.” Judges often like to avoid a decision, if possible. On the eve of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Tremaine tried to sell his website to an American, thus putting it outside of the jurisdiction of Canada’s thought police and, thus, making the “cease and desist” order of the Tribunal moot. His efforts enraged the judge: “What is most disturbing of all is that Mr. Tremaine testified that he no longer had control of his own website; he had sold it the very morning of the sentencing hearing to Mr. Klatt, as an intermediary for an unnamed American for a nominal price not yet agreed.   However, he had not given Mr. Klatt the password to his website. I immediately enjoined him from so doing. It is obvious that Mr. Tremaine was attempting to put his website out of this Court’s reach.” And why should he not?

 

The Canadian judicial system seems to have an awesome deference for serial complainer Richard Warman, whom Doug Christie roundly lambasted at the sentencing hearing in Vancouver, October 10 saying: “Mr. Warman has made a career people who are marginal. Some, like Terry Tremaine, end up in mental hospitals. Mr. Warman now wants costs assessed against a man who cannot even hold a janitor’s job. At the behest of Mr. Warman, he was prosecuted under the Criminal Code.” And all this, said Mr. Christie, “to eliminate a political ideology Mr. Warman does not agree with.” Judge Harrington was not impressed: “Mr. Warman had every right to complain to the Commission with respect to material which appeared to violate Section 13(1) of the Act. It is ludicrous to attempt to portray him as the villain. The villain is Mr. Tremaine.” Being called a villain especially irks Mr. Tremaine who told CAFÉ: “None of my many  Internet posts were made for material gain or social benefit. I was trying to expose the shit storm we find ourselves in.”

 

Judge Harrington as much as admits that Mr. Tremaine is being hounded for alleged contempt of an order under a law already repealed by the House of Commons: “Although the House of Commons did repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the matter has yet to go before the Senate. In any event, the Bill did not purport to have retroactive effect.” No matter, on to the punishment anyway. “Mr. Tremaine has clearly intended to flout the law, to demean the Tribunal and this Court, and has not apologized. In fact, he had apologized before the Tribunal hearing had commenced, but later withdrew it as the apology was made in a moment of weakness. I do not expect Mr. Tremaine to apologize. He is a true believer. He is free to flout the order I am about to issue; but he must remember that freedom has its price.” A statement and threat the Red Chinese would appreciate: “He must remember that freedom has its price” – financial burdens and prison! When Terry Tremaine apologized to the Tribunal in 2005, the case should have ended. He’d agreed to remove the posts. It was the vindictive CHRC and Richard Warman who would not end the matter and insisted proceeding to a Tribunal with its guaranteed penalties – the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal then had a 100% conviction rate, making even North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, or whatever the weirdly quaffed tyrant there was called, green, or would it be, yellow with envy.

 

Continuing with the sentence, Judge Harrington proclaimed: “I shall order that Mr. Tremaine either personally, or through counsel, approach Stormfront.org with the request that his postings thereon, as identified by the Tribunal in its decision, as well as those exhibited to the affidavits of Mr. Warman dated February 12, 2009 and March 19, 2010 be removed, as well as his posting of 22 July 2009 at 11:20 p.m. entitled “Human Rights” Contempt Hearing (July 23, 2009),a vicious untrue diatribe about Madam Justice Snider, among other things, which was identified as exhibit Tremaine 5 at the contempt hearing. Although not part of the show cause order, at the sentencing stage I can certainly order that other offensive material be removed.” This was Mr. Tremaine’s statement of defence in which, inter alia, he noted that the Federal Judge who had rejected his request for judicial review of the Tribunal decision was listed as a major contributor to the Canadian Jewish Congress, surely, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. She should have recused herself. Judges certainly are very protective of one another.
at last, to penalize Mr. …Tremaine for acting in contempt of an order of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal. … It is beyond doubt that Mr. Tremaine continued to post hate messages of the type found by the Tribunal to be in violation of Section 13(1) of the Act.” In a fine example of judicial balance, Judge Harrington calls the university lecturer’s postings “Internet rantings.” Judges often like to avoid a decision, if possible. On the eve of the sentencing hearing, Mr. Tremaine tried to sell his website to an American, thus putting it outside of the jurisdiction of Canada’s thought police and, thus, making the “cease and desist” order of the Tribunal moot. His efforts enraged the judge: “What is most disturbing of all is that Mr. Tremaine testified that he no longer had control of his own website; he had sold it the very morning of the sentencing hearing to Mr. Klatt, as an intermediary for an unnamed American for a nominal price not yet agreed.   However, he had not given Mr. Klatt the password to his website. I immediately enjoined him from so doing. It is obvious that Mr. Tremaine was attempting to put his website out of this Court’s reach.” And why should he not?

The Canadian judicial system seems to have an awesome deference for serial complainer Richard Warman, whom Doug Christie roundly lambasted at the sentencing hearing in Vancouver, October 10 saying: “Mr. Warman has made a career people who are marginal. Some, like Terry Tremaine, end up in mental hospitals. Mr. Warman now wants costs assessed against a man who cannot even hold a janitor’s job. At the behest of Mr. Warman, he was prosecuted under the Criminal Code.” And all this, said Mr. Christie, “to eliminate a political ideology Mr. Warman does not agree with.” Judge Harrington was not impressed: “Mr. Warman had every right to complain to the Commission with respect to material which appeared to violate Section 13(1) of the Act. It is ludicrous to attempt to portray him as the villain. The villain is Mr. Tremaine.” Being called a villain especially irks Mr. Tremaine who told CAFÉ: “None of my many  Internet posts were made for material gain or social benefit. I was trying to expose the shit storm we find ourselves in.”

Judge Harrington as much as admits that Mr. Tremaine is being hounded for alleged contempt of an order under a law already repealed by the House of Commons: “Although the House of Commons did repeal Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act, the matter has yet to go before the Senate. In any event, the Bill did not purport to have retroactive effect.” No matter, on to the punishment anyway. “Mr. Tremaine has clearly intended to flout the law, to demean the Tribunal and this Court, and has not apologized. In fact, he had apologized before the Tribunal hearing had commenced, but later withdrew it as the apology was made in a moment of weakness. I do not expect Mr. Tremaine to apologize. He is a true believer. He is free to flout the order I am about to issue; but he must remember that freedom has its price.” A statement and threat the Red Chinese would appreciate: “He must remember that freedom has its price” – financial burdens and prison! When Terry Tremaine apologized to the Tribunal in 2005, the case should have ended. He’d agreed to remove the posts. It was the vindictive CHRC and Richard Warman who would not end the matter and insisted proceeding to a Tribunal with its guaranteed penalties – the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal then had a 100% conviction rate, making even North Korea’s Kim Jong-Il, or whatever the weirdly quaffed tyrant there was called, green, or would it be, yellow with envy.

Continuing with the sentence, Judge Harrington proclaimed: “I shall order that Mr. Tremaine either personally, or through counsel, approach Stormfront.org with the request that his postings thereon, as identified by the Tribunal in its decision, as well as those exhibited to the affidavits of Mr. Warman dated February 12, 2009 and March 19, 2010 be removed, as well as his posting of 22 July 2009 at 11:20 p.m. entitled “Human Rights” Contempt Hearing (July 23, 2009), a vicious untrue diatribe about Madam Justice Snider, among other things, which was identified as exhibit Tremaine 5 at the contempt hearing. Although not part of the show cause order, at the sentencing stage I can certainly order that other offensive material be removed.” This was Mr. Tremaine’s statement of defence in which, inter alia, he noted that the Federal Judge who had rejected his request for judicial review of the Tribunal decision was listed as a major contributor to the Canadian Jewish Congress, surely, giving rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. She should have recused herself. Judges certainly are very protective of one another.

Here the judge goes even further in seeking to erase Mr. Tremaine’s writings than the prosecution demanded. Agreeing with the CHRC and Richard Warman, the Judge was intent on flinging the dissident in jail: “As far as I am concerned, obeyance of this order is not sufficient to purge his contempt. In the event that he obeys this order, he shall nevertheless be imprisoned for 30 days commencing 15 days after service by the Commission of the order upon him.  Should he not obey the order, he shall be imprisoned for a further period of six months, or until he complies with the order, whichever is less.” Remembering that Sec. 13 has been repealed by the House of Commons, it is extraordinarily vindictive and harsh that, while the judge acknowledges that Mr. Tremaine “does not have the wherewithal to pay”, he nonetheless crushes him with costs to benefit the well-off persecutors: “The Commission is entitled to its costs. Mr. Warman, in his capacity as a subpoenaed witness, is entitled to his reasonable disbursements, to the extent they have not been paid by the Commission” – a burden of many thousands of dollars for a man with no resources.See

Here the judge goes even further in seeking to erase Mr. Tremaine’s writings than the prosecution demanded. Agreeing with the CHRC and Richard Warman, the Judge was intent on flinging the dissident in jail: “As far as I am concerned, obeyance of this order is not sufficient to purge his contempt. In the event that he obeys this order, he shall nevertheless be imprisoned for 30 days commencing 15 days after service by the Commission of the order upon him.  Should he not obey the order, he shall be imprisoned for a further period of six months, or until he complies with the order, whichever is less.” Remembering that Sec. 13 has been repealed by the House of Commons, it is extraordinarily vindictive and harsh that, while the judge acknowledges that Mr. Tremaine “does not have the wherewithal to pay”, he nonetheless crushes him with costs to benefit the well-off persecutors: “The Commission is entitled to its costs. Mr. Warman, in his capacity as a subpoenaed witness, is entitled to his reasonable disbursements, to the extent they have not been paid by the Commission” – a burden of many thousands of dollars for a man with no resources.

Dissident Terry Tremaine Headed for Jail, but Just Not Yet

Dissident Terry Tremaine Headed for Jail, but Just Not Yet

Dissident Terry Tremaine was sentenced to one month in prison definite and six months more, should he not remove several dozen postings from his website and request that STORMFRONT remove some of his postings as Mathdoktor 99, including the statement of defence he proposed to read at his contempt of court hearing in Regina, July 22, 2009. [Unbeknownst to him and CAFÉ’s Paul Fromm who was advising him, the hearing had been adjourned the day before.] Oh, yes, the impoverished Mr. Tremaine was also saddled with the flush Canadian Human Rights Commission’s costs and certain costs for civil servant and chronic complainant Richard Warman. The Canadian justice system proceeds at a ponderous pace. In December, Mr. Tremaine’s sentence was stayed pending an appeal against this sentence later this Spring. However, he faces a hearing before sentencing Judge Sean Harrington where the Canadian Human Rights Commission will seek a warrant of committal, which will actually send Mr. Tremaine to prison [although its execution is stayed pending the appeal.] This hearing will determine whether Mr. Tremaine goes to prison for a month or six. He has removed the designated posts from his website http://nspcanada.nfshost.com. Will this satisfy the judicial censors? Who knows?
Terry Tremaine Receiving CAFE Free Speech Award, Regina, 2012,
from CAFE Director Paul Fromm
Doug Christie Mr. Tremaine’s lawyer will argue that Mr. Tremaine already served 22 days in jail in Regina in August, 2009 in regards to the STORMFRONT post and should be credited against his one month sentence on a 1.5 for one basis, thus effectively negating the sentence.

 

Help CAFE Support The Victims of Canada’s Anti-Free Speech Laws

 

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

 

__    Here is my donation of $_______ to help CAFÉ’s campaign to support the victims of Canada’s censorship laws..

__    Please activate my subscription for 2013 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

 

Please charge ______my VISA#________________________________________________________________

 

Expiry date: __________ Signature:_______________________________________________________________

 

Name:____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Address:__________________________________________________________________________________ 

 

_______________________________________________________Email______________________________

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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