Soviet Russia Invented “Hate Laws” Which Their Fellow Traveller Dutifully Copied in Canada & Much of Europe
Dear Arthur: The world owes you an Apology and a great big Thank-You.
First the Apology. For ten years of harassment, invasion and intrusion, and a giant legal battle. All for telling the truth. In a world where truth and lies are inverted, in a world where everything is turned upside-down, your truth-telling has been deemed a crime.
Now the Thank You. Your principled and valiant truth-telling , unwavering in the face of huge obstacles, has been momentous! You have enlightened and inspired untold many of us. The ripple effect of your work will grow into a tsunami of Light and Truth.
Great Truth Teller Silenced, but Message is Unstoppable
Arthur Topham of Quesnel B.C. has been sentenced to silence for now, after a 10 year legal battle. His crime is that he fearlessly wrote about the state of the world in his online website RadicalPress.com, and that was just too much for the Zionist Powers to bear.
Those who feel threatened by a peaceful man expressing his views online are obviously very nervous and afraid. If there was nothing to hide and if these online publishings were so erroneous as they would like us to believe, this group would not feel threatened. Arthur Topham would simply be ignored. The reaction alone should be enough to trigger people to question: what is it that is so taboo to say?
Trying to stop the truth from coming out is as futile as if you were trying to drink the lake dry to prevent drowning in it. Even the modern-day book burnings cannot succeed in vaporizing the truth. The truth is emerging at an exponential rate, and these desparate attempts by the Powers-That-Be to silence truth-tellers are a show of their panic.
DANGER? FOR WHOM?
Harry Abrams and Richard Warman are the two men who initiated the legal assault against Arthur Topham. Those are their names. Arthur was not allowed to ever mention their names during those years of legal battle because somehow they feared it might bring danger to their lives. Now what about the danger they posed to Arthur, endlessly defaming him?!
In a trial by jury in October-November 2015, Arthur Topham was found guilty on one count and not guilty on another count of exactly the same charge, namely, by communicating statements, other than in private conversation, willfully promoting hatred against an identifiable group, people of the Jewish religion or ethnic origin, contrary to section 319(2) of Criminal Code of Canada. The identical two charges were for different time periods.
In the Canadian court of law, the burden of proof switches to the defense to affirm that there was no ‘hate’ under CCC section 319(2). The prosecution need not produce victims of the alleged hatred. What is ‘hate’ but an emotion? How does anybody know what is in someone else’s head?
One of the defenses is 319(2)(c) if the statements were relevant to any subject of public interest, the discussion of which was for the public benefit, and if on reasonable grounds he believed them to be true. Again, how can anyone prove that Arthur Topham did not believe what he was writing? Are they mind-readers?
For an interesting commentary of the extraordinary trial and background, please see this article by Eve Mykytin. She is an American lawyer who attended the second week of the trial. She covers, for example, the story of Len Rudner who was established as an expert witness for the Crown. His written expert opinion was identical to the written expert opinion submitted by Bernie Farber who was originally supposed to be the Crown’s expert witness. (Farber pulled out of his commitment when he learned that he would not be permitted to appear via video-link.) Yet Len Rudner told the court that he himself was the author of his “expert opinion”. Rudner also had tried to have Arthur Topham’s website shut down before the trial. Conflict of interest, is it not? Still, he was permitted to be an expert witness. Very strange, to say the least.
It can be fairly assumed that Arthur Topham’s parody on the infamous book Germany Must Perish was the item which caused the jury to give a guilty verdict, as the publishing of that parody fell within the “guilty” time period. Germany Must Perish was written in 1941 by an American Jew named Theodore Kaufman, and it was generally praised and promoted at that time by the mainstream media (MSM).
The sheer monstrosity of the book is breathtaking, and even more shocking is the fact that it was not condemned when it appeared in 1941. Theodore Kaufman concocted a sick plan to annihilate the German people, the stated goal being that Germany must perish. The plan was to hire thousands of surgeons to sterilize all German men of reproductive age, and voilà, no more Germans. Gone Forever.
The hateful book was subsequently almost forgotten, until Arthur Topham found a provocative way to bring attention to the hideousness of that genocidal text. He reproduced portions of the book word for word, except that he replaced “Germany” with “Israel” and “Germans” with “Jews”. Germany Must Perish became Israel Must Perish, and so on. The two texts, original and parody, appeared side by side on his website.
In a trick of Orwellian Doublespeak, B’nai Brith Canada now tells the world that Arthur Topham called for Jews to be forcibly sterilized. No context, nothing. It is crazy making! It is just another glaring example of how B’nai Brith and the MSM engage in deliberate deception to turn reality 100% on its head. Unless someone has been following the case very closely, the uninformed general public has no reason to doubt the story they are told about how Arthur Topham called for sterilization of the Jews. People cannot even check for themselves, because the website has been taken down, as part of sentencing.
In these times of universal deceipt, the messenger who seeks to warn us about the villain, is himself labelled the villain.
Perhaps the members of the jury did not understand the meaning of satire or parody. Or perhaps the convoluted court proceedings or the instructions given by the judge curtailed their ability to perceive it this way. The jury members are also not immune to the mind-contaminating effects of all the toxic lies and atrocity propaganda we have been subjected to since birth. We have been programmed to respond in specific ways to certain words, these words being the number one weapon in the psychological warfare being conducted on us without most of us realizing it.
Judge Admits There Was No Incitement
He does not call for violence; his views were political satire. It is not his intent to indirectly incite violence.
~ the judge said during the sentencing proceedings.
By these words, does the judge basically exonerate Arthur Topham? Methinks so.
Topham told the court,
I felt that I had a duty as a Canadian citizen to alert the general public of an imminent threat… the interests of the Jewish lobby.
He also expressed gratitude that his concerns had been brought to the record.
B’Nai B’rith Very Disappointed
From the Times of Israel article: B’nai B’rith was not satisfied with the sentence, tweeting that it “is very disappointed by lenient sentence for Arthur Topham, convicted of promoting #antisemitism.”
The CEO of B’nai Brith Canada, Michael Mostyn, said that
the timing is especially disturbing, as Canada’s Jewish community reels from a series of bomb threats against our community centers, inspired by the same hateful ideology that drives Mr. Topham. [He] is a committed and unrepentant Jew-hater, who persisted in publishing lurid anti-Semitic content on his website throughout this legal process. Canada’s laissez-faire approach to hate crimes continues to fail minority groups and puts them at increased risk of attacks against their lives or property.
This is interesting in light of the news that an American-Israeli Jewish teen has just been arrested in connection with a series of bomb threats against Jewish institutions on several continents. Good timing Mr. Mostyn, very disturbing indeed.
Canada’s Hate Speech Laws – Who Do They Serve?
Well said Arthur! If some things are not permitted to be said, then we do not have freedom of speech. Period.
I have heard seemingly intelligent people repeat the mantra which has been programmed into their heads “but hate speech is not the same as free speech”! I say to them, who determines what “hate” speech is? Who controls the Mass Media? Who controls Hollywood? Who controls our law-makers?
Truth is Hate to those who Hate the Truth.
To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize. ~ Voltaire
THANK YOU ARTHUR TOPHAM for your service to humanity! Enjoy the imposed quiet time. The torch is being passed forward. There are countless torch carriers.
Who one says Netherlands , one says freedom. And that is also true, perhaps especially, for those who have a different opinion than the establishment, the opposition.
And our most important freedom is freedom of speech.
We, Dutch, say whatever is close to our hearts.
And that is precisely what makes our country great.
Freedom of speech is our pride.
And that, precisely that, is at stake here, today.
Because we are Dutch. That is why we never mince our words.
And I, too, will never do that. And I am proud of that. No-one will be able to silence me.
That, unlike me, you will never have to be protected because Islamic terror organizations, such as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban and ISIS , and who knows how many individual Muslims want to murder you. That you will no longer be allowed to empty your own mailbox, need to carry a bulletproof vest at meetings, and that there are police officers guarding the door whenever you use the bathroom. I hope you will be spared this.
I had to give up my freedom to do this and I will continue. Always. People who want to stop me will have to murder me first.
Prime Minister Rutte even told small children during the youth news that I wanted to expel them and then reassured them that this would not happen. As if I had said anything of that kind. It is almost impossible to behave viler and falser.
Or Labour chairman Spekman, who said Moroccans should be humiliated.
Or Labour alderman Oudkerk ,who spoke about f*cking Moroccans.
Or Prime Minister Rutte, who said that Turks should get lost.
43% of the Dutch want fewer Moroccans, as I already said. They are no racists. Stop insulting these people. Every day, they experience the huge problem with Moroccans in our country. They have a right to a politician who is not afraid to mention the problem with Moroccans. But neither they nor I care whether someone is black, yellow, red, green or violet.
It is not up to you to decide. Nor to the Supreme Court or even the European Court . The law itself must determine what is punishable. We, representatives, are elected by the people to determine clearly and visibly in the law for everyone what is punishable and what is not.
That is not up to the court. You should not do that, and certainly not on the basis of such subjective concepts which are understood differently by everyone and can easily be abused by the elite to ban unwelcome opinions of the opposition. Do not start this, I tell you.
But the most important freedom, the cornerstone of our democracy, is freedom of speech. The freedom to think what you want and to say what you think.
If we lose that freedom, we lose everything. Then, The Netherlands cease to exist, then the efforts of all those who suffered and fought for us are useless. From the freedom fighters for our independence in the Golden Age to the resistance heroes in World War II. I ask you: Stand in their tradition. Stand for freedom of expression.
For people will sooner be silent and say less because they are afraid of being called racist, because they are afraid of being sentenced. If I am convicted, then everyone who says anything about Moroccans will fear to be called a racist.
That has been proven by Brexit.
That has been proven by the US elections.
That is about to be proven in Austria and Italy .
That will be proven next year in France , Germany , and The Netherlands.
The course of things is about to take a different turn. Citizens no longer tolerate it.
Common sense will prevail over politically correct arrogance.
The voice of freedom cannot be imprisoned; it rings like a bell.
Everywhere, ever more people are saying what they think.
They do not want to lose their land, they do not want to lose their freedom.
They demand politicians who take them seriously, who listen to them, who speak on their behalf. It is a genuine democratic revolt. The wind of change and renewal blows everywhere. Including here, in The Netherlands.
I am standing here on behalf of millions of Dutch citizens.
I do not speak just on behalf of myself.
My voice is the voice of many.
And, so, I ask you.
not only on behalf of myself,
but in the name of all those Dutch citizens:
Paul Fromm Discusses Arthur Topham, Monika Schaefer & Prof. Tony Hall Cases With Patricia Aitken on “The Sacred Cow Barbeque”
Our Cultural Marxist Courts are Anti-White
Paul Fromm is the Director of the Canada First Immigration Reform Committee. He points out that sentences are stronger for hate against minorities but not for hate against white people. This is bias against whites. This case was a judgement by Judge Harry van Harten.
CATCH 22: RCMP VISIT BRAD LOVE THREE TIMES IN ONE WEEK, BUT COURT SAYS HE CAN’T TALK TO THEM
“Hate speech laws – Repeal them,” St. Mary’s Prof. Says
One thing we should do to increase our physical safety is repeal our remaining laws against hate speech.
Isn’t that claim outlandish? It might seem obvious that if we want to protect ourselves, we should instead police expression even more vigorously than we do now, so that violent people will be less likely to see or hear something that sets them off.
Well, of course, we know that by giving in to the heckler’s veto, we simply create more hecklers, and more raucous hecklers, at that. So maybe stricter laws against expression isn’t the answer. But how could having no anti-hate laws help us?
I don’t mean to argue here for repealing our laws against the expression of hate on the grounds that they are anti-democratic, or that they deform public discourse, or that they are contrary to the ideal of the moral autonomy of the individual, though I think each of those arguments is sound. I mean to explain how the laws we currently live under, mild though some think them (though Arthur Topham or David Ahenakew would disagree), encourage the offended to take up violence.
Those who lash out physically against people who (they feel) have ridiculed or offended them are lashing out because they believe they have suffered an injustice. My argument is that laws against the expression of hate endanger us because they affirm and encourage that belief.
That is to say, countries that have laws against hate speech proclaim through their laws that some targets of expression are, indeed, victims of injustice. As victims of injustice, they are entitled to restitution through the punishment of their assailants.
The police and the courts don’t always get things right, of course. Someone has defamed you by attacking your religion, and so you complain to the officials, but the officials decide that the speech that offended you didn’t cross the line. But it did, you think; or the line wasn’t properly placed. You believe that you are a victim of injustice, an injustice, moreover, that the state refuses to rectify.
How many times was Charlie Hebdo investigated for violating France’s laws against the expression of hate? At least twice, and both times acquitted. What’s left to do but attack it yourself?
If, on the other hand, Canadians were truly to embrace freedom of expression, and get rid of our laws that censor or suppress expression, we would thereby say to the world that being mocked or ridiculed or subjected to expressions of hate is not to suffer an injustice. That you have been insulted, offended, or upset by something someone said does not make you a victim, and you are not entitled to restitution or compensation.
Repealing our laws against the expression of hate would make us safer by removing from our culture official affirmation of the thought that a person’s hurt feelings merit official concern. Removing that thought would weaken the desire to take the law into one’s own hands when the state refuses to come to one’s aid.
My argument is speculative in that it contains a premise about cause and effect for which I cannot cite adequate evidence. According to that premise, removing laws that imply that one who has been offended or demeaned can thereby be a victim of injustice will result in fewer people thinking they are victims of injustice. If that premise is true, then that the attack on Charlie Hebdo was committed in France by Frenchmen isn’t entirely a coincidence, for France has stronger laws against the expression of hate than most other European countries and enforces them regularly.
But why think that that premise is true? Empirical evidence would be needed to settle the question. All I can say in defence of it right now is that, generally, legal culture affects the mores and attitudes of the individuals who make up a society.
For reasons of safety, then (along with all the other reasons), let us not accommodate even in the slightest demands that people be silenced, no matter what they say or how hurt people are by what they say. That would take offence out of the realm of law and politics, and that would (probably, maybe) lessen the chance that the aggrieved will style themselves victims and their violence justice.
Mark Mercer is Professor of philosophy at Saint Mary’s University, Halifax. He can be reached by e-mail: firstname.lastname@example.org